The memory as we experience it is always a reconstruction — Joshs

I wanted to write exactly the same!

Do you want pointers to scientific models of recognition? What you seem to want to say is just the usual way of understanding the associative structure of the brain's neural networks. — apokrisis

I want to understand memory. I understand it, of course. But I don't understand why it is said that it's an unknown phenomenon, scientifically. What happens when I remember a sight? How can one say the memory has a number of bits information, while in reality I can remember many more that number? More than a number of one's and zeros? What does it even mean to say my brain contains 2000 Gbytes of information? The brain is no digital computer. Most things leave traces in the brain. There are more possible traces in the brain than there are elementary particles in the universe.

In physics, what is speed in terms of power?

Isn't a watt electricity? — Varde

Just look at the units.

What does it matter if the will is free or not? What matters is that others don't put their will on it. That can make the will unfree.

No comparison to what — apokrisis

To the impression one had before. There are no two different images of a face I see. Though the face leaves a trace in the brain. A pattern of least resistance. If I see the face of my wife, there is a kind of falling in this trace, so to speak. Is this trace the memory? If so there can be zillions of traces, due to the complexity of the network. One neuron can be involved in multiple memories. So there is a kind of comparison made, as I see now. The face is drawn to the trace, so to speak. But there is no litteral comparison.

It's nice the body is involved here. If I see a face there is a neuronal process. Say I look steadily at the face. There are pathways strengenth. A path of least resistance forms (in fact a bunch of parallel ones). Then later on, I look at the same face. Is the falling in the same path the recognition. The memory?

In body memory, the situations and actions experienced in the past are, as it were, all fused together without any of them standing out individually. Through the repetition and superimposition of experiences, a habit structure has been formed: well-practiced motion sequences, repeatedly perceived gestalten, forms of actions and interactions have become an implicit bodily knowledge and skill.” — Joshs

That's something I mean exactly! I'll contemplate it.

A pity. You had some constructive critique, so beloved in philosophy (though philosophy is more than the invention of abstract formal systems).

Because you don't know if it's true, you just think it must be true. — T Clark

If I don't know if it's true, then why shouldn't I say it? Kinda funny attitude. But scientifically sound, no doubt. Oh, the memory doesn't compare insofar memory is involved. You have to recognize what you compare with too.

Is there a good reason to claim this? Cognitive neuroscience would tell us that the ability to recognise — apokrisis

It's a fact that the memory doesn't function like storing data on a computer. It's nonsense to claim the memory contains a zillion bytes of information. So there is no comparison. And even if there was, how does a comparison constitute a memory. I can say that two faces are the same, but that's no memory.

So? Why shouldn't I say that? And why shouldn't science, from physics to neuro-biology, and math be included on this forum? Math is the ultimate abstract formal system, originating in old Greece. I believe Plato loved it. So did the natural phenomena. Philosophy was the whole package, so to speak. Is it because there are separate forums for this? If so, then it's no real philosophy here. As it included it all. Why exclude real science, when the awe for it is so many times mentioned. The philosophy of science is included, so why not science itself? A fear of crackpots who can't find a way on the "official" ones?

You are discussing the details of how memory must work without knowing what science already knows about how it does work.
8m — T Clark

Where did I say that? Again, you put the words into my thread.

No one has anything but a preliminary understanding of how memory and consciousness work. Trying to do the philosophy without adequate understanding of the mechanics won't work. — T Clark

That's what you say. Of course there is. Introspection for example is non-scientific. Even philosophical. Besides, why should science not be included in philosophy? They were a whole once. I can't help it that you have no understanding of it... No offense... :smile:

There is no solution to be found in the materialistic approach. Though you can relate, for example, color, forms therein, the changing of them in space, to material aspects of the brain. That doesn't explain the quali though. Unless you address some non-material stuff to it, giving rise to the quality.

I'm not looking for a scientific explanation. I already have one. I'm looking for a philosophical one. What makes a face famiar? What does it mean that you know a face? I must have been more specific. I explained though that it's not computer memory-like. So you can't say: I have seen you yesterday because you are stored in my memory. It's still a pity that poem subject is gone. Can't understand it still. Took the poetic universe over?

