On Aug 16, 8:10 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:03 PM, benjayk
> <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Also, we have no reliable way of measuring the computational power of the
> > brain, not to speak of the possibly existing subtle energies that go beyond
> > the brain, that may be essential to our functioning. The way that
> > computational power of the brain is estimated now relies on a quite
> > reductionstic view of what the brain is and what it does.
> And the problem with the reductionist view is? It certainly seems to
> be the case that if you throw some chemical elements together in a
> particular way, you get intelligence and consciousness. The elements
> obey well-understood chemical laws, even though they constitute a
> complex system with difficult to predict behaviour.
The reductionist view is great for certain kinds of problems, just as
a hammer is great for things that resemble nails. It's not the
appropriate tool to do brain surgery with though. It's not accurate to
say that if you throw chemical elements together in a particular way
you get intelligence and consciousness. There could be intelligence
and consciousness of a sort to begin with. Certainly in order for
there to be a recipe for awareness, that potential must either be
built into the elements themselves or the universe as a whole. What
elements you have and how they put themselves together may only
determine the range of awareness it is capable of and not some binary
distinction of yes-conscious or no-unconscious.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at