Although digital representation of sounds, images and such like are easier to transmit and less suceptible to noise than the analogue versions of the data by their nature they cannot represent all the nuances of analogue data as it has to break down the image to a series of 1/0 elements so can only represent data of whatever type to a given resolution. Now if we go a step further and look at the brain as essentially a binary machine (composed of neurones which can either be in an on or off state) then doesn't this mean that we can never truly know the universe but only an internal digital model of it to the resolution our brain is capable off? If this is the case doesn't it further mean that all our beliefs about the universe are built on our internal models and are valid only for ourselves, unless they are an external concept concept that we assimilate into our internal models?

Originally posted by evildrneil
Although digital representation of sounds, images and such like are easier to transmit and less suceptible to noise than the analogue versions of the data by their nature they cannot represent all the nuances of analogue data as it has to break down the image to a series of 1/0 elements so can only represent data of whatever type to a given resolution. Now if we go a step further and look at the brain as essentially a binary machine (composed of neurones which can either be in an on or off state) then doesn't this mean that we can never truly know the universe but only an internal digital model of it to the resolution our brain is capable off? If this is the case doesn't it further mean that all our beliefs about the universe are built on our internal models and are valid only for ourselves, unless they are an external concept concept that we assimilate into our internal models?

<--goes for a lie down with a cold compress and a copy of 'Hello' magazine:?

YEp sounds about right to me however, a lot of the belifs that people hold are taught to them by family or teachers who mostly share a similar view therefore everyones universe is different but only slightly!

Originally posted by msbehavin
<--goes for a lie down with a cold compress and a copy of 'Hello' magazine:?

Glad it wasn't just me then :P I was halfway through reading it when my brain just shut down... and I purport to be a scientist :P :suspect: :confused:

its interesting but does it matter? no matter how differently you interpret the world to other people, you can still only affect it as much as anyone else.

Every one can affect the world however they choose, if you can only affect it the same as everyone else what about Blair and Bush, Hitler, Ghandi etc etc they have had a much bigger impact on the world than i ever will even if i live a thousand lifetimes i honestly don think i could compete.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Although digital representation of sounds, images and such like are easier to transmit and less suceptible to noise than the analogue versions of the data by their nature they cannot represent all the nuances of analogue data as it has to break down the image to a series of 1/0 elements so can only represent data of whatever type to a given resolution. Now if we go a step further and look at the brain as essentially a binary machine (composed of neurones which can either be in an on or off state) then doesn't this mean that we can never truly know the universe but only an internal digital model of it to the resolution our brain is capable off? If this is the case doesn't it further mean that all our beliefs about the universe are built on our internal models and are valid only for ourselves, unless they are an external concept concept that we assimilate into our internal models?

When you consider what 'universe' is ... does that not mean everything?

Including ... models of itself ... human thoughts and concepts ... time ... matter ... energy ...

Hence the reason one cannot see 'god' ... is exactly because ... 'god' is everywhere.

note: I use the term 'god' in an entirely non-religious way.

:P

Your view is similar that that of the late Enlightenment Philosopher, Kant. He argued, famously, that 'reality' is socially-constructed. In other words, human social actors ascribe 'meaning' to the world.

My view, however, is that even if 'reality' is socially-constructed, there may still be a socially-constructed 'reality' out there, so to speak. Must nip off now for one's sausage sandwich. I'll be back later to solve the rest of the world's philosophical dilemmas, and [if time allows] cure the world of all known diseases.

But don't our concepts of what is real and undestanding about the world have to be understood in terms of societel creations about what is 'truth'? There may be no absolute truth out there anyway in which case our internal models aren't ever going to be a true representation of reality anyway.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Although digital representation of sounds, images and such like are easier to transmit and less suceptible to noise than the analogue versions of the data by their nature they cannot represent all the nuances of analogue data as it has to break down the image to a series of 1/0 elements so can only represent data of whatever type to a given resolution. Now if we go a step further and look at the brain as essentially a binary machine (composed of neurones which can either be in an on or off state) then doesn't this mean that we can never truly know the universe but only an internal digital model of it to the resolution our brain is capable off? If this is the case doesn't it further mean that all our beliefs about the universe are built on our internal models and are valid only for ourselves, unless they are an external concept concept that we assimilate into our internal models?

This is an up-dated version of the Plato's cave analogy. If you have lived always in a cave and have never left it, and then see shadows on a wall, you are likely to mistake the shadows for the substance (of which you do not know). Those ancient Greeks knew a thing or two about philosophy!

Or as Einstein put it: the world is not only stranger than we think, its stanger than we can ever think

Or as Mr. W.S. put it: there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy

Originally posted by Jamie
When you consider what 'universe' is ... does that not mean everything?

Including ... models of itself ... human thoughts and concepts ... time ... matter ... energy ...

Hence the reason one cannot see 'god' ... is exactly because ... 'god' is everywhere.

note: I use the term 'god' in an entirely non-religious way.

:P

OK maybe Truth (capital T denoting a deep invariant truth) is a better term than universe. If all we know is truth (i.e. our model of the world etc.) then there can be no one religion, philosophy, science that applies to all people because all are a construct based on the internal models of the person who came up with it?

Neil, go take your tablets and have a lie down... and STOP THINKING!!!!!!

To add to so many learned quotes:

"Shut up Neil!" Ade Edmonson (Vivian)

"Yes, shut up Neil, you hippy!" Ryk Mayal (Rik)

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

the world as we perceive it is only what we know or think we know. there is more we don't know than what we do. our ability to understand the world, life and universe improves more through time and will continue to do so, but will ever understand everything there is to understand?

The thing is there is such a large part of our brains that we don't use, so if we manage to tap into that resources who knows what we will be capable of.

Ok off for a cig, its to much for a thursday morning :)

ah ha, epistemological and ontological arguments.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Although digital representation of sounds, images and such like are easier to transmit and less suceptible to noise than the analogue versions of the data by their nature they cannot represent all the nuances of analogue data as it has to break down the image to a series of 1/0 elements so can only represent data of whatever type to a given resolution. Now if we go a step further and look at the brain as essentially a binary machine (composed of neurones which can either be in an on or off state) then doesn't this mean that we can never truly know the universe but only an internal digital model of it to the resolution our brain is capable off? If this is the case doesn't it further mean that all our beliefs about the universe are built on our internal models and are valid only for ourselves, unless they are an external concept concept that we assimilate into our internal models?

Yum.

Well, you are right in that we cannot truly know the analogue universe if we look at the brain as an essentially binary machine.

That's a great analogy for looking into certain aspects of certain parts of the brain, but in terms of viewing the brain as a functioning whole it is devastatingly simplistic.

The brain is often referred to, either directly or by analogy, as some kind of computer. This is emphatically not the case and I think it's really misleading

A computer is a machine made to count. A Brain is a 'machine' 'made' to think.

Computers are produced artefacts, brains are not. Brains appear to be the seat of the epiphenomenon of mind, computers do not.

Although we can simulate certain brain systems on a computer, and use those models to predict real world behaviour there's no reverse corollary.

Every time you analogize brain as computer, you need to remember that your computer needs a user at which point we step off into insane cognitive theory.

Like the fact that everything we experience is mostly about half a second after the fact; decisions we 'make' are actually made on behalf of our conscious mind by another agent within. fully 500 milliseconds earlier.

The barriers to knowing the universe are more generally to do with lifespan and the infinite amount of information we can derive from even the smallest part of it.

Originally posted by evildrneil
OK maybe Truth (capital T denoting a deep invariant truth) is a better term than universe. If all we know is truth (i.e. our model of the world etc.) then there can be no one religion, philosophy, science that applies to all people because all are a construct based on the internal models of the person who came up with it?

Is Truth itself not a construct?

But yeah, religion, philosophy, science, are all human constructs and a result of human 'doings'.

An interesting question I like to pose myself is this:

Where is the dividing line, between my internal map of reality, and reality itself?

Is there a dividing line? Or is it ultimately one in the same?

Originally posted by evildrneil
Although digital representation of sounds, images and such like are easier to transmit and less suceptible to noise than the analogue versions of the data by their nature they cannot represent all the nuances of analogue data as it has to break down the image to a series of 1/0 elements so can only represent data of whatever type to a given resolution.

This reminds me of a personal favourite pseudo-philosophical question:

"What is the granularity of time and matter, and is it possible for us, being subject to it, to discover it?"

Originally posted by Dug
ah ha, epistemological and ontological arguments.

And the same to you! ;) :D

StarSparkle - my head hurts, it's too early in the day!

Originally posted by Jamie
Is Truth itself not a construct?

But yeah, religion, philosophy, science, are all human constructs and a result of human 'doings'.

An interesting question I like to pose myself is this:

Where is the dividing line, between my internal map of reality, and reality itself?

Is there a dividing line? Or is it ultimately one in the same?

Not in this case as I was defining terms - Truth (capital T) is the universe as it really is truth (small t) is the world was we understand it...

