[Comp-neuro] Re: [D] dignity and the brain as an an engineering
ravishu at gmail.com
Thu Aug 28 15:00:46 CEST 2008
- When you say ' you have to understand a process analytically before you
can use it' it appears that the purpose of understanding a process was to
'use' it. I wouldn't know if all are agreed on that, some may well fell
that that the goal was to 'understand'.
- When you speak about 'prediction', 'control' and 'modification' - are they
distinct? i.e. when we predict or control are we not in some way modifying?
do we treat all 'brain function' with a single brush when it comes to these
notions? or do we categorize them in some way?
- Who are ''we' - here? are "we" one monolithic whole who agree on
On 8/27/08, James Schwaber <schwaber at mail.dbi.tju.edu> wrote:
> The technology I suggested would be desirable is "can we predict, control,
> and modify brain function" and my suggestion was that if we could it would
> be a basis for theory/science. This is not engineering in any sense that
> violates dignity. Rather, it is the explicit goal of biomedical science, to
> develop methods useful to neurology, neurosurgery, psychiatry etc.
> gros07 at itp.uni-frankfurt.de wrote:
>> ? Is the brain just an engineering problem ?
>> In his comment on -science follows technology- James Schwaber discussed
>> analogies between engineering problems and neuroscience and his comment
>> For neuroscience the question is can we predict, control, and modify
>>>> brain function...
>> indicated a possible closeness between the study of the brain and an
>> engineering problem.
>> Everybody subscribing to this mailing list probably agrees that the brain
>> constitutes a object for
>> scientific investigation. But is it also an object
>> for engineering considerations?
>> In my point of view definitively not. Dignity is, of course, only the
>> result of some poorly understood
>> electrochemical processes. We should nevertheless
>> highly value human dignity and keep a strict line
>> of separation between analogies to engineering,
>> or thoughts of engineering, and any living brain.
>> *** Prof. Dr. Claudius Gros ***
>> *** http://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~gros ***
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, James Schwaber wrote:
>>> A lot of the discussion about the 'right way to model' or what to model
>>> may be a version of what my friend Mike Gruber has termed a version of the
>>> science-technology fallacy, the idea that you have to understand a process
>>> analytically before you can use it, and he always quotes Carnot
>>> here--thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than ever the steam
>>> engine owes to thermodynamics. Obviously, humans used and controlled fire
>>> for 100,000 years before Lavoisier explained what fire was, and planes flew
>>> for decades before there was a theory to explain how they did it. In fact
>>> theory 'demonstrated' that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. The
>>> reason we buy the fallacy is because of the outlier of nuclear physics--yes,
>>> in that unusual case, nuclear technology and bombs were utterly dependent on
>>> the groundwork of theory, and lasers arose from quantum research. But this
>>> is not the common case in the history of technology.
>>> For neuroscience the question is can we predict, control, and modify
>>> brain function even though we never be able to 'understand' it analytically?
>>> As of now the answer seems to be no. Will this ever improve? Drilling
>>> down won't cut it. What would?
>>> Comp-neuro mailing list
>>> Comp-neuro at neuroinf.org
> Comp-neuro mailing list
> Comp-neuro at neuroinf.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Comp-neuro