A Critical Question
Lester Zick
A Critical Question
What is the ultimate relation between brain input and brain output?
Let me describe what I'm asking in more specific mechanical terms.
Suppose in higher level animals we are primarily interested in the
significance of the brain as the determinant of behavior and we have a
certain external material circumstance A and a certain internal
material circumstance B and a certain resultant circumstance C. And we
ask what the nature of the relationship is of C to A and B?
Now in the most essential terms I consider that there are only two
possibilities in conceptual terms. (At least if there are others I
would like to know about it.) Either C is the result of some material
combination of A and B. Or C is the result of some difference between
A and B.
Let me be clear that it doesn't matter for the present example what
else C might be as the result of A and B. We might specify all kinds
of processing in between to manipulate the combination to produce C.
The only thing we need to understand at this point is whether whatever
subsequent processing might be involved we are looking at C as the
material consequent of A and B in combination or the difference.
It is my contention that we only have these two possibilities: that C
is the result of the material combination of A and B or that it is the
result of some differential combination of A and B.
However if C is the result of the material combination of A and B what
we are looking at to describe brain function as the basic determinant
of behavior is material in nature and represents some kind of copy of
A and B in combination. And it is also my conviction that this idea
lies at the root of copy theory and every form of material determinism
or materialism as conceptual doctrines and as the basis of scientific
descriptions of brain function.
On the other hand if C is not the result of the material combination
of A and B it must apparently be the result of the difference between
A and B and does not in this regard represent any aspect of A or B in
material combination and only represents the difference between them.
But what does this imply? The conventional wisdom is that operation of
the brain cannot be studied or analyzed scientifically unless its
operation can be described in terms of material interactions analogous
to those studied by natural science. I suggest otherwise.
The interactions describing the operation of the brain are clearly
differential in nature. They are strictly mechanical in form despite
being the result of differences and can be studied systematically and
scientifically in such terms as the determinate result of those
differences.
Now let me describe what I mean by the terms material combination and
material differences in more exact terms. Given the material
circumstances A and B we imagine they are of the general form
A: . . . . . XXXXXXXA
B: . . . . . XXXXXXXB
where . . . . XXXXXXX represents that material aspect or identity
common to both A and B and that the A and B correspond to the material
aspect that differs between them.
Now we also suppose that A and B represent continuum material
properties of more or less indefinite size and scope like all other
material properties subject to study by the natural sciences.
So the question then becomes whether C respresents some material
amalgm of A and B or the difference between them. What stands out in
this regard is that any combination of A and B except a difference
preserves the identity of each together with whatever form the
combination takes. In other words we are never able to distinguish
either from the other in terms of identity and C can never be
distinguished in any other terms except the whole combination
including the material identity involved. Nor would C be
distinguishable in terms of any other identity not included in A or B.
Thus we could never extrapolate C from one circumstance to any other.
However if C instead represents the difference between A and B we lose
the identity common between them with the result that we are looking
at a portable difference (A - C) that is not caught up with their
common identity and is thus is conceivably applicable to other
identity contexts. The difference is logical in this sense because it
shares no common material identity with its material antecedents.
This is what is meant by differences on the one hand and material
combinations on the other. A material combination produces results
having a material identity in common with its antecedents. A
difference does not.
Of course without that common material identity we have no definite
material frame of reference for the difference and no way to know to
what antecedents the difference applies. We only have the difference
to work with. And it is only the difference we know and the reason it
constitutes information in addition to being a material circumstance
in its own right. It is logical in this respect rather than a material
combination of its antecedents. And it must be analyzed in logical
rather than material terms for this reason.
Regards - Lester
OmegaZero2003
and conceptual terms, logical terms and material terms, below.
All referring, ostensibly, to some statement that would explain brain I/O.
Yet, each of those phrases *mean* something different.
So what is it that you really want?
"Lester Zick" <lester...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3fbf93e9...@netnews.att.net...
Neil W Rickert
>What is the ultimate relation between brain input and brain output?
It inputs oxygenated blood, and outputs oxygen-deprived blood.
(Yes, I realize that wasn't what you were looking for).
