The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by SteveKlinko »

In this topic I will attempt to define Understanding with respect to the Inter Mind Model (IMM). With the Perspective of the IMM, we can ask the question: Is Understanding a process in the Conscious Mind (CM) or is it simply Neural Activity of the right kind in the Physical Mind (PM)?

The concept of Understanding, as with the concept of Knowing, is difficult to define properly. First, I will try to show that Understanding is different from Knowing. Let's consider the equation, E = mc^2. This is an iconic equation that most people have seen on TV or in the movies. I think I remember seeing it on the old Twilight Zone TV Series Intro. Many people have this equation in their Memories and they therefore Know this equation and can recite it. A lot of people probably Know that E is the Energy and m is the mass. Fewer people will Know that c is the Velocity of Light. However, even the people that Know what all the variables mean might not actually Understand this equation. Understanding would require that there is at least a recognition of the Implication of the equation, which is that a little bit of mass can be equivalent to a lot of Energy. A Deeper Understanding would come from being able to derive the equation from Momentum concepts and the limiting effect of the speed of Light. So it is clear that People can have Knowledge of all kinds of things, but might not have an Understanding of those things.

In another thread it was shown that Knowledge is simply static Information of Known things. Let's define Understanding as a Relationship between those Known things. Let's now consider an equation that everybody Knows and Understands, 1 + 1 = 2. You can say 1 + 1 = 2 as a Known fact without necessarily Understanding it. Understanding takes more work. Understanding this equation requires that you somehow produce a Relationship between the two 1s. You can write a 1 on a piece of paper and then write another 1 on that paper. You can then proceed to count how many 1s there are and get the answer 2. There is a Relationship between the 1s when they are written together. You can then draw a dot on another piece of paper and then draw another dot on that piece of paper. You can then go count the dots and you will get the answer 2. Now you have attained a deeper Understanding of the equation. You have found that it's not only a 1 and a 1 that results in a count of 2 but also that a dot and a dot results in a count of 2. You will find that if you do this for other kinds of objects that the count is always 2. You have now generalized what was an abstract mathematical equation to real Physical World situations. You will have written and drawn things on the paper but you would need to have Seen the things as Visual Experiences in your Mind to properly Understand. Your Visual system operates to Detect the Writing on the paper, and through the action of the Inter Mind (IM), transforms it into a Conscious Visual Experience.

You could have done the above exercises without writing and drawing on paper. You could have done this all in your Mind. You could have imagined a 1 and then another 1 in your Mind. Imagining a 1 is probably going to require that you recall the Image of a 1 from Memory. Your PM will have the Information for a 1 stored in the Neural Plasticity of the Brain. There will be Neural Activity involved with accessing this Information. The IM will detect this Neural Activity and know that it represents the Image of a 1. The IM will then generate the Conscious Experience, and therefore the Knowledge, of the two 1s. The 1s will probably be hazy and fuzzy when imagined this way, and some people may be able to imagine more vividly than others. Nevertheless, it will still necessarily be a Conscious Experience in the Mind. I will make the Speculation that it is probably not even possible to Understand that 1 + 1 = 2 without the use of an internal Visual Image of the situation. So I think it is fair to state that Understanding is purely a CM activity. There is no Understanding in the PM. The PM can store the Information that 1 + 1 = 2 because anyone can reflexively recall that Information and say it. You can punch in a 1 and then another 1 on a Calculator and get 2, but there is no Understanding involved within the Calculator in producing that answer of 2. Understanding, even the simplest concepts, requires something beyond static Information, Knowledge, and Calculation. Understanding requires a more Dynamic Relational Process that seems to need a Conscious Experience. It requires that there is a CM to Experience the steps of the Process. So, Understanding is at it's core an Experience and is not even a thing that exists in the Physical World. The Human Brain cannot Understand anything, because the Human Brain is a Physical thing, and Understanding happens as a Conscious Experience in a CM.

Since a Computer cannot Experience anything, a Computer can never Understand anything. To say that a Computer Understands something is the same kind of error as saying that a Computer Knows something. Without Consciousness there is no Understanding.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by Terrapin Station »

In my view the question is moot because the "conscious mind" is identical to a subset of processes (not just neural activity) in brains. It could also be identical to other processes in other sorts of materials, but at present I'd say we have no good reason to believe this to be the case. So far it seems like something about the unique properties/structures/processes of brains.

I have my own definition of "understanding," by the way. It's necessary in my view to define it by way of "communication."

