h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

alright then, no ones really replied when I've asked this question before, maybe it's just a bit of a stupid in question - in which case I'd like to know!

If we could understand and map the process that information took from a photon falling on a receptor in the eye to the realisation of that information in our internal representation (and we'd have to understand fully how that works as well), could we be sure of what we see? In other words if we knew how the human nervous system worked fully, what did what, what connected to what, what artefacts and errors occurred during the reception and processing of that signal so we knew which bits of the internal representation were conforming to the initial information received from the photon and which weren't; so we could tell which bits of the internal realisation were right and which were wrong, could we then state with certainty that which we observed?

And extending on from that if we knew how the brain worked, could we detect errors in our reasoning and express certainity for some deductions?

Hi Ictoan

I don't know that I am qualified to answer your question but better scientist that me (an amateur) are having a stab.

This is from here - http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19826586.100-is-this-a-unified-theory-of-the-brain.html - and it requires a subscription to read the whole article.

THE quest to understand the most complex object in the known universe has been a long and fruitful one. These days we know a good deal about how the human brain works - how our senses translate into electrical signals, how different parts of the brain process these signals, how memories form and how muscles are controlled. We know which brain regions are active when we listen to speech, look at paintings or barter over money. We are even starting to understand the deeper neural processes behind learning and decision-making.

What we still don't have, though, is a way to bring all these pieces together to create an overarching theory of how the brain works.

The article goes on to say that the brain uses Bayesian probabilities to predict what is going on and minimises 'free energy' in the system. Apparently 'free energy' "originates from thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, where it is defined as the amount of useful work that can be extracted from a system, such as a steam engine. It is roughly equivalent to the difference between the total energy in the system and its "useless energy", or entropy."

Does that go some way to answering your question?

t.

may I refer you all to my post on The Large Hadron Collider over on ASK

Novo

just been reading it novo, unfotunately anything beyond 'we dont know' is speculation. But personally, my speculation ties in with m-theory. There wasn't anything 4d physical which went bang, rather multidimensional probability was the overriding 'cause'. I.e. there was a chance that something like our universe could come into existence from the interactions of m-dimensional branes and, so it would appear, it did. You gotta get out of linear 4d thinking

But thanks for this post, made me realise I hadn't replied to turvy's post - very rude of me so appols turvy!

Doesn't really answer my question - but it does further my knowledge which is always a good thing. The idea outlined is interesting as there is perhaps then a possibility that without actually being the brain that is doing the processing at that specific time and place, and with all its history, it may not be possibly to replicate it exactly.

Happy to have been of some help Ictoan

Novo

Where/what is ASK?

AskH2G2 - his thread is here: F19585?thread=5613696

Hi Ictoan

Interestingly the article I quoted has been criticised in this weeks New Scientist letters column by Robert P. Erickson in the Department of Neurobiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. He thinks "The brain updating probabilities of what to expect from the world is certainly important - essentially it is the long-discussed phenomenon of learning. But this is frosting on the cake, not the cake itself."

The letter is herre although again I'm not sure if you need subscription access to read it. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826620.600-essence-of-thought.html

t.