tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post7648374692242688141..comments2023-10-22T04:50:28.588-07:00Comments on Life's Private Book: Mind/Brain and the EvidenceDavid T.http://www.blogger.com/profile/14828502773466162990noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-88182191560324101072012-07-06T08:38:50.086-07:002012-07-06T08:38:50.086-07:00AYC,
I think we need to keep in mind the distinct...AYC,<br /><br />I think we need to keep in mind the distinction between abstract geometrical objects (like lines) and physical objects like brains.<br /><br />A line can potentially be divided in an infinite number of different places. The distances between two points on a line can also be taken as arbitrarily small as you like; in other words, you can always find another point closer to a test point than a point you've already chosen. <br /><br />But with a <i>physical</i> object like a brain, at some point the differences between brain state 1 and brain state 2 have got to be so small as to be practically inconsequential (or undetectable). Just as, with a practical ruler than an abstract line, there comes a point where it is impossible to distinguish between two different physical points on the ruler, for whatever purposes you choose. In the same way, there aren't an infinity of brain states because at some point brain states become indistinguishable.David T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14828502773466162990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-2337937617161982562012-07-02T17:24:53.859-07:002012-07-02T17:24:53.859-07:00Being infinitely divisible doesn't make a mile...Being infinitely divisible doesn't make a mile infinitely long....AYCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-89494753054030956942012-07-02T17:16:54.119-07:002012-07-02T17:16:54.119-07:00I suppose what I was trying to say is that an infi...I suppose what I was trying to say is that an infinite number of possible brain states is true, but doesn't require a mystical explanation; if we can extrapolate infinity from a finite base of numerals, why can't a finite brain be capable of infinite possible brain states in the same way? <br /><br />This reminds me of Zeno's argument against motion based on the fact that distances are infinitely divisible.AYCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-42231907896900012532012-06-26T06:15:29.784-07:002012-06-26T06:15:29.784-07:00Well, thinking of "3" is a distinct brai...Well, thinking of "3" is a distinct brain state, and thinking of "2" is a distinct brain state. What about thinking of "32"? Surely it must be a distinct brain state as well, even if it uses the digits "3" and "2". So we end up with an infinity of possible brain states from a base 10 number system.David T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14828502773466162990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-39575971993193122102012-06-25T09:05:54.409-07:002012-06-25T09:05:54.409-07:00I don't think the mind needs to be infinite to...I don't think the mind needs to be infinite to conceive of infinity. The members of a finite set can be combined and recombined in an infinite number of ways. In mathematics we conceive of infinite numbers using a base of just ten numerals. I'm sympathetic to the notion that the mind is something beyond the brain, but I don't think this argument is a strong one.AYCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-3796591669776279512012-06-25T08:57:33.035-07:002012-06-25T08:57:33.035-07:00testtestAYCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-11858488582677248132012-06-23T12:56:31.194-07:002012-06-23T12:56:31.194-07:00Ed,
I think we need to distinguish between the im...Ed,<br /><br />I think we need to distinguish between the imagination and the intellect. The imagination is physically based and limited, so you can't actually imagine a very large number. But the very fact that we can use large numbers in math means that we can conceive of them in the intellect. Otherwise we would be entirely ignorant of their existence.<br /><br />Compare the intellect with the senses. Our hearing and sight is limited. We can't see something in low light, and too much light blinds us. We can't hear high frequency sounds; they don't exist for us as far as hearing is concerned. If we also couldn't conceive of high frequency sound in the intellect, then we would be entirely ignorant of it and couldn't speak of it at all, because it would be entirely beyond us. Like an ant knows nothing about the stars, or the possibility of stars.<br /><br />There is some number of brain states. Whatever that number is, we can conceive it, or we wouldn't be able to talk about it. We would go through life without it ever occurring to us that such a number might be. And we can conceive of every integer in between.David T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14828502773466162990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8498149069472762986.post-22399609574856184442012-06-23T04:30:59.756-07:002012-06-23T04:30:59.756-07:00Dave,
Interesting line of argument. Would Dr. Nov...Dave,<br /><br />Interesting line of argument. Would Dr. Novella argue that there is a limit to how big a number you can think of,i.e. put into memory, therefore there is no problem mapping to brain state. For example does your mind really distinguish between 2 20 digit numbers that are only different in the 17th digit? I doubt if I told you to think of the first 20 digit # you could actually think about the # itself. You would rather think about "the # labelled the first #" or "the # with the 17th digit = 5". <br />This is one of many interesting posts of late.<br />--EdEdThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16159444256775876032noreply@blogger.com