Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: net.ai,net.philosophy,net.rumor,net.misc,net.junk Subject: Re: A Quick Question - Mind and Brain Message-ID: <3971@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Jun-84 21:14:17 EDT Article-I.D.: utzoo.3971 Posted: Wed Jun 20 21:14:17 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 20-Jun-84 21:14:17 EDT References: <186@isrnix.UUCP> <3588@fortune.UUCP>, <20@cbosgd.UUCP>, <3615@fortune.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 37 John Crane cites, as evidence for the human mind being impossible to duplicate by computer, two phenomena. (1) Subconscious memory - a person can be enabled (through hypnosis or by asking him the right way) to remember infinite details of any experience of this or prior life times. Does the mind selectively block out trivia in order focus on what's important currently? As far as I know, there's no evidence of this that will stand up to critical examination. Even disregarding the "prior life times" part, for which the reliable evidence is, roughly speaking, nonexistent, the accuracy of recall under hypnosis is very doubtful. True, the subject can describe things in great detail, but it's not at all proven that this detail represents *memory*, as opposed to imagination. In fact, although it's quite likely that hypnosis can help bring out things that have been mostly forgotten, there is serious doubt that the memories can be disentangled from the imagination well enough for, say, testimony in court to be reliable when hypnosis is used. (2) Intuition - by this I mean huge leaps into discovery that have nothing to do with the application of logical association or sensual observation. This kind of stuff happens to all of us and cannot easily be explained by the physical/mechanical model of the human mind. The trouble here is that "...have nothing to do with the application of logical association or sensual observation..." is an assumption, not a verified fact. There is (weak) evidence suggesting that intuition may be nothing more remarkable than reasoning and observation on a subconscious level. The human mind actually seems to be much more of a pattern-matching engine than a reasoning engine, and it's not really surprising if pattern-matching proceeds in a haphazard way that can sometimes produce unexpected leaps. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry