Stathis wrote: *One thing that we have found with all new physical phenomena is that they follow physical laws that can be described algorithmically. You're postulating that not only does the brain use processes that we have not yet discovered, but that these processes, unlike everything else we have ever discovered, are non-algorithmic. What reason have you for postulating this?* ** I am not postulating, I am deducing from past learning facts (I mentioned one) . Algorithmic is a good way to proceed WITHIN OUR FIGMENT of physical world. We have no assurance that there is no 'other way(s)' to think. Remember my agnostic stance? I cannot follow your "...*everything else we have ever discovered, are non-algorithmic..." * ** There is a funny idea about 'algorithmic thinking' and I tend to consider it a consequence i.e. secondary way in our understanding development. I base this on som primitive languages (my mother tongue is one of them) where the pristine discovery of DOUBLE parts entered as a 'unit' (men with 1 eye = half-eyed, 1 foot = half legged, 1 hand = half handed etc.) and only later did they turn into a penta-based arithmetic (cf: digits) - the basis IMO for the Roman numerals up to 50, - all preceding our arithmetic logic. (Remember: the Romans subtracted 3 from 5 as "5,4,3,- resulting in 3 in their calendar conting). This was way before th need for a zero. I cannot discuss this with Bruno, who has deeply ingrained logic within arithmetics of new.
Your other formulation *"...we have found with all new physical phenomena is that they follow physical laws that can be described algorithmically..."* ** putting the cart before the horse: in explaining attempts for half-way (overstatement) understood phenomena "science" resulted to apply algorithmic logic to build the physical system - not primarily, but in the course of millennia - and later on it looked comfortable to BASE all those considerations upon the conclusional principle. It works well and practically. No evidence, however, for a generating course in my view. Stathis, I do not seek 'belivers' towards my ideas. I gave you my answer FYI and will accept your non-acceptance. I *know* about SO much *that I do not know* and am SO old that I need peace, not war. Have a prosperous life John M PS. About my Roman numerals (using 'pentinal' instead of 'decimal' (I did not research it): I, II, III, IIII (was too much, so they reached to the 'pentinal' group-sign of 2 lines in an angle V instead and introduced: IV (one off from the pentinel - five) V, VI, VII, VIII and again reaching ahead to the double pentinel (2 Vs written upside down on each other into an X) for nine = one off this: IX - arriving at the double pentinel X (later called "ten" - dix , including the sign: *2Vs *"*D*(OUBLE)* i(*nto) *X*" as "five" (fusion?) played into the sign V. Above X the system continued all the way to 50 - showing a special arrangement for the "I" sign for numerals. After which they continued to the hundred (C) which was so much that it needed extra care. Who had 100 oxen? not even Cincinnatti or his Latin predeccessors. JM * * * * On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:03 AM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Stathis, > > I like your implications: > > "... I assume you think that such an attempt would fail, that > > although some processes in the brain such as chemistry and the > > behaviour of electric fields can be modelled, there are other > > processes that can't be modelled. What processes are these, and what > > evidence do you have that they exist?" > > > > I am speaking about processes we don't (yet?) know at all, like some > > centuries ago electricity etc. etc. and in due course we learn about > > phenomena not fitting into our existing 'models'. > > I don't volunteer to describe such processes before we learn about them > (how > > stupid of me) - netiher do I have "evidence" for the "existence and > > behavior" of such unkown/able processes. > > Our cultural induction allows a widening of models, processes, phenomena, > > mechanisms. > > We even advanced from the Geocentric vision. > > One thing that we have found with all new physical phenomena is that > they follow physical laws that can be described algorithmically. > You're postulating that not only does the brain use processes that we > have not yet discovered, but that these processes, unlike everything > else we have ever discovered, are non-algorithmic. What reason have > you for postulating this? > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.