Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos  Then there must be some mechanism that presents the target to my brain, fully formed, as if it were the downstream result of seeing an image of the target without actually seeing anything. Or as if it were the downstream result of reading a description of the target without actually reading anything. Something has to interpret the bits in the computer.
The other possibility is that there is a representation of reality, including the target, "in the ether" (akashic record?) that results in both the computer's internal representation and my cognizing the target. Now we need an infinite number of mechanisms to interpret the akashic record. |
Nope, not true. You are still thinking sensorially. All that is necessary is that enough information enters your brain to bias your responses (both external, such as what card you call out, and internal such as what fragment of a memory ends up being associated with the next word you happen to hear) towards the desired outcome. The observational theories say, essentially that among the repertoire of responses that you might naturally have, the probability of certain ones that are positively reinforced at the time of feedback are increased and the probabilities of certain ones that are negatively reinforced at the time of feedback are decreased.
Quote:
Either way, we have a hugely complex piece of machinery to discover. And I didn't even mention the temporal aspects of it.
~~ Paul
|
I would say, rather, that in any case, we have a lot of rather counterintuitive mechanisms to understand -- as we did (and still do) with SR, QM and GR. That is in no way an argument that discredits the evidence. A demonstration of our ignorance makes some people uncomfortable, but the universe doesn't give a d**n about that.
Topher