On Mar 24, 1:22 pm, Michael Gordge xtra.co.nz> wrote:

This particular judgment is well within the normal human brain's
capacity to claim with confidence -- however, if you were to go around
"asserting" this to many people -- "Hey, the ant and the elephant are
not the same!!" you would at minimum get some strange looks, and
similarly if you vigorously "asserted" to everyone, "Hey, 1+1=2!!",
you might actually provoke some psychiatric referrals -- indeed, as
though these things need asserting. In general, we need not "assert"
things that are so obvious as not to need stating in the first place.

There is nothing keeping a person from CLAIMING any given thing -- any
man can claim he is the Supreme Being, or that Sasquatch lives on his
back porch, or that the moon is green cheese -- and nothing will stop
him from thinking or saying or claiming as he pleases. However, when
someone claims, with utter conviction, that certain things of
questionable support are true, are absolutely true, with absolute
certainty, then the following cautions apply.

The brain has a limited number of neurons, thus it is limited in the
extent of its ability -- this should be obvious. Mortals are not
omniscient, and cannot know infinitely, about all things everywhere,
perfectly and beyond flaw, as though divine beings, etc. -- this
should be obvious, though consult a dictionary if necessary.
Abstraction is limited -- this may need some explanation.

One can say or believe something that is or is not true, which IN
ACTUALITY is or is not the case, with varying degrees of certainty
professed. Professed certainty is not necessarily the same as the
literal probability of something being true, it is rather a personal
(and often subjective) estimate, or even, a bias or wild guess. If
one claims "there is an apple on the table", and there is in fact,
then that statement describes an external actuality -- thus we say the
statement is true. However, if one claims, "Sasquatch/Loch-Ness-
Monster/Santa-Claus exists, and I am absolutely certain of it, and it
is an absolute truth", the statement does not actually describe
something real, therefore the statement is false (in several ways).

However, there is something about brain function (some would say "the
laws of physics") that prevents the brain from HARBORING anything
beyond its capacity -- meaning, to perceive and to cognize beyond the
limit of what is allowed by its structure. For example, limited
neurons cannot hold infinite content, or unlimited knowledge, etc.
The brain's understanding is represented within a brain of limited
size, so understanding itself has limits -- it is not absolute, not
omniscient, not divine, nor extending to all knowledge of all things
everywhere, nor utterly infallible, etc. "1+1=2" is not likely to be
mistaken, but the claim "backward time travel is possible" must be
subjected to far more scrutiny.

That is, a person's certainty can be felt to be "absolute" (by that
definition, "absolute" = "highest degree of human certainty", which is
not the definition I use elsewhere), and human understanding can
reflect an external actuality (fact). However, the brain itself
cannot harbor that which cannot be represented, abstractly, within its
100-billion or so neurons. I am using the term "limited" in this and
other ways, in specific and literally accurate ways, which should not
be extended beyond those senses -- or you will be putting wrong words
in my mouth, so to speak.

We have SPECIFIC limits which can be described in very clear
scientific terms. Neuron-count is obvious; non-omniscience is
obvious; but abstraction is less obvious so a description is
necessary.

The nature of the brain: using perceptual data via input from the 5
senses, (which must be abstracted into a form that neurons can
handle), the brain constructs a representative model of the external
world within its neuronal structure -- and the sum of all content
encoded into those neurons constitutes EVERYTHING a given person knows
at a given time -- not some or most of it, but ALL OF IT, 100%%,
according to science. That is, we cannot know something UNLESS it is
first represented in the brain, and that is the only way the brain
knows or can know -- and, ONLY IN THE WAY it is represented. Thus, if
there is detail missing from our internal model of the external world,
or some inaccuracies, simplifications, or reductions, our knowledge or
world-awareness will remain at that point until the internal model is
updated (via abstracted input from the external world through the 5
senses).

There is a degree of inaccuracy caused by the abstraction process --
of reduction and simplification, whereby the perceived external world
is translated and encoded into neuronal and representative form. In
actuality, the brain cannot represent every atom and molecule of every
given object, such as an apple, in a mere 100-billion neurons, thus it
is more likely that upon viewing, only the outline and surface
appearance of the outside of the apple's skin, and only the part
facing one's eyes, will be modelled -- thus the vast majority of its
substance and composition is omitted (not modelled in the brain) --
indeed there is not enough brain space to model every single minuscule
detail, every cell and molecule and atom and subatomic particle in
that apple -- not even close. But it is not necessary either, thus it
is practical function the brain is concerned with. That is, the brain
need not get its model absolutely complete and perfect (and could not
do this either).

