On 25 Jan 95 20:22:20 -0400,
jwwilliams at gems.vcu.edu <jwwilliams at gems.vcu.edu> wrote:
>Robert M. Caudle writes:
>>>> Since physicists have been dragged into this debate I think it is relevant
>> to point out that physics is the study of things that can be measured. If
>> a process, such as thought, cannot be measured it exists outside the realm
>> of physics, at least until some measure is found. Most likely belonging to
>> the field of philosophy. Thus, applying the formulations of physics to
>> questions about the nature of thought is inappropriate. In fact, even the
>> discussion of how many bits of information are processed by neurons is
>> untenable without knowing the code used by the neurons. If the code is
>> analog the number of processed bits/neuron is limited only by the noise in
>> the transmitter, communication line and receiver. At the other extreme, if
>> the code is binary then the limiting factor on the number of processed
>> bits/neuron is time.
>>>> Despite these limitations, it is possible to understand the function of the
>> brain. We already know a tremendous amount about the function of the
>> brain, what we do not know and may never know, is what constitutes the
>> abstract concept commonly refered to as thought.
>>Every law of physics was, at some time, unknown and certainly unmeasurable. A
>thinker, a "philosopher" dared to think differently. Every great physicist
>was one of these individuals. Something could not be explained with the
>current model and a new paradigm was put forth, often to great criticism.
>Goddard was ostricised for thinking that rockets could escape earths
>atmosphere and travel to the moon. Gravity was an unmeasurable concept since
>ancient Greece but not a physical law until Newton's law of universal gravitation.
>>Where would science be if we chose to leave as yet unmeasurable paradigms to
>"the philosophers"? I think the book Quantum Questions published by Shambhala
>should by required reading for all in scientific fields. This book provides
>fascinating insight into the thoughts of our greatest modern physicists.
>>Jim Williams
I did not intend to belittle philosophy, I merely pointed out that physics
deals strictly with that which is measurable. Gravity has always been
measurable by simply dropping an object. The force that moves the object
is gravity. Galileo quantified gravity and Newton defined its behavior.
As for Goddard every serious physicist of his time probably believed that
his theory was sound. It was just the application of that theory, given the
technology of the time, that made most people sceptical. Jules Verne
accurately described a manned trip to the moon long before the technology
existed to go there. (I believe Goddard was quite fond of Jules Verne's
writings) However, the physics of how the trip could be accomplished were
well worked out by Verne's time.
The problem with thought is that it has never been observed. We can
observe behaviors which we attribute to thought, but thought itself is too
etherial to grasp by direct observation. This inability to observe
thought prevents us from measuring it and treating it as a physical
phenomenon. Because it can't be measured, at least at the present, it is
outside the jurisdiction of physical study. Someone, someday, may be clever
enough to actually observe thought, but I have my doubts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert M. Caudle "If I had my life to
NAB, NIDR, NIH live over, I'd be a
Bldg. 49, Rm 1A-11 plumber."
9000 Rockville Pike A. Einstein
Bethesda, MD 20892
Caudle at yoda.nidr.nih.gov
or
Caudle at irp.nidr.nih.gov
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
