Reply to comment

RE: coglanglab, You wrote, "Does human behavior arise from the operations of the physical brain, or from the operations of a non-physical "soul" not bound by the laws of nature"? In my personal view, there are 'universal' forces, or principles that interact with the human brain that make consciousness possible. This is not a scientifically grounded view, as are not many of my statements. Much of my thinking is based largely upon direct observation, introspection, and insight. No doubt, I have 'dabbled' far and wide. Cognitive science is partially grounded upon; direct interviews, surveys, written test, and the like. These results are evaluated statistically, and compared with existing research in; cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and related fields of study. Doubtless, direct observation, introspection, and insight must play a necessary role in the recalling, organizing, and otherwise relating of solicited information from test participants. In other words, direct observation, introspection, and insight play a legitimate role in cognitive science, and perhaps lend a measure of veracity and fidelity to my remarks.

The possibility of universal forces or principles, as well as, "a non-physical soul", facilitating the modeling of the human brain, for the purpose of writing a valid computer program replicating any brain function, is not made clear. A separate agency, influencing and operating from outside the working brain, or, a "non-physical soul", directly linked to every thought, action, and deed, greatly complicates the defining and codifying of the relative and requisite elements necessary to create a working computer program capable of, among other operations, the formations of metaphors.

You stated, "If you agree that human behavior arises from the brain, which is governed by the laws of nature, it *must* be possible to model the brain -- and its behavior -- with a computer". The 'conclusion', "it *must* be possible to model the brain -- and its behavior -- with a computer", does not logically follow from the premise, "If you agree that human behavior arises from the brain, which is governed by the laws of nature". Until that potential connection is well established and reasoned out, I cannot agree with your conclusion.

You stated, "As far as the latter part of your comment, I believe it is a standard assumption in cognitive science that human behavior can be modeled by computers. The question is how, and what kind of computer". The assumption, opinion, or belief, that "human behavior can be modeled by computers", is not; as is absolutely necessary, the result of a sufficient understanding of brain structure and function, such that, any science can replicate, or even theorize, to a satisfactory degree, in pragmatic or operational terms, a computer model or program capable of such. I would suggest that you have effectively admitted to the fact that questions and issues relating to cognitive science, and by extension brain science are provisional, and approximations. Thus, the present difficulty, if not the impossibility of characterizing brain structure and function, in terms of computational language, capable of leading to a computer program that can replicate complex cognitive functions, such as complex metaphors, is predicated upon hope, and wishful thinking. And the belief that science can and will eventually answer all of the questions and issues about brain structure and function, and interpret such in compatible computational language and programs. Our present understanding of the above issues are, at best, speculative and theoretical.