3 ms·

This is actually an idiotic question. The molecular biology does not employ a concept of a number (or any concepts whatsoever in principle), since this requires

This is actually an idiotic question. The molecular biology does not employ a concept of a number (or any concepts whatsoever in principle), since this requires an intelligent observer (to form the abstract notion of a number) which is not available at that level. The "concrete", real-world biological systems, including our brains, however employs frequencies and "weights", which corresponds to wideness of a pathway, which does not require any numbers or counting. Mother Nature Does Not Count (and it does not compute any probabilities, of course). Higher level intellect does. Math and logic are superimposed on the Universe and Nature. It is naive to assume that the Universe and Nature is based on math and logic, as ancient Greek views suppose. Yes, there is basis behind Modus Ponens - in a certain conditions having Hs and Os inevitably leads to H2Os because universe has its laws, and because it has its laws it produces certain regularities and certain patterns which could be matched and even generalized by an intelligent observer, but it is not the other way around.

cannabis_sam 8y ago
>Math and logic are superimposed on the Universe and Nature. It is naive to assume that the Universe and Nature is based on math and logic, as ancient Greek views suppose. I think it’s more naive to think that the question has been settled.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypoth...
- throwaway487548 8y ago
  It depends on who is asking. If it is a "good" philosopher, who is in on the quest to unveil the nature and laws of what is, then it is settled. If, however, you are fond of joggling with abstractions and of studying of philosophers themselves and various philosophical systems (instead of what is) then, of course, you could put together yet another pile of abstractions and even systematically compare it with another pile of abstractions, and so on. Lots of people do. Universe is one (at least we and everything else is bound by this one single unfolding process we call Universe) while abstractions are infinite, and most of them are disconnected from what is - they generalize nothing but other disconnected abstractions.
simonh 8y ago
You don't have to use numbers to implement a Bayesian system. It's quite possible to build one using analog methods. In the same way Voltage = Current x Resistance describes the behaviour of an electrical circuit and we can evaluate it numerically, but electrical circuits are analog and don't encapsulate or express those values numerically at all. The brain might exhibit Bayesian behaviour without encoding or evaluating anything numerically. After all the values in Bayesian formulae are probabilities on a continuous scale, so there's nothing inherently discrete about their values.
adrianN 8y ago
The silicon atoms in my CPU also don't employ any numbers either, but "it's a thing that can calculate" is a decent high level description of what it does.

cannabis_sam 8y ago

>Math and logic are superimposed on the Universe and Nature. It is naive to assume that the Universe and Nature is based on math and logic, as ancient Greek views suppose. I think it’s more naive to think that the question has been settled.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypoth...

throwaway487548 8y ago
It depends on who is asking. If it is a "good" philosopher, who is in on the quest to unveil the nature and laws of what is, then it is settled. If, however, you are fond of joggling with abstractions and of studying of philosophers themselves and various philosophical systems (instead of what is) then, of course, you could put together yet another pile of abstractions and even systematically compare it with another pile of abstractions, and so on. Lots of people do. Universe is one (at least we and everything else is bound by this one single unfolding process we call Universe) while abstractions are infinite, and most of them are disconnected from what is - they generalize nothing but other disconnected abstractions.

simonh 8y ago

You don't have to use numbers to implement a Bayesian system. It's quite possible to build one using analog methods. In the same way Voltage = Current x Resistance describes the behaviour of an electrical circuit and we can evaluate it numerically, but electrical circuits are analog and don't encapsulate or express those values numerically at all. The brain might exhibit Bayesian behaviour without encoding or evaluating anything numerically. After all the values in Bayesian formulae are probabilities on a continuous scale, so there's nothing inherently discrete about their values.

adrianN 8y ago

The silicon atoms in my CPU also don't employ any numbers either, but "it's a thing that can calculate" is a decent high level description of what it does.