On 28 Sep 2011, at 17:48, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:26 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
On 27 Sep 2011, at 22:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sep 27, 9:20 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
Noooo. Millions of neurons fire simultaneously in separate regions
the brain. Your assumptions about chain reactions being the only way
that neurons fire is not correct. You owe the brain an apology.
Digital machines can emulate parallelism.
In all you answer to Stathis you elude the question by confusing
levels of explanation.
So either you postulate an infinitely low level (and thus infinities
in the brain), or you are introducing the magic mentioned by Stathis.
Yes, this is just a tangent, I'm trying to show that the model of the
brain as a chain reaction is factually incorrect. I agree, parallelism
says nothing about whether it's computational or not, it's just that
Stathis is trying to actually claim that psychological processes
cannot drive lower level neurology.
In a sense I can follow you. If I feel in pain I can take a drug, and
in this case a high level psychological process can change a lower
level neuro process. But I am sure Stathis agree with this. That whole
cycle can still be driven by still lower computable laws. A universal
machine can emulate another self-transforming universal machine.
That's the point.
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