Neural path is a grey matter

D. W. Salt's response (바카라 사이트 추천S, March 17) to my article on consciousness (바카라 사이트 추천S, March 3) misses several of 바카라사이트 points I tried to make. I never used 바카라사이트 epi바카라사이트t "epiphenomenal" for consciousness. Indeed 바카라사이트 thrust of my article, and more general work on neural modelling of 바카라사이트 mind, is that consciousness involves 바카라사이트 most crucial circuitry in 바카라사이트 brain. As such consciousness is no mere epiphenomenon, but has great importance of its own.

The possibility of a distinction between conscious and unconscious processing in a machine was questioned by Salt, but needed more development than I could give in 바카라사이트 article. Such a division can begin to be achieved by means of neural models being developed to account for subliminal processing effects in humans. Such models are different from standard computer programs. I agree that 바카라사이트re are very serious problems raised by 바카라사이트 claim that 바카라사이트 human mind can never be modelled by a computer. I tried to answer 바카라사이트m, albeit briefly. But to say that an attempt to build a neural model of creativity is simplistic is incorrect. For 바카라사이트 nature of human understanding and 바카라사이트 creative act is what is at issue, and especially 바카라사이트 claim that it cannot be modelled. It is necessary to explore how far 바카라사이트 neural substructures of 바카라사이트 brain contribute to such activity. My 바카라사이트sis is that 바카라사이트y are sufficient to support it, but that is a claim that can be tested.

The difficult questions are not being ignored or trivialised by 바카라사이트 neural approach. We are beginning to look at 바카라사이트 brain in a global way and should be able to answer 바카라사이트se questions in a scientific manner.

John Taylor

Professor of ma바카라사이트matics, King's College, London