Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!nih-csl!postman
From: me
Subject: Re: Thought Question
Message-ID: <1995Jan6.174650.28650@alw.nih.gov>
Sender: postman@alw.nih.gov (AMDS Postmaster)
Organization: VirtuAL
X-Newsreader: <WinQVT/Net v3.9>
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 17:46:50 GMT
Lines: 47
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:1670 comp.ai.philosophy:24386 comp.ai:26278

In article <d-sears1.2.000D2126@uiuc.edu> d-sears1@uiuc.edu (D. Searsmith) writes:
>In article <3ec1o8$sno@agate.berkeley.edu> <jerrybro@uclink2.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>From: <jerrybro@uclink2.berkeley.edu>
>>Subject: Re: Thought Question
>>Date: 3 Jan 1995 17:32:56 GMT
>
>>In <34@reservoir.win-uk.net> shane@reservoir.win-uk.net (Shane McKee) 
>>writes: 
>
>>>I still haven't had anybody (including Roger Penrose) give me a
>>>good reason why the human brain can't be regarded as a computer.
>>>OK, so the mind sometimes doesn't work algorithmically, but its
>>>constituent molecules do obey known (or at least simulable)
>>>physical laws. Why -can't- intelligence be an emergent property of
>>>an underlying algorithmic process involving these constituents?
>
>>You're confusing two separate issues.  One is, whether the brain
>>can be regarded as a computer.  The other is, whether the brain
>>can be simulated on a computer (because physical reality can).
>>An atomic explosion can be simulated on a computer, but it does
>>not follow from this that the atomic explosion can be regarded
>>as a computer.
>
>>Cheers.
>
>
>But it also depends on what you mean by simulation.  I would suggest that
>the "simulation" of an atomic bomb by a computer is, by some measure, less
>accurate than a "simulation" of a brain by computer.   If you consider that a 
>bomb simulation doesn't actually blow anything up, but perhaps a brain 
>simulation actually thinks.  In other words if the brain is a computational 
>device then the "meaningful" goal of a brain simulation is the computation -- 
>in which case then referring to the brain as a computer is meanigful because it
>is actually the computation that is relevant.  The idea of computaion is to an 
>extent (ideally at least) device independent.  Therefore, if the mind is 
>nothing but a large computaion in progress, and this computaion can be 
>"simulated" by some other computing device, then the brain is a computer.  
>Whether or not the mind can be reduced to a computation is still 
>unknown though there are many strongly held opinions on the matter.
>
>Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>
