Comments on: Book Review: “Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness” by Alva Noe http://coffeeghost.net/2009/11/11/book-review-out-of-our-heads-why-you-are-not-your-brain-and-other-lessons-from-the-biology-of-consciousness-by-alva-noe/ Weird musings. Useful software. Geeking out. Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:39:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Hunter http://coffeeghost.net/2009/11/11/book-review-out-of-our-heads-why-you-are-not-your-brain-and-other-lessons-from-the-biology-of-consciousness-by-alva-noe/comment-page-1/#comment-129556 Hunter Mon, 14 Jun 2010 01:44:34 +0000 http://coffeeghost.net/?p=188#comment-129556 Al, if you are interested in these sorts of ideas, and haven't yet read his work, Edelman has some really interesting notions as to what consciousness might 'really' be that you might find appealing. The gentle/imprecise intro is probably Mind Wide Open, though he's written a lot else too. Al, if you are interested in these sorts of ideas, and haven’t yet read his work, Edelman has some really interesting notions as to what consciousness might ‘really’ be that you might find appealing. The gentle/imprecise intro is probably Mind Wide Open, though he’s written a lot else too.

]]> By: Romantic http://coffeeghost.net/2009/11/11/book-review-out-of-our-heads-why-you-are-not-your-brain-and-other-lessons-from-the-biology-of-consciousness-by-alva-noe/comment-page-1/#comment-116244 Romantic Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:39:22 +0000 http://coffeeghost.net/?p=188#comment-116244 The fact that most computer chess programs can beat most people most of the time. It's true even the super computer 'Deep Blue' can beat grandmaster Kasparov. I think the computer is like a brain, that calculate the possible move when playing chess. But they cannot have consciousness to be more clever. The fact that most computer chess programs can beat most people most of the time. It’s true even the super computer ‘Deep Blue’ can beat grandmaster Kasparov. I think the computer is like a brain, that calculate the possible move when playing chess. But they cannot have consciousness to be more clever.

]]> By: Alva http://coffeeghost.net/2009/11/11/book-review-out-of-our-heads-why-you-are-not-your-brain-and-other-lessons-from-the-biology-of-consciousness-by-alva-noe/comment-page-1/#comment-99546 Alva Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:10:35 +0000 http://coffeeghost.net/?p=188#comment-99546 dear al, just a short note. i was disappointed by your review of _out of our heads_ and i thought i'd make two comments. first, my basic point in the book is that we can't understand consciousness, or any other aspect of human experience, in terms of neural processes alone. neural processes take place in the larger context of an animal's life and action, in the situation of an environment. to try to explain consciousness in terms of the brain alone, would be like trying to explain driving by appeal to the driver alone (to use your comparison), ignoring the fact that driving requires drivers, cars and environments (the best drivers need a car; the best cars don't function under water, and so on). i give examples of the ways sensory function can best be understand by looking at neural systems in the context of the animal's active engagement with the environment. Nothing romantic here. I'm offering a testable empirical hypothesis. second, the question of computers and chess is s tricky one. your comment in the review was uncharitable and unfair. you say i ignore the fact that computers beat even the best players. but that's beside the point. cars can go faster than even the fastest runners, but that does not make them better runners. and the fact that a person can play against a computer doesn't entail that the computer is playing against him. in any case, as i make clear, i don't object whatsoever to the possibility that we can artificially construct intelligence. my point is that we won't succeed in doing that by making calculating machines. for intelligence is not a matter of calculation. i don't know how careful you were in reading the book. i wish there were more evidence of care in your review. sincerely yours, alva dear al,

just a short note. i was disappointed by your review of _out of our heads_ and i thought i’d make two comments.

first, my basic point in the book is that we can’t understand consciousness, or any other aspect of human experience, in terms of neural processes alone. neural processes take place in the larger context of an animal’s life and action, in the situation of an environment. to try to explain consciousness in terms of the brain alone, would be like trying to explain driving by appeal to the driver alone (to use your comparison), ignoring the fact that driving requires drivers, cars and environments (the best drivers need a car; the best cars don’t function under water, and so on). i give examples of the ways sensory function can best be understand by looking at neural systems in the context of the animal’s active engagement with the environment. Nothing romantic here. I’m offering a testable empirical hypothesis.

second, the question of computers and chess is s tricky one. your comment in the review was uncharitable and unfair. you say i ignore the fact that computers beat even the best players. but that’s beside the point. cars can go faster than even the fastest runners, but that does not make them better runners. and the fact that a person can play against a computer doesn’t entail that the computer is playing against him. in any case, as i make clear, i don’t object whatsoever to the possibility that we can artificially construct intelligence. my point is that we won’t succeed in doing that by making calculating machines. for intelligence is not a matter of calculation.

i don’t know how careful you were in reading the book. i wish there were more evidence of care in your review.

sincerely yours,
alva

]]>