Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Intuition: How does it work exactly?

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,293
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    ... So, perhaps another key point is to keep an open mind and resist dogmatism. Whatever pet theory you're working on, remember it may well be trash. It's still best to stand your ground as most people do, but that shouldn't prevent you from considering the possible value of the arguments other people put forward. Let your brain sort out which is true. This is the only fountain of truth you can trust you will ever have. You just need to give it the time to work its magic and to consider and learn the possibly relevant facts.
    EB
    I agree, and also that it seems one can petition the subconscious for the answer to problems. I'll often do that when there's an interesting problem I'm curious about but don't have the time to investigate or feel I need a new perspective on. I'll just ask my subconscious to think on it and some time later something related will trigger an inspiration. Of course there can't be too many other pressing issues going on. And I've been wondering whether this is in some way the reason theists pray. "God" is just a metaphor for the subconscious that we typically only have access to through feelings. Something "feels" like it's right or it's wrong when that feeling indicates the level of harmony or discord going on in the background within certain quarters of the mind. When an answer comes out of the blue it seems like it must be from God. But I think the conscious experience is simply due to these processes as they relate to this model of the self. Which is of course the largest concern going most of our waking lives. Consciousness isn't just about communicating and language capability. That's only one aspect of the self.

  2. Top | #12
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,686
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,432
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Bad hair day?
    It's still a term from the computer world. The informal definition uses the computer database as a metaphor. That's not at all how our memories work. The metaphor is fundamentally broken.

    In a database the information is retrieved, cleaned from noise and stored unmolested and it stays unmolested until retrieved, at which point it is processed. If the data has deteriorated to the point where it can't be reconstituted the data is useless. That's not how our memories or brains work. We are acting on deteriorated data all the time. In fact, our ability to store data accurately sucks balls.

    Neurology isn't advanced enough for us to figure out exactly how we retrieve stored information. Best guess so far is that it's a kind of neural net. But that leaves us (ie science) exactly nowhere when it comes to figuring out how memories are retrieved. And we certainly haven't proven the brain is a neural net. We're still working on that.

    We have a bad habit of using whatever is the most advanced technology as a metaphor for how the brain works. We need to stop doing that. The purpose is obvious. It's self aggrandisement. We think humans are the tits. So whatever technology is the tits must be how human brains work as well. Erm... no.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    This is awfully confused. I see loads of errors in how you define this.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

    I recommend reading Daniel Khaneman's, Thinking fast and slow. Because there's so much confusion about how we think and neurology and the terminology, he just calls it the fast and slow thinking systems.
    How would that clear up the confusion? Most items in the list he provides according to your own link can be done by both intuition and thinking. The list in itself is rather misleading, confusing and contains mistakes. And yet I have to assume you agree with it.

    He asserts that the "fast system" solves 2+2 and the slow one solves 17 × 24... Does that mean the man believes you can't train yourself to solve 17 × 24?!

    He says digging into your memory to recognise a sound is something the slow system would do. Well, it can sure do it but intuition does it to and faster. So? where's the difference? If you could explain...

    Come up with a good chess move (if you're a chess master)... Yes. So? Can you explain where this bit would show my "error" or my "awful confusion"? If you could explain...

    And there's also a really big factual mistake: determine the validity of a complex logical reasoning (slow system). That's only true of complicated logical reasoning, such as found in mathematical proofs. As to complex logical relations, logical intuition beats any reasoning. Even today, mathematical logic itself couldn't validate complex relations intuition validates in a fraction of a second. Further, you could train yourself to be able to validate intuitively complicated formulas just like you can train to speak a foreign language or read a score.
    He's only the world's foremost leading expert on human decision-making... what would he know?

    Yes, he explains how intuition/the fast system can be trained to beat the slow system. But it only works better if you are calculating things you've calculated many times already. But in novel situations your intuition will never beat the slow system. At least if the goal is to make intelligent decisions.

