The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Write4U said:
How does any electrochemical reaction work? How does harmony work?. How does affinity work? How do physics work?

You need a lesson in physics? Is your brain incapable of understanding anything?
Click to expand...
You do realize that we are talking about a Conscious Experience here, and not the Physics of how Sensors work?
 
Steve Klinko said:
In this topic I will attempt to define Understanding with respect to the Inter Mind Model (IMM). With the Perspective of the IMM, we can ask the question: Is Understanding a process in the Conscious Mind (CM) or is it simply Neural Activity of the right kind in the Physical Mind (PM)?

The concept of Understanding, as with the concept of Knowing, is difficult to define properly. First, I will try to show that Understanding is different from Knowing. Let's consider the equation, E = mc^2. This is an iconic equation that most people have seen on TV or in the movies. I think I remember seeing it on the old Twilight Zone TV Series Intro. Many people have this equation in their Memories and they therefore Know this equation and can recite it. A lot of people probably Know that E is the Energy and m is the mass. Fewer people will Know that c is the Velocity of Light. However, even the people that Know what all the variables mean might not actually Understand this equation. Understanding would require that there is at least a recognition of the Implication of the equation, which is that a little bit of mass can be equivalent to a lot of Energy. A Deeper Understanding would come from being able to derive the equation from Momentum concepts and the limiting effect of the speed of Light. So it is clear that People can have Knowledge of all kinds of things, but might not have an Understanding of those things.

In another thread it was shown that Knowledge is simply static Information of Known things. Let's define Understanding as a Relationship between those Known things. Let's now consider an equation that everybody Knows and Understands, 1 + 1 = 2. You can say 1 + 1 = 2 as a Known fact without necessarily Understanding it. Understanding takes more work. Understanding this equation requires that you somehow produce a Relationship between the two 1s. You can write a 1 on a piece of paper and then write another 1 on that paper. You can then proceed to count how many 1s there are and get the answer 2. There is a Relationship between the 1s when they are written together. You can then draw a dot on another piece of paper and then draw another dot on that piece of paper. You can then go count the dots and you will get the answer 2. Now you have attained a deeper Understanding of the equation. You have found that it's not only a 1 and a 1 that results in a count of 2 but also that a dot and a dot results in a count of 2. You will find that if you do this for other kinds of objects that the count is always 2. You have now generalized what was an abstract mathematical equation to real Physical World situations. You will have written and drawn things on the paper but you would need to have Seen the things as Visual Experiences in your Mind to properly Understand. Your Visual system operates to Detect the Writing on the paper, and through the action of the Inter Mind (IM), transforms it into a Conscious Visual Experience.

You could have done the above exercises without writing and drawing on paper. You could have done this all in your Mind. You could have imagined a 1 and then another 1 in your Mind. Imagining a 1 is probably going to require that you recall the Image of a 1 from Memory. Your PM will have the Information for a 1 stored in the Neural Plasticity of the Brain. There will be Neural Activity involved with accessing this Information. The IM will detect this Neural Activity and know that it represents the Image of a 1. The IM will then generate the Conscious Experience, and therefore the Knowledge, of the two 1s. The 1s will probably be hazy and fuzzy when imagined this way, and some people may be able to imagine more vividly than others. Nevertheless, it will still necessarily be a Conscious Experience in the Mind. I will make the Speculation that it is probably not even possible to Understand that 1 + 1 = 2 without the use of an internal Visual Image of the situation. So I think it is fair to state that Understanding is purely a CM activity. There is no Understanding in the PM. The PM can store the Information that 1 + 1 = 2 because anyone can reflexively recall that Information and say it. You can punch in a 1 and then another 1 on a Calculator and get 2, but there is no Understanding involved within the Calculator in producing that answer of 2. Understanding, even the simplest concepts, requires something beyond static Information, Knowledge, and Calculation. Understanding requires a more Dynamic Relational Process that seems to need a Conscious Experience. It requires that there is a CM to Experience the steps of the Process. So, Understanding is at it's core an Experience and is not even a thing that exists in the Physical World. The Human Brain cannot Understand anything, because the Human Brain is a Physical thing, and Understanding happens as a Conscious Experience in a CM.

