Re: Chalmers: Computational Foundation

From: Yusuf Larry (
Date: Tue May 01 2001 - 18:46:18 BST

>> Hunt:
>> human mind is a complex entity that we do not fully understand
>> ourselves yet... human beings are developing the
>> computations in question, if we do not understand ourselves, then how
>> can we develop computations that simulate the processes that are
>> carried out in the mind?

>Haven't we successfully understood and explained a lot of complex
>things (including atoms and the universe)? We managed all that with our
>minds; why shouldn't we be able to understand and explain our minds
>too? ("Complexity" is not an argument.)

Yusuf L:
Agreed. Complexity isn't really an issue but more our inability to
explicitly describe how our minds/brains/we
do what we do. Until we are able to explicitly state what is going on,
we will have a problem developing computation
to do what we do and be unable to teach machines to think.

Perhaps, nothing short of T5 would be able to learn what we do as it
will have the same physiology and be able to
pick up knowledge as we do from those around us.

> > What counts is that the brain implements various complex
> > computations, not that it is a computer.

>This is a bit ambiguous, because to be a computer is to implement

Yusuf L:
I agree that to be a computer is to implement computations, but surely
there must be an entity out there capable of implementing computation
but isn't just a computer. Perhaps this is what the brain + mind gives:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 24 2002 - 18:37:30 BST