Communication obtains when multiple parties interact (not necessarily in real time or directly, and when separated in time, the multiple parties can be two temporal instances of the same person) in a way involving understanding.

Understanding obtains when one assigns meanings to objects, actions or events in a way that is coherent and consistent to one and that also makes sense in the context of both future and past related objects, actions and events, especially those (one considers) related to the objects, actions or events in question.

Mutual understanding obtains when multiple parties do this in conjunction with each other, so that if there are two parties, say A and B, A is in the state in the paragraph above with respect to B, and B is in the state described in the paragraph above with respect to A.

Note that this does not imply that A and B have similar content to their states. Since meaning is subjective and inherently first-person in my view, we can never know whether A and B have similar content to their states.

Understanding is definitely different than knowing in my view. For propositional knowledge, I use the old "justified true belief" definition. (I'm not of the opinion that the Gettier objections work.)

So re your E=MC2 example, one has knowledge of E=MC2 when one has a belief that E=MC2, one has what one considers a sufficient justification for one's belief, and one has judged the belief to be true (truth-value is a judgment in my view).

Re understanding, one understands E=MC2 when one can assign meanings to the terms and the overall expression so that other occurrences of E=MC2 (the expression and its terms in context) are coherent and consistent relative in one's assessment to other utterances, other behavior, etc. related to those other occurrences of E=MC2/its terms. (And likewise, others would judge oneself to understand it when one's own occurrences, related utterances, behavior, etc. are considered coherent and consistent from their point of view.)

It's important to note that understanding E=MC2 does NOT imply believing that E=MC2. (Remember that knowing does require believing.) One can believe that E=MC2 is false, or one can disagree with it, yet understand it. A common rookie mistake in forums like this involves people assuming that if one disagrees with x (where the assessor believes that x has things right), one is taken to not understand x. This doesn't follow. Not agreeing with x doesn't imply not understanding x.

I definitely agree that consciousness is necessary for both knowledge and understanding.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by Dimebag »

I would define understanding as, the ability to express a concept in one’s own words. If one has the ability to express a concept in their own words, they have an understanding of the concept.

The reason why I think language is important is, understanding is different to knowledge, as you mentioned. If you know the formula e = mc2, unless you can explain its meaning in a sentence which is not rote learned, or at least have the ability to potentially, then the concepts involved don’t exist in your mind, or at least, aren’t consciously known to you, so conscious knowledge of concepts and their relationships are required, as is the ability to express those concepts in words.

But you seem to think, Steve, that concepts don’t exist in our brains? Where do they then exist? The Akashic records? In plato’s Forms, floating around in some non physical ether? What do you think encodes all that information? What stores that information? Most informed people think the brain is the storehouse of both knowledge and concepts. This makes sense, because the brain is connected to the senses, and perception, which are a good way to encode information about sight and sound, I.e. visual and auditory memory, which form the basis of pretty much all knowledge. The concepts then, are the connection between “things” that is, unique perceptual patterns, which have both a visual image and an auditory label. These concepts, are also connected with many other concepts, which might share similar visual patterns, or have a semantically similar relationship.

How could all of that, happen in the intermind, something which is not physical, in your definition. How can something non physical have any connection with anything else non physical? Non physical would also mean, non local, that is, not having any specific location. Location allows separation. Without location there can be no connection, because non local would also imply not separate. Without separation, there can be no distinction. Without distinction there can be no difference between concepts. Without difference between concepts, there can be no knowledge, and no understanding.

Help me out here mate.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by SteveKlinko »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:04 pm In my view the question is moot because the "conscious mind" is identical to a subset of processes (not just neural activity) in brains. It could also be identical to other processes in other sorts of materials, but at present I'd say we have no good reason to believe this to be the case. So far it seems like something about the unique properties/structures/processes of brains.

I have my own definition of "understanding," by the way. It's necessary in my view to define it by way of "communication."

Communication obtains when multiple parties interact (not necessarily in real time or directly, and when separated in time, the multiple parties can be two temporal instances of the same person) in a way involving understanding.

Understanding obtains when one assigns meanings to objects, actions or events in a way that is coherent and consistent to one and that also makes sense in the context of both future and past related objects, actions and events, especially those (one considers) related to the objects, actions or events in question.

Mutual understanding obtains when multiple parties do this in conjunction with each other, so that if there are two parties, say A and B, A is in the state in the paragraph above with respect to B, and B is in the state described in the paragraph above with respect to A.

