Epistemology as a productive method for brain-research\, but also as a model for \;the \;intelligent \;brain \;itself: \; Kant versus Popper twice-over.
\nOrthodoxy says that the memory-and-thought are somehow enacted by the synaptic junctions between neuron nerve-cells &mdash\; but after decades that &ldquo\;somehow&rdquo\; remains vague! \; Anyhow we should instead be seeking mechanisms with digital ability. \; Such an alternative paradigm has recently been offered (&ldquo\;Coding&hellip\;&rdquo\; J.Psychiatry &\; Psychiatric Disorders)\, as follows:
\n·\;Spare RNA offers digital encodings\, some as inherited &ldquo\;instincts&rdquo\;. \;Others as arbitrary components assembled into countless candidate concepts\, mostly then culled and recycled \; ·\;Only those deemed consistent/coherent with inputs etc. will survive. (This exemplifies the Kantian/Darwinian technique for inverting causality\, using trial-&\;-error). ·\;Such RNA sites would need to intercommunicate via infra-red. \; That vastly increases the &ldquo\;Giga-bit&rdquo\; rate of the system\, and allows signals some extra freedom beyond myelinated-nerves. ·\;It \;also offers liberating scope for digital addressing. ·\;Assembled concepts are small enough to fit inside nerve-fibres as &ldquo\;postage-packages&rdquo\;! \; ·\;This model initially owed nothing to direct observation.
\nPopper&rsquo\;s approach: 1.Repudiated analogy and induction as non-rigorous (yet we use them unconsciously most of the time\, including for observation &mdash\; justified by Gö\;del etc.). \; 2.Insisted on testability (OK but could now include &ldquo\;Kantian/Darwinian&rdquo\; tests for coherence: within the brain\, or within interdisciplinary theory). \; 3.Dismissed hypothesis-selection as unimportant &mdash\; false for complex systems.
\nThe above model clashes with Popper. \; Verdict? \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Rachael Brown;CN=John Matthewson;CN=Kate E. Lynch: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR