RE: [-empyre-] Accidents (was for example)





On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Jim Andrews wrote:

> Whether they are reconstructed from other representations or are otherwise
> represented in information in the brain, they are information constructs in
> the brain, are they not? One doesn't have to have studied neurology or
> computer science to grasp this point. If we assume that the brain has its
> own numerous symbolic representation languages, rather than having to store
> real roses in real brains, then we have already agreed that the brain
> converts sensory data to information.
>
I don't think the brain has these languages; but I also think we're far
afield from empyre here?

Again, I wouldn't use the word 'information.' Sartre discusses the
Pantheon and its pillars. When subjects were asked to 'picture' it, they
could. This could even be partial holographic memory. When asked the
number of columns, they counted. This was reconstruction. They call came
up with different numbers.

> Also, if they are "reconstructed"--and I would agree that the properties of
> roses are many so it is likely that the reconstruction or instantiation is
> numerously processual--perhaps you might outline how this process, just in
> general, might not be algorithmic. What does it mean to you to say that such
> a process might not be algorithmic?

Since I'm not a neurologist, I'll decline here. To say it might not be
algorithmic however is to say that there are no 'rules' for reconstruction
or re-presentation.

>
> and that 2. the reconstructing need not be
> > algorithmic. I don't think the brain 'computes' in other words in any way
> > similar to that of a computer; the model is awkward.
>
> I think the problem is in getting the outline rather than trying to think of
> it in terms of, oh, a Pentium or whatever.
>
I think it's looking at it from entirely other directions. Have you read
the Penrose by the way? I read Misky; I haven't read the other.

Computer science may not have changed, but I think theories of mind have -

Alan -

> Two books that come to mind are The Society of Mind by Marvin Minsky, and
> Computer Science, A Modern Introduction by Goldschlager and Lister. They're
> both not recent but they deal with issues that don't seem to have changed
> much. Which, by the way, is the thing about studying Computer Science: the
> study of computer science doesn't deal so much with Word or Director or any
> modern software so much as the underlying principles that are far less
> subject to change over time.
>
> ja
> http://vispo.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>

http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
finger sondheim@panix.com




This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.