[Wittrs] Re: Is Computation too Static to Sustain a Mind?
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 04:07:19 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> responding to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/6179
> Budd:
> For example, it is perfectly alright to think one may make a science
> of psychology yet, ...
Well we do have a science of psychology (in the sense of a science of
behavior), though there is much that it might never be able to answer.
If you are looking for a science of mind (of thoughts, beliefs, ideas,
etc) - I doubt that such is possible. No two people have the same
thoughts, the same ideas, the same beliefs.
> Neil:
> Correlations between what?
> Budd:
> Between brain processes and:
What brain processes?
You are failing to see the problem.
If I have a computer, then I have a systematic way of going through what
is happening and identifying processes. We cannot do that with the
brain. We would probably have to solve the problem of consciousness
first. That is, we have to understand what the brain is doing before we
can systematically identify processes. We cannot just do it with
physical comparisons between brains, because no two brains are
isomorphic - not even the brains of identical twins.
> Budd:
> 1. Consciousness. (What caused the coma?)
That's probably already reasonably understood at a gross biochemical
level, but it won't give any insight into the questions people want to
answer.
> Budd:
> 2. Having concepts.
There is probably far more to that than the brain. It is going to also
involve behavior.
> Neil:
> IMO, much of the talk about neural correlates of consciousness is
> terminally vague.
> Budd:
> Perhaps for you. But you're not going to come up with an a priori
> argument for this.
I gave you an argument above. You cannot correlate, except at a gross
level, unless you can first come up with a detailed systematization of
brain states and/or brain processes. And for correlations to be useful,
it has to be a systematization that applies to all brains, rather than
one that is unique to a specific brain. Because there are substantial
differences in fine brain structure, you won't be able to produce such a
systematization, unless you first have a pretty complete understanding
of what the brain is doing and how it is doing it. That is, you need to
solve your problem first, before there is any hope of finding
sufficiently detailed correlations.
> Budd:
> Okay, but if you convince enough that your prediction comes not
> from guessing, then you may offer your possible theories instead
> or win by getting all not to try.
I have tried that, and failed. My own theory is incompatible with the
way that philosophy (and AI) frames and conceptualizes the questions,
and nobody seems willing to undertake the considerable effort of
reconceptualization that would be required.
> Budd:
> Do you actually have a more plausible idea in mind if it doesn't
> square with actually looking for correlations between brain processes
> and consciousness or the having of concepts (thoughts)?
More plausible to me - yes.
More plausible to you - probably not. You have a heavy investment in
what you already know on the subject, and I doubt that you are willing
to toss it all out on my sayso.
Regards,
Neil
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