    The take away is that a person who acts on intuition will stay in old patterns, use stereotypes heavily, will filter reality to match what you remember of the world. Put bluntly, people who act on intuition alone will be the idiots of the world. The rule of thumb is, the less you act on intuition the better decisions you'll make. People who are very stressed will act more on intuition which is why they make so many mistakes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    The fast system takes in less information.
    Not true.
    Nice of you to assert this. But we have measured this in labs. When acting on intuition your senses take in the same amount of information. But when you're acting on intuition you get a kind of cognitive tunnel vision. So any peripheral or novel information collected is simply rejected by your mind. And is not stored.

    Any increased "clarity of vision" you get in this mind state is an illusion. And simply the result of you noticing less things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    It uses more stereotypes and old patterns. The reason why we think our intuition is more creative and free thinking is because we make more errors. Unless it's something we've done a million times. In which case our intuition (the fast system) can be more accurate than our slow system. It comes into play if you're a good driver and in an accident, the fast system can kick in and take over and save you. But this is a very special kind of intuition. The slow system gets things right, much more. It's also the system we have to employ when learning new things. Our fast system sucks balls for learning anything.
    You don't seem to realise there aren't two systems to begin with. We only have one brain. So, since you've read the book, tell me what's the actual difference between the unconscious process that somehow produces intuition and the conscious process that does the deliberate thinking. Should be simple, you've read the book.
    His division between a fast and a slow system is just a metaphor. To help us understand how the brain works better. Reality is of course messier than this. It's a rough division. It can also be tracked in a CAT scan. When we use the slow system more of the brain lights up. When we are using our intuition we are using much less of the brain. When we're NOT using our intuition we're going down thought paths rarely tread, trying new possibilities, using our brain power heavily, learning new things. When we're using our intuition we're only going down well travelled neural paths. Ie, your brain is learning very little.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Thus, our unconscious brain is probably more intelligent than our conscious mind. It's clear for example that when you're trying to solve a problem, your brain may find the solution perhaps several days before you. And it will give you the solution through intuition, i.e. you're thinking about a problem and there it is, you suddenly have the intuition something you're thinking is the answer. Sometimes the brain may have the solution, or part of the solution, years before you finally get round to it, if you ever do.
    Your conscious mind does no thinking at all. That's not what the consciousness is for. So this statement makes no sense. Perhaps you mean the slow system of thinking?
    ???

    When I think in a deliberate way, I'm certainly conscious of a process and we call this process "thinking". That's all there is to it. Whether the conscious process of thinking would be in fact somehow produced by an unconscious process that's possible but we just don't know. And since thinking is obviously produced by some part of the brain, I see no reason whatsoever to assume a priori that the conscious mind plays no part in the process or not the most important part. Me, I think it does.
    It's an illusion. All thinking is unconscious. Your consciousness isn't doing any thinking what so ever. Your consciousness is informed after decisions have been taken elsewhere. For some reason your brain constructs a logical but fictional story of how you reached the conclusions you reached. This is then placed in the consciousness. That's why we can be so frustrated with taking decisions that we know we shouldn't be doing, yet do. Anybody who has struggled with addiction can relate. The story you told yourself on how you reached a conclusion probably wasn't the real story. In reality is was most likely a hell of a lot messier.

    BTW, this is based on Libet's old experiment. But it's been validated many times over by modern neurology.

    We know, with science, that your consciousness isn't thinking. It's still a mystery what it's for. There's competing theories. But we're far from having reached scientific consensus. It probably has something to do with communication, social cohesion, self identity or a combination.

    But we know that the brain creates an illusory sense of self and creates a consciousness to create an illusory story the self can tell itself about how it's in control of the brains thinking. But it's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    This raises the question, how do you know all this? It's not like you can just introspect and figure this shit out on your own.
    Please give examples of the things these people found that I didn't mention.
    I thought I did?

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Without experiments, double blind studies and so on you have no clue. It looks to me like it's all stuff you just figured out on your own. Is it?
    Thinking, Fast and Slow is a best-selling book published in 2011 by Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureate Daniel Kahneman. It was the 2012 winner of the National Academies Communication Award for best creative work that helps the public understanding of topics in behavioral science, engineering and medicine. The book summarizes research that Kahneman conducted over decades,
    My post is also summarising research I conducted over decades. Introspection doesn't quite cover what I did but broadly yes.
    You're a confident guy. I'll give you that. Daniel Kahneman is the most sought after speaker at neurological conferences and has been his entire academic career. He's a super star in his field. He's the mostest super star. You're not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Basically, I used my intuition, and then I thought about it some.
    Hmmm....

