Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!kinky.eng.gtefsd.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!hookup!olivea!news.bu.edu!gw1.att.com!princeton!tucson.princeton.edu!schechtr
From: schechtr@tucson.princeton.edu (Joshua B. Schechter)
Subject: Re: Thought Question
Message-ID: <1995Jan13.042008.10093@Princeton.EDU>
Originator: news@hedgehog.Princeton.EDU
Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: tucson.princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
References: <sa209.104@utb.shv.hb.se> <1995Jan12.022935.26572@Princeton.EDU> <3f4iso$8m@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 04:20:08 GMT
Lines: 43
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:1746 comp.ai.philosophy:24581 comp.ai:26418

In article <3f4iso$8m@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> mtbc100@cus.cam.ac.uk (Mark Carroll) writes:
>In article <1995Jan12.022935.26572@Princeton.EDU>, schechtr@flagstaff.princeton.edu (Joshua B. Schechter) writes:
>|> In article <sa209.104@utb.shv.hb.se> sa209@utb.shv.hb.se (Claes Andersson) writes:
>|> > It's obviouss that a computer and a brain don't work in the same way. A 
>|> >computer is mainly serial while a brain is very paralell. But, an airplane 
>(big snip)
>|> >simulate paralellism, with a great speed loss, but still it can simulate a 
>|> >computer. A brain will have a harder time trying to simulate a computer.
>|> 
>|> I believe the issue is not whether or not a computer can simulate a
>|> brain. It seems that a majority of people here seem to agree (whether
>|> or not they are correct) that a computer can simulate a brain. The
>|> hardware of a brain seems to be accepted to be a type of universal
>|> turing machine and as such, can be simulated (as soon as it is
>
>...ummm, I assume that, in saying that the brain is a Turing machine,
>you imply that it's completely determinisitic? Assuming you're not allowing
>for a soul which fiddles with it to make it non-deterministic, I'd certainly
>hesitate to agree that predestination etc. is generally accepted to be true.
>
>|> understood) by any other turing machine.
>(snip)

I, personnally believe that the brain is deterministic. And, as such
can be simulated. And, even if it is probablilistic (quantum mechanical?)
in nature (and not absolutely deterministic) I'd venture to say that
it could be simulated (or at least modelled) to at least some level of
accuracy.

The issue which I think seems more germane is that if we have a
simulation of a brain, can it actually think? Is there more to
thinking than a deterministic (or probabilistic) process.

I'd answer no, but I'm certainly not claiming to have a direct line to
the truth.

And if a simulation of a brain can think, what level of detail is
necessary for thinking? Can we model a brain using only high level
symbol manipulation? Do we need to model every individual
neuron? etc...


Josh
