> In a message dated 3/29/2001 11:30:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> << And that would be an oversimplification of Edelman's position, too,
> I think. I don't think you can throw out Edelman's whole argument
> because of his infelicitous characterization of the resolution
> of analog signals and processing elements as "unlimited".
> However, since you seem to agree that it's a good idea to actually
> look at brains in detail to see how they work, rather than ignoring
> them completely and just trying to write programs to try to duplicate
> their input/output functions at the highest level of abstraction,
> I guess there's really no conflict, anyway.
> Jim F. >>
> Not to be a dick, but I have Edelmann's & Tonini's A Universe Of
> Consciousness, as well as Stewart Kaufman's Investigations. Both of these
> works leave a lot to be desired. They are not as physicalist as I feel they
> need to be, such as Moravec or R. Michael Perry, or Tipler'a books. These
> essays are thought provoking, but seem to yield very little concrete
> understanding for the reader, and are murky where they would want their
> sciences to go, and what they wish to find out. Disappointing, especially in
> regards the premise of this thread.
-- Ross Andrew Finlayson Finlayson Consulting Ross at Tiki-Lounge: http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/ "It's always one more." - Internet multi-player computer game player
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:44 MDT