In-person, before Fair Witnesses. K. P. Collins
John wrote:
> F. Frank LeFever wrote in message <72ljqc$ki at sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>...
> >
> >I must confess I have never heard of this constraint, but my first
> >question would have to be, how is "computation" defined?
>> Let this be the devil's question. Frank has just killed the whole debate.
>> I have to marvel at the conceptual confidence of those who can make such
> quanitative analyses of that grey stuff upstairs. Many years ago I read a
> wonderful book, The Limits of Analysis, Stanley Rosen, in which he wrote,
>> "After all, mathematics is itself an extraordinary way of treating ordinary
> experience. Perhaps there are other extraordinary manifestations of
> rationality and the devotion to measure."
>> Computation is a convenient word but all too often it seems the word allows
> people to slip down the path of thinking that all human thinking is
> computational. I don't buy this (never liked Plato), the polymodal
> processing capabilities alone suggest the brain probably uses a number of
> differing strategies to achieve its goals. As such, trying to find the "key"
> mode may be a furphy and for the life of me I can't think of how one would
> define a computation at the neurological level. A big bump on the head could
> create wholly new computations.
>> The amount of computation required for any given action may also be much
> less than most suppose. I suspect that training works because it creates
> mulititudes of topographical maps in the relevant cortical areas allowing
> for a more discriminating choice of 'action plan' to be initiated and
> possibly modified during execution by way of cerebellum feedback (ok I'm
> guessing bigtime but that ain't so unusual 'round here). If this were the
> case the important processing would be at the primary sensory level, making
> the correct judgements so that the correct motor sequences are called.
> William Calvin's throwing Madonna hypothesis might throw some light on this
> ramble.
>> An important
> >consideration is that there are many lines of evidence supporting the
> >idea of the brain as made up of parallel processers, so there may be
> >much more "throughput" than would be possible with a single channel
> >serial processer, howsoever many "computations" might be possible in a
> >given period.
>> This reminds me of a tale told by Daniel Dennett in Consciousness Explained.
> Dennett was umpiring a baseball game when he had to make a very close call.
> Uncertain he signalled "out" with his right hand but called "Safe" and felt
> somewhat embarrassed. Dennett explains this by reference to his modular
> model, where the brain employed multiple means of determination but didn't
> have enough time to reach agreement amongst the competing processes.
>> john
> johnhkm At logicworld.com.au