Note that this does not imply that A and B have similar content to their states. Since meaning is subjective and inherently first-person in my view, we can never know whether A and B have similar content to their states.

Understanding is definitely different than knowing in my view. For propositional knowledge, I use the old "justified true belief" definition. (I'm not of the opinion that the Gettier objections work.)

So re your E=MC2 example, one has knowledge of E=MC2 when one has a belief that E=MC2, one has what one considers a sufficient justification for one's belief, and one has judged the belief to be true (truth-value is a judgment in my view).

Re understanding, one understands E=MC2 when one can assign meanings to the terms and the overall expression so that other occurrences of E=MC2 (the expression and its terms in context) are coherent and consistent relative in one's assessment to other utterances, other behavior, etc. related to those other occurrences of E=MC2/its terms. (And likewise, others would judge oneself to understand it when one's own occurrences, related utterances, behavior, etc. are considered coherent and consistent from their point of view.)

It's important to note that understanding E=MC2 does NOT imply believing that E=MC2. (Remember that knowing does require believing.) One can believe that E=MC2 is false, or one can disagree with it, yet understand it. A common rookie mistake in forums like this involves people assuming that if one disagrees with x (where the assessor believes that x has things right), one is taken to not understand x. This doesn't follow. Not agreeing with x doesn't imply not understanding x.

I definitely agree that consciousness is necessary for both knowledge and understanding.
I agree that not agreeing with x does not imply not understanding x, but not agreeing with x can, a lot of times, eventually be shown to be that x was not understood properly.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dimebag wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:22 pm I would define understanding as, the ability to express a concept in one’s own words. If one has the ability to express a concept in their own words, they have an understanding of the concept.

The reason why I think language is important is, understanding is different to knowledge, as you mentioned. If you know the formula e = mc2, unless you can explain its meaning in a sentence which is not rote learned, or at least have the ability to potentially, then the concepts involved don’t exist in your mind, or at least, aren’t consciously known to you, so conscious knowledge of concepts and their relationships are required, as is the ability to express those concepts in words.
Expressing in ones own words might show others that you Understand, but proving to others that you Understand has nothing to do with your own personal Understanding. Think about the 1 + 1 = 2 example. I don't think words are needed to Understand this.
Dimebag wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:22 pm But you seem to think, Steve, that concepts don’t exist in our brains? Where do they then exist? The Akashic records? In plato’s Forms, floating around in some non physical ether? What do you think encodes all that information? What stores that information? Most informed people think the brain is the storehouse of both knowledge and concepts. This makes sense, because the brain is connected to the senses, and perception, which are a good way to encode information about sight and sound, I.e. visual and auditory memory, which form the basis of pretty much all knowledge. The concepts then, are the connection between “things” that is, unique perceptual patterns, which have both a visual image and an auditory label. These concepts, are also connected with many other concepts, which might share similar visual patterns, or have a semantically similar relationship.
The only thing stored in the Brain is Information, just like a Computer Memory. Do you think it is possible to store Concepts and Understanding in a Computer Memory?
Dimebag wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:22 pm How could all of that, happen in the intermind, something which is not physical, in your definition. How can something non physical have any connection with anything else non physical? Non physical would also mean, non local, that is, not having any specific location. Location allows separation. Without location there can be no connection, because non local would also imply not separate. Without separation, there can be no distinction. Without distinction there can be no difference between concepts. Without difference between concepts, there can be no knowledge, and no understanding.

Help me out here mate.
Of course we don't know how the Inter Mind works yet. We only Know that the functionality of it must exist somewhere, somehow. I have told you over and over that the best speculation for how the Connection operates is through QM principles. I'll include the links for the Machine Consciousness Experiment descriptions and feasibilities for Visitors to this Forum that might not have seen them.

https://theintermind.com/#Conceivability
https://www.theintermind.com/MachConExp ... riment.asp
https://www.theintermind.com/MachConExp ... Legacy.asp
https://www.theintermind.com/Scientific ... erMind.asp
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by Skepdick »

SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 1:06 pm Expressing in ones own words might show others that you Understand, but proving to others that you Understand has nothing to do with your own personal Understanding. Think about the 1 + 1 = 2 example. I don't think words are needed to Understand this.
The how come 1+1 = 2 AND 1+1=10 ?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:04 pm In my view the question is moot because the "conscious mind" is identical to a subset of processes (not just neural activity) in brains. It could also be identical to other processes in other sorts of materials, but at present I'd say we have no good reason to believe this to be the case. So far it seems like something about the unique properties/structures/processes of brains.
So, uuuh. What or where is a "process"?

