Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: mind vs. brain
Message-ID: <834@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Dec-85 17:09:03 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.834
Posted: Tue Dec  3 17:09:03 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Dec-85 20:34:02 EST
References: <1794@watdcsu.UUCP> <2005@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1884@watdcsu.UUCP> <2274@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Distribution: na
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 25

In article <2274@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
>It should be quite clear from this that I now think that software is
>therefore an inappropriate concept with respect to the mind and brain,
>because it presupposes the realization of this level of abstraction (even if
>we punt on the clear intentionality implied here by assigning it to
>"evolutionary processes").

Whoa!  I agreed with you up to here, but I do not think software is an
inappropriate concept with respect to mind and brain.  The software is
a static description of the process.  I don't see that there need be
a realization of this level of abstraction for the concept to be valid.
In other words, a post facto description would be as much software as
a prescription.

I don't think intentionality enters into the picture at all.  The
intentionality is in the writing of the software, and not in the software
itself.

I will agree that the correct analogy is
   brain:mind::computer:process,
not
   brain:mind::computer:software.

Frank Adams                           ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108