Re: Re: nature -> "human brain" -> "language terms" ==>> knowledge ?
JS,
you wrote:
> There are two points I would like to explain:
>
> 1. The point that the nature of the human brain
> is irrelevant to the truth of a scientific
> theory is the foundation for all of science.
>
delusion derived from ignorance. ;-)
> A theory of chemistry, for example, is tested
> by chemical experiments, whose results are
> evaluated by chemists. No one would claim that
> a neurophysiologist would have any special
> insights that would be relevant to the evaluation.
>
the tools and methods used in chemistry are DETERMINED by the general method used by the brain in processing information. There are no instruments operating OUTSIDE of our realm of meaning - all instruments are extensions of that realm. Anything outside of that realm will appear as paradox, as an oscillation, as we struggle to interpret it from WITHIN that realm.
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/paradox.html
Thus, an information 'specialist' spans all specialisations from a generalist perspective. As I said before, the excursion into neuroscience is to find out how it all works in general - if they cannot see the wood for the trees that is their problem.
In molecular chemistry we find that the RNA/DNA componants are manufactured from recursion of the purine/pyramidine dichotomy where that recursion gives us (a) the basic A,C,G,T(U) elements that form into (b) the codons for amino acid linkage - and so 64 'categories' usable to be ordered into some 'message' of some form - an ordering of representations.
review other category systems using the SAME method and we find the ability to extract the 'genetic code' for each category through the application of the XOR and AND operators, indicating that it is the METHOD that allows for this coding process - be it RNA/DNA, human emotions, MBTI categories, or I Ching hexagram 'genetic codes'. (and we can zoom down to the realm of fermions and bosons and discover the the SAME overall patterns in the fermion/boson dichotomy - this leads us into a formal form of representation currently used in QM - see http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/symmetry.html)
This material has not been seen before since it comes out of my interdisciplinary, generalist, focus on identifying information processing and so meaning across the species 'free' of consciousness and its manic labelisations.
> 2. Chris Lofting's comments about neurons are
> well taken. There is increasing evidence that
> an individual neuron is much more complex than
> just a simple switch, as assumed by the neural
> network models of the mid 20th century.
>
> However, it is also true that *nobody* really
> knows how individual neurons work. A lot of
> details have been amassed, but there are no
> clear interpretations of what they mean, either
> for the capabilities of individual neurons or
> for their capabilities in combination. There is
> a lot speculation, but no consensus of any kind.
>
Through extensive analysis of research data, IDM has come up with the general METHOD used by neurologies to derive meaning. FOUR specialisation are used to show the ONE generalisation shining through. Since one of those specialisations is Mathematics so ALL of what mathematics covers is represented in IDM.
The IDM material is CLEAR but VAGUE since it is sourced in our species-nature, and so the language of the VAGUE. Before you make such comments as above I suggest you make the effort to go through the IDM material - it will obviously take some effort but I think you will learn something:
http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm001.html it is 'rough' but it is on-going and when I have the time to 'refine' it more I will.
> In short, simply repeating the fact that the behavior
> of individual neurons is important for understanding
> how the brain works is stating the obvious. Repeating
> the obvious at every opportunity does not contribute
> to further understanding.
I dont 'repeat' the obvious - I show DETAILS re properties/methods derived from understanding how it all works IN GENERAL. You will not find my work in any neuroscience material since THEIR focus is not the same as mine, THEY ask different, specialist, questions when compared to what I have asked - how do we, and all other neuron-dependent life forms, derive meaning. Simple.
You wont find my work in IT areas since their focus is on use of recursion as a process without consideration of qualities, meaning etc. and they are wrapped-up in natural language processing (NLP) and so too far up the tree to 'get it' (the closest I have come to some form IT presentation was an invite to present my page (or a refinement of) on emotions and their derivation - couldnt do it, too far away, too expensive ;-) (see http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/emote.html)
The material comes with reference lists/abstracts etc etc and is solid in that by applying the material so new insights are emerging out of existing category systems NOT SEEN BEFORE by users of those systems.
Chris.
This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au