Is it possible to process information without a process code? See we have CPU's but they can only process information based on algorithms (i.e the process). I was wondering how the brain can process information without any 'algorithms'. All we can say is the brain is interconnected but that means it has 'access' to information. But memory access doesn't give you an output of processing, it simply gives you the inputs. Processing information would be to actually use that information to derive information not present. And when I mean processing information I don't mean the kind of 'process' where its simply a reaction. Take for example a sample of sand that is passed through a number of funnels with decreasing 'hole size'. In the end the sand that 'drops to the bottom' will be the grains that are the smallest in size. So this 'filtration process' happened but its simply a result of a reaction of gravity, and particle size not because there was any real processing applied. But on the other hand take for example: A baseball pitcher pitches a strike. How? Having access to information can't make you do the pitch, you would need to 'choose' the right information set from an a infinite sample of motion memory to do this. I don't think computers can auto-generate algorithms from a simple state of just having stored memory. Even AI is simply us giving our intelligence to the computer through using algorithms. If you had computer and you had all the 'hardware' present but erased the machine code, that computer is worthless even though still has all the 'memory' still there and information on the hard drive. Feels like to me processed information can only come from a some predetermined 'algorithm/methodology'. So where did our brains get this methodology from. In fact any brain, even the most primitive, where would they get this methodology from.
The conscious mind does not exist in lower dimensions life is not indigenous to the third dimension we are foreigners of this realm. So no equivalent of processing power can rival us the body is a machine an "avatar" controlled by an operator fully conscious in higher realms so because the operator can transmit all the information at once the machine cannot receive it all at once. So it will have to go through the process of learning embedded in the programed algorithm of time. the matrix is a good example. Agent smith could not understand with all the knowledge he obsorbed from the matrix how neo was still able to see beyond his conclusion "What are you afraid of?" simply because neo was a living being and not a program and a living being is not confined by two dimensions like agent smith was confined to only two dimensions(and they intersected at three dimensions). Neo was hole he was one smith was many he was less than one so together they represented 1 and -1 which in turn the creator and the created canceling each other out but accept neo did not die in the end he returned to the higher realms of unified consciousness and the little girl made the rainbow for him so he could watch from the higher realm for she knew he could see it she as well was awaken. "I made it for Neo"
Over time evolution has honed genetic pre-conditions for brain functioning. But much of that unfolds or falls out of the loose, chemical-stimulated strategies of body self-assembly which may have options unique to each stage of development. There's no strict / perfect "blueprint" (like humans would invent) which migrating cells and developing neural connections in a fetal head are following in the course of their organizing. Yet something amounting to a "template" or "scheme" for perceptual processing and intellectual activity results. It's just very un-neat and feral-looking to researchers more accustomed to the plans outputted by artificial engineering. A very adaptable/ flexible working structure, too. After damaging accidents and medical ailments, other brain regions can sometimes take over roles once deemed to be the exclusive property of specialized areas. Environmental information is still an important stimulus for post-natal development. In normal children, neural pathways are trimmed-down and optimized for better efficiency; and a youth not exposed to language early on can have great difficulty with syntax or apprehending / utilizing grammar rules later.
Same way he learned how to walk- Trial and error, repeated with patterns that work better remembered (and unconsciously stored in his cerebellum). I could pitch better than him if he had to do it by conscious thought - which one of a pair of opposing mussels to contract,and how much, while the other is relaxed all during a continuously changing set of at least two dozen pairs. Hell he could not even do the stand on one leg wind up if it were not for the patterns stored in his cerebellum.
You are thinking only in terms of symbolic logic. In those terms, AI behavior gets exactly nowhere, particularly if the meanings of the symbols associated with the language is useless. This is the case with most vocabulary of most human language. To make it useful to an AI (or even an infant), it must relate to something that can be accessed or that it manipulate in the real world, preferably both. Humans have a few sensorimotor systems that are intact, complete, and useful from birth. Balance. Motor control of limbs and fingers. tactile. the retina and optic nerve paths (possibly the most tightly integrated of all). Sound and the ability to hear any noise you make. All of these sensorimotor system operate with complex feedback loops. With motor control and tactile, it is possible to calibrate orientation, distance, pressure. With the retina and optic nerves working in conjunction with motor and tactile, it is possible to integrate these sensorimotor systems to obtain a desired result in our surroundings. Getting back to the symbols you seem to be trying to effect raw intelligence with. If there is a common basis for symbolic communication that can be coded automatically into neurons, that would be the concept of length. The behaviorist camp (the opposite of the symbolic logic camp) of AI has already made great strides with this. In another thread, I pointed to this link: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29504761 In which maps have already been made of the way neurons are able to map space. Is this the algorithm you were looking for? All stimuli of senses relate, directly or indirectly, to environmental lengths. Our pairs of eyes are rangefinders. Our ears are echo locators and our sense of balance. Our senses of taste and smell derive of being able to sense the shapes of molecules. Our greatest thinkers, Newton and Einstein, dealt only with lengths and with time, which fundamentally amounts to the same thing. We still have no clue what length actually is. But working with that concept does not seem to share any of the halting problems inherent in symbolic logic. Symbolic logic will always necessarily be incomplete. An infinite distance may be impossible for us to traverse, but it will not make our minds seize up just thinking about it, the way it would for an AI based on symbolic logic. In addition, once such maps are made, it is a simple matter for an AI or even a conventional intelligence to encode a language based on experiences, by various means. But the root concepts of all of the (many self-referential) words in dictionaries are fundamentally those derived of our organized sensorimotor inputs, and fundamentally those pertaining to length. When someone can tell us: "It's about as big as an apple." the meaning is clear, mainly because most of us have common sensorimotor information about how big an apple is, what it looks like, how it feels and how heavy it is. These are things impossible to encode in any meaningful way other than with reference to all of those sensorimotor feedback loops. Bored yet? Does the pitcher throwing a strike make more sense now? It all starts with a sensorimotor feedback loop and builds itself from there.
A brain is not a computer. The primal function of neurons was to support a reflex reaction to tactile sensation in the umbrellas of Cnidaria (jellies/hydra). In Planaria (flatworms) they served to centralize body functions through a node (ganglia) often referred to as a primitive brain, although better described as the evolutionary precursor to the hindbrain and autonomic nervous system. That is, the central nervous systems and true brains of vertebrates evolved much later, as a parallel more versatile variation on ganglia. The question "where does brain programming come from" is sort of like asking where fingernails or the human vestigial tail "comes from". If every species that ever lived were perfectly preserved in the fossil record, the question of where everything human comes from would be a little easier to answer. But once we acknowledge that we come from gooey blobs which organized as biological systems of macromolecular nanomachines, it all seems rather moot. But I wouldn't compare a brain to a computer, since the differences are far greater than the similarities. Far more useful and interesting is to try to analyze how synaptic junctions work, how neurons interface with muscle fascia, how pathways route through the spinal cord, etc. In short, when comparisons between physical systems and models break down, it's best to return to the physical systems for a closer look.
