(This blog stems from an initial post and further discussion with Sujitda. He persuaded me to write another blog summarizing my thought about this.)
What resides inside the brain? Physically these are just a bunch of nerves (pun unintended). But how about in terms of the bits of information that the brain stores? How about the processing of this information that happens in the brain? We know from physiology, scarce few things about the functioning of the brain although the volume of combined information (probably knowledge) we now have about the functioning of our brain is increasing exponentially. Understandably, the approach is to find out how the brain functions with respect to some special situations and special activities, and then try to sum them up to find a model of the brain. An interesting way to start is to find out which part of the brain is used for which activity and also at what time, through techniques like functional MRI. Many interesting results are being thrown up during such studies. Another way would be to study the processing of the nerves and neurons themselves from an electrical and chemical perspective. Another way to try to understand the brain is through psychology. Try and put the 'brains' into some unique situation and see how it responds, then change the situation. In psychological tests, it is also important to study several 'brains' because everyone acknowledges that not all brains work exactly the same way and the results from psychological experiments are often (at least nowadays) presented with a statistical analysis. All these methodologies are also applied on special brains, i.e. with some special ability or disability, in order to see if we can fathom the extremities of the brain function, or at least see where and why it does not work normally, another approach at studying it. These methods largely come under the purview of science or at least social science.
But there has been a much older and probably more progressive method, although not as popular presently, of such investigation, namely philosophical. This does not deal with the rigorous methodology of science, but still tries to find answers especially to questions where such a rigorous methodology has not yet been established, or rather difficult to establish. Here I want to inquire into the philosophical question about the functioning of the brain, especially in the context of communication of ideas. Even then, this being a blog and not a paper, I will take the liberty of not quoting or referencing previous work and thoughts on this subject. Hence I come with a disclaimer that I do not know whether these thought are original. They might well be, but I do not claim to have researched enough to confirm that.
In order to make reading simpler and less confusing at later stages, I would like to define or at least re-define the terminology I am using in this blog. Many of the terminologies have to redefined because definitions of some of them contain other undefined terms.
Thinking: The process of utilizing the brain to process information, either retrieved from memory or/and from an external source.
Thought: The end point of thinking. (It will be redefined later)
Symbols: Abstractions which have accepted meaning between all those involved in the process of communication.
Platonic Object: An abstract idea that has been created and may or may not a common acceptance and meaning for all those involved in the process of communication, e.g. Symbol, Algorithm, Concept, Word, Subject etc.
Communication: The process of transferring information from one brain to another.
Information: Encoded form of the description of all objects/matter/energy either in the physical or abstract world (including Platonic objects)
How do we define a 'brain'? That is more difficult for me to do in an acceptable way.
There is one thing I would like to point out before defining a brain. We have more or less accepted that humans (at least the average one) has brains. We are also fine with saying that higher mammals like dogs, elephants etc. or parrots have brains. Moreover we have come to some agreement about the location and structure of it. But can we say that a tree has brains? Can we say that a bacterium has brains? Some may accept that a cockroach has brains. How about a computer? I still think some of us may cringe accepting that a computer has brains. But everyone would agree that a rock has no brains. A person in coma, has the physical brain structure, but we don't know whether they are capable of thinking, especially the ones in a persistent vegetative state. There can be 4 bases by which we can define a brain,
1) Anything with a physical structure containing neurons etc. - This excludes trees, bacteria and computers, but includes cockroaches and people in a vegetative state
2) Anything which is capable of processing information - This in a way is response to stimulus, so it includes computers, calculators, machines, trees, bacteria, but excludes people in a vegetative state
3) Anything which is capable of communicating with us, humans - this includes computers, perhaps some other machines, trained apes, parrots etc., but excludes most other animals, trees, comatose patients, bacteria etc. Perhaps pets can be included in this definition.
4) Anything that has consciousness - This excludes computers and machines, people in a vegetative state, perhaps bacteria and trees, but includes higher mammals, birds and human beings. This one is very vague, because consciousness itself is not easily defined.
So to put out any of the confusions regarding what a brain constitutes, we only include the 'brains' which fit in all the definition categories, i.e. the brains of trained apes and parrots, and human beings (trained at least to communicate).
