A Challenging Problem, at least for me.

Up to now, my view of the human mind was some thing like what old fashion AI says: the human-like intelligence is made up of some symbols. The fundamental building blocks are symbols(which are the same as concepts) and they have interaction.These interactions (which are made by some fundamental methods like abstraction), make new concepts.
One of my friends thinks another way, and he posed a question for which I had no good explanation.
In my view conceptual structures are the building blocks of our mind, which should have correspondence with all mental states and of course brain states. In this approach, looking at some object, somehow activates some representation.
The question and also the problem is:
Why when we think of some external object, it has no color? Have you ever noticed?
Adopting the mentioned view it should have had color! Because there is an activation of the same concept. I don't know if it's clear or not!!!
If there is not a unique representation of the same concept, the solution is totally wrong.On the other hand I feel this view is correct and I feel it's the way it all happens. (:@(

Thought Experiment no.1

Imagine an ageless man sitting up a hill and counting. Also imagine he would count till the end of his life, it means up to infinite! For each number he counts there should be a corresponding brain state. But the problem is the brain states at most are dependent on the difference between molecules and there should be a finite (although huge) number of them.

Where is the problem? He should represent infinite numbers where there are finite numbers of states in his brain.

I think it's a good support for the compositionality of meaning in ones mind. When counting, the man would represent one number by analyzing and breaking it down to meaningful pieces.

But still there are finite numbers of combinations!

Is the experiment a correct one or it has flaws? Why can't we imagine a man living for ever?

The Identity of Causality

In metaphiysics up to now there were two major views describing the nature of causality.The first one considers a root for casuality in nature, it says we nonconsciously conclude casuality
by observing the natural laws and it believes all the feelings of existance of casuality is describable using natural laws and implicitly physical laws.
The second one believes in the limitation of our mind as the source of feeling the existance of causality, puting it another way it says we feel it because of our nature not because of the outside world.
Now, which one do you think is true?
Is it in our mind or outside? if both, why? and how?
Up to now there were critcs against both of these hypothesises or more than hypothesises, believes. For example against the first view we can say there are many logical conditions which leads us to use and believe in casuality, in which there is no natural law(consider an ordinary daily logical conclusion), and for the second one, one might say, phisycal laws can imply some kind of causality which really does not belong to our mind and its limitation.
But there is a feeling which wants to gather both of these views under one.
The question is why?
We may refer to causuality as the modes ponen axiom:
If P --> q and P is true, then q should be true as well.
Why this fundamental law should govern our mind and maybe nature.
The matter is this law regardless of paying to it from the mind limits or natural laws framework is the only fundamental law which can ever be.
why? the key is in the nature of every low, including physical laws and every
other naturl or mental laws. Every law implicitly uses causality as the foundation, because every law or proposition just defines a special P and Q in the term of causuality,(try to define a law, or apprehend any attribute to any object, you have made a p--->q rule) and causuality is uniq and nobel in the term that: it is a law which have itself as the foundation. Think about it...
Some times you might've felt you want to define another world with another basic law to govern it, and you might have wondered why in practice you can't(at least I've done that.) Thats because of the above discussion; you have to define another law and any other law is based on causality.
So the question of: if there is another fundamental law which we can not percept, and if the limitation is in our mind or in the outside nature is of no meaning any more, because as I said every law to become a law needs causuality to be definde.

modularity of mind

Is mind really modular?
If it is why do we have a conception of unity behind all cognitive processes? Just being an eliminativism can describe such a contradictory phenomenon.
As an alternative, we can say the cognitive structure behind, is unique and the difference is in variations of implementation regarding that module, for example visual system as a big module has some specific structral variation of the general cognitive structure which makes it capable of performing it's task which is highly describable as matching process on the same conceptual structures. It might seem vague, but it would become more clear when I describe the candidate conceptual structure for all general cognitive behavior.

first glance

Let's specify the domain of discussions. I like every think which helps in understanding the mind and the cognition.So I'll put every thing worthy of reading here!
from some basic biological aspects of brain to most abstract mind design theories. They even might not seem related to each other, when looking in a sequence.
I'm developing a cognitive theory which is likly to describe some linguistic basis as well, and it's likely then to have a corresponding connectionist model based on the symbolic one. Writing would help me to think and your opinions would come of greate use.
enough for now.

New beginning

here, i've decided to save my daily perceptions of cognitive cognitions!
There is no special point of start...
Wish myself best