Thanks. MIND AND BRAIN deals with the glaring physical proof that the DISCRETE brain, or any other processor cannot perform by itself any CONSCIOUS action, and that by over 50 orders. The solution, or rather direction in which it may be looked for, is suggested to reside in the fundamental Continuum/Discreteness polarity of Einstein's Physical Reality. (It's founded in "TIME, AWARENESS AND EVENTS" http://findgeorges.com/CORE/A_FOUNDATIONS/a1_time_awareness_and_events.html which I have mentioned in the answer to your "Nature of Time".)
Brain can, of course, perform fast UNCONSCIOUS acts learned and imprinted locally by conscious repetitions. I'm right now composing a blues "Wind is Blowing", in which, quite a way down I play the chord of VI. Whistling under the shower, I got the idea to replace it with V(9). Then I played, my fingers moving automatically through the beginning, while my mind was all the time concentrating on the V(9) to come. Georges. =================== --- On Sun, 12/19/10, LCC <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > From: LCC <claylon...@comcast.net> > Subject: [epistemology 11807] Re: MIND AND BRAIN > To: "Epistemology" <epistemology@googlegroups.com> > Date: Sunday, December 19, 2010, 7:16 AM > > > On Nov 22, 12:26 pm, Georges Metanomski <zg...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > > The chapter "MIND AND BRAIN" has been updated and > uploaded to > > > > http://findgeorges.com/CORE/A_FOUNDATIONS/a3_mind_and_brain.html > > > > Comments welcome. > > > > Georges. > > Interesting. It might be helpful to note that in extremity > the brain > is capable of processing information at rates far in excess > of its > "normal" rate. For example, as a 7th grader I was once so > foolish as > to attempt to light a campfire by pouring white gas from a > plastic jug > onto the very wet sticks in a slit trench campfire. Unknown > to me, at > the moment the gas was being poured, a person at the other > end of the > trench had decided to light some tinder to get the fire > started. I had > an instantaneous view of my hand holding just the handle of > the jug > within a fireball, and time enough to think only "BACK" as > the > fireball blossomed. From a squatting position, I did a > backward > somersault and escaped with just second degree and a small > third > degree burns on my right leg, which presumably was the only > part > actually touched by the fireball. I have no memory of what > happened > from the decision to get "BACK" until I was on the ground > about twenty > feet away, but am told that I either fell while running, or > was > tripped by my dad, depending upon who is telling the tale. > The point > is that with normal reaction speed, I doubt that I could > possibly have > jumped backward from that position in time to avoid having > my torso > and at least some of my other leg burned. There's nothing > like a shot > of adrenaline to get the brain in gear... > > Another thing which I noticed is that you seem to see the > brain as a > single processor with multiple nodes as in a neural > network. I am just > a layman, but I suspect that the truth is that there are > many foci of > processing, each focus of which is dedicated to processing > dependent > upon training and the situational state of the total brain. > For > example, while asleep and not dreaming, the activity is > rather low, > but when engaging in vigorous multi-dextrous physical > activity (see > YouTube video The Ventures - Wipeout - the drummer in > particular), the > different tasks are handled by different foci. From what > little I have > read in neurology, I suspect that any neurologist would > agree. Because > those different foci have shorter mean distances to their > processor > neural cells than would be the case if the brain were a > single > processor, results can be produced at far higher speed than > simply N > nodes times the speed of a uniprocessor neural net. For > example speed > = N nodes * brain radius / actual neuron mean activity > path. > > The integration of information state based upon memory and > inputs > processing by a physical brain into > mind/consciousness/awareness is > not well understood so far as I know. If you could > elaborate on that > topic, then I at least would be pleased to read the text. > Without > getting metaphysical, I see no way to reconcile the > processes except > to invoke the much abused notion of emergent complexity... > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
