On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:01 AM, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: > Stathis, allow me to barge in before Craig. > I am glad you ask - the wrong question, > I am not FOR the brain to think, it is a tool working in the process we did > not so far deciphered. (That's exactly MY agnosticism). So we are talking > about tools, be it 'chemistry' (an explanational figment of conventional > sciences for pheomena so far only partially learned, but "scientificall" > explained (almost!) into atomic etc. theories and math), - or 'electronic' > devises we construct with capabilities to do exactly what we expect from > them to do. > Maybe the IBM Synapse can do at least as well as we get the results from > 'brainwork'. > I would not assign 'creativity' to chemistry (what I practiced and learned) > only 'applications'. > There is one item that startles me in this respect: Robert Rosen's (Mihai > Nadin's) initial work on Anticipatory Systems where anticipation is an > unprecedented 'barging-in' beyond the given circumstances (allegedly). > I am willing to go as far as a "slight shaving" beyond the borders of our > known limitations - into the 'right-or-wrong' unknowable to be checked > (better: verified) later on. We see abundant bad anticipation in economic. > genetic and political etc. assumptions to make us careful in anticipation. > If so many anticipation goes wrong, the conventional "foretelling" has to be > taken with a spoon-full of scrutiny. > A question in your profession: would you vouch for our present knowledge to > have deciphered all that is to mentality by the so far discovered > brain-organ's functional data? > (And I want to be restricted here to physical measurements/data only).
No, we are nowhere near a complete correlation between the mental and the physical. But that does not mean there is no correlation. > You asked a question: > "As a chemist, have you seen any special magic in chemical > reactions that might explain the brain's ability to think?" > No, but I have encountered questions about > 1. what does it mean "to think" (and all its cousins) > 2. how is the 'hard problem' answerable? (transition from milliamps etc. to > ideas) > 3. what mechanism (if...) is stronger than the neuronal brain to decide e.g. > self destruct? > 4. has 'creativity' the same meaning in our vocabularies? > 5 - 1000 I save those. So you agree that chemistry, which is all that the brain contains, is no more magical than electronics? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
