IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Thinking without language?

kenneth Collins kpaulc at earthlink.net
Sat Nov 20 14:35:35 EST 1999

Jure Sah wrote:

> Completely agree with you!
> However, that zillions of operations seems just a little too much for a normal
> human...
> Let me tell you how many operations does a computer make while he thinks of let's
> say a number.
> And I think that DATA problem is already solved just nobody "want's" to use it.
> Let's say you got a picture (bitmap) can you change that picture in to a sound
> directly? Well can you?

not unless i've a sound card, with it's associated firmware and software programs. and i
don't on this machine. then there's the problem of discordant 'header' info, even among
files that bear the same 'extension'.

no shared 'program', no 'communication'.

what's necessary is an architecture that, given data, write its own program to discover,
and use, any data.

that's the brain.

> Don't you think that those big brains of yours can take such
> an easy problem?

:-)... yep. all 'computers' are 'figments' of "big-brain's" 'imaginings'.

> Well a computer can turn it immediately! He just need's an order:
> Rename Pic.BMP to Pic.Wav (this tactics uses raw data that is used with brains).


> You (A human) would say that that noise has no conection to the picture,

nope. we say that we can imbue a machine to function, this way or that, in accord with

> but another computer would wave no problem with changing it to a picture again...

not without special programming, done by humans, or by a meta-program, done by humans.

> Well in this case (if you understand it) the human's way of thinking has been used
> against him.


> I have tried this type of DATA procession but I use a too weak
> programing language to complete it (lack of raw info), However (!) when you surf the
> net and use a search engine did you ever think about the fact that the a man could
> know so many things as the net contains wouldn't he give the same answers? No? he
> would think a little and sort the mumble-jumble... is that a problem to a computer
> nowadays? Oh, no as well, eh?

the differences between what 'computers' do and what Humans do are still profound...
even though folks're stumbling over themselves to 'borrow' and emulate TD
E/I-minimization these days.

> As you said: all you need is a bunch of computers working together and exchanging
> raw data... this is the way your brains do it isn't it?


our brains exchange enormously-processed data, in which resides both the Wonder, and the

the Tragedy, however, is, even now, being 'whittled'-away (AoK, Ap5).

will machines, one day, do the same?

it's possible, but, Sadly, it's apparent that the Tragedy will augment-further, in a
Greed-driven way, as has been the case for the last ~20 years. so it's not yet probable.

the problem is that 'profits' are still 'valued' more than Truth.

K. P. Collins

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net