If it's all just opinion, then why aren't we just gossiping about preferences and hunches here? — hanaH

Again, and it's tiring a bit, you don't understand. I'm a quite patient guy but sometimes I can't understand why people don't see the obvious. I don't say it's all just an opinion. Preferences and hunches are to be found in every knowledge system. That of religion, that of the Inuit, or that of the astrologist. They are a welcome addition to knowledge though, and the pseudo science of today can be the normal of tomorrow. If I believe Covid is caused by a non-viral entity, then who are you to say I'm wrong? "Because you are wrong", I hear you say. And that's where you are wrong. In the present science based world it comes in handy though. The virus approach to the disease. Science is the cause for the global outbreaks, so it should be used for cure too. But there are legitimate other approaches to the cure of the disease and on top of that, the covid-affair is highly overrated. I myself believe a virus did the job indeed. You would say that it is the virus only that did the job. People of different outlook don't see viruses at all, and I know that it's hard for you to imagine that this could be not so for others. Everyone likes his own reality to be universal, and we are trained that there can be only one reality. But so thought the old Greek who saw gods walking on the Olympos. The concept of one unchangeable reality was introduced by Xenophanes (as I already mentioned). He replaced the old reality by one almighty God, unknowable to man, approximate though. An idea overtook in mathematical form by Plato. And still loudly sounding in these days. So however usefull science may be, it hasn't got a sole right on ontology matters. If someone sees a disease as an imbalance of the cholera or flegmatic fluid, and has means for curing it (and there are numerous examples where science fails, and alternative succeeds, because science gives a pretty distorted, incoherent, and disconnected view of living beings, not to mention the many mistakes and failures made in hospitals, but you seem to overlook these), then who is science to exclude them. And they are excluded, although they can operate on the border of society. In a truly free society the should be given equal privilege.
So again, propaganda babble.

Ultimately we gained more control of nature, fending off a serious threat. — hanaH

A serious threat? Are there non-serious ones too. This word is often heard too in propaganda babble. More control over nature? You mean more control over human beings. Nature has lost control over itself and is replaced by crazy human inventions. Control over Nature... Speaking about humbleness. Nature gave you the gift of life. TmYou have the same attitude of the separation of man and Nature as is posed by the dogma of science. I'm not a guy who is all natural or something like that. I'm a physicist myself and I like science. I don't have the attitude though that my reality is the one for all, although I belief my knowledge can be objective. Be it like it is, I'm gonna watch the Dalek, from 1966. "Exterminate, exterminate!"

I myself harbor a different opinion. I believe that it is important to know the truth before we decide to act. — Average

Of course. Knowing the truth about a lemon icecream helps in decision making when it comes to choose a taste.

The world has got much better in the last few centuries — hanaH

Already here we disagree. Of course scientist bring the examples of vaccines, airplanes, computers, TV's, or whatever fruits hanging on the trees of science, to the defense front, but the very fact that it has become the standard worldview on the planet (together with western democracy, a phony one because other cultures aren't allowed to live life as they see it fit for them), enforced with the power emerging from them same trees (a weapon arsenal, capable of destroying the whole surface of our precious Earth, with the god-given wonder of life on it, from which I don't get my morals, by the way) imposing it. The world is turning in one big panopticon. What a prospect!

Yeah, we still have problems, — hanaH

Still? They only grow! And I'm sure you think science has the solution to solve them all. Aaaah yes, problem-solving. How efficiently the young are trained already in this. Instead of the elders providing them with a means for a living. As far as I can see, the future is looking dim and every light at the end of the tunnel turns out to be another train coming. The economic train is loaded heavier and heavier and grows longer and longer, like the body of scientific knowledge. Seems the driver doesn't see the deep cliff ahead. But hey, people have marshmallow brains.

quote="hanaH;612260"]there's no reason to expect some final tranquillity, some state of the world where we can no longer see room for improvement.[/quote]

Why not. Covid did well! I liked it! There is always room for improvement!

We can, if we please, gossip about our feelings. But if we aren't just comparing feelings, we should discuss a metric for the state of the world. For example, Pinker uses various stats to argue that it is improved. One can of course object to his or any framework, criterion, or metric. It's up for endless debate and revision. — hanaH

Why should we gossip about our feelings? I'm not that interested in the feelings of others nor do I wish to state mine exorbitantly.
Pinker might use various stats, but according to his metrics, which are scientific. One can endlessly debate about the wonders and achievements of science but it's just one view amongst others. With no special position, such as the only culture in contact with reality. With scientific reality that is. As defined by science. But there are many more human cultures and ways of living. To deny them, call them unreal or superstitious, or to prohibit them to flourish (as it is, in practice), would be inhumane.

