On 2/19/2013 12:26 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:02:36 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
On Monday, February 18, 2013 9:30:49 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
There is no argument presented in this article. The stock market and
and indeed most natural systems are chaotic, but that is not the same
being not computable.
Yes, I posted it just to show that someone who works closely with both
neurology and consciousness professionally comes to the same conclusion
One of the problems of relying on expert opinions is that, sometimes,
it's hard to see clearly what someone is an expert at. I had a look at
Nicolelis' lab publication list and there isn't anything there to
suggest that they even look into the issue of consciousness. It's a
lot of (interesting sounding) work on neural correlates for sensorial
and motor activities, as well as applications. A few issues with his
If he is making mice conscious of infra-red light though, then I would say
he works with consciousness.
In that sense, everyone does.
Not so fast. Think about what Telmo is saying. When the researcher
added the ability to sense in IR to the mouse, that aspect or dimension
of sense would have to be integrated into the totality of the Sense of
those mice. The dual aspect idea shines here! For any physical system
there is at least one representation and for every representation there
is at least one object. Given an initial object: Mouse there is a
representation of that mouse to that mouse: it's internal Sense of being
a mouse in the world.
When we add the IR apparatii to the mouse's body, then there is a
new representation necesary, no? We no longer have the Mouse minus IR
- Just because the brain has a certain level of complexity, doesn't
mean it has to. The brain is restricted by a fixed palette of
evolutionary building blocks. It cannot take advantage of, say,
sillicon chips. We can build machines that move faster and are simples
than any animal, although there's evolutionary pressure for speed.
Still, no animals with wheels;
- There is no evolutionary pressure for good design;
- There is no evolutionary pressure for understandability;
It seems like a handy thing to have when one is accused of being
ignorant of science or anti-science. It turns out that its only
that makes these kinds of accusation in this case.
As far as the stock market being computable, how would you go about
determining, for instance, whether or not I rebalance my 401k and on
day and time?
The stock market is a bad comparison, because it is made of brains to
begin with. So it's the same problem x10^10.
The brain has the same issue - you can't tell what it is going to do
the outside, because the behavior on the outside is often driven by the
story going on the inside - which cannot be known unless you too are on
Why isn't a complete description of the brain state sufficient?
(disregarding the necessary computational power)
Because each brain cell is a living organism in its own right. The brain is
a stock market of smaller brains.
Agreed, but is it turtles all the way down?
Why not, so long as there is another turtle to add to the stack...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.