Dirk Wessels wrote in message <36B0894A.5F16043A at xs4all.nl>...
>Ray Scanlon wrote:
>>> We ask for a materialistic explanation of how the brain works based on
>> the
>> neuron and the anatomy of the nervous system. We ask that the
>> explanation
>> pay attention to those aspects of the nervous system that are
>> reflected in
>> the subjective view of the brain as experienced by the soul (mind).
>>What do you exactly mean by "materialistic".
My preference in materialistic explanations of a biological structure, such
as the brain, is one based. ultimately, on molecules. If we look at the
neuron, by itself, our explanations are molecular. If we look at an
agglomeration of neurons, our explanations are electrochemical.
>If you combine
>"materialistic" with quantumphysics or even "superstring theory",
>there is much more "holism" involved than is currently accepted.
>Especially moleculair structures like DNA and "microtubules" seem to
>have
>quantumphysical aspects that most "neuroscienists" seem to ignore.
>A good example is a simple form of "superconductivity" that has been
>found in
>microtubes of carbon.
>An example is the model of Hamerhoff and penrose.
>http://www.u.arizona.edu/~hameroff/
I am underwhelmed by physicists poking about in microtubules. Microtubules
are fascinating if your interest is in axonal transport. If instead you are
interested in producing a Cartesian pineal fairytale involving the use of
quantum effects by the soul (mind) to influence the brain, you are welcome.
>> As a first step we examine the brain to see how the neurons
>> do these things.
>>The problem is that we know how the brain recalls things, but theydo not
>satisfy what we personally recall. The level of details seem different
>to me. Besides that there is a lot of "abstraction" involved, which we
>can not model. That is because any model restricts "abstraction" while
>it
>has no limits.
>Learning is even worse. People can learn without ever having seen
>the answer, but just by "imagining" it, by "intuition", and "thinking".
>Current neuro-computing models do not seem to satisfy this problem.
I find the strengthening of synapses (and their weakening) as a satisfactory
explanation of learning. I question your statement that "we know how the
brain recalls things". I have my explanation but it is certainly not
generally accepted. When you say "personally recall" perhaps you are
introducing the soul (mind) where it does not belong. Your brain thinks,
your brain recalls, you, as soul, are aware of the thinking, of the
recalling.
>> If we can explain the how the brain thinks, how it decides,
>> we shall know how to design the machine.
>>What if there is a "conscious part" which controls the growing or
>respond of neurons in some subtile way?
>>Maybe we can't think about it, but we can always imagine it. :-)
In my opinion, the "conscious part" is the soul (mind) and this is the
province of religion. When we contemplate the brain we should be
materialists, when we dwell on the soul we should turn to religion. The
notion that we may somehow combine these two is refuted by history.
Ray
Those interested in how the brain works might look at
www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html