Steven Brust <skzb at dreamcafe.com> writes: > At 02:16 PM 8/17/2002 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > >Steven Brust <skzb at dreamcafe.com> writes: > > > > > It may be that my definition of "language" is too broad to be useful. > > > But it seems to me that it is valid to make the point that thought > > > occurs by manipulating symbols in our brains. I believe that the > > > learning of a skill involves (in part) learning the language > > > associated with that skill. That was my point. > > > >Now, at *some* level thought occurs by diffusing neurotransmitters > >through the soup. If what's in our head *actually* works anything > >like a "neural network" (the modern technological concept) works, I'd > >say that "symbol" isn't a very relevent concept to it. > > Deffusing neurotransmitters through the soup, as you put it, happens > during a lot of activity that cannot be considered "thought" by any > reasonable definition. What distinguishes what we call thought from > the other brain activity? I contend that it is, in fact, symbol > manipulation. At the moment I can't get any closer to this than "I don't know". I have a fair amount of idea of what it feels like from the inside, and some anecdotal reports from other people on that topic. And I know a bit about what's been learned about the low-level mechanics of the brain. But I have *absolutely no clue* how those hook up in the middle. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/ New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info