Re: [-empyre-] fundamental
I don't agree with you at all here. First, again, why the reference to the
particular computer science book? Please let me know. Second, your model
is still based on computer language / writing, and so forth. Others -
Penrose and Pribram years ago for example - developed quantum and/or
The idea of writing and a 'language' implies data storage, direct or
indirect addressing, etc. Nothing like that has been found in
I'd rather not continue this discussion, at least at my end; it's not
fundamental to me, and is taking up too much of the list energy perhaps?
I'd rather we just agree to disagree.
- Alan, apologies
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Jim Andrews wrote:
> I am not trained in AI or neurology or anything, really, but literature,
> mathematics, and computer science.
> However, I think it's possible to make some observations that are impossible
> to refute.
> Given that we do not have little roses in our head, however they are coded,
> roses are *written* in the brain.
> A rose is a rose but there are no roses in the brain; roses are *written* in
> the brain, abstracted as information of some sort.
> How is a rose written in the brain? We don't know. What we do know is that
> it is written. And this has certain consequences.
> Information that is written in such a way that it is later recallable,
> meaningfully readable, must be coded in such a way that it can later be
> read. For instance, information on a hard drive is coded in a meaningfully
> structured language that makes it possible for the machine to look up and
> read that information later on. The lookup logic may be quite sophisticated
> and flexible, but it is predicated on the way that information is written to
> the hard drive. Without a structured language in the writing process, it
> would be impossible to find information that has been written.
> Information cannot be coded in the brain without a language associated with
> the process, so that it is later readable/recallable. This language would be
> a bit like machine language in that it is not particularly readable by
> humans; yet it would be fundamental to the mechanisms of thought.
> I think this point is fundamental to what we have been discussing, Alan.
> I don't think it's a product of being from any particular 'school' of
> Also, although it is true that our memories degrade over time or are
> processed and changed or simply erased over time, that does not affect the
> truth of the above. Because if they are *ever* to be readable, they must
> initially be coded in a structured language, regardless of how that initial
> coding is altered over time.
> empyre forum
Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and