Neuroscience will never discover how the mind works

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by baftan, May 9, 2013.

  1. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Simply because, it’s not the job of neuroscience. We can not understand how the software works by mapping the regions and electrical circuitry of PC components. We need the language of mind, and the symbolic structures to understand the regime behind thoughts and emotions; we need software people. Everything we learn, hear, see, feel or experience will be translated into neural information activity, new connections, new logical doors, new switches (Our computers may not physically change themselves through running their software; but this is not the topic).

    In one way, it is impossible to put a sharp distinction between software and hardware as their existence requires one another, same is true for the relation between mind and brain. On the other hand, we also know that they operate according to their own logic. We cannot figure out how an HTML code works by observing transistor activity, just as we cannot tell “how” we learn things by counting neural paths. This would be trying to understand how a city works by counting the passing cars, measuring the amount of energy used or mapping the buildings and roads.

    Neuroscience has the full capacity of replicating brain artificially, and it might eventually solve many problems such as Alzheimer or stroke, but this type of knowledge doesn't hint anything about “why” question. I imagine a software project that aims mimicking the mind would provide a better insight on how brain works. A totally different approach, free from hardware architecture: focusing on the data process rather than the processor.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    there is indeed a sharp distinction between hardware and software.
    software is the code written by people (or other computers).
    hardware is the components the software is run on.
    the only ambiguity is the term "firmware".
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    "In a way" though. On the other hand, how about co-dependency between them in terms of existence? Or architectural dependency: Hardware is designed in such a way to allow certain type of software to perform and software is designed to manipulate hardware conditions. When we write a piece of code -let's say- to help user entering input to a computer, programmer should take two platforms into considerations: user and the machine. And yes, when it comes to designing a web page with HTML and CSS codes, we don't need to know anything about 1s and 0s since we are aiming to open a page, create links or other user friendly environment. Moreover, this particular programmer doesn't even have to know about the working mechanism of other software language such as C+ or ASCII codes. Yet our webpage code will be translated into a "different" set of software(s) which are capable of giving commands to electronic switches anyway. So in a way, forget about the existence of a sharp distinction between hardware and software, but we can even claim sharp distinctions among different software packages; or even sharp distinction among hardware components.

    What I understand from these relations is simple: Many independent levels of communication regimes can exist in any complex mechanisms, brain or computer. Understanding one level will not necessarily give any hint about the other levels. We talk and think with words and symbols, but they need to be translated into some other language(s) to affect individual neurons. We can perform thoughts and emotions without knowing how neurons actually communicate with one another, because the knowledge of this electro-chemical activity is irrelevant in the universe of words and meaning. Equally, the words themselves (such as "table", "apple", etc.) will not make any sense for the individual neurons if they are not being translated into some logical/linguistic form that can physically tickle the neural environment.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    well, yes i would agree.
    not necessarily.
    a complex series of levers will have a certain resonance that can be understood only if the series itself is understood.
  8. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    As someone who was used in precrime rubbish experiments by uk gov, i can say for sure, that no other human can understand anothers mind. They cannot predict my behaviour or my wants at all. They are good at taking memories, but cannot do any sort of precrime predictions.

    I reckon 80% of reality is fixed, but like 20% of reality is our own lens, and only understood by us.

    I thank whom ever created us, that this is so, and its way too complicated for humans to understand. So all you morons in science whom think you will, i say you will not, and i have lived with 21 years of being a target in your moron experiments now.

    Thats why trying to build robots will not mimic humans, we are greater than the sum of our parts, and we play a role in reality itself.

    Human beings will only ever work out whats in there own mind. Like i said before ants do not know we exist, even though we know they exist. Shows you that perception is something important to the observer. Humans will find they only work out there own minds, not understand the big questions.

    What ever pattern recognition techniques they use in predicting from peoples brains what they would do, it does not work in my life. So all that stuff is false. We are more than the sum of our parts, and no human can understand another humans mind, or thoughts, or feelings. Like how a word could have a thousand different meanings in your own mind depending on the context of the thoughts you have at that time. Only you know what that is, and not another.

    I am just glad whom ever made humans, made our minds too complex for another, using mind control to understand. Yep they may explain brain functions, and why some parts of brains light up, in given situations. But they have no idea beyond that. They can take a word out of your brain, as the signal of a word is the same in all brains, but the meanings behind those words are yours and yours alone.

    Thats why in 21 years they have not gotten anything right in trying to predict my life. I am glad our minds(not brains), are far too complex for others to know or understand.

    There is no firewall to protect the mind, but the mind of humans is something more than we will ever understand.

    I know from my own life and experience of being targeted by those doing these things, the limits of what they can do, and to a certain degree what they think they understand. I know that they have no way of interpreting any word or sentence in my brain.

    This above all is what i am grateful for, like i said whom ever made us, made our minds to complex for another to understand.

