[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > We all (excuse me to use 1st pers form) are well educated smart people and > can say something upon everything. It is a rarity to read: > I was wrong you are right - period.
John You're right! Every time I post on these topics I *know* I'm wrong: I just don't know how specifically, but I keep doing it in the hope that someone will show me. Trouble is, there's something about this area that resists us - we seem doomed to come at it all wrong (particularly in those moments when we think we've got it right!) It's the struggle that fascinates us, I suppose. David > I have the feeling that we are discussing words. Everybody tries how to > 'make sense' of them, in a personal "taste". > Colin expressed it in his usual sophisticated ways, Ben more > comprehensively, in many more words. The fact is: we observe the observer > (ourselves) and want to describe it to others. > The American 'slang' comes to mind: Consciousness Smonciousness - do we get > anywhere with it? whether a device 'looks at' or we see if somebody > understands what he sees? > During the early 90s I gave up thinking ABOUT consciousness, it seemed a > futile task with everybody speaking about something else. Now I see a > reasonable topic behind it: "ourselves" - the object with which I struggle > lately to identify (for myself about myself, which is the crux of the > problem). I see no point to explain it to others: they will not get the > 'real' image (only the interpreted (their) 1st person view of me). > We all (excuse me to use 1st pers form) are well educated smart people and > can say something upon everything. It is a rarity to read: > I was wrong you are right - period. (I cannot keep my mouse shut either). > Happy debating! > > John M > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:29 PM > Subject: Re: evidence blindness > > > > Colin, Stathis, Brent, > > 1. I think we need to distinguish a cybernetic, self-adjusting system like a > sidewinder missile, from an inference-processing, self-_redesigning_ system > like an intelligent being (well, not redesigning itself biologically, at > least as of now). > > Somehow we're code-unbound to some sufficient extent that, as a result, we > can test our representations, interpretations, our systems, habits, and > "codes" of representation and interpretation, rather than leaving that task > entirely to biological evolution which tends to punish bad "interpretations" > by removal of the interpreter from the gene pool. > > There's something more than represented objects (sources), the > representations (encodings), and the interpretations (decodings). This > "something more" is the recipient, to whom falls any task of finding > redundancies and inconsistencies between the message (or message set) and > the rest of the world, such that the recipient -- I'm unsure how to put > this -- is the one, or stands as the one, who deals with the existential > consequences and for whom tests by subjection to existential consequences > are meaningful; the recipient is in a sense a figuration of existential > consequences as bearing upon the system's design. It's from a design-testing > viewpoint that one re-designs the communication system itself; the recipient > role in that sense is the role which includes the role of the > "evolutionator" (as CA's governor might call it). In other words, the > recipient is, in logical terms, the recognizer, the (dis-)verifier, the > (dis-)corroborator, etc., and verification (using "verification" as the > forest term for the various trees) is that "something more" than object, > representation, interpretation. Okay, so far I'm just trying to distinguish > an intelligence from a possibly quite vegetable-level information processs > with a pre-programmed menu of feedback-based responses and behavior > adjustments. > > 2. Verificatory bases are nearest us, while the entities & laws by appeal to > which we explain things, tend to be farther & farther from us. I mean, that > Colin has a point. > > There's an explanatory order (or sequence) of being and a verificatory order > (sequence) of knowledge. Among the empirical, "special" sciences (physical, > material, biological, human/social), physics comes first in the order of > being, the order in which we explain things by appeal to entities, laws, > etc., "out there." But the order whereby we know things is the opposite; > there human/social studies come first, and physics comes last. That is not > the usual way in which we order those sciences, but it is the usual way in > which we order a lot of maths when we put logic (deductive theory of logic) > and structures of order (and conditions for applicability of mathematical > induction) before other fields -- that's the ordering according to the bases > on which we know things. The point is, that the "ultimate" explanatory > object tends to be what's furthest from us; the "ultimate" verificatory > basis tends to be what's nearest to us (at least within a given family of > research fields -- logic and order structures are studies of reason and > reason's crackups; extremization problems in analysis seem to be at an > opposite pole). Well, in the end, "nearest to us" means _us_, in our > personal experiences. Now, I'm not talking in general about deductively > certain knowledge or verification, but just about those bases on which we > gain sufficient assurance to act (not to mention believe reports coming from > one area in research while not putting too much stock in reports coming from > another). We are our own ultimate points of reference. Quine talks somewhere > about dispensing with proper names and using a coordinate system spread out > over the known universe. Which universe? The one we're in. As a practical > matter, the best answer to the question "which planet is Earth" is "the one > we're on." What's more, we do have experiences bearing upon our experiences. > We get into that sort of