Intellect is not a Property of Matter

[inocente]

Do these reflect memory before or after hypnosis? It is interesting that, under hypnosis, we recall things with much, much greater detail. And, the somatics includes information from all of our sense.

No, nothing I read said anything about hypnosis.

I’d worry about the evidence though. Under hypnosis some people have recalled previous lives in fine detail. We could explain that by a supernaturally perpetually reincarnated soul, but it suggests to me that our brains are creating the “memories” on the fly under heightened suggestibility.

Taking that back to “normal” hypnosis, do you know if there’s convincing evidence that subjects don’t create and weave all the detail into what they only partially remember? It’s interesting, for example, that witnesses to a crime often have conflicting memories, suggesting that memories are not set in stone but are dynamic.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I just reported what I read. There are some companies that try to estimate the storage capacity in long-term preparation for building human-like robots for example. The only attempt to find the capacity empirically that I found was Landauer’s, although it was not universally acclaimed.

The thinking about algorithms seems to be based on factors like psychoacoustics, where our perceptive systems are known to throw away source data a la mp3. We also seem to concentrate on aspects of images (the pretty woman or the man with the gun) while ignoring other elements.

Our perceptive systems don’t actually “throw the data away” like an mp3. I think what you’re referring to is perceptual masking, where high amplitude low frequency signals will mask higher frequency signals. In fact, expriments where people have been played sounds with a series of harmonics with the fundamental missing show that the brain inserts data by interpolation.

 

[Moonstruck888]

However, if it were linked to a material explanation, then the self-awareness effect would not be able to be immediate, but would be restricted by the velocity of light and as well would have to travese through a space time manifold.

It isn’t immediate. That has already been proven.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Well, then, it shows that the mind/brain is something much more than just simply matter…

The key to understanding the brain, in as much as we ever can understand it, is in a field called “emergence”.

You should be use caution not to use naked assertions quite so prolifically. You don’t know thing about me.

God bless,
jd

I don’t need to know anything about you. You were being definitive about a construct that no one understands.

 

[inocente]

In fact, expriments where people have been played sounds with a series of harmonics with the fundamental missing show that the brain inserts data by interpolation.

Does that indicate the brain may store less than we may imagine or are the results neutral?

 

[reggieM]

Irrespective of how much data we actually process and retain, you need to demonstrate the capacity for an infinite intellect in any one individual…

I think the problem here is how to demonstrate an infinite capacity. If the mind has an infinite capacity, then it would not be possible for science to measure it. If we started counting how much information could be stored, then the counting could never stop.

So, if we kept observing that information is being processed and stored, one could claim that the capacity would be reached “some day”.

However, when we see an unlimited supply of information processed and stored, a reasonable hypothesis is that the capacity is infinite.

To falsify that hypothesis, one just needs to show that there is a finite limit.

We should also consider a parallel question about how this capacity originated in the mind/brain. If the capacity can’t even be measured, how could claims about an evolutionary origin of mutations and selection be credible at all? Why would an evolutionary process develop a brain that has an unmeasurably huge capacity for information? What mutations and how many were required for that development, when did they occur and why?

 

[reggieM]

The lowest estimate I found was half a gigabyte, based on Thomas Landauer’s experiments which suggest we actually only remember around 2 bits/second.

Ok, but memory retrieval is different than actual storage.
In the same way, we can recognize data storage on a computer disk without ever retrieving the data itself for use.

 

[inocente]

However, when we see an unlimited supply of information processed and stored, a reasonable hypothesis is that the capacity is infinite.

We need to be careful here because old data may get pushed out by new, as in the joke. There’s a lot of stuff I learned for exams which cannot be recalled through lack of use. Data may also get rearranged, with all but the salient points being lost. And at the end of the day currently all of this is subjective – do I really remember every detail of my first kiss?

To falsify that hypothesis, one just needs to show that there is a finite limit.

I’d tend to say that the guy arguing for infinities is the one needing proof, as it’s such a big claim (pardon the pun).

A problem is we currently know very little, but for example the world record for memorizing (not calculating) the digits of pi is 100,000 decimal places, while a PC has calculated and stored 5 trillion places (both records currently unverified). If we wanted to add a 1 to the last digit, we’d print out the number, start at the right-hand column and carry as necessary, without even attempting to put the whole thing in our head. We have so many tricks up our sleeve for processing and memorizing, of most of which we’re not even consciously aware.

