From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken Mon Dec 16 11:01:03 EST 1991
Article 2034 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <40461@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 91 05:07:12 GMT
References: <12616@pitt.UUCP> <40375@dime.cs.umass.edu> <12636@pitt.UUCP>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 52

In article <12636@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:
>In article <40375@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>I did not ask whether there was evidence that the brain was "connected" to
>>mental functions, or even if there was evidence of a connection between
>>brain regions and specific mental functions. This is well known. 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.  
>The claim is based on many observations accumlated over many years.  
>If the neurons or their connections
>are damaged anatomically or altered pharmacologically, or the
>physiologic environment is perturbed in such a manner as to change
>their electrical and/or chemical functioning, mental functions are
>disturbed in a roughly proportional way.  Experiments on animals

etc. etc. You miss the point. No-one disputes that the 
"electrical and/or chemical functioning" of the brain is intimately
related to the operation of the mind. What is in dispute is whether
the operation of the brain is  a form of "processing" (calculation)
and whether, all mental functions emerge from this processing.  You
persist in deducing both of these, dubious, propositions from the
well known existence of a relationship between the brain  and thought.
It does not follow.


>you.  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.  It doesn't seem to be necessary,

Thus, your bald assertion that "all thought functions" arise
from "characterizable processing elements" in the brain, is shown to be
nonsense. One cannot assert that X causes Y, while at the
same time admitting that there may be some "overlooked factor" Z which
really causes Y. 

>however, as neuron theory seems to be capable of explaining how
>brains, both human and animal, work.  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?

There are some humans who are capable of behavior somewhat more complex
than that of your typical slug. You believe, on religious or some other
grounds, that human brains are merely scaled up versions of slug nervous
systems. Good luck with yor theory, but don't expect everyone else to
believe until you come up with some evidence.




