Robert Gurk wrote:
> Lars wrote:
>>> Robert wants to know how "anything" can process perception
>> or cognition. In his case, he may be right. My advice to you
>> Bob is to follow Richard Norman's advice if that's within
>> your realm.
>>>> Sorry, I didn't get that: I am Robert, my friends call me Bob,
> though. And now that I gave this intimate fact to the public:
> I still can't see how anything could process perception. OTOH,
> obviously I can process my perceptions and cognitions, and our
> best guess is that I use neurons to do that.
> Still, I don't think that perception/cognition are concepts that
> still hold, if you are on the level of the neuron.
>> Robert "Bob" Gurk
I get the feeling it depends on the level of detail - neurons are part of
neural networks which are alledged to give rise to meta phenomena like
perception or cognition.
F.i. if a neural network can detect the tonus of a musle, that might be
called a percept, and so on. Where's the mystery?