Why would an evolutionary process develop a brain that has an unmeasurably huge capacity for information?

Sounds unlikely, which is another reason for wanting proof.

 

[reggieM]

We need to be careful here because old data may get pushed out by new, as in the joke. There’s a lot of stuff I learned for exams which cannot be recalled through lack of use. Data may also get rearranged, with all but the salient points being lost. And at the end of the day currently all of this is subjective – do I really remember every detail of my first kiss?

Again, retrieval (what you consciously remember) is different than what is stored.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, we can frequently see older adults (even 90 years old) who have detailed memories of events from childhood.
But another point follows, even conceding a finite brain. When you say “pushed out” that implies a physical location and memories residing at a physical address are removed and replaced. This would be equivalent to the materialist claim that each thought takes up a physical location in the brain. But now, even forgetting storage, the actual thought-generating power of the brain is also unlimited. There would need to be physical location points for an infinite number of concepts (not even for long-term storage, but for calculation and synthesis purposes) and that is impossible in a finite space.

I’d tend to say that the guy arguing for infinities is the one needing proof, as it’s such a big claim (pardon the pun).

One can prove that the ocean is deeper than 100 feet without ever having to measure it to the bottom.
The demand that one give scientific evidence for something which is by definition, beyond the capability of science to prove is not reasonable.
Science cannot directly measure the physical dimensions of a single thought. Therefore, why is the burden of proof not given to science on that question also? Prove what the dimensions of a thought are, or else concede that thoughts do not exist?

A problem is we currently know very little, but for example the world record for memorizing (not calculating) the digits of pi is 100,000 decimal places, while a PC has calculated and stored 5 trillion places (both records currently unverified). If we wanted to add a 1 to the last digit, we’d print out the number, start at the right-hand column and carry as necessary, without even attempting to put the whole thing in our head. We have so many tricks up our sleeve for processing and memorizing, of most of which we’re not even consciously aware.

But again, memory retrieval is not a measure of capacity. Size of numbers is not required either for recognizing an infinite variety or kind (newness) of information.

Sounds unlikely, which is another reason for wanting proof.

Ok, I’m fully with you on that.

 

[inocente]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, we can frequently see older adults (even 90 years old) who have detailed memories of events from childhood.

I’m sure that’s true, with two riders: It’s only events, not everything. And it’s comparatively rare that anecdotal accounts can be born out by independent evidence (that’s not to say the old folk are deluded or lying, but something subjective may be going on).

When you say “pushed out” that implies a physical location and memories residing at a physical address are removed and replaced.

My poor phrasing again. I’ve no idea how memories are physically stored, but some memories do seem to fade over time.

But now, even forgetting storage, the actual thought-generating power of the brain is also unlimited.

The pink pelican read the financial pages of Cosmopolitan as she waited to board the red-eye to Tokyo.

That may be the first time that sentence has ever been said in the history of the universe, but both I and my computer can make up lots more. In the case of my computer, the program just needs some basic rules of grammar and dictionary look-ups. I probably do something similar, the sentences don’t need to be in my head. That may be the essence of creativity – just throwing together disparate ideas until something hits the spot.

Science cannot directly measure the physical dimensions of a single thought. Therefore, why is the burden of proof not given to science on that question also?

Do thoughts have dimensions or are they a sequence of neurons firing, neurons that are then reused in other, possibly overlapping thoughts? I don’t even know whether our consciousness is creating our thoughts or simply narrating unconscious processes. Would sure be nice to know.

Bottom line, it’s currently beyond science to explain consciousness and so on, but neuroscience is moving forward at a spanking pace. When we meet up in 50 years time, I predict no infinities were found to be needed.

 

[reggieM]

Bottom line, it’s currently beyond science to explain consciousness and so on, but neuroscience is moving forward at a spanking pace. When we meet up in 50 years time, I predict no infinities were found to be needed.

Ok, but I’ll return to your “Sounds unlikely” … I think this is more than simply a question of a lack of information and research.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Does that indicate the brain may store less than we may imagine or are the results neutral?

