williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (09/04/85)
The mind is intimately linked to the brain. It is important to remember that the difference between mind and brain is something that is defined, and not something that is necessarily intrinsic to nature. I don't think it is sufficient to say the mind is something that can exist outside of the brain in something like, let's say, a machine. Machines, and in particular, computers, will most likely develop an entirely different kind of intelligence. I seriously doubt that a machine capable of supporting a mind, as we define it, will naturally evolve. The artificial minds that will be developed in the future will be different because the technology is different, and the ways these technologies are optimized are different. A perhaps better definition of the difference between mind and brain would be to consider the brain to be the static structure, whereas the mind would be the dynamic structure. There is a optimal balance between mind and brain. An attractive analogy can be drawn between the mind and software, and the brain and hardware. Anything that is performed by the brain could theoretically be performed by the mind, and vice-versa. Through the natural course of evolution, however, an optimal balance is sought. ( I will reiterate that optimum in reality expresses a margin, due to the dynamic nature of evolution ) The two key poles are performance and adaptability ( reliability ). The more brain, the greater the performance, the more mind, the greater the adaptability ( ability to function in a loosely controlled environment ). A person with a great brain would tend to be a specialist, whereas a person with a great mind would tend to be generalist. We all know the difference, a specialist knows everything about nothing, and a generalist knows nothing about everything. John Williams Any system is incomplete without an observer
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/05/85)
In article <304@decwrl.UUCP> williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams) writes: > The mind is intimately linked to the brain. It is >important to remember that the difference between mind and brain >is something that is defined, and not something that is >necessarily intrinsic to nature. > I don't think it is sufficient to say the mind is >something that can exist outside of the brain in something like, >let's say, a machine. Machines, and in particular, computers, >will most likely develop an entirely different kind of >intelligence. I seriously doubt that a machine capable of >supporting a mind, as we define it, will naturally evolve. The >artificial minds that will be developed in the future will be >different because the technology is different, and the ways these >technologies are optimized are different. > A perhaps better definition of the difference between >mind and brain would be to consider the brain to be the static >structure, whereas the mind would be the dynamic structure. There >is a optimal balance between mind and brain. An attractive >analogy can be drawn between the mind and software, and the brain >and hardware. Anything that is performed by the brain could >theoretically be performed by the mind, and vice-versa. I think I rather like this way of destinguishing between mind and brain. I would like to add that given this division, it is not impossible to consider the possibility of simulating the processing of the brain, and thus being able to have human minds without human brains. Charley Wingate Omnis Mundus Jocundetur Nato Salvatore