From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu Mon Dec 16 11:01:01 EST 1991
Article 2029 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu
>From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: From neurons to computation: how?
Message-ID: <59809@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 91 00:52:54 GMT
References: <40332@dime.cs.umass.edu> <12616@pitt.UUCP> <40375@dime.cs.umass.edu> <12636@pitt.UUCP>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 51
Nntp-Posting-Host: libra.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)

In article <12636@pitt.UUCP>, geb@dsl (gordon e. banks) writes:
>In article <40375@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>								   What you
>>claim, however, is that "all mental functions" arise from the operation of
>>"characterizable processing elements". This is a much stronger claim, and
>>I ask again for a reference to the evidence on which you base the claim.

>The processing elements are the neurons and groups of neurons.  [...]

You haven't come close to the >> form of your claim above.  A good
deal of brain function can be characterized through neurons.  Much
remains a baffling mystery.

>      Of course it is impossible to prove that there isn't some
>other overlooked factor, such as a spirit or animus, from which
>the true consciousness arises.

Since it hasn't been proven that it arises from neurons, either, what
is your point?  That you have a mediocre talent for insulting people
who ask embarrassing questions, like, "where's the evidence?"  I posted
an article on an experimentally testable proposal of Marshall that uses
Froehlich's pumped phonon Bose-Einstein condensation idea based on
quantizing cellular dipole vibrations as a basis for consciousness.

Your "impossible" is just a codework for a lack of imagination.

>				       The brains of very simple
>animals, such as some worms and slugs have been completely mapped
>and their behavior has been characterized entirely in terms of
>firing of their neurons.  Obviously, we have not the current
>technology to do this with humans yet, but we haven't found any data
>inconsistent with the neuron theory.  Have you?

So what do you think of nitric oxide signalling?  Pumped phonon Bose
Einstein condensation?  These are two fun questions that can keep
researchers busy for years.  Any claim that we're on the verge of
completely characterizing our brains and minds is pure arrogance.

And you wrote earlier, based on all these processing elements:

>>>>>I must conclude that however our brain may achieve meaning,
>>>>>it is computable.

This is an incredibly big leap.  Computable in what sense?  Turing?
Edelman, for example, concludes at the end of THE REMEMBERED PRESENT
that his model is, in the final analysis, not Turing computable,
because the external world is too variable.

You can believe what you like.  But conclude?  Tell us how, please.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)


