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