Reply to John Holgate

Here is my reply to John Holgate's comments of summer solstice day (his
winter solstice):

>>Yes I'll try out your food experiment on my retriever this weekend. My
guess is you're right - she's a tad smarter than Maturana's frog or your
average amoeba.>>

""I look forward to the results! And I apologize for assuming Imo being a
male dog: with Spanish and Italian as two of my languages, any pattern
(name) that ends with an O is assumed to be male. This is a clear example
that 'pattern or structural order alone do not represent information'-an
"accord" between sender and recipient must exist, which can only emerge
through evolution (molecular information or pre-wired neural networks) or
learning (cortical networks)!""

>>… let's not wander down the semantic track for the moment. I am happy to
suspend the word 'purpose' and bracket 'consciousness' for the life of this
conference.>>

""I tend to agree with your proposal. But still, "purpose" as a concept
cannot be banned, I think. Concerning 'purpose' I am troubled with the fact
that, just like "pornography", I know it when I see it, but I am unable to
define it!""

>>But how far back down the evolutionary process do we have to go before we
stop speaking of decisions and talk about automatic mapping?>>

""The way I see it, mapping in biomolecular interactions and in pre-wired
neural interactions is "automatic", but it is chartered for a given purpose
(damn that word, but I don't know how to say it differently!). In contrast,
in my other day's example of the rock lying on the ground, this rock leaves
a mark which is a map of its surface features, but that map is serving NO
purpose! (Again, damn that word!) On the other hand, isn't associative
recall also "automatic"? It certainly is a triggered process. So it seems
that behavioral response based on associative recall should also be
"automatic". Only we, humans, can overrule the dictates of instinctive
instructions controlled by pre-wired subcortical structures (see section 6
of my FIS paper), and so we think that we have "free will", that we can
select among alternatives at will. But I am skeptical of that: experiments
show that by the time we THINK we have made a choice (ca. 80-100 ms after
the alternative appeared), our brain has done it for us (ca. 50-80 ms after
the appearance).""

Regards to all,

Juan
Received on Mon Jun 24 02:44:09 2002