Originally posted by LordChaverly
This is an up-dated version of the Plato's cave analogy. If you have lived always in a cave and have never left it, and then see shadows on a wall, you are likely to mistake the shadows for the substance (of which you do not know). Those ancient Greeks knew a thing or two about philosophy!

Not really - the "shadows on cave wall" is actually almost oposite to what I'm trying to get at! Basically what is said by Plato is that if you have a limited understanding then you can only analyse the data coming in from the real world within those parameters. However this relies on us simply absorbing information about the True (capital T again!) world directly into our brain and then seek to understand this True data. However its now accepted that seeing, hearing etc. is actually an active process whereby we take in only a tiny part of the information available to the senses and then (presumably) use our world model to extend this in a sort of 'ontological persistance of vision', so we never have access to the True data only our model.

Ah, but we process what we see, but we can never see the process by which we see, which makes it impossible for us to know what we think we see is actually being seen

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Yum.

Well, you are right in that we cannot truly know the analogue universe if we look at the brain as an essentially binary machine.

That's a great analogy for looking into certain aspects of certain parts of the brain, but in terms of viewing the brain as a functioning whole it is devastatingly simplistic.

The brain is often referred to, either directly or by analogy, as some kind of computer. This is emphatically not the case and I think it's really misleading

A computer is a machine made to count. A Brain is a 'machine' 'made' to think.

Computers are produced artefacts, brains are not. Brains appear to be the seat of the epiphenomenon of mind, computers do not.

Although we can simulate certain brain systems on a computer, and use those models to predict real world behaviour there's no reverse corollary.

Every time you analogize brain as computer, you need to remember that your computer needs a user at which point we step off into insane cognitive theory.

Like the fact that everything we experience is mostly about half a second after the fact; decisions we 'make' are actually made on behalf of our conscious mind by another agent within. fully 500 milliseconds earlier.

The barriers to knowing the universe are more generally to do with lifespan and the infinite amount of information we can derive from even the smallest part of it.

I was going to say something along those lines, but much less eloquently.
The brain is not by nature a binary device, nor are most of our sensing organs.
Those organs though are obviously imperfect, so our understanding developed through that data will be imperfect.

By no reverse collorary for simulating a simple brain on a computer, are you saying that you can't use a brain to simulate a simple computer? If so i'd disagree, I can use my own brain to do that (and a pen and paper).

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Yum.

Well, you are right in that we cannot truly know the analogue universe if we look at the brain as an essentially binary machine.

That's a great analogy for looking into certain aspects of certain parts of the brain, but in terms of viewing the brain as a functioning whole it is devastatingly simplistic.

The brain is often referred to, either directly or by analogy, as some kind of computer. This is emphatically not the case and I think it's really misleading

A computer is a machine made to count. A Brain is a 'machine' 'made' to think.

Computers are produced artefacts, brains are not. Brains appear to be the seat of the epiphenomenon of mind, computers do not.

Although we can simulate certain brain systems on a computer, and use those models to predict real world behaviour there's no reverse corollary.

Every time you analogize brain as computer, you need to remember that your computer needs a user at which point we step off into insane cognitive theory.

Like the fact that everything we experience is mostly about half a second after the fact; decisions we 'make' are actually made on behalf of our conscious mind by another agent within. fully 500 milliseconds earlier.

The barriers to knowing the universe are more generally to do with lifespan and the infinite amount of information we can derive from even the smallest part of it.

But here I am looking at only a small part of the brain - i.e. that of data and knowledge representation. It has to be stored somewhere and so in an (arguably) digital set up of the brain it must be stored as some form of digital data?

The thing is, we have to accept that material 'reality' exists, otherwise we could not negotiate our way through the world. We have to trust oue sense organs. As for 'ontological' arguments, we can adopt an ontologically-flexible approach to 'reality'. We may not be able to arrive at a consensus re the existence and nature of absolute intrinsic truth, but that does not preclude understanding between human beings. We do not necessarily 'talk past' each other in a universe of relativism, as described by postmodernists.

I suspect that we cannot answer the question of whether 'reality' exists. To reiterate I think the wisest thing to do is to assume that, even though 'reality' may be socially-constructed, 'meaning' ascribed to the world by human social actors, there may still be a reality 'out there'. Try playing football on the M1, or rather, please don't.

we still don't actually understand how memory is stored, i don't think it's laid down as a series of biological 0's and 1's though. Given the ability of neurons to generate differing voltages, there's no reason thought can't be considered to be an analogue process.

