arndt@lymph.DEC (01/31/85)
[A long overdue reply to geb note dated Jan 9]
Background:
A conversation with Sir John Eccles posting from me.
You commented.
I replied.
You replied to mine.
Eccles said (as a brain guy) he didn't see computers ever approaching the human
brain and scientists (computer, et al) who say the human mind is all in the
brain overreach themselves, etc. A superstitution.
----------------------
I got your private posting and find your resume very interesting.
To quote from your Jan 9 reply; "I was merely pointing out the fallacy of
taking a scientist as an authority on matters of religion. (I presume you mean
Eccles) Actually science itself should not be based on authority, but on
DEMONSTRABLE, VERIFIABLE FACTS (italics mine). Religious authority, it would
seem, should be based on claims of religious experience, . . . "
Well now. This is a common notion, entirely false, of many people on the net.
All knowledge is based upon 'fact', experience, authority. We resort to
evidence to find out if, "its a bird, it's a plane, it's . . . ."
What's wrong with saying 'scientific' authority should be based upon claims of
scientific experience'? Is it not? Is 'experience' somehow a 'lower' path
to knowledge? How do you know ANYTHING except through experience? Of the
world I mean. Math or 'pure' logic might be said to be done without reference
to the world outside one's head. But even math IS based upon ASSUMPTIONS!!!
In the first place just what IS a DEMONSTRABLE, VERIFIABLE FACT? Is not the
belief in such a thing a matter of 'faith' no less than Christian religious
claims? I hasten to add that some religious claims ARE based on things other
than evidence. But you can't pick up the Bible without being hit by the claim
that what is there is claimed to be true in the normal sense of the word - it
actually happened!!!!
I John 1:1-2 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have
touched - this we proclaim concerning the Word of Life. The life appeared;
we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life
which was with the Father and has appeared to us."
Paul also says that if Christ has NOT risen (an actual event!) then
let's close up shop and go home.
Again and again we see a false dichotomy drawn between science and religion
as if one were based on 'fact' and the other on 'faith'.
This is a wrong definition of both 'fact' and 'faith'!!!
I prefer to speak of KNOWLEDGE. We have knowledge of certain things. Based
upon our logic working upon evidence.
This is a modern problem because of the compartmentalization of our centers
of learning and lack of a unifying idea that runs throughout our 'studies'.
(Short of getting a good job.) We - the secular west- have given up, because
we see the search for absolutes is beyond our grasp, looking for a FRAMEWORK
within which to fit all our studies. In short a religion, philosophy, world-
view which looks at ALL of reality. But in so doing we have 'thrown out the
baby with the bath'. There never WAS a chance of realizing absolutes from
a finite position it seems. ALL HUMAN WORK, THINKING, IS BASED ON 'FAITH'.
Science doesn't hang in mid air. It is grounded on certain assumptions.
Just because something happend so many times in a row doesn't prove a 'law'.
A 'law' is a construct of the mind. A working idea. You'd have to observe
the 'happening' EVERY possible time to say absolutly it's a law.
Science no less than the Christian religion claims to speak of knowledge of
the 'truth', meaning about the way reality is actually structured.
There are some silly statements that violate the above coming from both
scientists and religionists.
---------
Now let me say that I agree with you that Eccles has overstated in some
places. He would probably agree also. But one sometimes speaks for effect
without a great attention to exactness in the course of an interview, no?
--------
I also wouldn't put it past man to come up with an 'artificial' intelligence
sometime in the future. But of course it wouldn't be man. But a creature of
man's. No threat to Christianity as I can see it. But I don't see that from
current technology.
You say, "But I don't see any evidence that morals, beauty, etc., and other
emotions need to stem from elsewhere than the brain. In fact, emotions appear
to arise from the limbic system, one of the more 'primative' parts of the
brain, common to most animals also."
For shame. A man with your credentials! You should KNOW better. There isn't
any evidence period. Or what little there is doen't tell us if it's the brain
the channel of the emotions or the brain the source of the emotions. It's
anybody's guess right now. Eccles main point still stands. We really know
VERY little about the brain. Surely not enough to make some of the sweeping
romantic claims some 'scientists' are making - and you seem to lean toward.
It's the brain the source only if you start from the ASSUMPTION that reality
is only made up of the material universe. A big, big assumption!
I mentioned Minsky, I believe. As someone who wants to model the brain.
Well, here's an update. From HIGH TECHNOLOGY, Aug.'84,p.39.
"Marvin Minsky, professor of computer science at MIT, is also skeptical of the
relevance of brain models to AI research - at least until more explicit
theories are developed. (Current efforts are underway to build computers that,
in Minsky's words) . . . are based on theories of what a brain OUGHT to do,
although they don't have much to do with what is known about the brain.'"
Says Daniel Hills, co-founder of Thinking Machines, an AI firm in Waltham,MA,
" . . . so little is known about the brain that it's hard to draw many
conclusions."
It's a good article entitled, WHY CAN'T A COMPUTER BE MORE LIKE A BRAIN?
Sorry to be so long winded. And many thanks for your postings. I really
enjoyed them.
Regards,
Ken Arndt