|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My problem with evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I keep coming back to the idea that, as you explained, we have an unified image in an electrical but not in a pictorial sense. So it looks to me like a leap from the electrical to the pictorial. That leap we call the "mental."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Do computers also have a mental leap when an image goes from a binary file on your hard drive to a picture on your screen? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
John, I'm tired of your insults.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
No, computers don't. They produce a pictorial image. Are you suggesting that the brain produces a physical pictorial image?
I've already talked about this with Obsidian and Quetval and they agreed that the brain does not produce a pictorial image, only an electrical image. What that means is the comparison with computers does not hold.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I was responding to this:
quote: It very much implies the production of a pictorial image. It is not I suggesting the brain produce a pictorial image. It looks to me like what you are saying is that we have electrical patterns in our brain that represent images. When we remember these images the mind, not the brain, sees these patterns as pictures-- translates these patterns to pictorial images. What is this mental leap?
quote: Kind-of obvious really....
quote: There are lots of reasons a brain is not like a computer. But you claimed to have found 'mental' in the jump between electronic patterns and pictorial images. Computers make that jump all the time. Just trying to find out what you are talking about. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6039 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
The pictorial image of a computer is purely epiphenomenal from the computers "point of view". Turn the monitor off. The computer cares not a whit.
I suspect it is, in principle, possible to make a monitor image of a human mental image. Not possible in reality in the forseeable future, but that's not the point. If that is true, is there any real difference between computers "images" and mental images? If that isn't true, why isn't it true? Previous message:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6039 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
The pictorial image of a computer is purely epiphenomenal from the computers "point of view". Turn the monitor off. The computer cares not a whit.
I suspect it is, in principle, possible to make a monitor image of a human mental image. Not possible in reality in the forseeable future, but that's not the point. If that is true, is there any real difference between computers "images" and mental images? If that isn't true, why isn't it true? Previous message:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
John:
computer electrical info.=brain's electrical info. monitor for a computer---produces pictorial image brain--does not produce pictorial image. Nonetheless we have imaginary pictorial images--the "monitor" is the mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zhimbo:
[B] suspect it is, in principle, possible to make a monitor image of a human mental image. Not possible in reality in the forseeable future, but that's not the point. If that is true, is there any real difference between computers "images" and mental images? If that isn't true, why isn't it true? If we could do this it still doesn't solve the problem. Something in the brain allows us to vilsualize imaginary images. Maybe you could do it artificially but now it is being done naturally. How? The mental leap. The brain produces no images, only info. Nonetheless we are able to visualize images.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: As Zhimbo has pointed out, from the computer's point of view-- this is the view we have to take for the sake of the analogy-- what the monitor displays to the outside is not relevant. For the computer it is still just electrons. ( The monitor's display would be, say, our facial expressions. ) As you trace those signals back from the screen through the wires and circuits, there is no 'jump' of mentality. Yet, the electronic patterns are meaningful to the machine-- meaning, it can manipulate them to provide the external display. Of course, computers lack self-reflection -- as is painfully obvious if you've ever tried to force a program to not only generate a variable's values on the fly but to generate the variables as well. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
There is no jump to mentality in the computer becuase the pictorial image produced on tne monitor, if it is produced, is physical. We can measure the size of it if we want to. There is no pictorial image inside the computer--just info. There is also no pictorial image inside the brain--just info. Nonetheless we can visualize pictorially. When we imagine we don't in our imagination "see" a network of neurons. We see a picture. A network of neurons is not identical to a picture, even though the info. of the different parts of the picture is contained in that network and is produced by that network. The picture is a different form of the same information, but the fact that it is a different form makes it different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: When you see a painting on the wall, you don't, if we are to believe the rumors, see the painting. Light hits your retinas and is converted into electronic signals which travel to your brain and are interpretted by the brain into the image we think is external to us. Imagining is the same process minus the retinas. Is all vision a jump of mentality? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
John, what do you mean we don't "see the painting"? Are you suggesting that what I see is an illusion? If so, that illusion is the leap of mentality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You don't 'see' the picture. Think about the sequnce of events. You got the thing-in-itself-- the picture. 1) Light hits the picture. Some of the light is absorbed, some is reflected. So we are at the 'reflected light' stage, one step removed from the picture. 2) The reflected light hits the eye and travels to the retina. As it passes through the eye it is distorted. This distortion we call 'focusing' We are now at the 'focused-reflected light stage' and are two steps removed from the picture. 3) The light is converted to electronic signals by cells in the retina. We are now three steps removed. 4) The electronic signals travel through the optic nerves to the appropriate part(s) of the brain where it is converted into the images we see. Four steps removed, and all, so far physical processes. If I read you right, you are saying that what reads these interpretations is 'Mind'? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Well, John, the imaginary image has to be somewhere. It's not in the brain. You can search all over the brain and never find it--not the pictorial image, that is. What you find is electically coded info.
So where is the image? Well, it's not in space at all. It's purely mental. Now to say it "exists" is problematical since it's imaginary, but you can't call it nothing either. So I guess it exists (in the mind).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024