You talk much of firmware, and I wonder if you mean the same by it as I do, having spent 32 years designing and building firmware. Do you just mean "software", as this is only an analogy anyway? [We all know that brains aren't actually computers, don't we? :wink:] I just wondered. But let's continue. — Pattern-chaser
By firmware, I am speaking of a type of software analogy, where the laws of physical chemistry are used as the programming language, so the line between software and hardware is not clear cut. I call this ambiguous state of affairs; firmware. Computer and human language is manmade, so there is a distinction between the hardware and software, since each works with different principles; human logic for software versus physical chemical logic for the hardware.
As example of the firmware that I speak of, the leaves of certain trees will change color in the fall. With computers, we can design software to change the parameters of the hardware so the monitor will simulate this color change. But wth the tree, changes in light and temperature, will alter the chemical environment so new chemical pathways become engaged. This is what I mean by firmware. It is a natural language, based on the laws of physical chemistry, that can be used to alter the state of the physical system in a logical and directed way.
Neurons expand up to 90% of their energy pumping and exchanging ions. They are pushing the neuron up an energy hill and storing potential energy. This is not a stable steady state since natural systems wish to lower energy. The brain lowers this energy in a controlled manner and uses the energy to alter the physical chemical environment in a logical and directed way so the output affects from the mind and body seem to have a software underlay; firmware.
Your posts seem to be filled with absolute assertions. You never say "might be" or "seems to be", you say only "is". And yet you offer little in the way of justification. Admittedly, these things are difficult enough to discuss meaningfully, never mind justify. But all you seem to offer is an explanation for those who don't understand as you do, with no indication that you are even aware of alternative views. So let's have a good look at what you think. It may well prove interesting. — Pattern-chaser
I began my interest in the unconscious mind back in the early 1980's. I ran unconscious mind experiments on myself to help explore and map out the psyche. Even though I had good and unique data, I came to realized nobody would believe me. This was not my educational specialty, but more of a hobby, and nobody would listen or take me serious.
I decided I needed to demonstrate a practical application from my research; demonstrate my enhanced creativity due to my rapport with the unconscious. Using this creative edge, I have pondered and written about the entire range of science and knowledge for decades. I have looked at consciousness from many angles in science, religion and philosophy and I have reached a steady state, where my explanations are consistent through all related areas from physical bio-chemistry to psychology to philosophy. It is not that I don't listen, but rather I have already heard, created and considered all these things over the many years of my journey.
But your views seem quite novel, and could do with examination and consideration, not just an assertive exposition. You state above, for example, that meaning is "organised" (?) "without using an emotional attachment". For humans, some things are of moderate significance, and we have little or no emotional attachment to them. But other things are significant to us, and to them we are emotionally attached. And not just a bit either. It's a human thing. I offer no explanation or justification for that; it's just something we humans do. And it can be verified by simple observation. It isn't difficult to see or to find, and it isn't uncommon. So why would you state that there is no emotional attachment associated with meaning? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
When the brain writes memory to the cerebral matter, aspects of the limbic system, in the core region of the brain, attach emotional tags to the memory. Our memory is composed of sensory content and emotional tagging. This schema is useful to the animal. If the animal sees a similar situation as memory, he will feel the attached feeling and can react to the feeling without thinking. If the animal sees the same food and he feels good about the food; from memory, he does not have to reinvent the wheel before he eats. He reacts to the feeling.
If the emotional tagging was to get very subtle, then one cannot easily react to the stimulus in the same linear ways the animal, since there is not compelling emotion. Mr Spock, by shutting off his emotions, has an impact on the tagging process. The conscious mind will need another way to deal with such data and memory; logic or dogma. If the logic is correct there can still be a bulk tagging, with a feeling tag of conviction. Although the ego may need to use logic for the raw data with subtle tagging, the unconscious mind, via the firmware, can organize this data using basic firmware organizational pattern; firmware of meaning.
Humans collect so much cultural data that the brain does not see the need to tag everything as important to natural survival. However, it still stores the data but with less energy expenditure in the tagging process and organization process. It is subtle and needs practice to read.