Mistaking the internal model for an absolutely 100%% accurate and
complete version of actuality is NOT correct, according to brain
science. That is what I mean by, we do not know absolutely -- we only
"know" in a way which involves the brain's cognition, or ability to
represent things in neurons, so our knowledge is limited in these
ways.

To wit: we use the brain to think and to understand, and the brain is
limited in size, neuron count, and capabilities. (Regarding limits in
capability, for example, a human cannot mentally calculate the cube
root of every existing 100000-digit number in .002 seconds, that is a
ludicrous claim.) Any denial of the first statement, according to
science, would suggest superstition.

We cannot know everything, everywhere, in every way, absolutely,
omnisciently, and universally -- not even close. That is the
scientific position. The phrase "I am absolutely certain" reflects my
brain's expression of its own highest degree of certainty, it does NOT
mean that I am universally omniscient and that I "Know All Things" (as
false prophets might erroneously assert) -- nor does it suggest that
my brain can somehow go above and beyond its physical limitations,
defy the laws of physics, etc. This should be obvious, and should not
have to be explained.

Within our limits, we can safely assume there are differences between
insects and mammals, etc. -- but "safely assume" is not the same as
"absolute" in the sense that we are somehow transcending and going
beyond the brain's capabilities, into the limitless ether of universal
consciousness, or omniscience, or whatever. We think within real
limits, not infinitely or omnisciently -- if you believe the
scientific version. The phrase, "I know things absolutely" -- IF that
means, universally, omnisciently, divinely, infinitely, superhumanly,
without the potential for flaw or inaccuracy in any way," etc. -- is,
according to science, BEYOND the brain's capabilities, and describes a
symptom of pompous mania, or the so-called Messianic complex.

The brain models the external world in its neurons using perceptual
input from the 5 senses, which is an ongoing process. Hence, a type
of "learning" occurs in some form, as long as we are interacting with
or perceiving the outside world.

RELATIVE TO means, simply, that knowing and thinking involve brain
processes, as does the internal (brain) aspect of perception. Again,
this is not difficult to understand. Yes, you are right, we "digest"
sensory data with the mind, and such sensory input leaves
"impressions" (in memory, etc.) That should be obvious enough also.

In the external world, but NOT in neuronal modelling, since that is
represented abstractly, with the limitations previously described.
You are describing, as "absolute", something ACTUAL, outside the
brain, you are not describing BRAIN PROCESSES (i.e, inside the brain):

Human thought:
ABSTRACT, REPRESENTATIVE, NOT ABSOLUTE (i.e., limited, modelled,
relative to and dependent upon the brain)

World outside brain:
ACTUAL, ABSOLUTE (i.e., does not depend upon brain, exists in and of
itself)

Actual facts of existence can be absolute in and of themselves, and we
can make true statements about them, but the brain ITSELF is not
absolute, unlimited, divine, etc., in the extent of its abilities, at
least according to science. That is what I have been trying to
convey, and my descriptions should not be extended beyond what they
describe.

Now, a person can take one of these 3 positions:
1. The brain can only function according to its literal, physical
structure and limits
2. The brain can go beyond, or transcend, its limits, to the ethereal
world of omniscience, divine knowledge, infinite knowledge, etc. etc.
etc.
3. I don't really know (or don't care, or don't have a clue, or a
brain, etc.)

You would appear to be suggesting (2) or (3), since you are arguing
against my description and defense of (1), which is the scientific
position. If you would like to add (4) which is your position,
different from (1)-(3), then do so. These could be dubbed "science,
religion/mysticism, and utter ignorance", but there are other
possibilities.

Those convey sensory information, arriving through sense organs and
(including) skin, relayed through nerves (such as sensory nerves, the
optic nerve, etc.) to the brain, where levels of abstraction and
interpretation take place. Yes, those are essential to observing the
world around us.

No man-made concepts or symbols "determine" external actuality. The
brain REACTS TO external actuality, it does not "determine" or create
or alter that through its perception or internal interpretation -- at
least according to actual science (as opposed to pseudoscience).

By the way, the Special and General Relativity, according to science,
are descriptions of "what's out there in reality". All concepts,
words, etc., are by definition man-made (or at least internally
encoded in the human brain), but many POINT TO or signify or describe
something that actually exists "out there in reality". The concept
"relativity" DOES refer to something out there, according to science,
and the concept "Sasquatch", or "Bush's brilliant leadership" does
not.