From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb Mon Dec 16 11:01:21 EST 1991
Article 2063 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!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb
>From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <12677@pitt.UUCP>
Date: 12 Dec 91 15:09:44 GMT
References: <40375@dime.cs.umass.edu> <12636@pitt.UUCP> <40461@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Sender: news@cs.pitt.edu
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 55

In article <40461@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>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)

Well, what is your definition of processing?  Neural networks in
the brain have inputs, they have intermediate states, and they
have outputs.  Inputs are tranformed into outputs.  Is this not
processing?  For a well defined example, I would refer you to
the work done on vision, from retina to visual cortex association
areas, people have mapped it out pretty well.  We know the inputs
and the outputs.  There is definitely processing.  Another example
is the cerebellum.

>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.
>
Not in a mathematical sense, but it certainly seems to be the most
reasonable hypothesis, and there is precious little evidence against
it, and very little in the way of evidence for competing hypotheses.
In fact most critics refuse even to put forth a competing hypothesis,
since neuron theory is so strong.

>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. 
>
The only nonsense is your statement above.  You can't "prove"
anything in science.  There could always be some overlooked
factor (a demon, for instance, that manipulates your experiment
to fool you into believing your case).  One can go ahead and
assert that X causes Y, give the evidence for it, and invite
critics to find Z and give their evidence for it.  If there
is good evidence for Z, then we'll change our mind.

>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.

I don't expect everyone to believe it or even examine the evidence,
as you don't seem to be willing to do.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "I have given you an argument; I am not obliged
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  to supply you with an understanding." -S.Johnson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


