John, The reason why people are thinking about all this stuff in terms of
maths is
because it is not all just fluffy philosophizing you have to have at least
minimalistic math models in order to build software. So when you say
iTheathre or iMovie I'm thinking bits per send, compression, color depth,
Fourier transforms, object recognition probabilities,... sorry man that's
how it is.
Just saying that there is a movie projecting against the inside of your
skull ain't gonna cut the mustard. Movie is too broad.... you have to define
it more...
John,
Thanks for response. I apologise to you and others for going over the top,
but I was deeply frustrated and right to be frustrated - with the
scientific/philosophical world (and not just AI) re their treatment of
consciousness.
No, I believe I'm right here. Maths is only quantification - the question is
: what are you quantifying? Programs are only recipes to construct something
or a sequence of behaviour. The question again is: what are you
constructing?
You have to START by providing a model of consciousness - of what it
involves. It is grossly unscientific not to do so. And that movie is the
sine qua non starting point for a model.
Certainly intelligence has to be applied to the movie - to understand what
is being reflected in the movie - the objects and world around you.
And by all means quantify and program away - but first agree about what you
are quantifying. Otherwise it's all basically hot air. And you guys - along
with all other serious thinkers discussing this area - have NO AGREEMENT
about what you are discussing, or whether any of you are talking about the
same thing. That, if you think about it, is ridiculous.
Damasio who is one of the best thinkers here, talks of consciousness as the
"movie in the mind" - I believe that "world movie" is a step forward because
it focusses on what the movie shows and is for.
Some perspective here: words are absolutely wrong and misleading as a SOLE
medium to discuss consciousness - they fragment whatever you are talking
about. And consciousness is indeed a continuous movie, (for want of a still
richer model) - and MUST be talked about with the aid of movies, as I tried
to do.
The reason people resist this model - is they are only comfortable talking
in words. They are uncomfortable and ill-versed thinking visually and
sensorily. Well, tough. If you are serious about consciousness, there is no
alternative. You cannot discuss actual movies in cinemas seriously with just
words. Nor can you discuss the movie-that-is-consciousness seriously with
just words either.
You guys, I am consistently arguing, have to learn respect for the brain. If
the brain does things a certain way, then that is probably the "ideal" way
to do it - in the technical, psychological sense - i.e. not the "perfect"
way, not something that can't be improved, but a more or less inevitable and
essential way, (in a very broad sense), to tackle the given problems.
And the way the brain chooses throughout evolution to tackle the problems of
survival is to run a movie. Your brain does not allow you, for example, to
jump straight to imbibing logic and mathematics - as your computers can - it
forces you to run a movie of the books you're reading, or computer screen
you're looking at, and all those logical and mathematical figures have to be
processed as IMAGES. Your brain insists that you SEE or otherwise sense what
you're talking about.
P.S. Qualia are a massive distraction here. People are ironically making the
same mistake here that novice novelists make. When they start writing a
story, they are obsessed with the FEELINGS of the events they describe. God,
that love affair was so painful, you see. But actually you can't think
straight about any events in your life, if you don't describe what you and
other people are DOING... whether by actions, or thinking, or speech. Once
you concentrate on those, the feelings automatically fall into place.
The same is true with consciousness. Model first what consciousness does.
It sees etc - runs a movie - of the world.
P.P.S. As I pointed out, too, without a model of consciousness-as-movie the
SELF wanders around, homeless, in any verbal discussion of consciousness.
With the movie model, the self automatically has a place - it's the
brain-body watching the movie, continually directing the movie, turning the
camera this way and that.
And then the contents of consciousness fall into place too - because every
sight - every "shot" you see - including every photograph you look at - has
a Point of View - inevitably implies a self watching at a distance. IOW
every shot is a "close-up", "long distance," at an upward/downward angle
from an implied viewer.
And all this is true of course for all animals.
So no there is no alternative to the movie model (only better or superior,
modified versions) of it. What alternative are you or anyone else offering?
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