I have no idea what the philosophical ramifications of the result are. I only know that comprehensively understanding the mechanisms of human hearing makes me a better acoustic engineer. One application of this line of research in psychoacoustics is the one you mentioned, Lossy Compression that doesn’t affect subjective enjoyment of the product.

 

[BTW]

I approached this post from an unusual viewpoint; that of a clinical researcher in neuroscience who is also a believing Catholic. In particular, I believe in the existence of the individual human soul, created by God, united during life to the human body, and destined to eternal life.
I say this because as a neuroscientist I do not accept that the brain has unlimited capacity for either storage or processing of information, and as a Catholic I do not believe that the human soul has an infinite capacity for knowledge. I believe in an all-knowing God, but not in any all-knowing creatures, be they angels or devils or humans. Thus I conclude that, while the original post’s syllogistic conclusion is true, its argument is based on an erroneous premise.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I approached this post from an unusual viewpoint; that of a clinical researcher in neuroscience who is also a believing Catholic. In particular, I believe in the existence of the individual human soul, created by God, united during life to the human body, and destined to eternal life.
I say this because as a neuroscientist I do not accept that the brain has unlimited capacity for either storage or processing of information, and as a Catholic I do not believe that the human soul has an infinite capacity for knowledge. I believe in an all-knowing God, but not in any all-knowing creatures, be they angels or devils or humans. Thus I conclude that, while the original post’s syllogistic conclusion is true, its argument is based on an erroneous premise.

You’re stepping outside your method neuroscientist. No scientist should ever base a conclusion on what he or she does or does not believe.

 

[reggieM]

I approached this post from an unusual viewpoint; that of a clinical researcher in neuroscience who is also a believing Catholic. In particular, I believe in the existence of the individual human soul, created by God, united during life to the human body, and destined to eternal life.
I say this because as a neuroscientist I do not accept that the brain has unlimited capacity for either storage or processing of information, and as a Catholic I do not believe that the human soul has an infinite capacity for knowledge. I believe in an all-knowing God, but not in any all-knowing creatures, be they angels or devils or humans. Thus I conclude that, while the original post’s syllogistic conclusion is true, its argument is based on an erroneous premise.

Thanks for a great reply (and from your very qualified knowledge)!

That is a fascinating and (it seems to me so far) correct distinction.

If we said that “the human soul has infinite capacity for knowledge”, then that means that humans could be as all-knowing as God.

But obviously, humans could not know the experience of creating the universe, for example, so humans cannot be all-knowing.

So, there’s a limit to the overall possiblity of knowledge for humans.

But I still wonder if we can say that “the human soul has an infinite capacity” in some other way. We know, by faith, that God created us for infinite happiness. He did that for us. So, humans have an infinite capacity for life. It will never end.

Plus, we know what this concept means, in general terms. We have the capability of “containing” the concept of the infniite. We can generate infinite kinds of information (although not all possible information).

I think the problem is with defining what is meant by the “infinite capacity” and what it can do.

What becomes more certain is that the physical components of the brain alone do not have the capacity for infinite storage and generation of thought.

 

[reggieM]

In materialistic terms, each thought would correspond to some specific neurological and molecular activity.

So, when we imagine a pink, flying elephant – that would correspond with some physical matter that creates and stores the thought.

The mental image does not have a physical definition. How big is your imagined pink flying elephant? How much does it weigh?

So, the physical molecules, supposedly, produce non-material entities. There is an infinite quantity of those entities that can be produced.

 

[BTW]

You’re stepping outside your method neuroscientist. No scientist should ever base a conclusion on what he or she does or does not believe.

Your statement above is much too broad. We all reach hundreds of conclusions every day based on common-sense beliefs about how the world works; e.g. that guy in the right lane is going to try and cut in front of me, so I better speed up (or slow down, depending on how you drive).
Or take this statement; “Scientific conclusions should be based on valid scientific evidence.” That itself is not an empirical conclusion, but rather a logical philosophical belief.
When I say “…as a neuroscientist I do not accept…”, I am implying that my conclusion comes from my professional-level knowledge of the field of neuroscience. When I say “…as a Catholic I do not believe…”, I am talking about a religious belief that I hold that is consistent with my understanding of the body of Catholic teaching.
I do not think that my neuroscientific beliefs and my religious beliefs are contradictory, but that is a whole other discussion.

