Re: A Critical Question

"Jim Balter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Lester Zick wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:13:56 -0800, Jim Balter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
> > comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Lester Zick wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:42:40 -0800, "Dave Ulmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Lester Zick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:32:25 -0800, "Dave Ulmer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>>in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Lester Zick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>                                      A Critical Question
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>What is the ultimate relation between brain input and brain output?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>snip...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Basically you put in energy and data and you get out knowledge and
> >>>>>>understanding.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I don't necessarily disagree. But if you do the same for a concrete
> >>>>>block you don't get the same output. At least I have never seen one.
> >>>>>Why?
> >>>>
> >>>>Because the concrete block is not an intelligent system. It does not
know
> >>>>how to use energy to process data into knowledge. An intelligent
system is a
> >>>>system of knowledge and understanding and the concrete block has
neither.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Except that on a really fundamental basis, Dave, we don't know that.
> >>>And I'm trying to figure out how it is we can determine such things.
> >>>We certainly infer such things about concrete blocks. But when it
> >>>comes right down to it we have to decide how we know such things and
> >>>not simply assert that a concrete block is not an intelligent system
> >>>of knowledge and understanding. While obviously I agree with you we
> >>>still need to understand the why's and wherefore's of knowledge and
> >>>understanding such that we can state categorically that and how such
> >>>things as concrete blocks have neither.
> >>
> >>That concrete blocks display no understanding is a big clue.
> >>
> >>Of course, they could just be playing it close to the chest,
> >>hiding their true capabilities.  But an examination of
> >>concrete blocks doesn't indicate any mechanism or facility by which
> >>they might display understanding.  Brains, OTOH, not only
> >>display these things, but appear to have complex discriminatory
> >>abilities, high information capacity due to a large number
> >>of neurons and interconnections, etc.  Of course some people think
> >>they're like radio receivers of messages from the overmind,
> >>but that's a matter of ignorance.  Familiarity with the actual
> >>structure and function of the brain makes it entirely plausible,
> >>in a quite straightforward fashion, that brains are
> >>"systems of knowledge and understanding", even with our currently
> >>minimal and incomplete knowledge of the brain.
> >>
> >>But that might not be enough for you -- you seem to want the
> >>answer to "how do we know" reduced from <insert large body
> >>of knowledge and inference here> to a single sentence, or
> >>perhaps just an incredibly meaningful grunt.
> >>
> >
> > You know, I have no intention of denying what you suggest. Everything
> > we know about concrete blocks suggests they are not alive and do not
> > possess all the ostensible attributes we assign to the brain. What I
> > was trying to point out was simply that the blood and guts theory of
> > brain function doesn't really explain how it differs from what we
> > consider consider blocks.
> >
> > Yes a single sentence is important.
>
> That's a ridiculous demand.




>
> > We have all kinds of functional
> > descriptions of the brain and its activity and connections to input
> > and output. But we don't have any as yet definitive basis to know in
> > what way the brain differs from a concrete block. We have all kinds of
> > ostensible descriptive functional properties but we don't have any
> > exact idea what it is that those properties do that a concrete block
> > could not.
>
> Exactness is also a ridiculous demand.

For you, it is an impossible one!


>
> > That's why I wrote the post. The one thing that the brain must do that
> > the concrete block cannot is take differences. A concrete block only
> > reacts to blood and guts in terms of material differences between it
> > and the blood and guts. The brain has to take differences among those
> > material differences in order to act like a brain. And that's why the
> > brain is a differential or logical phenomenon instead of a material
> > phenomenon like a concrete block - at least to the extent that a
> > concrete block is a material phenomenon and the result of material
> > interactions alone.
>
> "take differences"?  An abacus can do that.  That's just one of
> the many obvious differences between a brain and a concrete block.
> You're just another "silver bullet bozo", who has a single idea
> you want to promote, at all (intellectual) cost.
>
> > By the way I notice that several other posters have couched their
> > arguments in similar terms. So I would like to use the above in reply
> > to all.
> >
> >
> > Regards - Lester
> >
>
>
> -- 
> <J Q B>
>