X-Message-Number: 14744 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:33:11 +0200 From: Henri Kluytmans <> Subject: more about brains and computers Thomas Donaldson wrote: >In terms of the issues raised, I will say first that I'd like a bit >better definition of just what an "information processor" is, and >what is "information". There is a subtlety here: any symbolic >statement of the state of ANY machine, no matter what it does, constitutes >information. That's clear. But is the actual state of the machine >an expression of information? I am saying that it is not. Good point! :) I tend to agree. So lets assume that information is : "a symbolic statement about the state of a system" But this does not imply that the human brain is not an information processor!!! As I mentioned several times before, and nobody objected : A (symbolic) description of the position and orientation (with a certain resolution) of every atom and/or molecule in a frozen brain is equal to keeping the frozen brain itself. (Because according to physics identical particles in the same state are interchangeable.) I now explicitly ask you, do you agree with this statement ??? >Moreover, even an ordinary computer tied in with some kind of sensory >system and some kind of action system will basically use a symbolic >system to express the state of its perception. Doing so isn't necessary >and may turn out to be inefficient. Sure, with lots more power than our >brain such a system might work just as well, but a lot of that power >is spent on doing something which brains do by not acting symbolically. It remains to be seen if the artificial computing systems (of the future, for example fabricated by a mature MNT) in total (i.e. including all their supporting systems) are less efficient than biological ones. I venture to say : artificial systems will be more efficient in processing information (i.e. running a mind) than biological ones. Grtz, >Hkl Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14744