>Let me describe what I'm asking in more specific mechanical terms.
>Suppose in higher level animals we are primarily interested in the
>significance of the brain as the determinant of behavior and we have a
>certain external material circumstance A and a certain internal
>material circumstance B and a certain resultant circumstance C. And we
>ask what the nature of the relationship is of C to A and B?
There is no suitable recording system whereby we could express that
"certain internal material circumstance B". Moreover, given the
known plasticity of the brain, that circumstance B will probably
never repeat.
Dave Ulmer
>
>
> What is the ultimate relation between brain input and brain output?
>
Basically you put in energy and data and you get out knowledge and
understanding. What many don't realize that the brain or mind is not just a
single processor it is a multiprocessor system with each processor running a
different intelligent system. The resultant behavior is whichever of these
many different intelligent systems take charge. If you are in the middle of
a speech before a large audience and your really have to pee, your peeing
system may take over and embarass you.
Dave...
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>lester...@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:
>
>>What is the ultimate relation between brain input and brain output?
>
>It inputs oxygenated blood, and outputs oxygen-deprived blood.
>
>(Yes, I realize that wasn't what you were looking for).
I understand and sympathize. I do the same with a concrete block and
all I get is an equal and opposite reaction. Something else going on
that badly needs to be explained in other than material terms.
>
>>Let me describe what I'm asking in more specific mechanical terms.
>
>>Suppose in higher level animals we are primarily interested in the
>>significance of the brain as the determinant of behavior and we have a
>>certain external material circumstance A and a certain internal
>>material circumstance B and a certain resultant circumstance C. And we
>>ask what the nature of the relationship is of C to A and B?
>
>There is no suitable recording system whereby we could express that
>"certain internal material circumstance B". Moreover, given the
>known plasticity of the brain, that circumstance B will probably
>never repeat.
I agree. But I think the material/differential circumstances of what
goes on in the brain can be analyzed.
>
Regards - Lester
Lester Zick
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>"Lester Zick" <lester...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3fbf93e9...@netnews.att.net...
>>
>> A Critical Question
>>
>>
>> What is the ultimate relation between brain input and brain output?
>>
>snip...
>
>Basically you put in energy and data and you get out knowledge and
>understanding.
I don't necessarily disagree. But if you do the same for a concrete
block you don't get the same output. At least I have never seen one.
Why?
> What many don't realize that the brain or mind is not just a
>single processor it is a multiprocessor system with each processor running a
>different intelligent system. The resultant behavior is whichever of these
>many different intelligent systems take charge. If you are in the middle of
>a speech before a large audience and your really have to pee, your peeing
>system may take over and embarass you.
>
This may or may not be true but we're still left trying to comprehend
the difference between a concrete block or a computer and the brain.
We may say the brain is a computer but that still doesn't explain the
difference or the nature of the difference.
Regards - Lester
Lester Zick
<OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>You used the phrases: essential terms, ultimate terms , mechanical terms,
>and conceptual terms, logical terms and material terms, below.
>
>All referring, ostensibly, to some statement that would explain brain I/O.
>
>Yet, each of those phrases *mean* something different.
>
>So what is it that you really want?
I don't consider the various descriptions noted above to be critical
to the issue. I haven't defined many of the many words I used either
and would expect them to be understood in common sense terms. My
purpose was principally to highlight the explanation for differences
as opposed to material combinations in terms of the presence or
absence of an identity or those aspects of A and B common to both.
Regards - Lester
Dave Ulmer
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:32:25 -0800, "Dave Ulmer" <evad...@yahoo.com>
> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lester Zick" <lester...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:3fbf93e9...@netnews.att.net...
> >>
> >> A Critical Question
> >>
> >>
> >> What is the ultimate relation between brain input and brain output?
> >>
> >snip...
> >
> >Basically you put in energy and data and you get out knowledge and
> >understanding.
>
> I don't necessarily disagree. But if you do the same for a concrete
> block you don't get the same output. At least I have never seen one.
> Why?
Because the concrete block is not an intelligent system. It does not know
how to use energy to process data into knowledge. An intelligent system is a
system of knowledge and understanding and the concrete block has neither.