    Another great book is Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction, by Susan Blackmore. I highly recommend it. Another great one is The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger.

    Both of these are mostly just a summary of the latest research so far.

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,585
    Rep Power
    11
    My intuition, mental data base, and experience says I should avoid these kinds of threads.

  4. Top | #14
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,143
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,805
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    I agree, and also that it seems one can petition the subconscious for the answer to problems. I'll often do that when there's an interesting problem I'm curious about but don't have the time to investigate or feel I need a new perspective on. I'll just ask my subconscious to think on it and some time later something related will trigger an inspiration. Of course there can't be too many other pressing issues going on. And I've been wondering whether this is in some way the reason theists pray. "God" is just a metaphor for the subconscious that we typically only have access to through feelings. Something "feels" like it's right or it's wrong when that feeling indicates the level of harmony or discord going on in the background within certain quarters of the mind. When an answer comes out of the blue it seems like it must be from God. But I think the conscious experience is simply due to these processes as they relate to this model of the self. Which is of course the largest concern going most of our waking lives. Consciousness isn't just about communicating and language capability. That's only one aspect of the self.
    Very good point about God. Haven't thought about that. Communication with God reduced to intuition! And, the particular impression that comes with proper intuitions could indeed be construed as God-given warranty. And it's inexplicable enough that it should come from God. Though if it's indeed God, I'm not sure why I need to work really hard on the problem before I can at all expect an answer... Ah, I know, God wants me to deserve it! It all figures.

    I also agree about petitioning the unconscious. I don't actually do it deliberately but I'm aware whenever I'm sort of waiting for an answer!
    EB

  5. Top | #15
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,143
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,805
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    It's still a term from the computer world. The informal definition uses the computer database as a metaphor. That's not at all how our memories work. The metaphor is fundamentally broken.
    What is it you don't understand in the expression "any large store of information"?!

    Database
    2. (Communications & Information) informal any large store of information: a database of knowledge.
    Maybe you think our memories isn't a large store of information?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    In a database the information is retrieved, cleaned from noise and stored unmolested and it stays unmolested until retrieved, at which point it is processed. If the data has deteriorated to the point where it can't be reconstituted the data is useless. That's not how our memories or brains work. We are acting on deteriorated data all the time. In fact, our ability to store data accurately sucks balls.
    Yeah, I would assume therefore that News organisations don't have any large store of information either...

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Neurology isn't advanced enough for us to figure out exactly how we retrieve stored information. Best guess so far is that it's a kind of neural net. But that leaves us (ie science) exactly nowhere when it comes to figuring out how memories are retrieved. And we certainly haven't proven the brain is a neural net. We're still working on that.
    Sure, and I haven't specified any detailed mechanism for our intuition. You're merely going after a red herring.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    We have a bad habit of using whatever is the most advanced technology as a metaphor for how the brain works. We need to stop doing that. The purpose is obvious. It's self aggrandisement. We think humans are the tits. So whatever technology is the tits must be how human brains work as well. Erm... no.
    Sir, you couldn't possibly be wronger here.

    My personal impression and I'm dead certain I'm right, and I'm on record on that, is that the brain is sort of magnitudes above anything the current computer technology can do and it's not going to change any time soon.

    Specifically, just to give you the scale of the gap, computer technologies exist broadly since the second world war, science broadly since 300 years ago with Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Kepler, mathematics broadly since 2,300 years ago with Euclid, or maybe 2500 years ago with Pythagoras, formal logic since 2,400 years ago with Aristotle and the Stoics... So, a couple of thousands of years and overall less than a million people who've worked on it. The human brain? No, doesn't matter. Think instead how long the cells precursors or our neurons have been around: I understand, broadly, it's 525 million years... Million years! And this is a low estimate. How many cells and systems of cells do you think? Me, I wouldn't risk being proved ridiculous by advancing any figure at all. And think how they have been tested: broadly over the entire biomass on the surface of the Earth, in the oceans, in the air and a few metres underground, and in a myriad of configurations in terms of the interaction with the environment of the cell or system of cells. Computers just look pathetic. And the claims of the AI business look pathetic.
    EB

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,056
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,967
    Rep Power
    69
    I have nothing of substance to offer directly on the topic itself---but just want to ask that the tone of the discussion be calm. Good topics like this are very interesting (to some of us) and can be very educational and helpful in our lives. So everybody please do not ruin it by turning it into a back-and-forth flame war.