multi-layered reflexivity -- and I don't mean just > in an abstract intellectual way. Experiences vary in directness, firmness, > reliability, etc., among other things. In these senses and more, Colin is > right. One unmoors oneself from personal experience only at grave risk. > > 3. The problem is that it seems possible to distinguish verification, > verificatory experience, etc., from consciousness. We learn sometimes > unconsciously, we infer conclusively yet sometimes unconsciously, etc., we > test and verify sometimes unconsciously, non-deliberately, etc. "Reasoning" > is what we can call conscious inference. Testing doesn't have to be fully > conscious and deliberate any more than interpretation does. The point is, is > the system of a nature to learn from that which tests the system's > character, its design, structure, habits, etc.? Learn, revise itself, etc., > consciously or unconsciously. Any time one enters a situation with > conjectures, expectations, understandings, memories, one is testing them and > even testing one's ways of "generating" them, testing oneself, aside from > one's having some overriding purpose of verification -- one may have some > very different purpose in the given situation. And it's really quite as if > we have experience unconscious as well as conscious. Maybe there's a > question of the definition of the word "experience" as including the idea of > consciousness, but the point is that, when we look at the things that make > for a genuinely intelligent process, we find in our own experience that > consciousness is associated with its working very intelligently in some > respects, but not associated in every case with its working. Indeed there > are persistent cases of intelligent, inferential processing going on > unconsciously. Even leaving aside the phenomenon of somewhat autistic > musical prodigies, and leaving aside the complex and not entirely conscious > dynamics of interpersonal relationships, I think most of us have heard of > Poincare's discussion of unconsciously working on a problem till, in a > moment of unexpected illumination, the solution came to him, as he stepped > onto a bus. Well, I don't really know what to make of this > distinguishability between consciousness and verificatory experience which > may be conscious or unconscious, as regards what Colin is saying, but it > does seem a real question. > > Best, Ben Udell > > (P.S. Also, there is perhaps more than one "flavor" of > less-than-consciousness -- there's a difference between slowly, > unconsciously working on a problem, and lightning-quick though sometimes > iffy insights which one has, one "knows not how." -- and while one can > suppose that the latter are simply the outcomes of the former, I think that > the latter can interact with each other in a darting and hard-to-follow way > that's like the extreme opposite of the former. End of digressive > postscript.) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Colin Hales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 9:09 PM > Subject: RE: evidence blindness > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:everything- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker > > Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 9:49 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: evidence blindness > > > > > > Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: > > >>the fact that intelligent behaviour is third person observable but > consciousness is not. > > >> > > >>Stathis Papaioannou > > > > > > > > > OK. Let me get this straight. Scientist A stares at something, say X, > with consciousness. A sees X. Scientist A posits evidence of X from a third > person viewpoint. Scientist A confers with Scientist B. Scientist B then > goes and stares at X and agrees. Both of these people use consciousness to > come to this conclusion. > > > > > > Explicit Conclusion : "Yep, theres an X!" > > > > > > Yet there's no evidence of consciousness?.... that which literally > enabled the entire process? There is an assumption at work.... > > > > > > "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" > > > and > > > "CONTENTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS" > > > > > > Are NOT identities. > > > > > > When you 'stare' at anything at all you have evidence of consciousness. > > > > A SIDWINDER missile 'stares' at the exhaust of a jet aircraft. Does that > make it conscious? > > This is a mind-blowingly irrelevant diversion into the usual weeds that > fails to comprehend the most basic proposition about ourselves by an > assumption which is plain wrong. You presume that the missile stares and > then attribute it to humans as equivalent. Forget the bloody missile. I am > talking about YOU. The evidence you have about YOU within YOU. > > Take a look at your hand. That presentation of your hand is one piece of > content in a visual field (scene). Mind is literally and only a collection > of (rather spectacular) phenomenal scenes. > > Something (within your brain material) generates the visual field in which > there is a hand. You could cognise the existence of a hand _without_ that > scene (this is what blindsight patients can do - very very badly, but they > can do it). But you don't. No, nature goes to a hell of a lot of trouble to > create that fantastic image. > > You have the scene. Take note of it. It gives you ALL your scientific > evidence. This is an intrinsically private scene and you can't be objective > without it! You would have nothing to be objective about. > > PROOF > Close your eyes and tell me you can be more scientific about your hand than > you could with them open. This is so obvious. > > To say consciousness is not observable is completely absolutely wrong. We > observe consciousness permanently. It's all we ever do! It's just not within > the phenomenal fields, it IS the phenomenal fields. > > Got it? > > Colin Hales --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
