From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Tue May 12 15:50:03 EDT 1992
Article 5518 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: brains and information processing
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992May6.205923.14479@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <1992May7.164257.17225@psych.toronto.edu> <1992May7.192257.23595@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Message-ID: <1992May9.172828.17624@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 17:28:28 GMT

In article <1992May7.192257.23595@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>In article <1992May7.164257.17225@psych.toronto.edu> 
>christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>
>>This sounds pretty teleological to me, but I think you've missed the point.
>>The question is why you would characterize information processing as
>>the *essential* function of the brain. Even if it is *a* function of
>>the brain, why *essential*?
>>
>  I take it as self-evident that brains have evolved because they
>contribute to the survival of organisms.  They contribute to
>survival by controlling the actions of muscles and other tissues.

In the case of the brain, I'm inclined to agree with you, but don't make
the miske of thinking that just because something evolved, that is must
therefore have contrbuted to the survival of the species. These kinds
of just-so stories of evolution have little place in modern evolutionary
theory. Consider, for instance, the numbers of fingers and toes we have.
Would you argue that having five of them gives us some sort of advantage
over creature with four or six? Apparently not, considering the number
of creature that can kill us with a single swipe of their four-toed paws.

> So the
>biological function of brains is to manipulate signals, and
>that's what I mean by "processing information."  In contrast,
>the function of the liver is to transform chemicals; the function
>of the muscles is to generate forces; etc..
>
Function and *essential* function (the phrase you used) are two different
things.  There nothing *essential* about this function of the brain. Moreover,
you're going to use this definition to ground a statement of equivalence
between the brain and computers, you've got a lot of work to do re explicating
the ambiguous and equivocal terms you've brought into discussion, e.g.,
"information", "signal", "process", "manipulate", etc. As you verge on pointing
out yourself (and as Searle does about the stomach) the liver is as much
an "information processor" as is the brain. It all depends on you construal
of "information" and "process".


-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