    Thanks.

  7. Top | #17
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,293
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    I agree, and also that it seems one can petition the subconscious for the answer to problems. I'll often do that when there's an interesting problem I'm curious about but don't have the time to investigate or feel I need a new perspective on. I'll just ask my subconscious to think on it and some time later something related will trigger an inspiration. Of course there can't be too many other pressing issues going on. And I've been wondering whether this is in some way the reason theists pray. "God" is just a metaphor for the subconscious that we typically only have access to through feelings. Something "feels" like it's right or it's wrong when that feeling indicates the level of harmony or discord going on in the background within certain quarters of the mind. When an answer comes out of the blue it seems like it must be from God. But I think the conscious experience is simply due to these processes as they relate to this model of the self. Which is of course the largest concern going most of our waking lives. Consciousness isn't just about communicating and language capability. That's only one aspect of the self.
    Very good point about God. Haven't thought about that. Communication with God reduced to intuition! And, the particular impression that comes with proper intuitions could indeed be construed as God-given warranty. And it's inexplicable enough that it should come from God. Though if it's indeed God, I'm not sure why I need to work really hard on the problem before I can at all expect an answer... Ah, I know, God wants me to deserve it! It all figures.

    I also agree about petitioning the unconscious. I don't actually do it deliberately but I'm aware whenever I'm sort of waiting for an answer!
    EB
    For all its pitfalls monotheism does provide some advantages. Its focus is on establishing a relationship with an entity they call God. The way I see it the self (actually anything at all) is defined by its relationships. While I see the self as a model created by the model-creating brain, I try to include the subconscious mind as one part of that model. It's my way of attempting to take ownership of its functionality. So that's one distinction from prayer and theism. But it seems the subconscious undertands language well enough. And when it comes down to it the brain is just trying to maintain an overall level of harmony between these models.

  8. Top | #18
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,143
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,805
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Very good point about God. Haven't thought about that. Communication with God reduced to intuition! And, the particular impression that comes with proper intuitions could indeed be construed as God-given warranty. And it's inexplicable enough that it should come from God. Though if it's indeed God, I'm not sure why I need to work really hard on the problem before I can at all expect an answer... Ah, I know, God wants me to deserve it! It all figures.

    I also agree about petitioning the unconscious. I don't actually do it deliberately but I'm aware whenever I'm sort of waiting for an answer!
    EB
    For all its pitfalls monotheism does provide some advantages. Its focus is on establishing a relationship with an entity they call God.
    Yeah, I'm myself rather forbearing with the faithful. We shouldn't forget that many if not most bright minds up to the Enlightenment didn't seem to feel uncomfortable at all with at least some notion of God. As I see it, there will always be some idea of God that's logically possible given whatever we may come to believe about reality on the basis of the empirical evidence available to us.

    The usefulness of a belief in God is definitely something that would be very difficult to assess since there are also very serious inconveniences. My personal assumption is that diversity will always be best.

    Still, an interesting question is which part of the mind is responsible for the error of making us believe in God. Intuition seems the ideal culprit given what I have just said myself that it's probably really tempting to interpret our intuition as somehow the voice of God within us. Yet, I don't think our unconscious mind sees itself as the voice of God and even less as God Himself. It's really the conscious mind that comes to believe God is there somehow. Other possibility, there may be different parts in our unconscious mind and one part might see another part as the voice of God within, and suggests this idea to us. Seems like a difficult question to me. Let our intuition work on it for a few days and we might get some kind of answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    The way I see it the self (actually anything at all) is defined by its relationships.
    "Anything at all" sounds like a stretch to me. Try to use dictionary definitions to arrive at a logically consistent formal expression of your own understanding of reality. I would say myself that there is something fundamental that's not to be defined. It just is. And then, anything else can be defined through its relationships with the fundamental, or the other things already defined.