 

[Touchstone]

Your statement above is much too broad. We all reach hundreds of conclusions every day based on common-sense beliefs about how the world works; e.g. that guy in the right lane is going to try and cut in front of me, so I better speed up (or slow down, depending on how you drive).

Right. We operate on models, models that are continually being refined and honed by experience and consequences of the performance of our previous models.

Or take this statement; “Scientific conclusions should be based on valid scientific evidence.” That itself is not an empirical conclusion, but rather a logical philosophical belief.

Actually, that is an empirical conclusion. It’s what Popper would call “meta-induction” - the analysis of the formation, testing and results of all sorts of scientific endeavors over a long period of time now. The results are strongly coalesced around the idea that adherence to scientific evidence, objective testing and liability to falsification tend to produce superior results in terms of knowledge and its performance over the lack or negation of any of those three. Science as a science experiment, science judged on its own criteria, is a resounding success.

When I say “…as a neuroscientist I do not accept…”, I am implying that my conclusion comes from my professional-level knowledge of the field of neuroscience. When I say “…as a Catholic I do not believe…”, I am talking about a religious belief that I hold that is consistent with my understanding of the body of Catholic teaching.
I do not think that my neuroscientific beliefs and my religious beliefs are contradictory, but that is a whole other discussion.

I can see that it’s fair to say “My Catholic beliefs do not contradict my knowledge as a neuroscientist”. I think’s to be expected – there is a kind of “NOMA” here in a local sense, where the Catholic notions of mind and dualist intellect are just beyond natural science’s scope, and perfectly unfalsifiable.

But the impression that “as a neuroscientist I do not accept” gives (me, at least) is that somehow current neuroscience militates against a materialist view. I’m not a neuroscientists, but in talking to experts who are, the more we learn – and there’s been a renaissance of sorts in this field in the last decade, as you know – the more robust and complete physical descriptions become. Again, that doesn’t negate dualism (in the non-monist sense), but nothing can.

That reduces, though to physical models that get better and better, but “do not falsify that which I believe in an unfalsifiable way”. Fair enough, but I think it’s misleading as you’ve offered it, as it sounds like neuroscience offers some succor for dualism which I suggest it does not.

-TS

 

[Moonstruck888]

In materialistic terms, each thought would correspond to some specific neurological and molecular activity.

So, when we imagine a pink, flying elephant – that would correspond with some physical matter that creates and stores the thought.

The mental image does not have a physical definition. How big is your imagined pink flying elephant? How much does it weigh?

So, the physical molecules, supposedly, produce non-material entities. There is an infinite quantity of those entities that can be produced.

Assumption Alert!

 

[Moonstruck888]

Your statement above is much too broad. We all reach hundreds of conclusions every day based on common-sense beliefs about how the world works; e.g. that guy in the right lane is going to try and cut in front of me, so I better speed up (or slow down, depending on how you drive).
Or take this statement; “Scientific conclusions should be based on valid scientific evidence.” That itself is not an empirical conclusion, but rather a logical philosophical belief.
When I say “…as a neuroscientist I do not accept…”, I am implying that my conclusion comes from my professional-level knowledge of the field of neuroscience. When I say “…as a Catholic I do not believe…”, I am talking about a religious belief that I hold that is consistent with my understanding of the body of Catholic teaching.
I do not think that my neuroscientific beliefs and my religious beliefs are contradictory, but that is a whole other discussion.

As a professional level neuroscientist you must be aware that the assertion that the brain is supernatural is stepping outside your method, that it is unverifiable, unfalsifiable and counter to any kind of disciplined and responsible scientific approach.

I’m not a neuroscientist as it happens, but my field does involve the studying how the human brain and ear operate and interact. It seems almost certain that this can be explained in physical terms although the feat of explanation is prodigious and many of the results still debated at the present time.

One example of what I’m talking about would be Ohm’s Second Law (also called Ohm’s Acoustic Law), which you’ll know as a neuroscientist would predict that the brain is capable of Fourier Analysis. While this is currently not a fireproof theory, it certainly gives an example of how things like the appreciation of music can be explained without recourse to the supernatural.