Oh. That's right! It's an abstract idea/concept. Maybe you want to Google "process calculi"

And while you are at it google "Church-Turing-Deutsch principle".

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:04 pm I have my own definition of "understanding," by the way. It's necessary in my view to define it by way of "communication."
But you don't even understand what communication is! So how can you define "understanding" in terms of something you don't understand?
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:04 pm Communication obtains when multiple parties interact (not necessarily in real time or directly, and when separated in time, the multiple parties can be two temporal instances of the same person) in a way involving understanding.
So then..

1. How do you know that communication has taken place?
2. How do you know understanding has taken place within a communication?
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:04 pm Understanding obtains when one assigns meanings to objects, actions or events in a way that is coherent and consistent to one and that also makes sense in the context of both future and past related objects, actions and events, especially those (one considers) related to the objects, actions or events in question.
Tralalalala. Bullshit!

So how do coherency and consistency obtain?

Language is recursive. You are chasing your own tail because you don't understand recursion.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by Sculptor »

SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:22 pm In this topic I will attempt to define Understanding with respect to the Inter Mind Model (IMM). With the Perspective of the IMM, we can ask the question: Is Understanding a process in the Conscious Mind (CM) or is it simply Neural Activity of the right kind in the Physical Mind (PM)?
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, since there is no way you can understand what you are saying.
So you might as well stop now.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by SteveKlinko »

Skepdick wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 2:23 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 1:06 pm Expressing in ones own words might show others that you Understand, but proving to others that you Understand has nothing to do with your own personal Understanding. Think about the 1 + 1 = 2 example. I don't think words are needed to Understand this.
The how come 1+1 = 2 AND 1+1=10 ?
Be serious, in Binary 10 = 2.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by SteveKlinko »

Sculptor wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:51 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:22 pm In this topic I will attempt to define Understanding with respect to the Inter Mind Model (IMM). With the Perspective of the IMM, we can ask the question: Is Understanding a process in the Conscious Mind (CM) or is it simply Neural Activity of the right kind in the Physical Mind (PM)?
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, since there is no way you can understand what you are saying.
So you might as well stop now.
You are Incoherent. What are you saying?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by Sculptor »

SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:00 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:51 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:22 pm In this topic I will attempt to define Understanding with respect to the Inter Mind Model (IMM). With the Perspective of the IMM, we can ask the question: Is Understanding a process in the Conscious Mind (CM) or is it simply Neural Activity of the right kind in the Physical Mind (PM)?
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, since there is no way you can understand what you are saying.
So you might as well stop now.
You are Incoherent. What are you saying?
Sorry but I cannot understand that since "The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything".
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by Skepdick »

SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:59 pm Be serious, in Binary 10 = 2.
I am serious. There is no "2" in binary.

So if 10 = 2 then 5+5 = 2
And if 2 = 1 + 1 then 5+5 = 1 + 1

You are dealing with meaning, not equality and you don't even know what "=" means.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by SteveKlinko »

Sculptor wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:04 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:00 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:51 pm

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, since there is no way you can understand what you are saying.
So you might as well stop now.
You are Incoherent. What are you saying?
Sorry but I cannot understand that since "The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything".
You should try to use your Conscious Mind, not your Physical Mind (Brain).
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by SteveKlinko »

Skepdick wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 7:08 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 5:59 pm Be serious, in Binary 10 = 2.
I am serious. There is no "2" in binary.

So if 10 = 2 then 5+5 = 2
And if 2 = 1 + 1 then 5+5 = 1 + 1

You are dealing with meaning, not equality and you don't even know what "=" means.
Problem is you are trying to think like a Computer, so you can't think Abstractly.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything

Post by Sculptor »

SteveKlinko wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 12:20 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 8:04 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 6:00 pm
You are Incoherent. What are you saying?
Sorry but I cannot understand that since "The Human Brain Is Incapable Of Understanding Anything".
You should try to use your Conscious Mind, not your Physical Mind (Brain).
My consciousness is a field generated by my physical brain. WHat you are asking is impossible.
You are mired in a myth that consciousness is separate from the physical brain, it is not and could not be.
Who you are as a person is vested 100% in the unique organisation of your brain, and without that you are just so much dead meat.
Post Reply