Xref: utzoo comp.ai:4852 talk.philosophy.misc:3010
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!uceng!dmocsny
From: dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Knowledge Representation, A thought experiment
Summary: Not quite how the brain works
Keywords: thought experiment
Message-ID: <2393@uceng.UC.EDU>
Date: 10 Oct 89 16:49:53 GMT
References: <357@massey.ac.nz>
Followup-To: comp.ai
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati, College of Engg.
Lines: 24

In article <357@massey.ac.nz>, ARaman@massey.ac.nz (A.V. Raman) writes:
> Any structure conveys information and any operation that changes a
> structure is a thought process.  

This reminds me of Wolfram's notion that every computer is a physical
system, and every physical system is a computer. Some physical systems
are computationally inefficient, meaning that a simpler computer can
adequately mimic their behavior. Since we are currently a bit squeezed
for computational power, the only physical systems we can profitably
study in our diversion called "science" must be computationally
inefficient (or, alternatively, very simple).

> Would he observe the electrons flowing from one part of the brain to
> another as a thought process?

One minor quibble: if he did see such a thing (assuming that "part"
refers to multicellular collections), then he would be mistaken.
Nervous signals do not propagate down axons via bulk flow of
electrons, but rather by a cascading reversal of membrane polarity.
(Something like a "signal" passing through a row of falling dominoes.)
See any elementary text on neurophysiology for details.

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu