From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Thu Mar 29 2001 - 22:59:40 MST
In a message dated 3/29/2001 11:30:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
fehlinger@home.com writes:
<< And that would be an oversimplification of Edelman's position, too,
I think. I don't think you can throw out Edelman's whole argument
because of his infelicitous characterization of the resolution
of analog signals and processing elements as "unlimited".
However, since you seem to agree that it's a good idea to actually
look at brains in detail to see how they work, rather than ignoring
them completely and just trying to write programs to try to duplicate
their input/output functions at the highest level of abstraction,
I guess there's really no conflict, anyway.
Jim F. >>
Not to be a dick, but I have Edelmann's & Tonini's A Universe Of
Consciousness, as well as Stewart Kaufman's Investigations. Both of these
works leave a lot to be desired. They are not as physicalist as I feel they
need to be, such as Moravec or R. Michael Perry, or Tipler'a books. These
essays are thought provoking, but seem to yield very little concrete
understanding for the reader, and are murky where they would want their
sciences to go, and what they wish to find out. Disappointing, especially in
regards the premise of this thread.
Mitch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:06:46 MST