Return to Website

The Acropolis

A philosophy discussion forum hosted by

Jim Macdonald's Philosophy Page

The Acropolis
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: everything/nothing

thanks for responding, excellent example

while focusing on process, my considerations transcend immediate circumstance.
is all perception sensory?
if i were thinking about a song is there a memory-song being sensed or is thought metasensory perseption?

if there's anything you want to brainstorm about i am interested in considering any ideas.

Re: Re: everything/nothing

my understanding is that, physically speaking, thoughts are characterised by synapse activity. the activity is passively responsive to sensory input, and can be actively recreated- that is, the synapse activity that creates the thought is recreated. in that respect, the song heard in your head is the replaying of the reaction and has little resemblance to the air pressure that was the original signal's source. consider a tape recording of the song- the tape holds electrical info that can be interpreted as a song- but the signal is not a song. it is an electromagnetic imprint- just like a thought in our brain.

if the above description can be considered as 'true' then what would you say was the human equivalent to the 'playback head' of the tape deck?

sean

Re: Re: Re:

it appears to be sound and true. in regard the human equivalence to the playback head with the limited familierity i have to neurologistics i suppose the playback agents are synapsi in the cerbral cortex.
i would be more at ease to compare ones brain to a computer's CPU and that makes the synapsi (maybe its synapses) equivalent to circutry or perhaps even software. i have only a bit more familierity with computer technology than i do with matters of the human brain, but it seems that when considering our capacity for polyprocessing and memory we humans are similar in more ways to a computer than to a tape deck.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

i prefer tape to disc but seriously (yes, that was a joke attempt), a pc is hardwired to specs and will always be as it was at the time of it's 'conception'- or it will fail. consider the tape itself, rather than the tape deck; the tape records an electric impression of a stimuli, which will degrade thru time and can be erased or manipulated. but using an analogy is confusing as it will fail the comparison at some point/level. perhaps it is better to agree to using synapse activity and brain function as actual examples- it's metaphysics so it shouldn't matter whether we have actually dissected a brain ourselves!

the reason i mentioned the tape head was to create a metaphor for our inertial being- i think it failed. please disregard it. what do you imagine i mean by the term 'inertial being'?

maybe that's a better way of discussing it- front on.

sean

ps: dictionary.com reports that it's synapse' and 'synapses'. how unimaginative...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

i am not sure that this qualifies as metaphysics because synapes are material, and i imagine that the electrical impulses are as well. Perhaps the metaphysical element is part and parcel to said "inertial being", i think you meant the source of our actions inertia was some non physical being.. im thinking of inertial elements as aspects within one, entirely physical.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

yes, i'm confusing things. everybody's good at something...

sorry about that, chief. on reflection, i'm happy with hardware/software analogies.

it's difficult to differentiate between the action of current and the interpretation. as with the screen in front of you; fundamentally an x,y grid of flashing lights, it's the interpretation that creates the image. the interpretation is entirely dependant on successful previous interpretation being evoked. that we can will an imitation or repeat of the original synaptic patterns is our a priori. that's where i believe the inertial being is relevant. by inertial being i mean that the self that requires the interpretation of the brain is the 'weight' of our physical being. simply, or at a most basic level, consider water in a balloon. if the inertial mass of the water is weighted to one side of the balloon, then the balloon will move in that direction so as to maintain it's 'closed set-ness'.

what is your understanding of dimensional physics? my understanding is that, in the greater than an atom sized world, one dimension is as one atom; two dimensions is as two or more atoms on a single plane; three dimensions is two or more atoms occupying multiple plane thru inertial movement- effectively creating time. i think of the structure of water; one, huge hydrogen atom with two, bonded oxygen atoms spinning thru the axis created by their relative being and so creating the effect of three dimensions in time; time being a perception of the relative action. i use this description because it is not analogical- we are primarily water and therefore primarily two dimensional at any given moment. our atomically three dimensional 'sacks' (skin)can have the two dimensional water run over it- but there is an abrasive action as the water spins so as to create the effect of three dimensions.

sean

d'oh!

i forgot- four or more atoms creating three dimensional solids (of the type our skin is made from), granite being an excellent example of a stable structure made primarily of quartz crystals- , being five like atoms taking the perceived form of elongated cubes.

sean

passionatural?

too fast? where'd ya go?