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

["Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>]

> > 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.

There must be some sort of rules for storing the information and retrieving
it, or one could not recall anything in the first place. If we are to find a
rose in memory, there must be some lookup logic. There must also be rules to
represent the information in the first place, however selectively and lossy,
however reconstructed upon lookup, or one would not be able to store
information meaningfully.

Just like a hard drive is coded in magnetic fields interpretable in a
structured language so that the information can be read *at all*, there must
be some way that a rose is coded in the brain in some languages that are
used by the brain.

Anyway, Alan, you might find the GoldSchlager and Lister book interesting.
It was a first year Computer Science book some time ago.

ja