>
> > What many don't realize that the brain or mind is
not just a
> >single processor it is a multiprocessor system with each processor
running a
> >different intelligent system. The resultant behavior is whichever of
these
> >many different intelligent systems take charge. If you are in the middle
of
> >a speech before a large audience and your really have to pee, your peeing
> >system may take over and embarass you.
> >
> This may or may not be true but we're still left trying to comprehend
> the difference between a concrete block or a computer and the brain.
Computers and brains have data input sensors, data processors, and knowledge
storage devices. Inanimate objects don't.
> We may say the brain is a computer but that still doesn't explain the
> difference or the nature of the difference.
The main difference between a brain and a computer is the structure of the
knowledge base. Brains store knowledge in specific contexts that form the
nature of an intelligent system. Soon humans will learn how to program the
intelligent system structures and then computers will act like brains.
Dave...
Lester Zick
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>"Lester Zick" <lester...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3fbfc8a8...@netnews.att.net...
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:32:25 -0800, "Dave Ulmer" <evad...@yahoo.com>
>> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Lester Zick" <lester...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3fbf93e9...@netnews.att.net...
>> >>
>> >> A Critical Question
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What is the ultimate relation between brain input and brain output?
>> >>
>> >snip...
>> >
>> >Basically you put in energy and data and you get out knowledge and
>> >understanding.
>>
>> I don't necessarily disagree. But if you do the same for a concrete
>> block you don't get the same output. At least I have never seen one.
>> Why?
>
>Because the concrete block is not an intelligent system. It does not know
>how to use energy to process data into knowledge. An intelligent system is a
>system of knowledge and understanding and the concrete block has neither.
Except that on a really fundamental basis, Dave, we don't know that.
And I'm trying to figure out how it is we can determine such things.
We certainly infer such things about concrete blocks. But when it
comes right down to it we have to decide how we know such things and
not simply assert that a concrete block is not an intelligent system
of knowledge and understanding. While obviously I agree with you we
still need to understand the why's and wherefore's of knowledge and
understanding such that we can state categorically that and how such
things as concrete blocks have neither.
Regards - Lester
Jim Balter
> A Critical Question
>
>
> What is the ultimate relation between brain input and brain output?
The ultimate relationship is just that -- they're related by being
inputs and outputs of a brain. Any more detailed elaboration
would be equivalent to a more detailed elaboration of the functioning
of the brain. If you've got one handy, let us know.
--
<J Q B>
Jim Balter
That concrete blocks display no understanding is a big clue.
Of course, they could just be playing it close to the chest,
hiding their true capabilities. But an examination of
concrete blocks doesn't indicate any mechanism or facility by which
they might display understanding. Brains, OTOH, not only
display these things, but appear to have complex discriminatory
abilities, high information capacity due to a large number
of neurons and interconnections, etc. Of course some people think
they're like radio receivers of messages from the overmind,
but that's a matter of ignorance. Familiarity with the actual
structure and function of the brain makes it entirely plausible,
in a quite straightforward fashion, that brains are
"systems of knowledge and understanding", even with our currently
minimal and incomplete knowledge of the brain.
But that might not be enough for you -- you seem to want the
answer to "how do we know" reduced from <insert large body
of knowledge and inference here> to a single sentence, or
perhaps just an incredibly meaningful grunt.
--
<J Q B>
Dave Ulmer
it is using or radiating energy. No energy no data processing... Now if the
concrete block is indeed using energy there could be a number of
explanations and one of them could be that it is understanding something.
Dave...
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
You know, I have no intention of denying what you suggest. Everything
we know about concrete blocks suggests they are not alive and do not
possess all the ostensible attributes we assign to the brain. What I
was trying to point out was simply that the blood and guts theory of
brain function doesn't really explain how it differs from what we
consider consider blocks.
Yes a single sentence is important. We have all kinds of functional
descriptions of the brain and its activity and connections to input
and output. But we don't have any as yet definitive basis to know in
what way the brain differs from a concrete block. We have all kinds of
ostensible descriptive functional properties but we don't have any
exact idea what it is that those properties do that a concrete block
could not.
