<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31/10/2025 12:28, John K Clark
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.4.1761913713.18922.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">We can have a general sort of understanding of how our brain works but t<span
class="gmail_default">o</span> have a perfect understanding a part of our brain would have to have a sort of internal map of the entire brain<span
class="gmail_default">,</span> and for it to be perfect<span
class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>there would have to be a one to one correspondence between the map and the territory, but that would be impossible for something that is finite like the number of neurons in the human brain. However it would be possible for a proper subset of something infinite to have a one<span
class="gmail_default"> to one</span> correspondence with the entire set; then you could have such a perfect map with a one to one correspondence ...</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
You've completely lost me there, but I have two observations:
There's no such thing as 'perfect understanding' except as a
nebulous theoretical concept, and I don't think a one-to-one
correspondence would be enough to understand something, or even be a
relevant concept. We use large parts of our brains to process
information from small parts of the world. You need a lot more than
a single neuron to figure out what's going on in a single neuron.<br>
<br>
Oh, three observations. We don't process data instantaneously. The
same parts of the brain can be used to process information about
something repeatedly over time, using feedback loops etc.
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Ben</pre>
<br>
</body>
</html>