From: Harvey Newstrom (newstrom@newstaffinc.com)
Date: Tue Jun 22 1999 - 12:23:37 MDT
On Tuesday, June 22, 1999 1:20 am, O'Regan, Emlyn
<Emlyn.ORegan@actew.com.au> wrote:
> by accumulating the correct set of neurons (judged by their firings) and
> imposing an (artificial) topology. Yet I'm not ready to dismiss this idea
> completely. Who is to judge what is artificial?
I must be missing something here, but no one has yet explained why they
consider the disassembled brain to be alive. It cannot think by itself.
Any thoughts must be preplanned and executed by the human caretakers for the
brain. It can be "stimulated" just as a dead brain can. But it does not
react to the stimulus. No neuron fires unless its caretaker fires it. No
memory occurs unless the caretaker stored the memory.
The entire modeling process can occur in the absence of the so-called brain.
If there is a consciousness, it is contained by all the living humans who
are doing the brain modeling. The dead brain neurons are not processing,
communicating, remembering, thinking or reacting. The are acting no
differently than a dead brain would act. They are just being placed in
proximity to living humans who are modeling a brain. What am I missing that
makes this disembodied brain meet any definition of consciousness?
I agree with the apparent aim of these "thought experiments", that is to
lead a person to realize that consciousness can be contained in non-human
brains. I disagree with the specific example that claims the dissected
brain is still alive and functional because every separate neuron remains
intact. As a psychology minor and a biology minor, I am adamant that this
brain is not alive or conscious by any definition I know.
-- Harvey Newstrom <mailto://newstrom@newstaffinc.com> <http://newstaffinc.com> Author, Consultant, Engineer, Legal Hacker, Researcher, Scientist.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:15 MST