H. M. Hubey (email@example.com)
10 Nov 1995 01:46:46 -0500
Alex Duncan <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>Whoa -- changing the definition again. First you provide us with a
>definition of complexity based on the number of neurons: "The number of
The general idea won't change. If we take away the housekeeping
functions we'll have left over even more of what makes us
smarter than the other animals.
>brain states of a human being (possible on-off states of all neurons is
>10^(10^8) or 10^10000000." Now you tell us that isn't really a good
>definition of complexity, and we must be mindful of what the brain is
>actually doing (as if it matters to the neurons). Was your original
>definition in error?
Say what? ARe you one of the quantum brain enthusiasts too?
The mind is what the brain does. What ever the brain does,
electro-chemically is sufficient to produce mind.
>Do you suppose the ENTIRE whale brain is devoted to housekeeping duties?
>Do you know exactly how the "housekeeping" portions of the brain scale
>against body size compared to the other portions?
It's hard to tell. There are better results when the chip
brains are compared against humans than if we try to find
corresponding parts in dog brains or reptile brains. They
probably don't have or have very little of what we possess.
>don't have answers to these questions. The truth is that no one knows
>how much of a whale's brain is dedicated to running its body, and how
>much is left over for more intellectual pursuits. I suspect that given
Yes, good point. It's a stinking field when you start to ask
important questions. Most of it is guessing. In time, there
will be more answers.
>initially provided is the best thing going. Unfortunately, it means
>we're not the most complex beings on the planet.
Yeah, right. Bacteria are :-).. OR is it banana trees??