Rilx

Seems Zeno's paradox: a flying arrow is motionless in every point of its trajectory. But the paradox is not in the reality, it's in the chosen mathematical model. In another model, if the arrow flies a constant speed, it has the same speed in every infinitesimal point of its trajectory.

My definition is that time is the fourth spatial dimension. It is orthogonal to the other three, because it separates objects which occupy the same location. The definition doesn't imply linear time (actually the same case as with the other three) but it exists in defining linear measures of time. When the shadow of sundial's style again occupy the same location, one day has passed. Or a pendulum again returns to the same position, or periods of any kind of harmonic oscillators can and are used for measures of time. The periodical change which begins and ends the same location (or the same relative position in the system) is always in the background.

"Shut up and calculate" refers to interpretations of quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman has used it but as far as I know he is not the first user of the phrase. The idea is that it's not useful to develop phenomenal interpretations (i.e. things or events which happen in human phenomenal spacetime - 3D space+1D time) about phenomena which exceed these dimensions. They won't explain anything, on the contrary, they can destroy the whole explanation. Mathematics has no limits of dimensions. If you can build a mathematical model about some excessively multidimensional phenomenon, it can predict outcomes even though you can never imagine what really happens. So, be happy and calculate. Show me a person who has understood the meaning of Schrödinger's cat! Don't mind misunderstandings, I know a plethora of them. The Magnificent Observer who collapses the wave function ...

In artificial logical devices like computers, the control problem has been solved by electronically controlled switches (transistors) which means that the system must consist of two separate networks, the operational and the control network. This kind of systems need extensive planning and precise implementation all the way. Even in large electronic systems which consist of several physical devices, signalling between devices have been changed to use light instead of electrons because isolation problems grow too significant. Biological, evolved systems cannot work that way. The control system in the neural network use potential levels of the operational network (if we use the electronic device terminology) to open the neurotransmitter switches. Because single neurons perform all tasks, every new neuron can always join the network and start working, so to say. It doesn't need to know about larger neural schemas.

Neurons are switches that work by opening and closing connections to next neurons. If the whole neural network were nothing but wires connected to each other, brains would be like a bunch of chicken wire. Only electrically isolated switches can perform logical operations, i.e. "send electrons across to each other" in a controllable way.

We have evolved to live in a (spatially) 3D world. For our "natural" understanding no material 2D objects exist. 2D objects can be only conceptual. Drawings on a plane are conceptually defined 2-dimensional but if we measure any line - how thin ever - it is of course 3-dimensional. I think that no one can really have a percept of a pure 2D image. At least it belongs to some 3D environment. It's drawn on a plane or just floating in a space. Consequently I think that only humans - having a symbolic language - can define a concept of 2D objects. Thus "perceiving" them is a conceptual illusion. My opinion is that differences in perceiving images depends on person's conceptual world; her thoughts, experiences and metaphysics of understanding. That's why I think that the 2D/3D perceiving is subjective and cannot be objectively defined let alone measured.

Hmm... let's take a step backwards. Do you mean understanding our own consciousness solely using our own consciousness? Without using any scientific or other acquired external knowledge?

TJ, I think you should tell about the logic, causality or anything which you think prevents brains understanding how it works. General comments about tools doesn't help. Surgeons operate hands using their hands. I understand the intuitive idea which you have explained being the premise of your question. But your question cannot be answered - anyway not in the way that would satisfy you (as we have seen) - if you don't give us more details about the intuitive process. Yes, you asked for that kind of responses but no one else can crawl into your brains and check what you think.

It's not understanding, it's transcending the old beliefs. As soon as some new Einstein or Darwin does it, it will be no problem most people to understand it. Beliefs, most weird and irreal, prevent us seeing what's real. That's the barrier. The question "how much can you understand about the thing doing the understanding?" is barking up the wrong tree, IMO.

For everyone of us there are 7 billion objective brains and one subjective brain. As if you'd ask, "Can a unique subjective brain understand itself by itself?". No, but the question is irrelevant. We create hypothetical models of brains and test objectively how they work. It's standard science and I don't see why brain research would need other methods. Another thing is that we have strong intuitive beliefs about how brains work. Those beliefs are our current models, they originate from phenomena which we see resembling brains (like computers), and they are generally wrong. Our brains are a biological organ; the biggest barrier to understand it is our logical mind.

Hi JT, Your story brought to my mind a book I've read, Daniel Tammet's "Embracing The Wide Sky". Tammet has a Savant Syndrome, he can remember extremely long numbers, for instance 22000 decimals of pi, calculate with very long numbers and learn fast new languages. His descriptions about how he performs those tasks resembles what you have told. A general neuroplastical explanation is that brains don't always allocate functions in their ordinary physical locations. Your kind of synesthesia suggests that some of your non-visual thoughts possibly use brain's visual areas.

I try to invent a good example to enlighten my viewpoint. I'd also appreciate if some others thought this problem.

But refraction does not build any pattern of photons which would objectively correspond the rainbow we see. It refracts all wavelenghts similarly whether they belong to human visual spectrum or not. This flat row of refracted wavelenghts enter our retina, and our photoreceptive cells select the wavelengths which will - not until then - form the pattern we experience as a rainbow. Images of tables or other physical objects don't behave this way. Corresponding patterns of photons exist before they enter our eyes. Actually we don't usually care too much of the exact color of physical objects. But rainbows are nothing but light, colours are all they are.

Sisyphus, swansont, michel123456, with all respect, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. What I'm saying is that colours don't exist in the nature. They are born in our brains. Our visual system selects those wavelengths from the refraction of sunlight which we are evolved to detect ("see"). It is only a small part of the objective phenomenon of refraction spectrum, which includes "all" wavelenghts. Other animals see different rainbows, if any. Colours we see don't systematically correspond any electromagnetic wavelenghts, as can be seen in visual illusions. Instead, their function is resolution.