It would appear that memory storage is something to do with either the creation or the modification of certain proteins around certain synapses. Although it's not agreed whether it's one or the other or both.


There's also the thought that certain Truths of the universe might be ameneable to accurate digital storage. For example, light can be thought of as photons. So any image is made up of a discrete number of photons of varying wavelengths, thus if you have the ability to resolve everyone of those photons you can accurately store that Truth as a digital representation.

Originally posted by timo
The thing is, we have to accept that material 'reality' exists, otherwise we could not negotiate our way through the world. We have to trust oue sense organs. As for 'ontological' arguments, we can adopt an ontologically-flexible approach to 'reality'. We may not be able to arrive at a consensus re the existence and nature of absolute intrinsic truth, but that does not preclude understanding between human beings. We do not necessarily 'talk past' each other in a universe of relativism, as described by postmodernists.

I suspect that we cannot answer the question of whether 'reality' exists. To reiterate I think the wisest thing to do is to assume that, even though 'reality' may be socially-constructed, 'meaning' ascribed to the world by human social actors, there may still be a reality 'out there'. Try playing football on the M1, or rather, please don't.

so we can't say for sure whether we are real or just a huge computer simulation running in someones lab. But to be on the safe side we'd best assume that we are real :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Cyclone
so we can't say for sure whether we are real or just a huge computer simulation running in someones lab. But to be on the safe side we'd best assume that we are real :thumbsup:

Or at least hope we're a computer simulation running Linux...

Originally posted by evildrneil
If this is the case doesn't it further mean that all our beliefs about the universe are built on our internal models and are valid only for ourselves, unless they are an external concept concept that we assimilate into our internal models?

I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Not really - the "shadows on cave wall" is actually almost oposite to what I'm trying to get at! Basically what is said by Plato is that if you have a limited understanding then you can only analyse the data coming in from the real world within those parameters. However this relies on us simply absorbing information about the True (capital T again!) world directly into our brain and then seek to understand this True data. However its now accepted that seeing, hearing etc. is actually an active process whereby we take in only a tiny part of the information available to the senses and then (presumably) use our world model to extend this in a sort of 'ontological persistance of vision', so we never have access to the True data only our model.

I think Plato's point was that enlightenment is a desirable goal for a philosopher, and this was a good story to flesh out a theory of forms. Truth being one of those things that exists in a perfect dimension, but whose shape and nature can only be roughly interpreted by man. The better philosopher king you were, the more you understood of the world of perfect forms and the better able you were to make sage and just pronouncements to the unphilosophical masses you ruled with your eugenic lottery.

I think you are making it much too complicated. Your original question, "If the brain is like a computer does that mean that we cannot perceive the universe in its analog glory" I think was answered - the brain is not like a computer so it is other 'problems' that stop us from comprehending the Truth or the Nature of the universe.

For a moment I think it is wise to ignore our linguistic impulses when we talk about cognition. Because this sort of discussion always gets mired in a catastrophic regression of meta-viewpoints if we try to understand understanding itself. Semiotics makes me nervous, like if you somehow unpick the syntactic rules of the universe, it will all turn to babel in some kind of high energy logo-pocalpyse.

If the Universe and everything in it, including ourselves, represents the complete set of Truth, then it's easy to see the first major barrier to comprehending it. By far and away the most information dense object (in terms of potential variablility of internal states) in the entire known universe is the human brain (that we know of). There are six billion brains at this time, on this planet alone. But even one brain, and its 'passenger', the mind, is actually outside the scope of that understanding by definition.

The best analogy I can think of is like trying to look through a microscope at the microscope -

We're limited to a pragmatic understanding of the Universe, based on consensual reality (hallucination) shared through common syntactic structures - neither of which are indepenently extant characteristics of the Universe (unlike say, gravity).

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think Plato's point was that enlightenment is a desirable goal for a philosopher, and this was a good story to flesh out a theory of forms. Truth being one of those things that exists in a perfect dimension, but whose shape and nature can only be roughly interpreted by man. The better philosopher king you were, the more you understood of the world of perfect forms and the better able you were to make sage and just pronouncements to the unphilosophical masses you ruled with your eugenic lottery.

I think you are making it much too complicated. Your original question, "If the brain is like a computer does that mean that we cannot perceive the universe in its analog glory" I think was answered - the brain is not like a computer so it is other 'problems' that stop us from comprehending the Truth or the Nature of the universe.