That's why I wrote the post. The one thing that the brain must do that
the concrete block cannot is take differences. A concrete block only
reacts to blood and guts in terms of material differences between it
and the blood and guts. The brain has to take differences among those
material differences in order to act like a brain. And that's why the
brain is a differential or logical phenomenon instead of a material
phenomenon like a concrete block - at least to the extent that a
concrete block is a material phenomenon and the result of material
interactions alone.
By the way I notice that several other posters have couched their
arguments in similar terms. So I would like to use the above in reply
to all.
Regards - Lester
OmegaZero2003
"Dave Ulmer" <evad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpov92$1rfsk0$1...@ID-186663.news.uni-berlin.de...
It is not going to be a dissipative structure - *that* is the way
info-processing/understanding/cognizing entities relate to energy.
See Prigogene for more info.
>
> Dave...
>
>
>
OmegaZero2003
Sure it does; brain is a dissipative structure; blocks are not.
That is one obvious difference.
Another is that brain's create information. Blocks do not.
Lester Zick
<OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>"Lester Zick" <lester...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3fc003fb...@netnews.att.net...
[. . .]
>> >
>> You know, I have no intention of denying what you suggest. Everything
>> we know about concrete blocks suggests they are not alive and do not
>> possess all the ostensible attributes we assign to the brain. What I
>> was trying to point out was simply that the blood and guts theory of
>> brain function doesn't really explain how it differs from what we
>> consider consider blocks.
>
>Sure it does; brain is a dissipative structure; blocks are not.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by dissipative. Heat dissipative?
If so any material structure fulfills that definition.
>
>That is one obvious difference.
>
>Another is that brain's create information. Blocks do not.
And you know this how? So far I haven't seen any exact definition for
information except the one I offered in terms of differences. All I've
seen are collations of ostensible properties in descriptive terms and
suggestions as to how they would be processed by the brain if the
brain is interpreted as a turing/boolean process.
>
>>
Regards - Lester
Jim Balter
That's a ridiculous demand.
> We have all kinds of functional
> descriptions of the brain and its activity and connections to input
> and output. But we don't have any as yet definitive basis to know in
> what way the brain differs from a concrete block. We have all kinds of
> ostensible descriptive functional properties but we don't have any
> exact idea what it is that those properties do that a concrete block
> could not.
Exactness is also a ridiculous demand.
> That's why I wrote the post. The one thing that the brain must do that
> the concrete block cannot is take differences. A concrete block only
> reacts to blood and guts in terms of material differences between it
> and the blood and guts. The brain has to take differences among those
> material differences in order to act like a brain. And that's why the
> brain is a differential or logical phenomenon instead of a material
> phenomenon like a concrete block - at least to the extent that a
> concrete block is a material phenomenon and the result of material
> interactions alone.
"take differences"? An abacus can do that. That's just one of
the many obvious differences between a brain and a concrete block.
You're just another "silver bullet bozo", who has a single idea
you want to promote, at all (intellectual) cost.
> By the way I notice that several other posters have couched their
> arguments in similar terms. So I would like to use the above in reply
> to all.
>
>
> Regards - Lester
>
--
<J Q B>
OmegaZero2003
"Jim Balter" <sp...@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:d2awb.5481$ML6.4686@fed1read01...
For you, it is an impossible one!
Lester Zick
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
Of course. That's why I suggested it. I hold that ridicule is the
foremost property of the mind.
>
>> We have all kinds of functional
>> descriptions of the brain and its activity and connections to input
>> and output. But we don't have any as yet definitive basis to know in
>> what way the brain differs from a concrete block. We have all kinds of
>> ostensible descriptive functional properties but we don't have any
>> exact idea what it is that those properties do that a concrete block
>> could not.
>
>Exactness is also a ridiculous demand.
Of course. That's why I suggested it. Exactness is a well known foible
of scientific thought.
>
>> That's why I wrote the post. The one thing that the brain must do that
>> the concrete block cannot is take differences. A concrete block only
>> reacts to blood and guts in terms of material differences between it
>> and the blood and guts. The brain has to take differences among those
>> material differences in order to act like a brain. And that's why the
>> brain is a differential or logical phenomenon instead of a material
>> phenomenon like a concrete block - at least to the extent that a
>> concrete block is a material phenomenon and the result of material
>> interactions alone.
