>BV>"A good correlation" resembles the type of "scientific"
>BV>evidence offered for Darwinism, which is why some people
>BV>are skeptical of it.
WRE
>Correlation demonstrates the existence of a relationship.
>While someone may dismiss any correlation based solely upon
>how conveniently it fits his or her preconceptions, others are
>likely to consider the merits.
Chris
If Bertvan does not think much of correlation as demonstrating causal
relationships, I would like to offer her the chance of putting her money
where her mouth (keyboard) is in a series of bets on just such issues, in
cases where objective, quantifiable results can be determined (so as to
avoid evasion on the part of the loser).
I realize that this is not bloody likely to happen. Typical ID theorists
seem to be *remarkably* unwilling to put up anything of value on the basis
of their alleged confidence in their beliefs, especially if the particular
case at hand is something that *can* be measured. Bertvan has been even
foggier about specifying what she believes, in empirical terms, than Jones has.
>BV>Furthermore, it was love and hate that Chris claimed could
>BV>be measured in the brain, which are much more complex than
>BV>"happy" or "sad".
Chris
I did not actually say that they could be measured in the brain. However, I
would have *included* brain measurements as part of the method of doing so.
>And Chris can provide details for those if he wishes.
>
>What I'm pointing out is that scientific inquiry is inclusive
>of affect, and there are successful approaches to putting this
>on a quantitative basis. Affect is related to the states of
>"love" and "hate", I think most would agree.
>
>Earlier, BerthaJane said:
>
>BV>Choice, free will, spontaneity, creativity, consciousness
>BV>and emotions were probably all necessary new ingredients.
>BV>They seem to distinguish life from non life. (You'll never
>BV>find any of them in a computer.)
WRE
>There are a variety of researchers who would also disagree on
>this statement. The volume, "Motivation, Emotion, and Goal
>Direction in Artificial Neural Networks" (Levine and Leven,
>editors) is available from Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, and
>will serve well as a starting point for further research.
Chris
Bertvan holds the "glorified adding-machine" view of computers. I suppose
this view is natural to someone who has not made a living for decades doing
computer work (including nearly twenty years of programming and studying
computers). They are deterministic, and they do function according to the
instructions they are programmed with. But, then, so do neurons in the
brain, except that the programming is in terms of the production and
breakdown of chemical compounds, the fitting of neurotransmitters into
receptors in synapses, and so on. Even if one believes, as I do not, that
quantum physics is *truly* indeterministic rather than merely
indeterministic relative to anything we know about, there is no need to
invoke indeterminism to explain the complex functioning of the brain, or
the phenomena of consciousness and mind.
Thus, while investigation is slow because of the complexity of the brain
and its operation, we *are* making progress on several fronts. I find
Bertvan's persistent claims that everyone else is as ignorant on these
topics as she is somewhat annoying. If she is as ignorant as she claims to
be, how can she know how ignorant the rest of us are, especially when she
has steadfastly refrained from bothering to keep up at even the Discover
magazine level with what is going on in science generally? And, why, if she
has time to come up with drivel-mongers like Schutzenberger (who devoted
himself to catering to *just* such ignorance and the resulting gullibility)
-- why doesn't she have time to purchase and read even Discover magazine,
if not Scientific American?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 22 2000 - 00:18:01 EST