For a moment I think it is wise to ignore our linguistic impulses when we talk about cognition. Because this sort of discussion always gets mired in a catastrophic regression of meta-viewpoints if we try to understand understanding itself. Semiotics makes me nervous, like if you somehow unpick the syntactic rules of the universe, it will all turn to babel in some kind of high energy logo-pocalpyse.

If the Universe and everything in it, including ourselves, represents the complete set of Truth, then it's easy to see the first major barrier to comprehending it. By far and away the most information dense object (in terms of potential variablility of internal states) in the entire known universe is the human brain (that we know of). There are six billion brains at this time, on this planet alone. But even one brain, and its 'passenger', the mind, is actually outside the scope of that understanding by definition.

The best analogy I can think of is like trying to look through a microscope at the microscope -

We're limited to a pragmatic understanding of the Universe, based on consensual reality (hallucination) shared through common syntactic structures - neither of which are indepenently extant characteristics of the Universe (unlike say, gravity).

Excellent points Pantho, and well put

As Poggi put it: 'a way of seeing is also a way of not seeing'.

Incidentally, did anyone see the TV programme the other night abot the savant (not an idiot savant, because this guy was no idiot) who could reel off pi to thousands of places and do other amazing mathematical feats and who could learn Icelandic in a week? This guy was able to describe how he did it. He didn't calculate pi, or indeed the answers to other mathematical problems. The answers appeared to him in shapes and colours. This of course raises more questions than it answers, but it provides further evidence I think that the brain/mind is nothing like a computer. Its a false analogy, appealing though it may be

Phan - is your avatar carefully constructed to induce the truth of an epileptic fit in an unwitting observer?

Originally posted by timo
The thing is, we have to accept that material 'reality' exists, otherwise we could not negotiate our way through the world. We have to trust oue sense organs. As for 'ontological' arguments, we can adopt an ontologically-flexible approach to 'reality'. We may not be able to arrive at a consensus re the existence and nature of absolute intrinsic truth, but that does not preclude understanding between human beings. We do not necessarily 'talk past' each other in a universe of relativism, as described by postmodernists.

I suspect that we cannot answer the question of whether 'reality' exists. To reiterate I think the wisest thing to do is to assume that, even though 'reality' may be socially-constructed, 'meaning' ascribed to the world by human social actors, there may still be a reality 'out there'. Try playing football on the M1, or rather, please don't.

I'm not talking about whether reality exists or not but our own internal modelling if it - to use an analogy, a map will help you navigate a region of space but it is not that region of space, just a representation that we can relate to real space.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Incidentally, did anyone see the TV programme the other night abot the savant (not an idiot savant, because this guy was no idiot) who could reel off pi to thousands of places and do other amazing mathematical feats and who could learn Icelandic in a week? This guy was able to describe how he did it. He didn't calculate pi, or indeed the answers to other mathematical problems. The answers appeared to him in shapes and colours. This of course raises more questions than it answers, but it provides further evidence I think that the brain/mind is nothing like a computer. Its a false analogy, appealing though it may be

This doesn't imply that the brain isn't a binary system - it merely shows that it isn't a SIMPLE binary system though!

and our senses provide the only information we have about reality, so we have to work on the basis that it is accurate.

We can of course make devices that gather information inaccessible to our senses and then translate that into some form we can access, so by engineering we have expanded what we can perceive. But whatever level we reach, our understanding is still constrained by our interface to reality and how our minds interpret that....

i'm waffling, what was the original question?

Originally posted by steev
I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less.

Just out of interest, why?

Well, this is all assuming that the real world is actually 'real' Since cannot interpret or learn anything except via our brain, all analogue sounds would be digital to us anyway.

And who is to say the univerise is analogue if all we can interpret it is by a digital thinking maching?

All I'm trying to say is that possibly only absolute we have is that this thinking machine thinks (the ethical reality as titled by Soren Kierkegaard), anything else is an assumption.

EDIT: some people have made comments alluding to this but I had to sum up my interpretation of this, because I cannot know their minds only the possible realtity which is inherently an illusion, even if it is very similar.

Ooh, I love all this philosophy, though I adore existentialism

Wilf

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think Plato's point was that enlightenment is a desirable goal for a philosopher, and this was a good story to flesh out a theory of forms. Truth being one of those things that exists in a perfect dimension, but whose shape and nature can only be roughly interpreted by man. The better philosopher king you were, the more you understood of the world of perfect forms and the better able you were to make sage and just pronouncements to the unphilosophical masses you ruled with your eugenic lottery.

