From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!geb Mon Dec 16 11:01:52 EST 1991
Article 2117 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!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: From neurons to computation: how?
Message-ID: <12686@pitt.UUCP>
Date: 14 Dec 91 14:02:26 GMT
References: <59809@netnews.upenn.edu> <12665@pitt.UUCP> <60022@netnews.upenn.edu>
Sender: news@cs.pitt.edu
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 52

In article <60022@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>
>>Could you be more specific regarding which functions you feel are
>>not capable of being explained by neurons interacting?
>
>I have no such claims one way or the other.  That's basically my point.
>
>But let's make a claim anyway: consciousness is not just the result
>of some connectionist style paradigm of neurons wired up.
>
>Is that specific enough?  Note that consciousness can be lost, with
>little else affected, by chemical means.
>
But the chemicals act by influencing the way the neurons interact.
It is true that there are general anesthetics for which we do not
know the mechanism of action, but all of the ones that we do
(such as barbiturates) affect neuronal firing.  Remember that
there are not direct electrical connections between the neurons
(except in some bizarre animals) and that the electricity in
neurons is generated chemically.  Neurons really communicate through
chemical release across a narrow junction.

>OK.  But know that brain research is not just so much neuronal reverse
>engineering from here on.  There are indeed numerous possibilities in
>the air, and quite possibly some total surprises.
>
Of course, but I doubt if it is going to involve mysticism and
other such poofery.  It will involve investigating physical
processes.


>>is a machine, and thus capable of being replicated artificially with
>>sufficient technology.
>
>Machine yes.  Even Searle agrees that it's a machine.
>
>But what kind of a machine?  A standard AI claim is that a Turing
>machine suffices.  Is that what you mean?

Oh, I've never believed that standard AI (von Neumann processors
and all that) is going to be able to build a real artificial
intelligence.  I thought Searle went further than that and
said that it wasn't possible to make an artificial intelligence.
If he thinks the brain is a machine, then whyever not?  Does he
think the machine is so complex as to be beyond the realm of human
understanding?

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


