From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu Mon Mar  9 18:35:08 EST 1992
Article 4254 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu
>From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Beware of the vaporware salesmen
Message-ID: <68590@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 4 Mar 92 19:09:50 GMT
References: <1992Feb25.182526.12698@oracorp.com> <18595@castle.ed.ac.uk> <466@tdatirv.UUCP> <68339@netnews.upenn.edu> <1992Mar4.180621.24118@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 47
Nntp-Posting-Host: libra.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)

In article <1992Mar4.180621.24118@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, pindor@gpu (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>>I think it remains true that what a brain does is to transform some input
>>>data into some output data (including muscle control signals), and that,
>>>since it only has access to an encoded representation of the data, this
>>>transformation can only be syntactic.

>>What is the internal representation of "self"?  "Privacy"?  "The natural
>>numbers"?  I fail to see any obvious anything that these encode.

>Does it prove that the above do not have some encoding? 

OF WHAT?  There's something peculiar about self-reference.  

>>>This statement is entirely consistant with what is curently known of
>>>neurobiology.  [...]

>>[...] It's a reasonable point of view.  Not much more.

>Given current knowledge! I.e. this view is based on evidence, even if it 
>an extrapolation of such evidence.

Which is not saying much.

>[various important physical aspects of how the brain works] Both of
>the above aspects can in principle be reproduced by computers if we
>knew exact structure of the brain and the way it proceses external
>signals.  Would you agree?

Not without evidence.  Until then, it's vaporware.

>		   Now, if you see a third possibility, please say
>what it might be, together with some evidence which might point to
>it. If you cannot, then we are left only with one reasonable point of
>view, the one sketched above.

Words are not evidence.  There is no good evidence for anyone's point
of view.

>>Vaporware appeals to imaginary computer processes are just as ludicrous.

>No, because they are an extrapolation of existing evidence. The other
>attempts are speculations with no grounding in experimental evidence.

I totally fail to see the difference between extrapolation and speculation
here, other than you like the one and reject the other. 
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)