However, due to the limitations of our processings systems and gliches / imperfections / variations in our internal models of reality can we ever reach a true representation of reality? I would say no. It appears that a lot of the problems of the world arise because someone has the 'one true answer', however while this may be the one true answer for their own internal construct of the universe it doesn't neccesarily apply to the rest of us!

I think you are making it much too complicated. Your original question, "If the brain is like a computer does that mean that we cannot perceive the universe in its analog glory" I think was answered - the brain is not like a computer so it is other 'problems' that stop us from comprehending the Truth or the Nature of the universe.

My original question was actually closer to - given the brains essentially binary underpinnings (yes there are different voltages in neorones and differnt firing frequencies but they still on have two possible possitions on or off) aren't we at some level working with binary data and hence always going to have an inperfect model of the data as it can only stored to the resolution of our binary elements.

binary switches only accept 2 possible states, on or off.

neurons accept and deliver a varying voltage and weight each input in some way. So whilst it is either off or on, on is an analogue state.

Originally posted by Cyclone
binary switches only accept 2 possible states, on or off.

neurons accept and deliver a varying voltage and weight each input in some way. So whilst it is either off or on, on is an analogue state.

But doesnt it sum the inputs and if they exceed a given threshold then fire the neuron? Hence a binary system with a single threshold which may be reached by various excitatory or inhibitory impulses for similar or or off state neurons?

Originally posted by evildrneil
However, due to the limitations of our processings systems and gliches / imperfections / variations in our internal models of reality can we ever reach a true representation of reality? I would say no. It appears that a lot of the problems of the world arise because someone has the 'one true answer', however while this may be the one true answer for their own internal construct of the universe it doesn't neccesarily apply to the rest of us!



My original question was actually closer to - given the brains essentially binary underpinnings (yes there are different voltages in neorones and differnt firing frequencies but they still on have two possible possitions on or off) aren't we at some level working with binary data and hence always going to have an inperfect model of the data as it can only stored to the resolution of our binary elements.

no, no and triple no. binary, hex, base ten, it's irrelevant. The brain is not a computer, regardless of the methods it employs internally to think.

to achieve a true representation of the universe itself, you must create one {you must create a simulation that is so utterly oerfect in every way that it is indisinguishable from that which it simulates} at which point you have come full circle and you are god, again.

The fact that it is possible to routinely do so in your own mind, merely adds your mind's understanding to the proposition of the consensual universe.

In spite of the fact that there is no such thing as reality in the terms you use, through the use of language, syntax, context etc. we have arrived at a mediated representation of reality that is as fluid as the culture that moves it.

Reality is, quite literally, what you make it.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
[
In spite of the fact that there is no such thing as reality in the terms you use, through the use of language, syntax, context etc. we have arrived at a mediated representation of reality that is as fluid as the culture that moves it.

Reality is, quite literally, what you make it. [/B]

This sounds very much like Berkeley's theory of reality. Dr. Johnson's famous reply, according to Boswell In his Diaries) was:

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus."

Exactlly, Lord C. Never mind whether the brain is a computer or not etc, we as human beings have no choice but to trust our senses. There is also an argument to the effect that , even if we do not acknowledge external 'reality', it still exists independently of our socially-constructed image of it. 'Reality' does not necessarily require human social actors to ascribe meaning to it. Hence the metaphysical domain.

Originally posted by Cyclone
There's also the thought that certain Truths of the universe might be ameneable to accurate digital storage. For example, light can be thought of as photons. So any image is made up of a discrete number of photons of varying wavelengths, thus if you have the ability to resolve everyone of those photons you can accurately store that Truth as a digital representation.

However light behaves as both a wave and a particle so if you treat it as a discrete particle aren't you ignoring the wave element and hence only storing partial data?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
no, no and triple no. binary, hex, base ten, it's irrelevant. The brain is not a computer, regardless of the methods it employs internally to think.

A computer can be defined as A general-purpose machine that processes data according to a set of instructions that are stored internally either temporarily or permanently. The computer and all equipment attached to it are called hardware. The instructions that tell it what to do are called "software." A set of instructions that perform a particular task is called a "program" or "software program." couldn't you use this to describe a brain which is a general purpose machine based on an underlying binary structure (neurons and summed action potentials roughly analogous to binary switches and logic gates) on which there is some form of software (the mind) analysing data (usually sensory input) based on a series of instructions (the internal model based on experience, preconceptions and education)?

