From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken Wed Dec 18 16:02:32 EST 1991
Article 2225 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!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Scaled up slug brains
Message-ID: <40828@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 91 13:02:30 GMT
References: <12723@pitt.UUCP> <40705@dime.cs.umass.edu> <329@tdatirv.UUCP>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 79

In article <329@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:

>I would tend to define "computation" as something like "data transformation".

Semantic content: nil. What physical process is not "data transformation"?

>However, since all existing neural network models can be implemented on
>digital computers, I believe this may prove them to be Turing computable
>as well.

One certainly hopes so. Non-turing computable programs on digital computers
would be quite a shock.

>The issue then becomes: do biological neurons have operationally
>relevant properties that are not captured in the digital models?
>
>If not, then neurons are performing Turing computation.  If so, then, and
>only then, is the operation of the brain not computable in principle.

Mais non. There are certainly digital programs which are not Turing 
computable, and many more which are, in principle, Turing computable
but not, in principle, computable by any conceivable compute
(e.g. one in which data storage for a bit requires at least one atom).

>Fine, but I will require evidence of some other influence on cognition before
>I will even seriously entertain the ideas that "mind" is *not* the result of
>neuronal activity.

If you want to work within self-imposed blinders, go ahead. But, please
realize that you are operating on faith, not science.

>| but to suggest that facile analogies between minds and
>|computers should not be taken too seriously and that premature  conclusions
>|about the nature of mental functioning be avoided.
>
>I would not characterize my comparisons as facile.

I would, and do.

>I do *not* assume that current standard computing methods are congruent with
>mental operations.  I just do not accept the sort of ill-defined hand-waving
>that Searle uses as significant.

Until you can come up with a better definition of "computation" you should
not accuse others of hand-waving.

>They *may* refer to something meaningful, but I do not even have an *objective*
>way of telling if *I* show these features!  And given how pervasive self-
>delusions are, I do not trust my "intuition" on this issue.

Because we have no current means of identifying a process, does not mean
that the process does not exist. Electricity existed before voltmeters.

>|There is no a priori reason to
>|believe that thoughts can arise from transistors, or that collections of
>|devices which mimic some of the electrical behavior of a neuron will be
>|sufficient to produce consciousness or even complex problem solving. We
>|can flap our hands up and down all day, but we still won't fly.
>
>But we *can* add up numbers all day and get a total.  The anaology with a
>physical process is only valid if cognition is *primarily* a physical process.
>If it is primarily an informational process, then informational processes
>can duplicate it in reality.

and that's part of the question.

>And I believe that the "mind" shows all of the properties of an informational
>process.  So your analogy is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, your beliefs do not have the same weight as experimentally
verified facts.

>Yes, there is a big gap between slugs and humans, but there are various other
>animals that fill in almost the entire intervening span.  There are very few,
>if any, human mental traits that are not at least foreshadowed in the apes.
>We just carry them further, and use them in strange, unheard of synergies.
>The individual components remain similar to our ancestors'.

your faith is touching, if not persuasive.


