let's venture into the digital, a world — TheMadFool
lacking the qualities of a continuum — TheMadFool
This basic signalling architecture (on/off) suggests the brain is like a computer, digital. — TheMadFool
However, the mind has created what is probably a huge cache of vague concepts — TheMadFool
1. Given the brain has a digital structure (on/off neurons) how is it that it generates vague concepts? — TheMadFool
2. Does the existence of vague concepts imply that the analog mind is not the same as — TheMadFool
I can't give you the answer you are looking for. But I can speculate on how a digital process can produce analog outputs. Here's a quick sketch.1. Given the brain has a digital structure (on/off neurons) how is it that it generates vague concepts?
2. Does the existence of vague concepts imply that the analog mind is not the same as the digital brain i.e. is the mind not the brain? — TheMadFool
My main concern is simply if a digital system can handle analog data. — TheMadFool
1. Given the brain has a digital structure (on/off neurons) how is it that it generates vague concepts? — TheMadFool
Maybe the Mind translates from Brain code into "Soul" meaning.If we accept that the brain speaks in a digital language then these vague concepts must be translatable into a digital code of off/on neuronal states. — TheMadFool
1. Given the brain has a digital structure (on/off neurons) how is it that it generates vague concepts? — TheMadFool
1. Given the brain has a digital structure (on/off neurons) how is it that it generates vague concepts? — TheMadFool
While action potentials are usually binary, you should note that synaptic communication between neurons is generally not binary. Most synapses work by neurotransmittors, and this is a chemically mediated graded response that, for example, act on voltage-gated ion channels. So even though action potentials are often binary, communication between neurons are most often not, and action potential firing can involve the integration of synaptic information from many different neurons. Therefore, the brain as a whole cannot be reduced to a binary system.
If I remember my human physiology classes, the language of neurons, the cells that make up the brain, is an action potential which follows the all or none law i.e. either the neuron is firing or it isn't. This basic signalling architecture (on/off) suggests the brain is like a computer, digital.
However, the mind has created what is probably a huge cache of vague concepts a couple of which I mentioned upstream.
My questions are:
1. Given the brain has a digital structure (on/off neurons) how is it that it generates vague concepts?
2. Does the existence of vague concepts imply that the analog mind is not the same as the digital brain i.e. is the mind not the brain? — TheMadFool
1. If the brain is digital then each perception and each thought corresponds to a specific combination of off/on neurons which I will call brain state. — TheMadFool
A dwarf evokes a brain state and a giant, as of necessity, must — TheMadFool
elicit a different brain state for they're two different perceptions and also different thoughts; different perceptions, different brain states and different thoughts, different brain states.
Tallness is a vague term - it applies not to a specific height but to a range of possible values height can assume. — TheMadFool
That means heights of 6.1 ft, 6.5 ft, 7 ft are all tall for this person. What is to be noted here is that each of these heights are distinct perceptions and should evoke distinct brain states and each of these brain states should be different thoughts but this isn't the case: all of the heights 6.1 ft, 6.5 ft and 7 ft are matched to not different but the same brain state, the same thought, the thought tall. — TheMadFool
This shouldn't be possible if each brain state is a different thought, no? — TheMadFool
In other words, a digital brain with thoughts being discrete brain states shouldn't be able to generate/handle vague concepts because if it could do that it implies different brain states are not different but the same thought. — TheMadFool
2. Imagine a digital and an analog voltmeter (measures voltage). The analog voltmeter has a dial and is able to read any continuous voltage but the digital voltmeter reads only discrete values such as 0, 1, 2, and so on. Now, the digital voltmeter's measuring involves rounding off voltages and so anything less than 0.5 volts it reads as 0 and anything between 0.5 and 1.5 volts it reads as 1 volt and anything between 1.5 volts and 2.5 volts it reads as 2 volts and so on. The digital voltmeter assigns a range of continuous voltages to a discrete reading that it can display.This is vagueness. — TheMadFool
This seems to suggest that vagueness is an aspect of digital systems — TheMadFool
and so, the brain, understood as functioning in discrete brain states (digitally), should generate vague concepts. — TheMadFool
1 & 2 seem to contradict each other. — TheMadFool
1. If the brain is digital then each perception and each thought corresponds to a specific combination of off/on neurons which I will call brain state. Let's now take a concept known for its vagueness to wit height. A dwarf evokes a brain state and a giant, as of necessity, must elicit a different brain state for they're two different perceptions and also different thoughts; different perceptions, different brain states and different thoughts, different brain states.
Tallness is a vague term - it applies not to a specific height but to a range of possible values height can assume. Suppose there's a person who considers someone tall if that person's height is between 6 ft and 8 ft. That means heights of 6.1 ft, 6.5 ft, 7 ft are all tall for this person. What is to be noted here is that each of these heights are distinct perceptions and should evoke distinct brain states and each of these brain states should be different thoughts but this isn't the case: all of the heights 6.1 ft, 6.5 ft and 7 ft are matched to not different but the same brain state, the same thought, the thought tall. This shouldn't be possible if each brain state is a different thought, no? In other words, a digital brain with thoughts being discrete brain states shouldn't be able to generate/handle vague concepts because if it could do that it implies different brain states are not different but the same thought. — TheMadFool
2. Imagine a digital and an analog voltmeter (measures voltage). The analog voltmeter has a dial and is able to read any continuous voltage but the digital voltmeter reads only discrete values such as 0, 1, 2, and so on. Now, the digital voltmeter's measuring involves rounding off voltages and so anything less than 0.5 volts it reads as 0 and anything between 0.5 and 1.5 volts it reads as 1 volt and anything between 1.5 volts and 2.5 volts it reads as 2 volts and so on. The digital voltmeter assigns a range of continuous voltages to a discrete reading that it can display. This is vagueness. This seems to suggest that vagueness is an aspect of digital systems and so, the brain, understood as functioning in discrete brain states (digitally), should generate vague concepts.
1 & 2 seem to contradict each other. Comments... — TheMadFool
This seems to suggest that vagueness is an aspect of digital systems and so, the brain, understood as functioning in discrete brain states (digitally), should generate vague concepts. — TheMadFool
Another aspect of your question may be found in the math of Fuzzy Logic. Ironically, programmers have learned how to make digital computers think like analog humans, by applying Boolean Algebra algorithms to the otherwise discrete language of 1s & 0s. — Gnomon
That merely makes it a general term, no? — bongo fury
Again, would you substitute "general" for "vague", here? And if not, why not? Either way, this is a point worth debating, but I think it is about generality not vagueness. — bongo fury
@Tim3003Probably. Depends how you clarify that. Read ↪Tim3003's question, and I recommend also this answer. — bongo fury
A foggy day's digital picture relies on the eye's inherent limitations to pull off its analog illusion. The eye, unable to make out the discrete pixel data sees the fog as a continuum viz. shades of white. Basically, it's the discrete digital mimicking the continuous analog. What this reveals is that our eyes have a fixed resolution capacity - any difference equal to or smaller than that and we can't tell things apart . Vague concepts are exactly like that - there are certain differences that our senses/minds can't resolve as distinct from each other. Entire chunks of, say, height data elicit the same brain state (here tallness). So, for someone, heights of 6 ft, 6.4 ft and 7ft, all, correspond to the same discrete brain state (tall). — TheMadFool
The surprising thing about a sorites puzzle, or indeed any discussion of vagueness, is you don't need any analog. Analog is sufficient but not necessary for vagueness. You only require a digitally defined series (of discrete but plausibly imperceptibly different values, like your heights to 3 d.p.) and two or three vague adjectives like tall, medium and short. — bongo fury
The surprising thing about a sorites puzzle, or indeed any discussion of vagueness, is you don't need any analog. Analog is sufficient but not necessary for vagueness. You only require a digitally defined series (of discrete but plausibly imperceptibly different values, like your heights to 3 d.p.) and two or three vague adjectives like tall, medium and short. — bongo fury
1. Given the brain has a digital structure (on/off neurons) — TheMadFool
Yes, let's agree on that, for the sake of argument; or we could (equivalently) discuss the "perceptions" and "thoughts" of the computer. — bongo fury
how is it that it generates vague concepts? — TheMadFool
The sorites paradox then [...] reveals, quite clearly in my opinion, that if the brain operates in discrete digital brain states [...] then, vagueness should be impossible — TheMadFool
How can a digitally produced image show a foggy day? — Tim3003
The two of you are saying that there are analog processes involved in thinking. However, these analog processes are irrelevant because what counts here are thoughts and thoughts are discrete combinations of on/off neurons. — TheMadFool
These two sentences literally contradict each other. Read: sentence two is wrong. — StreetlightX
Well, you’re missing the chaotic environment out. The world is part of how we think. GABA neurons inhibit, but if only some fire then they don’t impact the next neurons. The reasons they fire or not are due to ‘external’ conditions.
Thinking requires constant input. We’re not brains in vats. Also, what exactly do you mean by ‘thinking’? Some people regard thinking as ‘worded thought’ only. That could also be a confusion.
When it comes to words like ‘tall’ and ‘fat’ it probably helps if we assess the different types of antonyms involved.
Note: People can only come to disagree from some conscious point of agreement (eg. That we’re awake and conscious of each other as human beings with different views and beliefs). — I like sushi
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.