Originally posted by evildrneil
A computer can be defined as couldn't you use this to describe a brain which is a general purpose machine based on an underlying binary structure (neurons and summed action potentials roughly analogous to binary switches and logic gates) on which there is some form of software (the mind) analysing data (usually sensory input) based on a series of instructions (the internal model based on experience, preconceptions and education)?

Well, you might - but we are in the realm of semantics here. The similarities are likely to still be only superficial at best. For example, both machines and biological organisms have properties associated with systems (e.g. inputs, outputs, processing procedures etc). But that does not make a machine similar to a biological organism, except again in a very superficial, and probably misleading, sense.The term 'roughly analogous' is so vague it could mean virtually anything - or nothing

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Well, you might - but we are in the realm of semantics here. The similarities are likely to still be only superficial at best. For example, both machines and biological organisms have properties associated with systems (e.g. inputs, outputs, processing procedures etc). But that does not make a machine similar to a biological organism, except again in a very superficial, and probably misleading, sense.The term 'roughly analogous' is so vague it could mean virtually anything - or nothing

However I gave a set of analogous systems - binary underlying structure, software than processes incoming data based on an existing rules set...

Originally posted by evildrneil
However I gave a set of analogous systems - binary underlying structure, software than processes incoming data based on an existing rules set...

But this would not be sufficient to make the systems similar, except in a very superficial sense. Analogies can be misleading (as in my opinion in this case).

Originally posted by LordChaverly
But this would not be sufficient to make the systems similar, except in a very superficial sense. Analogies can be misleading (as in my opinion in this case).

They can indeed - usually when people take an analogy as a literal description rather than as a simplified learning example (mistaking the map for the teritory again!) Why do you feel that the analogy is misleading in his case?

Originally posted by LordChaverly
This sounds very much like Berkeley's theory of reality. Dr. Johnson's famous reply, according to Boswell In his Diaries) was:

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, "I refute it thus."

It's not Berkely's 'ingenious sophistry' so much as fundamental pragmatism. The universe exists and you exist to observe it. All observations of the universe that you make divide the universe into observer and observed.

Observations that are uncommon, i.e Green Lizards masquerading as members of the royal family, tend not to feature in the mass consensual reailty, whereas more concrete observations (water is wet, things fall down) rank more highly as facts in the collective body of knowledge.

Observations not easily assimilated into linguistic structures tend to stay out of the realm of fact.

objective, hard reality exists alright, it's just that because no-one gets the whole picture, no-one can say for certain exactly what it is.

Johnson's "I refute it thus" actually makes no sense, because only he feels the pain, rather deflating his point.


It is, in a way, as Berkeley had it, although for different reasons. Accepting quantum theory, as one must from the sheer mass of experimental data, it inexorably follows that an observer must be present to 'collapse the waveform' - particles of light do not exist (in any conventional material sense) until they strike something. At which point they change it, themselves and the universe bifurcates into another Copenhagen-style trouser leg.

Reality is quite literally, I cannot stress enough, what you, personally, make it. It's the only reality you will ever know, the only one you have any hope of influencing directly, and close enough to everyone else's baseline reailty to not matter much, until you start arguing with your friends from Cygnus A about the price of transparent steel.


Originally posted by evildrneil
... couldn't you use this to describe a brain
You could, but it would be wildly misleading
Originally posted by evildrneil
which is a general purpose machine
The brain is not a machine. A machine is a construct, so the brain as a machine begs for an intelligent designer.Originally posted by evildrneil
based on an underlying binary structure (neurons and summed action potentials roughly analogous to binary switches and logic gates) It's also roughly analogous to custard pumps and switches in a desserts factory or the cartoon "The numbskulls"
Originally posted by evildrneil
on which there is some form of software (the mind) OK, this is an idea that also floats around the "brain as computer" idea, that somehow the software and the mind are analagous. This is even more misleading - although I accept it's a seductive analogy by virtue of the base similarity that software occupies no physical space on the computer, and the mind is equally intangible. BUt a computer program is a set of formal statements held within a syntactic structure, the mind is obviously not.
Originally posted by evildrneil
analysing data (usually sensory input) based on a series of instructions (the internal model based on experience, preconceptions and education)?
Again you can see where the "brain as computer, mind as software" analogy breaks down here - if the brain is a sophisticated machine (designer unknown) then a user is required to run the program and interpret the results. The brain is not simply an information processing device, because that completely leaves out the brains other (apparent) core function of intentionality.

Originally posted by evildrneil
But doesnt it sum the inputs and if they exceed a given threshold then fire the neuron? Hence a binary system with a single threshold which may be reached by various excitatory or inhibitory impulses for similar or or off state neurons?

even if that were correct, it wouldn't be true binary system behaviour. And i believe (i'm not a bioneurologist) that it's considerably more complicated.