Since a Computer cannot Experience anything, a Computer can never Understand anything. To say that a Computer Understands something is the same kind of error as saying that a Computer Knows something. Without Consciousness there is no Understanding.
Click to expand...

I can't understand your post.
 
Steve Klinko said:
You do realize that we are talking about a Conscious Experience here, and not the Physics of how Sensors work?
Click to expand...
Why do you separate the conscious experience from the sensory physics which provides the conscious experience.
They are not separate functions, these are integrated functions. The conscious experience begins at the cellular sensory level.

This is obvious in very simple brainless organisms which already respond to sensory excitation.
 
Write4U said:
Why do you separate the conscious experience from the sensory physics which provides the conscious experience.
They are not separate functions, these are integrated functions. The conscious experience begins at the cellular sensory level.

This is obvious in very simple brainless organisms which already respond to sensory excitation.
Click to expand...
I separate it because there is no Scientific Explanation for how Experiences are produced by Sensory Physics. But even more compelling is that the Experiences are in fact already Separate in the Reality of the Manifest Universe. Trying to push Experience back into the Neurons has not been very productive. New perspectives are needed. I like the Connection Perspective. Dualism is back in town.
 
"Separate in the Reality of the Manifest Universe"

Sounds like the title of a bad prog rock CD.
 
river said:
The Mind . Awareness . The Mind , biological holistic energy ; communication between the parts , which on their own could never evolve .
Click to expand...
Mind is a function of the brain. In the same way that holding something is a function of the hand.

Is that so hard to grasp? :)
 
Steve Klinko said:
there is no Scientific Explanation for how Experiences are produced by Sensory Physics.
Click to expand...
Yes there is.

For instance, you asked about the visual sensation of the colour red, I believe.

What we call red light has a particular range of wavelengths. In the human eye, there are visual receptors that produce chemical signals in response to red light. Those chemical signals in turn produce electrical impulses that travel into the human brain, where there is a large network of neurons that can communicate with one another chemically and electrically.

Science has identified particular regions of the brain that are specialised in handling certain sensory inputs. In the case of red light, some processing happens in the visual cortex of the brain. Signals are then distributed from there to other parts of the brain's neural network, which is very complex.

The seat of conscious experience seems to be located in the frontal lobes. Inputs to there come from other parts of the brain. So, ultimately, the conscious experience of "red" is produced there.

Now, obviously this is no more than a broad overview of a very large and technical topic. But you can go and read the peer-reviewed literature in the neuroscience journals if you want all the details.

Suffice it to say that your claim that "there is no scientific explanation" is belied just by the few paragraphs above.

But even more compelling is that the Experiences are in fact already Separate in the Reality of the Manifest Universe.
Click to expand...
You'll need to unpack that for me. What are you talking about?

Which experiences happen in isolation from brains?
 
Last edited:
The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Let's debunk this right away.

Here is a clear demonstration of the brain gaining understanding. It's remarkable how quick the brain is able to learn to separate "words" from random noise. It's only 3 min long, so take a moment and "learn".
 
Steve Klinko said:
I separate it because there is no Scientific Explanation for how Experiences are produced by Sensory Physics.
Click to expand...

Heh. If a witch mixes together eye of newt, toe of frog, wool of bat, tongue of dog, etc according to a highly technical procedure -- and a vision of King Arthur's court reliably appears privately for her or anyone who else who performs the process, then that's an explanation of the manifestation. (It just doesn't go deep beyond that superficial level -- it lacks a background theory to account for it that's universally compatible with the rest.)

Do you see how you're not getting anywhere with the absolutely "no explanation" skit, rather than focusing on the coherence of an explanation with a world wherein "conjuring" is normally taken to be beyond the capabilities of matter? I.e., the existing components (particles, atoms, molecules) usually constitute an _X_ and its behavior via their recognized properties and organization. Rather than not constituting a peculiar _X_ by unrecognized properties not attributed to them beforehand and not detectable in them even after a radical non-public novelty arises in correspondence with their dynamic relationships.

No, I thought not. You're still going to keep entertaining audiences with that "absolutely no explanation provided" routine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top