    Still, I agree the self is defined by its relationships to other things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    While I see the self as a model created by the model-creating brain, I try to include the subconscious mind as one part of that model. It's my way of attempting to take ownership of its functionality
    Yes, I agree that's the way to do it.

    As I think of it, my unconscious mind is like a very large and effective supercomputer I have for myself to use. I only need to try and use it as best I can. My conscious mind by comparison seems like the idiot who is trying to figure out how to use the computer. A crucial point, though, is that my conscious mind has access, through linguistic communication, to what other people say and do, and not only now, but what people said and did throughout history. For example, and crucially, Aristotle's own words translated from Greek as to his own notion of logical validity. So, my conscious mind has the strategic position of being the middle man between my unconscious and potentially 7 billion human beings and some.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    So that's one distinction from prayer and theism. But it seems the subconscious understands language well enough.
    Whether the subconscious understands language is the crucial point but this is also a very ambiguous formulation, and I think precisely because, as I see it, maybe the conscious mind is essentially language while the unconscious mind is understanding and some. If so, the unconscious clearly understands language, but maybe not quite like you meant it. Still, this idea would require redefining how the conscious mind is traditionally pictured in the literature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    And when it comes down to it the brain is just trying to maintain an overall level of harmony between these models.
    I would assume it's an organisational problem. How is the brain organised so that there's no deadlock and not too much waste of energy doing contradictory or useless things? One possibility is that the conscious mind is the locus of the decision: you definitely have to know what you want. But, clearly, the process by which the decision is arrived at is, at least most of the time, essentially unconscious. You get to know the outcome and you usually don't dispute the decision. You just do it. If you feel like scratching an itch, you scratch the itch, that sort of things. Still, clearly, the conscious mind seems to be, not exactly in charge of, but crucially involved in, the decision process when it comes to arbitration between possibly conflicting actions and from there to the long-term planification of our actions. That's essentially what thinking looks like to me and arbitration and planification are perhaps essentially the first functions of thinking and the original activity from which the whole of our way of thinking evolved to end up to what we do now. The kind of thinking we do now, since the Ancient Greek at least, is obviously very, very abstracted from this notion of planification, but thinking about metaphysical questions for example, including God, may be best understood as a very upstream part of the process of planification. Think about how mathematics, though so mindbogglingly abstract, can be and are intensively used in all sort of very practical and crucial activities.
    EB

  9. Top | #19
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,686
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,432
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    What is it you don't understand in the expression "any large store of information"?!

    Maybe you think our memories isn't a large store of information?
    Then say that instead of using the term "database". Since it's misleading. There's no point using fancy words unless it increases clarity. If it makes it harder to understand what you mean, I suggest not using them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    We have a bad habit of using whatever is the most advanced technology as a metaphor for how the brain works. We need to stop doing that. The purpose is obvious. It's self aggrandisement. We think humans are the tits. So whatever technology is the tits must be how human brains work as well. Erm... no.
    Sir, you couldn't possibly be wronger here.

    My personal impression and I'm dead certain I'm right, and I'm on record on that, is that the brain is sort of magnitudes above anything the current computer technology can do and it's not going to change any time soon.

    Specifically, just to give you the scale of the gap, computer technologies exist broadly since the second world war, science broadly since 300 years ago with Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Kepler, mathematics broadly since 2,300 years ago with Euclid, or maybe 2500 years ago with Pythagoras, formal logic since 2,400 years ago with Aristotle and the Stoics... So, a couple of thousands of years and overall less than a million people who've worked on it. The human brain? No, doesn't matter. Think instead how long the cells precursors or our neurons have been around: I understand, broadly, it's 525 million years... Million years! And this is a low estimate. How many cells and systems of cells do you think? Me, I wouldn't risk being proved ridiculous by advancing any figure at all. And think how they have been tested: broadly over the entire biomass on the surface of the Earth, in the oceans, in the air and a few metres underground, and in a myriad of configurations in terms of the interaction with the environment of the cell or system of cells. Computers just look pathetic. And the claims of the AI business look pathetic.
    EB

