[-empyre-] fundamental

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

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
thought.

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.

ja
http://vispo.com