>
>"take differences"? An abacus can do that. That's just one of
>the many obvious differences between a brain and a concrete block.
>You're just another "silver bullet bozo", who has a single idea
>you want to promote, at all (intellectual) cost.
Well I certainly appreciate your consideration. Did you have any
concrete ideas to offer?
>
Regards - Lester
OmegaZero2003
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:31:05 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
> <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lester Zick" <lester...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:3fc003fb...@netnews.att.net...
>
> [. . .]
> >> >
> >> You know, I have no intention of denying what you suggest. Everything
> >> we know about concrete blocks suggests they are not alive and do not
> >> possess all the ostensible attributes we assign to the brain. What I
> >> was trying to point out was simply that the blood and guts theory of
> >> brain function doesn't really explain how it differs from what we
> >> consider consider blocks.
> >
> >Sure it does; brain is a dissipative structure; blocks are not.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean exactly by dissipative. Heat dissipative?
No! A dissipative struture is one that takes in energy from the local
environment to maintain complexity (negentropic).
See Illya Prigogene FMI.
> If so any material structure fulfills that definition.
> >
> >That is one obvious difference.
> >
> >Another is that brain's create information. Blocks do not.
>
> And you know this how? So far I haven't seen any exact definition for
> information except the one I offered in terms of differences.
An active agent is required to create information from a signal (only
differences make a difference and therby create information - Bateson; note
that that Batesonian truism implies (if you read his work), that the : "make
a difference" clause refers to an un-named subject - that is - some
cognizing entity - be it an insect, a plant or a human. Cognizing here is
meant to be taken in a *very broad* sense!
To make the transform from data to information, and thence to knowledge (in
higher-cognizing forms) and thence to wisdom (in still higher-cognizing
forms), energy is needed. Energy from the local environment - thus the
reference to negentropy.
Lester Zick
<OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>"Lester Zick" <lester...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3fc11493...@netnews.att.net...
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:31:05 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
>> <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Lester Zick" <lester...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3fc003fb...@netnews.att.net...
>>
>> [. . .]
>> >> >
>> >> You know, I have no intention of denying what you suggest. Everything
>> >> we know about concrete blocks suggests they are not alive and do not
>> >> possess all the ostensible attributes we assign to the brain. What I
>> >> was trying to point out was simply that the blood and guts theory of
>> >> brain function doesn't really explain how it differs from what we
>> >> consider consider blocks.
>> >
>> >Sure it does; brain is a dissipative structure; blocks are not.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean exactly by dissipative. Heat dissipative?
>
>No! A dissipative struture is one that takes in energy from the local
>environment to maintain complexity (negentropic).
Would any endothermic process do that?
>
>See Illya Prigogene FMI.
>
>> If so any material structure fulfills that definition.
>> >
>> >That is one obvious difference.
>> >
>> >Another is that brain's create information. Blocks do not.
>>
>> And you know this how? So far I haven't seen any exact definition for
>> information except the one I offered in terms of differences.
>
>An active agent is required to create information from a signal (only
>differences make a difference and therby create information - Bateson; note
>that that Batesonian truism implies (if you read his work), that the : "make
>a difference" clause refers to an un-named subject - that is - some
>cognizing entity - be it an insect, a plant or a human. Cognizing here is
>meant to be taken in a *very broad* sense!
>
>To make the transform from data to information, and thence to knowledge (in
>higher-cognizing forms) and thence to wisdom (in still higher-cognizing
>forms), energy is needed. Energy from the local environment - thus the
>reference to negentropy.
>
Is a computer a negentropic process?
Regards - Lester
OmegaZero2003
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:45:37 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
> <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lester Zick" <lester...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:3fc11493...@netnews.att.net...
> >> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:31:05 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
> >> <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Lester Zick" <lester...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:3fc003fb...@netnews.att.net...
> >>
> >> [. . .]
> >> >> >
> >> >> You know, I have no intention of denying what you suggest.