A binary system has only 2 possible states for every input to a logic gate, on or off.
A neuron has an infinite shade of grey in between off and fully on.

The response made by the binary system from the logic gate is again binary, off or on.

The response by the neuron can be anywhere on the scale of off to on.
So whilst it may resemble a binary system in the same way that an imaginary trinary system would resemble it, it is actually a logic system that is analogue not digital.

Phan - I don't quite follow your argument as to there requiring to be a user for the mind to be analogous to software.
Although personally I'd say that the mind is an emergent property of chaotic and complex system.

How about if you consider software that isn't designed, but is evolved, genetic algorithms and similar ideas. Or indeed neural nets?

neil - I don't know whether we would only be capturing part of the data. If we observe light in certain ways it behaves purely as photon's, look at it in different circumstances and it behaves like a wave. Maybe this is one area where our senses cannot accurately paint even a consistent picture of reality, I have no doubt that some Truth underlies the behaviour of light, and maybe one day we'll be able to explain particle/wave duality in a way that doesn't require a doctorate in physics and maths to understand.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Phan - I don't quite follow your argument as to there requiring to be a user for the mind to be analogous to software.
Although personally I'd say that the mind is an emergent property of chaotic and complex system.

I'd say no-one has a hope of understanding the mind, because no-one has found it yet.


How about if you consider software that isn't designed, but is evolved, genetic algorithms and similar ideas. Or indeed neural nets?

those genetic algorithms that do indeed design circuits and software. And they are employed to do so because they are very good at producing what they were asked to produce

I think the analogy would be useable if computers spontaneously wrote new software, without you asking them to. Or having to spend any time writing complex genetic algorithms to accomplish the task.

Intentionality is the key. A computer does not have the urge to do anything. Without a user it just sits there.

If your are going to analogise using computers, then it seems remiss to exclude the user (a vital component of any computer setup) - the fact that the brain has no user (unless you throw out free will, and assume that God has direct overall control) should detract further from the usefulness of any brain/machine analogy.

Originally posted by Cyclone
even if that were correct, it wouldn't be true binary system behaviour. And i believe (i'm not a bioneurologist) that it's considerably more complicated.

A binary system has only 2 possible states for every input to a logic gate, on or off.
A neuron has an infinite shade of grey in between off and fully on.

The response made by the binary system from the logic gate is again binary, off or on.

The response by the neuron can be anywhere on the scale of off to on.
So whilst it may resemble a binary system in the same way that an imaginary trinary system would resemble it, it is actually a logic system that is analogue not digital.

If I remember my neuroanatomy correctly (and I may not I'm a life sciences type person but not a neuroanatomist) this is not the case. A neuron either fires or it does not, so there is no shade of grey only on or off hance a binary system.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The brain is not a machine. A machine is a construct, so the brain as a machine begs for an intelligent designer.

This is simply arguing terminology - use systme if you prefer. I was using computer as an anology, not saying everyong ha a ZX81 burried in their cranium!

OK, this is an idea that also floats around the "brain as computer" idea, that somehow the software and the mind are analagous. This is even more misleading - although I accept it's a seductive analogy by virtue of the base similarity that software occupies no physical space on the computer, and the mind is equally intangible. BUt a computer program is a set of formal statements held within a syntactic structure, the mind is obviously not.

No? Properties of the mind have been mapped to locations within the brain. Does this not indicate that the mind operates within elements of the physical structure of the brain in the same way that software operates within the physical structures of a microprocessor?

And why is the mind (or parts of it) not a set of formal statements? When we process incoming information its done largely in relation to what we already know of the world, whether by exerience or learning. Admittedly this is more similar to declarative than imperative programming, but it is once again analogy!

Again you can see where the "brain as computer, mind as software" analogy breaks down here - if the brain is a sophisticated machine (designer unknown) then a user is required to run the program and interpret the results. The brain is not simply an information processing device, because that completely leaves out the brains other (apparent) core function of intentionality.

But I haven't claimed that all the brains functions are computer-like only suggested that the data input/model building may be.

a computer doesn't do anything without a user because a user provides the input to it.

It's entirely possible to start a piece of software that then needs no user input and will operate from external inputs to the system.
The only difference is that we have a biological bootloader, so no one is required to start the software in the first place for us. Unless you consider being raised and taught to be starting it.... probably not quite analogous as we would still function without that (as long as we were physically supported until independant).