A proposal for explaining the Mentation Cycle
Observation[tangibles] -> Thought(projection of tangibles(data) + Programs(reflex || instinct || rules of inference and such as expressed in language || X factor)[processing] -> Expression(language, formal or natural) -> -> Observation(tangibles || expressed through language).
Observation:The process of our senses projecting the real world into models and subsequent storage.The process would not be unlike a digital camera taking a snap. Some type of Analog-to-Brainpic conversion and then storage in terms of nubits(neuron-bits).
Thought:'operations on data'. The data would be the nubit models, initially acquired through observation. Thought would be the process that transforms these models into other nubit models(output) according to certain procedures(operations).The initial procedures will be built-in; i.e.reflex and instinct.
example:Touching a hot object is the observation phase. Our sense of touch converts the physical 'hotness' to a nubit model. This nubit model triggers a built in protection mechanism(reflex) that transforms the 'hotness' nubit model to a 'get away' nubit model, which results in a reflex action that takes our hand away from the hot object.
Notice that the number of nubit models increase as a result of thought. The nubit model produced might be a static modeli.e. an abstraction of a real world entity or it might be a dynamic model i.e inference rules and procedures to be used in subsequent thought processes. Nubit models produced from thought may be validated by matching against reality; i.e the ones that are in-line with observations are kept and the others thrown out.
Expression:Brainpic-to-Analog conversion. Nubit model to a real-world phenomena conversion.
extending the previous example, A chap attempting to express the fact that coming into contact with hot objects is undesirable. This can be done through verbal communication, action or written communication.
Notice that the 'artifact' of expression becomes an observable for another individual.
example 2:
Observation - Newton sees an apple falling. A nubit model is created.
Thought - He applies other nubit models(the ones that he has been developing as a result of indulging in mentation) as processes to the falling-apple-neubit model. A gravitational theory nubit model is created.
Expression - He records his gravitational theory nubit model in formal mathematics.
Observation - Another individual reads(observes) Gravitational Theory and forms his own nubit model of gravitation...
And the cycle continues, within society as well as within an individual.
On the subject of ambiguity or misunderstanding..
Notice that ambiguity is built into this cycle.
Observation: you loose data when you convert from real-world to nubit models.
Thought: When an individual applies his own set of neubit models & programs to (already inaccurate) neubit data, the results may be different to that of another individual. i.e. I have my own mental picture of the Theory of Gravitation and you have yours.
Expression: When converting the neubit models back to reality-representable-format again there is a loss of information. i.e. I can't tell or put down on paper my interpretation of the Theory of gravitation.
Observation(by another individual) you are anyway reading a lossy representation of the Theory of gravitation.
Conclusions
- Ambiguity comes built-into Thought. But hey, it works!
- Language is a necessary part of the thought process. Language feeds thought.
- Thought communication is ambiguous. It would still involve converting my nubit models to yours; this is a lossy process.And also, interpreting nubit models. This is possibly unique to each individual as they have different nuebit procedures. So the processed models will differ from individual to individual. So conversion and intepretation will still bring in ambiguity.
- Our knowledge is self contained. We will only be able to explain things in terms of what we already know. What we already know boils down to our basic observations.
disclaimer: This is an expression of a nubit model and is thus inherently ambiguous/incoherent. And according to (4) it is nothing new.
urped by gumz @ 11:59 AM
