From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!idtg!dow Wed Dec 18 16:02:16 EST 1991
Article 2198 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!idtg!dow
>From: dow@idtg.UUCP (Keith Dow)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Scaled up slug brains
Message-ID: <352@idtg.UUCP>
Date: 17 Dec 91 17:25:36 GMT
References: <60435@netnews.upenn.edu> <351@idtg.UUCP> <40746@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Integrated Device Technology, Santa Clara
Lines: 70

stuff deleted

>This is all fine. But then, we go into the realm of Nostrodamus:
>
>>Fine, then we all agree that the brain is a machine which will soon
>>be understood. 
>
>Soon? Based on what? Your horoscope readings?

Parts of the brain are understood now.  My estimate is that the brain
will be completely understood by the year 2050. 

We are now in the second industrial revolution.  The first was basically
amplifying human physical strength.  The second is amplifying the human mind.

The power of computers doubles every year.  Right now their capability is 
pretty low.  However with exponential growth in their favor, they should be
able to achieve equality with the human brain early in the twenty first
century.  My estimate is that this will happen by 2020.  After that, it 
shouldn't take to long to figure out the human mind.  I give 2050 as a
safe estimate.

My use of soon is probably wrong.  However I visited my great aunt in 
Connecticut this summer, and she was born before the Wright Brothers knew how 
to fly.  On the time scale of human history, the word soon is appropriate. 


>>That all questions about the brain can be explained
>>by the chemical and electrical interactions happening between the
>>ears.
>
>Follows similarly (ie. not at all). There is no evidence to suggest that
>human thought is possible without the operation of human bodies. Can
>language develop without vocal chords (even in the deaf)? I don't know, but
>you don't either. Is there a major hormonal component to the development
>of thought? Is the interplay between movement and sensation key to
>development of brains? .... 

Does the dream state use the human body?  That is human though without
the use of the body.  How about a visit to a sensory depravation tank?

Of course what people are interested is the interaction of the human
brain with the outside world via the body.  The best way to study that
is to study the human brain.  That is where the action is.


Hellen Keller could use language and she was deaf and blind.  So,
that answers one question.

Next, the evidence is that hormones determine whether you are a male or female.
So hormones certainly influence though.  

Yes, obviously the interaction of a human with the outside world determines
the development of the human brain.  But I am not interested in that.  I 
am interested in how neurons can be put together to make a human brain.  The
general ideas that are common to most brains are what I am interested in.
Why Joe Montana has better coordination than me is not interesting.


>>Also, that a machine will eventually be
>>built that does every thing the human mind does, but much better.
>
>Is this from some sci-fi novel? is it based on a religious belief? is
>it merely a funding ploy?

I read it on the cover of the National Enquirer, and I always believe
everything I read.

Considering the exponential growth of computer power, the result is
obvious.  The only question is timing.


