Thread: Sentient Computer ?????

"There is no doubt that the brain is the be all and end all. Neurology has shown which areas of the brain controll what. "

Then surely there is no point in having this debate, if the brain is totaly materialistic then just biologicaly copying it (which shouldnt be too hard in the future...) will produce identical results?

The question I was trying to highlight with metamorphic fields is that the 'spark' or definition of self has not been explained, especially by neurologists (otherwise most of them would have been out of a job)

Neurology has certainly shown which areas of the brain affect which responses, how they do it though is still mostly of debate.

"Then surely there is no point in having this debate, if the brain is totaly materialistic then just biologicaly copying it (which shouldnt be too hard in the future...) will produce identical results?"

Indeed an identical copy of the brain would result in identical results, but it is bloody hard to do! We are a LONG way from being able to do that.

We can't make an identical copy of a cell yet! Infact we can't make an identical copy of a peptide crossing a membrane!!!!! (one my friends is a final yr. biochemist he is doing a dry project in which he uses a computer to simulate a peptide crossing a membrane, the computer takes 3 months to simulate 1 nanosecond, and makes quite a few assumptions on the way)

"The question I was trying to highlight with metamorphic fields is that the 'spark' or definition of self has not been explained, especially by neurologists (otherwise most of them would have been out of a job)"

There is no magic "spark" here, there are just neural pathways, hideously complicated and convoluted they may be... but neural pathways they are. The concept of self as a "real" phenomenon along with any notions of free-will have been smashed pretty heavily by a lot of recent developments in the field of neurology. Of course there's still a long way to go, specific mechanisms of how the brain handles different areas are sketchy... of course we do know a huge amount, but there's still a huge amount left to discover.

Originally posted by Clyde
the computer takes 3 months to simulate 1 nanosecond, and makes quite a few assumptions on the way)

He probably has too many programs running in the background, try closing down AOL and audiogalaxy.