    Why compare them at all? Computers and human brains think differently. Brains work with much less information. Neurons are sloooooooow by comparison. Human brains come pre-programmed with a lot of the world. It compares what is stored in memory with what is coming to it and if enough information is the same it just ignores outside stimuli. When you open your eyes and look at the world nearly everything you see isn't information coming from the eyes. It's stuff brought up from memory. Especially true in places where you spend a lot of time. Stuff pre-programmed to be ignored we will never react to. Which is why we feel so safe when travelling on a motorbike at 200 km/h. Computers on the other hand will process every damn single little thing that comes in their way. Meticulously. If it doesn't understand the input the whole computer grinds to a halt.

    They're not remotely similar.

  10. Top | #20
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,143
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,805
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Then say that instead of using the term "database". Since it's misleading. There's no point using fancy words unless it increases clarity. If it makes it harder to understand what you mean, I suggest not using them.
    "Database" is a perfectly legitimate term to use in the sense I used it, as it is evidenced by the definition I exhibited, a definition I took from English dictionaries.

    I meant a large store of information and "database" is an appropriate, convenient and very effective term to express this idea.

    It is probably your English which is not good enough. Sorry, but I'm not going to downgrade my English just for you. You need to learn to check English dictionaries before criticising the terms I use.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Why compare them at all? Computers and human brains think differently.
    I didn't use "database" to compare brains to computers. I have just explained to you there's no meaningful comparison. The human brain is magnitudes above computers.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Brains work with much less information.
    Not true. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. The brain process at each instant a huge flow of information coming through our senses. You are probably referring to the information that come through linguistic communication. But even there, the brain does much more that you seem to credit it for because the brain also process all the information relevant to context: the voice of the speaker, the circumstance of the message, the overall situation, data about the speaker, both remembered and perceived, etc. etc. etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Neurons are sloooooooow by comparison. Human brains come pre-programmed with a lot of the world. It compares what is stored in memory with what is coming to it and if enough information is the same it just ignores outside stimuli.
    How can the brain decide to ignore any data without first assessing it?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    When you open your eyes and look at the world nearly everything you see isn't information coming from the eyes. It's stuff brought up from memory.
    I think you may be using the term "memory" in a very unusual way here. Literally, what we see is entirely something inside our brain. The tree I am looking at, the house, the landscape, the Sun, the whole sky, even the distant stars in the night sky. All this is literally nothing but the visual representation of the physical world around me, as produced by my brain. So, sure, what you actually see, literally, is information produced by your brain. Yet, that's not what we call "memory" at all. The proper term I think is "percepts". And then, to produce these percepts, the brain has to receive a huge flow of information from outside, information that it has to process to produce percepts.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Especially true in places where you spend a lot of time. Stuff pre-programmed to be ignored we will never react to.
    We were talking about the brain, and now you are talking about the conscious mind. Sure, we are only consciously aware of a small amount of information, at least compared to the information the brain has to process to produce it. You are moving the goal posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Which is why we feel so safe when travelling on a motorbike at 200 km/h. Computers on the other hand will process every damn single little thing that comes in their way. Meticulously. If it doesn't understand the input the whole computer grinds to a halt.

    They're not remotely similar.
    Exactly my point, thank you.

    So, where did I say they were, even remotely, similar? Just by using the word "database"? Whoa. All this just because you don't understand the word database in English and you can't be bothered to look it up?

    And look up databas in a Swedish dictionary, I'd be very surprised if it doesn't include something like någon stor butik med information)!
    EB

Similar Threads

  1. An exercise in reason, logic, and intuition
    By steve_bank in forum Logic and Epistemology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-16-2019, 04:10 AM
  2. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-02-2018, 11:16 AM
  3. Matriarchy at work
    By Derec in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 03-02-2015, 07:34 AM
  4. Consciousness -- What is it? How does it work?
    By NobleSavage in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 12-24-2014, 06:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •