X-Message-Number: 3999
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 1995 20:26:33 -0800
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Symbols
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
(Thomas Donaldson) Wrote:
>give a careful definition of what you mean by "symbol".
A symbol stands for or represents something else because of a
convention, in this case the mechanism of the brain, not because
of a similarity. Symbols substitute abstract representations for
concrete objects and are realized by changing the structure of a
material object. A symbol must symbolize something, so a
computer bit or a letter are just a tokens, but words are symbols.
Symbols in the brain, can communicate among themselves
in a way not possible at a lower level.
>how does it happen that (since we are animals) we think in
>symbols while other animals do not?
What are you talking about, who said other animals don't think
in symbols? I said that even flat worms use simple symbols.
>the reason why I do not accept an "explanation" on the line of
>"it's just that we can do better than evolution, folks!" is
>that it really doesn't explain anything.
Yes it does, it explains why Drexler style nanotechnology does not exist
in nature.
>Just how do we decide X is better than Y?
You make a good point, I can't prove that big, fast, strong and smart
is objectively better than small, slow, weak and stupid,
it's a matter of personal preference , but my subjective taste
is important to me.
>how does nature decide that X is better than Y?
That one is easy, in evolution's opinion ( but not mine) X is
better than Y if X has more offspring that survive until they too can
reproduce.
Wrote:
>some very simple organisms may have feeling.
Many organisms probably have feelings but there is no such thing
as a simple organism, at least compared with existing inorganic
matter. Organisms have had feelings for about 400 million years
but they've only had something that deserves the name
intelligence for a million years or two. Intelligence is a
harder problem to crack than feeling.
>What does that mean--"just react?" If it means "just
>obeys the laws of physics," well, so do we, and so does any
>physical computer.
It's true that in the final analysis everything must obey the
laws of physics, but that covers an awful lot of ground.
Although it's true, in a sense, that "all" Beethoven did was
arrange for micro changes in air pressure, it's not a fruitful
way of looking at it. If you apply heat to water the reaction
can be quite complex due to turbulence, but there is nothing in
that boiling water that contains a symbol for heat, the heat
can't make a connection with other concepts. In the brain the
symbol for heat is not hotter than other parts of the brain but
it can make relationships with any other symbol like summer,
melting ice, fireplaces, pain, thermodynamics and countless
more. The symbol for heat can also make new relationships with
other symbols when needed. Boiling water, although complex,
can't do any of that.
>Conceivably, a feeling (typically of pain or pleasure) could
>just be a CONDITION or state of some part or aspect of the
>brain--just some special configuration of chemistry
>and electromagnetics in the tissues
Undoubtedly that's true, but my point is there is no reason to
think that that's the only way it could happen.
>It is surely conceivable that feeling and consciousness might
>require a SIMULTANEOUS real-time confluence of conditions/events
>that no Turing tape could provide.
Yes, it's conceivable, it's also conceivable that I am the only
conscious being in the universe, I think the two have similar
probabilities and deserve equal consideration.
John K Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBL2PCbn03wfSpid95AQHKNgTuPsmXxh7tkpYlYP7oVD5NNiqr4i2uUUZ+
I83rS9BSMR+ZAATBMml7LaZFLfbuSJdYuYgYsiD91jSDgpEvD1HI69MKXfbk9rN+
q6gD5mlm8oSod9k9yGO890+OijRCOvC/dUlPXxG5YUFOtXRRb2XXTGuSV4tMyyYz
1AdfUpxku32glzr4OhBX3r0oEdWxqQM5bJ6qyc9rewilczAjnUk=
=aIcC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3999