The first step to thinking is information. This information can be obtained from our sensory organs, or from the communication from other 'brains', or from our own memory. This information may then be processed by our brains, which is called thinking, or may simply be committed to memory. The processing may lead to an action, or not. When we communicate, we try to pass on information, often in the form of words. We can of course communicate with basic sounds, actions etc. but here because of the definition of brain we are choosing, I have to restrict the definition of communication to words, either through verbal, written or sign language. Here the encoding of data is in the form of words. This encoding unlike the usual kind is not very accurate, because words could mean different things at different times and there is no one-one mapping between data and the encoding. However, it is more powerful than the usual kinds because it can express a much wider range of data, and hence the information is quite varied as compared to the kinds we get through our senses. While our senses can only encode description of the physical world, words can encode description of the abstract world too. This world, quite like the physical world consists of objects which we call for now as Platonic objects (terminology goes to Sujitda). The encoding itself is a part of the abstract world, just like the encoding of the physical world is a part of the physical world itself. However, we liberally make use of the abstract world in order to understand the physical world and vice-versa. For example, a circle is a platonic object. It exists in the abstract world and encoded as, a 'polygon with infinite sides'. There is no circle in the real physical world. Yes, one can make a circle that is rather close to the abstract definition of a circle, but we can still look at a physical object, something quite far from a circle (like the sun) and understand the Platonic object (concept) of a circle. On the other hand, in order to understand the physical world, we need certain Platonic objects. For example, if we want to understand how much time an object falling from a certain height will take to hit the ground, we make use of Platonic objects like 'point mass', 'time' and 'distance'.
When such information is communicated to a brain, then either the information (by which I mean the encoding) is committed to memory, or the information is processed via thinking and then the 'thought' is committed to memory. What is the nature of this thought? Does exist in the form of the words themselves? The difference between storing the encoding as against the thought, is the difference between memorizing and understanding. Being able to express the information in 'your own words' is the test for understanding. This means that the words themselves are not completely the thought, but are required only to communicate the thought. Thus it is possible to translate most of the thoughts to different words and and different languages. But if every time the same thought is expressed, it is expressed through different words, do the words encode information about the same platonic object? Definitely, they do. But with every new description of it, the platonic object acquires a different facet to it. If the circle was to be described as anything other than a 'polygon with infinite sides', then we would be describing another aspect of it. e.g. 'All possible points at a certain distance from a single point at its centre.' For any brain which has converted the platonic object to a thought, this alternative information would still project the same object although by showing another facet of it. However, does the thought corresponding to a Platonic object have the same features in every brain? Does your thought about a circle and my thought about a circle correspond to the same thing? Fortunately, for mathematical concepts, it is easy to see whether it does correspond or not. There are ways to cover all the facets of the object using axioms, theorems and proofs in such a way that everyone's description of their thought about the Platonic object can be verified to be consistent, even if different with everyone else's description of the thought. For that reason, the thought about the platonic object is likely to be very similar. But even then, some people may have a thought which covers a special aspect of the Platonic object which another person may not have in his/her thought, e.g. I don't know how many people would have also thought of the circle to be a line on a curved plane? Or a circle to be a point too? Or probably something I haven't thought about! However, thanks to the strict methodology of mathematics it is possible to prove and with that check whether a particular facet of the thought is in fact consistent with the Platonic object.
But when it comes to Platonic objects that are not mathematical, this checking whether each one's thoughts corresponding to a Platonic object are consistent or not, gets more tricky. Let us take an example of the Platonic object, 'knowledge', which is of course a word which we use freely to convey information. But our thought about 'knowledge' may be quite different for different people and there could be arguments about what it is. An expert often is referred to and his/her thought, constructed into words is what we use as a definition. But the Platonic object, 'knowledge' is quite different from the individual thoughts about knowledge we all have, often not consistent with each other. Moreover, the actual words that were used to convey the meaning of this Platonic object, would have an influence on the thought that gets formed in the brain. Not only that, we need to assume that we know the meaning of several other Platonic objects before we can communicate something about one Platonic object. The more and more information one gets, the thought becomes clearer or murkier depending on whether the information is consistent or inconsistent. And when we complete thinking, a thought becomes concrete, we 'understand' the Platonic object, and are ready to communicate more information about the Platonic object to others. This is something like when Hellen Keller described as understanding what her teacher was writing on her hand and felt the water flow onto her hands. What we call in India as 'Batti Jal gayi'. However, as I iterated before, just as with physical objects, understanding it may simply have uncovered one aspect or facet of it. For example, even though we have seen block of wood, we don't know how it looks from the other side, how it feels, what the sound is etc. That is the same with Platonic objects. Understanding it does not mean uncovering all the aspects of it. The more and more aspects are uncovered, the more we become an expert in this Object.