    One thing this sort of thing is good at is seeing if there is a crime in your life, and seeing if there was intention, or was it something that just happened. Taking all your memories is something they are good at. Precrime where they have to judge if someone will do something, is just rubbish, and cannot be understood at all by another. But if you have done something, this tech are good in taking those memories, and saying for sure some crime was done, and you had the intention, or it was something impulsive and not pre determined crime.
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
  9. gandhi Registered Member

    I hope they do and believe they may well discover exactly how the brain works one day. There's a long way to go, and i agree its not just all about mapping neurons ect, but it is an essential part of understanding the whole system.

    You could actually work out (with a lot of effort) what HTML does by observing transistor activity if you know what function the transistors are responsible for, ie, data registers, program counter ect. and how they interact with each other.
    To carry on the computer analogy, a good embedded software designer needs to have an understanding of how the hardware works, as is visa versa for an embedded electronics designer. i think we definitely need to understand the "hardware" of the brain to have any hope of how to model the "software". I think we need a good understanding of both neurological processes "hardware" and psychological processes "software" to understand the whole system.
    I believe the storage of information and processing of it may well be a lot more complicated than we imagine, there is some really interesting schools of thought about the brain storing and processing information on the quantum level.

    Do you want to model human behaviour or the process that leads us to that behaviour or just build someone to talk to..

    Your post reads a little like someone who's taken a fistfull of acid then sat down to watch minority report. (Please dont take offence at that). As a UK resident i am curious what experiments the government have subjected you too. I like your comment of there being no firewall for the mind

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . wasn't sure about the science morons stuff.. who exactly are you referring to ?

    Firmware shouldn't be ambiguous, it is software (or microcode) that is embedded in non vol memory either on chip (ie cpu) or onboard (flash chip ect).

    sorry if my post is not very well explained.. i'm at work and should be working really.
  10. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Once i did a lot of study about how our mind works.

    Why different people behave differently? Why only few people are successful whereas many people work hard to achieve success?

    I was trying to search answer for all these questions.

    In this process, I developed a "general theory" which to some extent can explain about 'how our mind works'.
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Yeaaahhhh! Fuck those neuroscientists!
  12. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Here(post #9) is my "general theory", which can explain 'every human action' to some extent.
  13. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Your experience sounds more like political rather than scientific. They were probably using a degree of scientific techniques, no idea what they were doing, but your personal experience does not damage the entire science: Science relies on "many" experiments, not one or two like your case; unless this one or two experiment(s) can falsify an existing theory.

    Nobody said anything against this statement. Nobody claimed that when we put all our organs, cells and connections together we will suddenly understand how we work. No, we need the logic.

    We are important, precious and complicated: But only a certain degree. Your claim of "never" has been used before against many other scientific attempt before the discoveries were made. We make a linguistic mistake here: When we talk about natural phenomenons we generally use "secrets". Actually, neither atom, nor DNA has ever been secret, they have always been here and there. Since we found a new way of thinking, a new method to see, describe or observe they've become what we can call "visible" or conceivable.

    Basically, I must disagree: Yes, we can one day understand how mind works, it's not a secretive operation, happening every second and everywhere. All we need to figure out a new way of thinking, a new method, a new technique.

    Actually, we already "understand" other minds, thoughts or feelings; we give names to these thoughts and emotions, we couldn't organize our civilization without this understanding, "and" reliably manipulation. Our problem is "how" the system (or systems) work; that's all.

    Again, partly agree. Because what you call "meaning" is a cultural and social construction. Depending upon context, others can figure out what someone "means". What I call "meaning" is rather a mechanical process of the internal working way of brain, that is to say, how a word, a thought or an emotion is represented -or translated- into a form of neural activity. When you type something on your computer, you are using some keys to construct words on the screen regardless the "meanings" you are giving to these words. Computer does not give a damn about these words unless they are translated into certain programming language, certain symbols or codes which are going to trigger the transistors.

    I'll try to rephrase what I'm after: Many animals with brains do not use words (some humanised pets can do, let's concentrate on wild animals), yet their brain process certain reactions to certain actions, certain needs trigger certain brain cells. These processes are still within the realm of "how mind works".

    Firewall against what? Again, your example (Firewall) is still a software; not a magic, not a divine intervention.

    Can we? Is it a wish? Or "we can but in theory"? Do you know any practical example? Because if that's true, I will eat my claim quite happily.

    I must object this psychology - software analogy: When I say mind's software, I actually refer to a language that works according to system, grammar, a programming logic. This is why I constantly get this misunderstanding:

    I don't actually care particularly about human brain. Let's ignore the humans for a minute; animals too have brains and minds, they also have neurons and they also require -according to my claim- a sort of software. If ours (humans) are different than animals, this will only be in details, not in terms of the working mechanism. This is why we should take our humanity out of equation for the sake of the task. Our human characters are unnecessarily puzzling the issue at this stage.

