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!mcnc!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: mind vs. brain Message-ID: <866@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 16:22:17 EST Article-I.D.: mmintl.866 Posted: Tue Dec 10 16:22:17 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 16:36:57 EST References: <834@mmintl.UUCP> <2452@umcp-cs.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Distribution: na Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 24 Summary: In article <2452@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: [Concerning the applicability of the concept of software to the brain] >Well, OK, except that it's rather dubious whether the brain has a static >state which is analogous to stored programs (which is is kind of abstraction >which software is). It's entirely likely that the neural structure of the >brain is at least as important as the "programs" which they "store", and it >is a fact that the structure is itself dynamic. That's what I don't like >about the software paradigm; it's really too restricting given the great >ignorance we now have. I would prefer not to try to characterize the kinds >of abstraction of process and program needed until there's abetter basis for >understanding. In some sense, there has to be such a description. Any "dynamic" description can be converted into a "static" description. In other words, no character- ization of the kinds of abstraction is taking place. Specifically, I think you make a mistake in thinking that the changes to the neural structure is outside the bounds of what a software description might specify. The whole point of software is that when executed, it affects the hardware. I don't think the nature of those effects is presupposed in the concept. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108