Platonic objects can also be expressed in the form of symbols, as is done in the case of Mathematics (in stead of words). These are another form of encoding the abstract ideas into information bits. But since the definitions of symbols are already agreed upon by those involved in the communication, it becomes less confusing when proving consistency (via logic). By pre-defining the words such are 'thinking, 'brain' etc. I have tried to symbolize these words in order to reduce the confusion in communication.
What is very important in Platonic objects is 'consistency'. Platonic objects are independent of words. We assume that they exist just like 'the physical objective truth' even before the first brain 'thought' about it and left it for the different brains to uncover completely. Whether any brain can 'completely' understand every aspect of a Platonic object as well as its relationship to other Platonic objects, one can never know.
But on the other hand, the brain is also able to come up with new 'thoughts' that are not present in the form of any physical or Platonic object. This is what is attributed to creativity. We can create a sequence of frequencies that did not exist before, a series of words which did not exist before, a picture which did not exist before. These are physical objects that are created. But can they also have their Platonic equivalents, which can be created? When we try to understand the physical world, we have to rely on Platonic objects to communicate it to others. For example, if we have to understand Newton's laws, we have to understand what is a 'point mass', before we understand the physical reality. But did the Platonic object 'point mass' exist before the first person (probably Newton or Leibnitz) 'thought' about it? The fact that they seem to have independently come up the derivative calculus seems that Platonic Objects exist even before thinking is done about them. They exist 'outside' the brain.
What was the nature of this 'thought' which is connected to a physical or Platonic object that nobody has discovered or seen. What must have been in Newton's and Leibnitz' minds when they had this 'thought'? At this point, I have to introduce a new concept called 'Pure thought'. If one wants to be consistent in terminology with the Physical and Platonic world, we could also call it 'Mental Object'. That is the spark which ignites new ideas. This 'Mental Object', exists only solely within a 'brain'. They are created only after thinking is done. They are not dependent on words, other Platonic objects, other 'thoughts' or symbols. For that reason, I use the adjective 'pure'. However, the existence of this 'Mental Object' is completely useless, just like the existence of a Platonic object, until it is communicated. What is their physical manifestation, I don't know. The metal object is created following thinking, and then encoding follows. This encoding can be in the form of words, symbols, sounds, color or whatever. And this is medium of communicating it to another brain. However, for doing this, one needs to employ other Platonic objects which existed in the brain in terms of 'thoughts'. When the thought is to be converted into a Physical object then the actuators such a vocal chords, tongue, hands, legs, fingers etc. are used . It is at this point that 'Mental Object' is being converted into a Platonic object or a Physical object. It is here that consistency becomes an issue. It is here that one realizes whether a 'mental object' can converted to a consistent Platonic object/physical object or not. This depends on the skill at encoding and actuating. But this process of encoding and decoding alters the thoughts that are created as a result of the 'mental object'. So in trying to achieve consistency that is an attribute of the Platonic object, the 'mental object' undergoes a change. Thus unlike the Platonic object, the Mental Object (Pure thought) is affected by the encoding/decoding process itself. But while the crux of the 'Platonic Object' is consistency, the crux of the Pure thought is completeness. The mental object is complete and the brain knows all its facets, depending on the situation, it may or may not be consistent. Thus not all mental objects can be converted to platonic or physical objects. But with every attempt to convert it into a platonic object, it is modified.
A matter to be discussed here, is the subjective nature of the mental object and the objective nature of the platonic object. The platonic object is just a single entity, while the mental object is unique in every brain. The mental object, pure thought is also what we could call personal belief. I desisted from using this word belief, because of the several connotations that belief has which i do not want to get into for this blog. But I can say here, that the mental object does not need the support of any other physical, platonic or mental object for its existence, just like belief. On the other hand, platonic objects have to necessarily be consistent with all the platonic objects that are used to encode it into thoughts. Platonic objects are permanent, but pure thoughts or mental objects are transient. The purer the thought is, the more transient it it. Physical objects are more permanent than mental objects but are more ephemeral than Platonic ones.
Thus I will summarize the three worlds that we traverse in. The physical world is the world which contains physical objects. Physical objects can be converted into Mental Objects by our sense organs, by some sort of transduction, and then thinking. But we need the help of Platonic objects to understand the physical objects and also communicate information about the physical objects to another brain. This is done by encoding the information in to platonic objects such as words, symbols etc. Thinking converts these platonic objects into mental objects. Actuation is needed to convert mental objects to create new physical objects. This the nature of the relationship between the three worlds and the objects in these three world. They are interconnected and need each other for the creation and understanding of each other. Communication and then acceptance is required for uncovering Platonic objects.