Personal experience. It's not a general rule though in many cases one can only tell after the choice if the choice had made sense. I know it makes perfect sense to choose a lemon ice cream because I know I like it. But The knowledge of unknown things is a lot bigger. There are thousands of ice cream tastes, and I know only a limited scala of tastes, so, I can choose one of the others, unknown ones, and only afterwards, I can say if my choice made sense. If I liked it. You could formalize this, abstract it in some system, but examples furnish the best way to inform.

Incompleteness. Math has a fatal flaw. Veritasium. I liked it.

Beforehand we can only guess. Àfterwards we know.

Just reread the conversation — baker

Good to read! And, what's your impression about it?

On the other hand, if you think that there are female minds - that minds alone can have a sex - then your view is distinct from mine and I want to know what it is about a female mind that makes it female. — Bartricks

There are numerous differences. If you know women, you should know. You want to get to know them?

Like I say, if you think there is no intrinsic difference between a 'female' mind and a 'male' mind, — Bartricks

Like I said, there is no intrinsic mind. Okay, when you look at brainprocesses you can say so. But even these can always be connected to a body they are in. They just can't exist outside a living body, cut loose from it.

The world would be saved. Nature could recover from the numerous stabs, injections, cuttings, damage, and torture for getting questions about her. She would get the rest she needed on her sick bed, which is almost made her death bed.

Yes, but there is nothing intrinsic to the mind itself that makes it male or female — Bartricks

Who says I define it intrinsically? You do. I not.

Is false. That’s just the argument you find easiest to dismantle and so you put it in the mouth of your interlocutor so you can “slam dunk” them with you water gun of logic. — khaled

Now that's a perceptive observation! :up:

No it doesn't. When you had your lobotomy, part of your brain was removed. So you went from having 100% of a brain to having 95%. But you yourself were not reduced by 5%. That's why the bank still thinks you owe it all the money you borrowed, and not just 95% of it. — Bartricks

Of course it does. If my visionary system is partially damaged I might not be able to see forms anymore. Though I retain the perception of color or motion. I don't break it up in quantifiable parts, as you do.

So, minds do not have sexes on your view then — Bartricks

I didn't say that. I said their gender is determined by the gender of the bodies they are in.

Likewise, there is no evidence that minds are made of matter and plenty that they are not. — Bartricks

How about taking away a piece of you material brain? It takes away a piece of mind too.

So, what makes a mind 'female' is simply the sex of the body it first inhabited? Is that your view? I am just seeking clarity: want to get my bazooka of reason nicely focused on it. — Bartricks

Which goes to show that the mind-world is number one for you. I indeed see the mind as having the sex of the body.

I am not my body. I am a mind. I have a body. I am not my body. — Bartricks

No you're not. You are your body and have a brain.

You haven't answered my question. If your wife had a male body, would her mind still be female in your view? And if so, why? — Bartricks

If she turned into male one morning, then her mind would still be female. I see her mind in relation to my (then former) wife. As such, I will try to reform her back in my original wife. If she doesn't like being a male body. Is a guy person in reality a body of opposite sex. Is a man wanting to love a man truly a man, or a woman, as he likes sex with a man? Or are we all gay in reality, wanting to make love with the opposite sex because we are of the wrong sex?

And what about her mind makes it female? Imagine, for instance, that her body is, in fact, a cleverly disguised male one. Is your wife's mind still female? If so, in virtue of what? — Bartricks

The very fact that she posses it. I'm pretty sure she's a female. Even if she pretends to be a woman. Then her mind is a pretended female mind.

Imaginary people do not have minds. — Bartricks

Imaginary? She's pretty real, let me tell you! Besides, why can't Imaginary people have minds?

The mind that my wife has.

It's what any intelligent person thinks. Lots of things lack sexes. Numbers, locations, and so on. The question 'what sex is the number 3?" is confused. And so too is the question 'what sex is a mind?' — Bartricks

I know a female mind! She just entered with a bag of groceries. The number 3 next door? She's walking on the other side of town. LA woman is giving her a hard time.

Because God is a mind and minds do not have sexes. — Bartricks

That's what you think. I guess you are in love with the mind. And who says minds have no sexes?

I'm not sure what you are saying. The most beautiful math is when there is neither symmetry no asymmetry? — Yohan

Precisely!

That's not a summary of anything I have said. God is not a man or a woman, okay? — Bartricks

How do you know?