    There are two main claims when it comes to understand how mind works: Neurons (biology) or algorithm (AI people). My intention is to take the language -definitely not the human language-, “the language of software” into the equation.

    Honestly, which part of my sentence gave you this impression?
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    They just piss me off, really. I saw it as an opportune moment.
  15. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Baftan - you cannot come on here speaking for me, or what i have been put through.

    What you believe is your business. You cannot speak for me, only i speak for me.
  16. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Prove that I spoke for you.
    You can not.

    But on the other hand, you came under this topic and started to talk about your sufferings which is nothing to do with the subject.
    Before you go further with your temper go back and read what you wrote and how I replied.
    And I suggest you to stick to the issue. Otherwise I will report you.
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    microcode is the ambiguity.
    ALU logic is microcode.
    the code that sets the machine state is microcode.
  18. hansda Valued Senior Member

    From this theory, it can be said that: "Everybody's mind work in a unique way.".
  19. hansda Valued Senior Member

    I did one experiment and developed my theory.
  20. rr6 Banned Banned

    Neuroscience begins with a inversion as Neural Tube via Ggastrulation

    Or every biological consciousness has unique perspective, based on genetics and the environment during growth, that affects abilities to access metaphysical mind/inteligence and their unique perspectives/viepoints/points-of-view.

    Every biological also shares a commonality of genetics and environment and degrees of access to mind/intelligence, that varies from moment to moment ergo enlightment--- and maturity ---comes and goes throughout our days, weeks and lives.

    Dictionaries are an attempt at having some agreement on our definitions to enable communication.

    Fullers states that, humans first words were probably made in dire set of circumstances, ex: "hey dude!, can you fetch a stick an pull me out of this quick sand....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


  21. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Considering that the brain is only an interface to the mind, i am glad we are all unique in that way.

    When they take brain scans of people, and see like a spark in the brain, and they relate that to a word that a human is thinking. That word could mean thousands of different things unique to that persons mind. So if they target you with techs, and sees sparks that relate to like a sentence of words, they do not know any context to that sentence or any of the words. Your brain thinks all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, and it is great that humans will not be able to universally apply this to everyone, and work out as a fact what is meant by any word in anyones brain.

    So next time super dunce science people claim they can do precrime, no they cannot. All they can do is see sparks in the brain, in certain areas, and relate that to words like in other brains. But the meaning behind those sparks are unknown, and like an abstract painting, unique to the observer.

    Mankind may work out the brain, and what it does, but not the mind, and a big lol to that.

    Any science person will only ever work out there own mind, as i have said.

    Most people do not know what any word they use means, beyond some basic understanding, maybe from learning from conversations or pics or something. But any meaning applied to any word is unique to any individual thinking that word.

    Like the word swastika
    To jews it means evil nazis
    The real meaning its the symbol for the sun walking across the sky and has no evil meaning, other than that.

    The star of david the jews use
    The meaning is male and female connected in sexual intercourse
    But to others just two triangles.

    Meanings is an abstract concept to the observer
  22. rr6 Banned Banned

    Lost In Abtraction( mind/intelligence ) Uncertaintity Does Not Neccesitate Chaos

    Good stuff Andy. I think I agree with all you stated.

    Here above tho, that is why we have dictionaries, to find common agreement of abstract meanings.

    With out some common agreement there can be no coummunication via abstractions and the more abstract the less chance of communication.

    Visual picto-graphs may have been some of the earlest abstractions to convey an abstract meaning of bird, fowl, egg laying creature.

    Fuller states that mathematical language preceded the written language by thousands of years. I dunno.

    11 11 11 is likened to set theory and visually meaningful. I believe set theory is one of 4 or five catagories of mathematics, as best as I recall.

    111 111 111 = 3 or 9 ha ha! but only I know which one is intended in my attempts to communicate either one or the other.

    Maybe I mean 3 triangles but we have two basic kinds of triangle open ' Y ' and closed ^.

    Actually since and open triangle has 3 lines integrated with with three points we may say give six characters of abstraction called triangle VVV.

    Uncertainty does not necesitate chaos...( rr6 )....imho

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. IncogNegro Banned Banned

    Caution real neuroscience!!

    The mind does not feel. You can poke it with a needle and it will not feel. So for neuroscientists to understand the mind they have to cut their mind :figuratively from the body which feels. Then they would have to learn "how their own brain functions" By "feeling through its processes". Knowing where the information they are thinking of is traveling inside the "quadrants" (even though there is like eight of them) and using their subconscious areas to transfer information from one area to the next. This not only increases memory, but makes the aspect of memory a completely subconscious function.

    The easiest way to begin the process is to think of The best time or thought you experience, The worst time or thought, and something simple and completely unrelated. All three have to be pictured simultaneously in order for a lasting effect on personality and thought.

Share This Page