What you are saying makes sense somewhat, but I still insist that if we consider an analog measurement we also need to consider the non measured as also existing in order to define the unit of measurement we need.<quoted text>
That would be false--[cut to save space]
No, again... think analog.
It also appears that most of our sensors are analog too. The light sensitive rods and cones appear to be so, as do the signal hairs in our inner ears. I'm not familiar with the sensors of the sense of touch, though.
Taste? That's a chemical sensor, and could be considered digital, as there is a fixed number of receptors, and the number that get stimulated directly translates to intensity. Again, I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be here, either.
Logically, the smallest possible value would have to be defined and than the smallest value that can be measured would have to be derived from that value.
We have to select how we wish to divide what is in order to measure it within practical limitations.
Like pi for example. We can take pi to extreme levels of accuracy but we will always fall short of total accuracy. We just have to determine how much accuracy we need for a given task. Or take a fractal formula. We can zoom in on the fractal as much as we want to and it will always reveal more detail.
So technically if we say the brain can accurately process data on an analog scale it would need to be able to detect increments that are much smaller than the Planck scale. The signal to noise ratio may or may not apply in limiting the amount of accuracy depending on how the cells measure the individual signals and just how much inaccuracy (noise) is acceptable in order for the brain to function properly.
Perhaps the human brain can read these values with infinite precision. At this stage we can only speculate ( This would have profound philosophical implications even more so than Bell's theorem on entangled particles and would bring into question the validity of the Copenhagen interpretation.)
Otherwise it still remains digital due to the chemical nature of the brain based on the interaction of a countable number of molecules with a large but limited number of potential connections. Just because the amount of connections is more than all the molecules in the universe does not mean the amount of connections is infinite.
I will have to think about it and research what has been found out so far.
I try to be objective in researching what is, but like most people I am biased to some extent as are we all. Working on letting go of these biases is a life's work.
Each of us is seeing what is with different blinders on.
What I like about the scientific method that I am gradually coming to understand is that we can collaborate on what we agree on and let go of what we have outgrown due to a greater ability to observe what is.
This was something new to me when I was kicked out of the Jehovah's Witnesses 42 years ago.
Thinking, and especially questioning, was forbidden. Challenging so-called common sense was unthinkable!
I am 71 years old now and am still struggling to catch up with what is known about the reality we live in!
Again, I will have to research this further. You have given me much food for thought. Thanks!