🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:49:28 UTC No. 16100866
If language is just an arbitrary expression of an innate conceptual framework that structures our perception, then what does that look like physiologically speaking? In other words: we see a particular apple, neurons light up in the shape of that apple, but how do we go from here to the idea that the particular apple belongs to the category of apples with all the properties we attribute to apples in general?
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:09:29 UTC No. 16101144
No real scientist can answer this question.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:49:09 UTC No. 16101196
Via memory, the image of the apple is persistently encoded to the category of apple. I believe there are special memory structures in human brains that encode specifically for language in such a way that images, sounds and even text always produce verbal associations.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:02:43 UTC No. 16101219
>>16101196
>Via memory
Which is the re-activation of a perceived pattern but what pattern of neuron activation summarizes all particular patterns? What does a categorical apple look like? Or do patterns of neuron activation not need to take the shape of what is perceived?
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:19:40 UTC No. 16101248
>>16101219
There's no categorical apple, there's just a superposition of appleness, it's only when you bite it and taste it that it becomes an apple, a memory that can be produced via other apple-like associations. Kant knew as much, categories can only be spoken of in a union of perceptions. The neural connection have to be constantly activated by similar associations.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:08:12 UTC No. 16101323
>>16101248
>appleness
>apple-like associations
There must be something like a threshold / boundary to cross, no? Suppose we're creating an apple-flavored candy in a lab or we're painting an apple: there's something that measures the perception of the candy or the painting to a previous experience (with a real apple) that we deem as a reference. So we're measuring / comparing particular sensations against memories of particular sensations. For example: the shape and color of an apple. Something decides that a hardware brand logo is not edible so there's still a multitude of thresholds to cross. Is that multitude of particulars not like the human body? Clearly a human body exists, there's a whole thing to point to.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 15:57:54 UTC No. 16101378
>>16100866
>innate
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:33:19 UTC No. 16101426
>>16101378
Yes inborn prior to our first perceptions and cognitions we are already predisposed to label and judge what we have never experienced before. There's already an unspoken no to possible pain / harm to the body and there's already the potential to divide the ocean of colors into distinct shapes prior to cognition of these shapes.
Your objections are ... ?
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:40:25 UTC No. 16101437
>>16101323
that's what i am saying, you need a union of perceptions in order to recognize the apple, if it is round like an apple, red on the outside but tastes like orange, then it can't be an apple, all this has to agree with your first memory of an apple which became reinforced over the years by more memories and more agreements with other people of what an apple is, etc
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:00:59 UTC No. 16101471
>>16101437
So we perceive this pattern and label it human eyes by comparing this pattern to previous patterns we labeled as human eyes. Is there a seperate group of neurons for each memorized pattern and how does the brain decide the current pattern is similar to previous patterns because our eyes don't really look like that?
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:01:33 UTC No. 16101474
>>16100866
does the "apple" know it is an "apple"?
No because "apple" is just a word and apples don't speak the English language.
Ask yourself, what does the apple know about itself? If it could experience what would those experiences tell it about itself. (and arguably you can say it does experience, but simply can't process or think about the experiences further) Those things, those properties, those experiences all belong to the apple, so they all get placed inside a bucket or box that we label "apple"
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:16:21 UTC No. 16101495
>>16101471
Like i keep telling you, a union of perceptions is necessary for any persistent memory association, you can call them eyes, but they are not moving in any convincing way, they are not attached to a human, they don't elicit any convincing emotions, they are no different from a video game character's eyes, etc the brain decides in the same way it decides to tell you that you are in pain when you prick yourself, this isn't special, external stimuli triggers these associations
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:27:02 UTC No. 16101507
>>16101474
>what does the apple know about itself?
I unironically believe that our experience is like a mirror: we're all narcissus (not narcissists) trapped in our mirror image and not even in a schizo way. That's because the description of / narrative about ourselves (identity / ego) is relative / in contrast to our environment.
Therefore I can't subscribe to the eastern mystical perspective that knives and fires are a mystery to themselves because a knife can't cut itself and a fire can't warm or enlighten itself. Instead a knife will know itself by observing it's relation with its environment.
So without being a solipsists still everything I experience is a reflection of me but maybe that is mental illness. For example: to see a child is to see oneself as an adult and things are heavy in relation to weak muscles so there's a mirror quality to our ideas about what we perceive.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:34:39 UTC No. 16101515
>>16100866
It's all fuzzy, that's what makes us so superior compared to computers, you don't have an exact blueprint of an apple anywhere in your mind, you don't need it either, at some point it just stops being an apple and is banana. You don't brainstorm it, just seeing few apples and bananas is enough.
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:38:16 UTC No. 16101524
>>16101495
I understand conceptually but not what it physically looks like. What are neurons doing when comparing? Even when using a computer as a metaphor: what are the hardware components and currents running through the hardware even doing when we solve an equation visible on the screen?
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:44:40 UTC No. 16101534
>>16101524
I can't help you there, but in computer analogy, think of a circuit or register that needs constant reinforcement for its data to persist, i believe you can keep the von neumann architecture model intact but instead of digital bits, its an analog mess where transistors can form and lose connections btn each other depending on what kind of stimuli and constraints the organism is exposed to. The most important memories are the ones you are born with, your lizard brain, the others build on top of that and are less persistent
Anonymous at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:58:27 UTC No. 16101554
>>16101507
>experience is like a mirror
Agreed. We're like jewels set in Indra's net.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indr
But people can intentionally block, veil, color in, tint, or shade parts of their own mirror as they see fit and we call these call them "beliefs" and sometimes lies.
Like the jewels of Indra's net our lies and beliefs get reflected in others when they observe us. These miss-truths we tell ourselves spread to others this way. Once they start reflecting to others they become self sustaining. I think science is the process of disillusionment of disenchantment of this.
It's curious tho, because the apple doesn't need to do any of this. It just exists and tho it doesn't experience much what it does experience is always true.