Everything
> >> >> we know about concrete blocks suggests they are not alive and do not
> >> >> possess all the ostensible attributes we assign to the brain. What I
> >> >> was trying to point out was simply that the blood and guts theory of
> >> >> brain function doesn't really explain how it differs from what we
> >> >> consider consider blocks.
> >> >
> >> >Sure it does; brain is a dissipative structure; blocks are not.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what you mean exactly by dissipative. Heat dissipative?
> >
> >No! A dissipative struture is one that takes in energy from the local
> >environment to maintain complexity (negentropic).
>
> Would any endothermic process do that?
Not sure; the contxt is one of complexity and information content;
thermodynamics is as much about information as about heat.
> >
> >See Illya Prigogene FMI.
> >
> >> If so any material structure fulfills that definition.
> >> >
> >> >That is one obvious difference.
> >> >
> >> >Another is that brain's create information. Blocks do not.
> >>
> >> And you know this how? So far I haven't seen any exact definition for
> >> information except the one I offered in terms of differences.
> >
> >An active agent is required to create information from a signal (only
> >differences make a difference and therby create information - Bateson;
note
> >that that Batesonian truism implies (if you read his work), that the :
"make
> >a difference" clause refers to an un-named subject - that is - some
> >cognizing entity - be it an insect, a plant or a human. Cognizing here
is
> >meant to be taken in a *very broad* sense!
> >
> >To make the transform from data to information, and thence to knowledge
(in
> >higher-cognizing forms) and thence to wisdom (in still higher-cognizing
> >forms), energy is needed. Energy from the local environment - thus the
> >reference to negentropy.
> >
> Is a computer a negentropic process?
Yes.
>
>
> Regards - Lester
>
Lester Zick
<OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
I don't follow. What of thermo is about information?
OmegaZero2003
2nd Law!
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/~chem130a/sauer/outline/secondlaw.html
Beth Tembo
"OmegaZero2003" <OmegaZ...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a315b82ef196bc36...@news.teranews.com...
"ports," eyes, fingers, etc, that the brain analyzes and decides what to do,
pick up an object, put an object down, etc. For instance, when a person
touches a hot coal, the reaction is withdrawing one's hand. The input,
electrical impulses(pain), tell the brain to withdraw because those impulses
signify pain. Thus, a brain is a biologic computer that analyzes
input(electrical impulses), and reacts(using body language or action.)
Eray Ozkural exa
> I believe that when electrical impulses are sent to our brain from our input
> "ports," eyes, fingers, etc, that the brain analyzes and decides what to do,
> pick up an object, put an object down, etc. For instance, when a person
> touches a hot coal, the reaction is withdrawing one's hand. The input,
> electrical impulses(pain), tell the brain to withdraw because those impulses
> signify pain. Thus, a brain is a biologic computer that analyzes
> input(electrical impulses), and reacts(using body language or action.)
I agree. There cannot be a simpler explanation!
Regards,
--
Eray
Donald
Hello. I have to disagree. Certainly, electrical impulses arrive at
the brain but they do not 'tell the brain', or require the brain, to
react in any particular way. To take your 'hot coal' example, one may
force oneself (inadvisably!) to hold onto the coal. The brain has a
pool of information at its disposal (pain, the knowledge that use of
the hand will be impaired, the knowledge of the risk of infection) in
making its decision, but that information never DETERMINES the
outcome, in the way that a computer's program must determine its
output. We can always do the unpredictable, stupid thing! This is the
root of our fear of our own free will - when I drive in traffic, I can
never eradicate the possibility that I might choose to swerve my
vehicle into a head on collision (Sartre - monstrously free).
I really can't accept an input/output, deterministic analysis!
Regards,
Donald
John Nash
Hello, John here....
Here is your mechanical brain picture.
Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Divide it up with a cross.
Label the four poles "governor" (N), "competition" (E), "utility" (S)
and "alruism" (W).
Label the four fields "hunting" (NE), "mixing" (SE), "realisation"
(SW) and "information" (NW).
Now draw a line from mid-NE to the centre, cutting the NW in half.
This line is called "The Line of Separation". Label the upper half of
the NW (NNW) "reason". Label the lower half of the NW (WNW)
"knowledge".
Now draw a line from mid-SE to the centre, cutting the SE in half.
It's called "The Line of Mixing". This line and the Line of
Separation should form one straight line, cutting he circle in halves
diagonally. It's easier to draw than describe.
This is a mechanical picture of the brain. There is a little doorway,
"The entrance to the cave" at the E, competition. I'll come to it in a
minute.
The brain works like a radar scanner. Each sweep starts At the Line
of Separation, goes clockwise round the circle and ends at the Line of
Separation again.
There are two kinds of sweeps. "Thought" sweeps that just go round
the circle. "Action" sweeps that go round the circle to the E
entrance, then the thought goes outside to perform some action or
other. The results of the action come back in through the E entrance
and the sweep continues.
Lets start with you needing the information on this page, an action
sweep. Your "reason" (NNW) tells you that you need this information.
It passes the shopping list to the governor (N) who decides if it is
real enough to do something and passes it to hunting (NE), your
intelligence. Intelligence sends the hunt out of the door to look at
this page. The information comes back in through the door and "mixes"
(SE) with your brain so that you can utilise it (S). Utility (S)
allows you to realise a result (SW), successful or unsuccessful. This
information is transferred via altruism (concern) in the W to
knowledge (WNW). If you are satisfied, the process stops there are
you think about something else. However, if knowledge wasn't
satisfied, it sends another request to reason (NNW) that starts
another cycle.
When you want to fetch something, for example, the radar sweep
navigates you to it by continually noting and correcting your course
against a map of the route held in knowledge.
A thought does the same circuit but stays inside your head. "Reason"
(NNW) is also "will" and "dreams". Its too complicated to describe
here. As thoughts go round and round, you can work things out in your
head, comparing them to your stored knowledge and adjusting the store
every time they complete a cycle.
Your mind/brain has millions of these sweeps every day, continuously
while you are awake. In this way, an accumulation of knowledge is
stored in the WNW. It starts at birth with some instinct "pre-loaded",
then accumulates a record of all your thoughts and actions through
life. It is the filing cabinet, or "soul". This is what makes you an
individual. Knowledge, in turn, affects reason, making you act like
an individual. Knowledge is fixed by means of neural connections that
die off if not stimulated. That's why an exercised brain keeps its
memory and pathways so well.
Instinct is actually in an older, more primitive "animal" brain
"under" this modern intellectual brain that makes you a human.
The N (governance) and E (competition) are covered by the "male" half
of your mind/brain – it is a hunter and your objective thinking. The
S (utility) and W (altruism) are covered by the "female" half of your
brain. The male half of your brain is there to feed you, the female
half to nurture you. Yang and Yin.
Notionally, the NE (hunting, intelligence) is the electricity of your
brain. If it works well, you are "bright". The SE (mixing) is the
chemistry of your brain. The SW is the biology of your brain. The NW
is the information storage and processing of your brain.
The upper two are invisible. The lower two are physical, so you think
you have an invisible mind (information and energy) on top of a
visible brain (chemistry and biology).
I hope it helps
There is tons more at www.nashmatrix.com if you want it.
John Nash
Pisock
> S (utility) and W (altruism) are covered by the "female" half of your
> brain. The male half of your brain is there to feed you, the female
> half to nurture you. Yang and Yin.
>
> Notionally, the NE (hunting, intelligence) is the electricity of your
> brain. If it works well, you are "bright". The SE (mixing) is the
> chemistry of your brain. The SW is the biology of your brain. The NW
> is the information storage and processing of your brain.
> The upper two are invisible. The lower two are physical, so you think
> you have an invisible mind (information and energy) on top of a
> visible brain (chemistry and biology).
>
> I hope it helps
> There is tons more at www.nashmatrix.com if you want it.
>
> John Nash
Highlands Ranch is sick. I have to repaint my house every 5 years.
Natural is more beautiful than artificial business crazy freakshow.
Pisock
Diving into a bit of insanity one last time: Yo, Chompshy ist Jesus Christ.