From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!erlebach Fri Oct 30 15:17:44 EST 1992
Article 7403 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!erlebach
>From: erlebach@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Thomas Erlebach)
Subject: Re: Simulated Brain
References: <1992Oct12.130804.18065@sophia.smith.edu> <1992Oct12.191445.18565@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1992Oct12.221609.15695@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Oct12.224008.16222@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Oct13.085347.13831@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Originator: erlebach@hphalle3b.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Sender: news@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (USENET Newssystem)
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 11:21:57 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Oct27.112157.24723@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
Lines: 150




In article 7920 of comp.ai.philosophy on 2 Oct 92 22:47:35 GMT M.Thomas
made some statements that I want to comment.

>   But, when a person is "damaged" and regions of the brain are destroyed
>(say a stroke, for example) the "person" or that "thing" which you call
>a "soul" that I would call the Mind does not change. Yes, a persons
>ability to speak or move or remember may be damaged (and relearned) but
>the "I" or the Mind remain the same.

When you say that the "I" remains the same, what exactly do you mean
by that ? What changes have to occur so that you would say the "I" has
changed ?

>But
>that "I" or Mind seems to continue when part of this machine we call the 
>brain is damaged... Perhaps another example is this: when you sleep at
>night (or in class) your Mind is still active... your brain has shut down
>regions (say sight, and sound). These areas are "shut down" by the fact
>that external stimulus is not influencing their operation... So what
>about when you dream? Well, your "Mind" or that "I" then influences areas
>of your brain to result in sound and sight.. etc... 

What you call Mind could as well be a part of the physical brain. This
part might continue when other parts are damaged and it also might create
the sound and sight for our dreams. (BTW, I don't have difficulty
imagining a brain being damaged in a way so that the person doesn't
have dreams anymore.)

>   About existing after the brain is dead: when your brain finally does
>stop functioning and you die... in that last moment the last experience
>you have when the "I" or your Mind thinks of itself, that last thought
>might have no end.

An interesting thought. Although it never came to my mind, it is something
worth thinking about.

>in any case thought is energy... [stuff deleted]
>but at the point of your last focused thought the energy
>is not destryed (law of conservation; energy can not be created or
>destroyed...)

I don't think that it is adequate to use physical laws for things like
brain and mind. Of course these laws affect the chemical reactions
that take place in the brain, but using the law of conservation for
"thought energy" is somewhat like using the laws of thermodynamics for
the process of evolution (like occurred in talk.origins). Adding to
that, I wouldn't agree that thought is energy. Thought is a certain
state or a certain sequence of states of the machine called brain.

>   I guess the point I am moving to is that, what do you feel the brain is
>doing that you would like to simulate?

The thing the brain is doing what I think is so amazing is: It makes
me have emotions and feelings. And I want to find out how these feelings
come into existance. I want to know whether if I build a machine that
has the same functionality as the human brain, but is made of different
material and has a different architecture, this machine has the same
quality of life, the same feelings and emotions as I do.

>Do you think you will need all of
>these other machines to produce/retrieve information to send to this
>simulation (or will you simulate that also?)

If I simulate this information, it would be the same as connecting a human
brain to a virtual world. The simulated world would be reality for the
person connected to it.

>Do you believe that if you
>simulate just the brain/neurons (neural networks) that this "I" or Mind
>will evolve naturally?

Of course I am not sure about this, but I think that this is probably the
case. 

>    My point then becomes, if a) we would like to model brain functions
>that go beyond the current abilities of the computer, and b) we understand 
>that the organization of neurons does not produce this "I" [as shown with 
>stokes, and a neurons lack of "knowledge"], then we should question the
>chance that we will be able to simulate this "Mind/I" for which we desire
>to produce in a computer, by simulating a brain. (?)

In fact I doubt that the organization of neurons does not produce this "I".
The mere fact that the neurons do not know what they are doing doesn't
mean (to me) that their combination in a certain structure can't produce a
thinking mind that experiences "self".

>[stuff deleted]
>The point here is that there is no mechanical combination of neurons or
>areas in your Brain which say BLACK... Your Mind/I must do this...

Why can't there be a certain part of my brain which checks whether
the neurons detecting light fire and, if not, says BLACK. Why does
this have to be a function of something superior called the Mind/I ?

>[thoughts about gravity and a ball removed] So the Mind and
>Brain might not be two totally independant things but there is good reason
>to believe that the brain does not function as a direct result of the
>stimulus from the environment, or that the Brain does everything because
>it is the only physical thing WE can see (like the ball) 

I agree with you that we can't say: The brain is the only physical
thing we see, therefore it does everything.
Basically there are two possibilities:
    a) the brain does everything
    b) there is something else: a Mind, something we cannot perceive
       with our current capabilities
One of these must be true, and I'm afraid it will take some time
until man can decide which one it is.
As long as there are no arguments against a) - and I think that is
the case - I will stick to that possibility.

>    A final point about the Mind existing without the brain (just 
>something to think about) if the ball does not exists does that mean 
>that gravity also does not exists? or is there just no way of 
>determining if gravity exists?

There is just no way of determining if gravity exists.

>how about the other way if gravity did 
>not exists, you could still tell that the ball exists, BUT you can 
>also tell that Gravity does not exists because the Ball does not react
>like it does when gravity is there (it would just float).

Do you want to prove with this thought that, if the Mind wouldn't
exist, the Brain wouldn't work the way it does ?

>    My final question to you is a question I asked before about the
>computer simulation modeling the qualities of the Brain. Do you want to
>simulate just the ball or do you want to simulate gravity?

I don't think the non-physical Mind (what you compare to gravity) exists.
So I just want to simulate the physical brain (the ball), in order to
find out whether the simulation reacts in the same way a human brain
does. If it does, this may be considered the proof that the non-physical
Mind doesn't exist. If it does not, the Mind exists.

>================================================================================
>Thank you,            ||  "Sol est invisiblis in hominibus, in terra vero
>Michael Thomas        ||   visibilis, tamen ex uno et eodem sole sunt ambo"
>(..uunet!ckgp!thomas) ||                    -- Theatrum Chemicum (Ursel, 1602)
>================================================================================

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- erlebach@informatik.tu-muenchen.de                                  -
- "A fanatic does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the     -
- facts of the case."                - Finley Peter Dunne             -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


