More can't turn the brain into a compuational process

[flashgordon2!]

more can't turn the brain into a computational process!

Firstly, I apologize for being so against the computational idea, but my idea about the little man in the head looking up ideas in a library in the head ad infinitum kept nagging at me and suggesting to me there was something there.

It seems to me that any effort to control a brain is like the little man in the head looking up facts in the heads library books, and then of course, there is a little guy in the little guy's head. No matter how much you reduce these little guys say to infinitesemel size, the fact is the little guy in the head is like a designer which goes straight back to my argument that there are not little mechanical equations at every infinitesemel point of the universe guiding how other things around it are to behave; it is a bit like topology where no matter how hard you try, if there is a whole, you can't get rid of it without some major surgury operations.

But, what about no little guy in the head? Seems to me that even if the brain was a computational process without a little man in the head, the brain is a process much like a tornado; you can't box up the tornado and expect it to exist anymore; where's the boundary of the tornado? Pretty soon, you find the tornado has no boundary; it gets connected to the whole universe. In other words, this is no computational process that you can just box up, standardize, and replace it with all new superconducting nanowiring to make it go billions of times faster thought and so on and so forth.

 

[neurocomp2003]

read up on some 3D engine development based on scientific principles and nonlinear dynamics of large agent systems and then tell me if their world is a finite contained box. And What about the term Upgradable?

To paraphrase steve grand(his books though sort of naively written, the ideas have a sound impact on my ideas) The brain is just a relay system that makes and stores patterns from input to output in our case sensory to motor.

And from what i got out of reading Lisa Eliot: Do not just think of the adult brain as the adult brain but rather as grown from a child's brain which inturn was grown from a baby's

Oh yeah and the idea of consciousness being separate from the brain always plays a part in such debates/arguments of higher cognition. Show me a livign person who doesn't have a physical brain. If there exists such a person then it shows that consciouness is independent of the brain...and if not then
portions of consciousness is contained within the brain.

GRanted a stand only desktop PC or a supercomputer stuck in its box may never grow intelligence but stick some sensory systems on it and see what it does.

 

[flashgordon2!]

not to say i know enough abstract algebra/topology to 'really' know chaos theory, but I've read around enough to say I know strange attractors even though I don't know the chaos theory of 'large agent systems'; although, I have some idea of what those are as well(complexity theory, and yes, I've read Stuart Kauffman), but I feel that I can answer back before I dive into those topics a little bit more . . . seems to me 'evolution' is a broader phenomenon than just 'natural selection.' It is growth processes, and these growth processes I've personally attached to a form of 'learning.' So, if the brain is about learning and language, and growth processes are learning, then the brain is more than a relay station!

 

[neurocomp2003]

a relay station need not be static(it can grow and store patterns, as long as it has a fixed input/output zone IMO but others have definitions). It is a Functionality that receives input and gives output much like a filter but has a bigger system.
Neural Net would be a good example if you cannot tap into the hideen layers.
Anotheer word that may be used might be a filter but I'm not all to sure if i understand what a filter is.