Mark, i don't keep my finger on the fast forward, maybe on the "Next".
YOU MISSED the essence of my question: it was directed to Colin's
sentence as I recall: "Chemical field IS electrical field"
So I referred to the explanatory force of "Tohuvabohu IS vohubatovu"
Of course I appreciate Colin's insight, even if I do not attempt to
calculate a differential equation of the time-aspect of knowledge.
I doubt the result: we DO so much things what we don't KNOW!
Live well

John


On 6/19/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> [Grin] I just found your question here John.
>
> JM: 'What is electric field?'
>
> MP: It is just part of a way of talking about that which is. In
> combination with other good science it is an extremely useful
> description of many consistencies in the world we see. It helps
> us to be more exacting in distinguishing changeable features of
> our world from things which don't change.
>
> But then, as you have said so many times, everything changes -
> if we observe it for long enough. So, what does not change?
> I think the answer to that question is: 'We don't know'. What we
> DO however is to fix on certain ideas and principles and use
> these to guide ourselves in all the big and little things in
> life. Because we humans have words we have a potentially
> infinite number of potential 'fixed points', or at least things
> which may be used as such, to steer our course through life.
> [NB: Hidden in the forgoing is an explanation of why I have
> great difficulty with Bruno's COMP and AR arguments, but I am
> not a mathematician so say no more here.]
>
> I think Colin is doing a tremendous job here in paring down the
> verbiage;
>
> I think this:
> '>
> >          d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
> >          --------------- = something you know = YOU DO.
> >                 dt
> >
> is brilliant!
>
> As I see it, this term is an equivalent expression to my UMSITW
> 'updating model of self in the world'. It entails a
> self-referencing, iterative process.
> For humans there is something like at least three iterations
> working in parallel and such that the 'output' of any of them
> can become the 'input' of any other. Something like:
> a/ basic animal responses to the world -
> Senses---------->|  brain stem  |->|                |
> Senses---------->|   thalamus   |->|body motor image|->muscles
> proprioception-->|basal ganglia |->|   body image   |
>
> b/ high speed discrepancy checking -
> body motor image->|cerebellum|->muscles
> body sense image->| memory   |->body motor/pre motor image
>
> c/ multi-tasking, prioritising ["Global workspace"]
> frontal cortex-------><-|hippocampus|-><-multiple cortex
> brain stem, thalamus-><-| memory    |->body motor/pre motor image
> basal ganglia--------><-|           |-><-cerebellum
>
> And that is all guesswork of course, based on gleanings from
> some of the writings of A Damasio, G Edelman, J.P.Changeaux, A
> Luria, V.B.Mountcastle, M Gazaniga, and many more who my faulty
> memory has left buried. In fact the interlinking is far more
> complex than I could possibly talk about but the basic drift is
> that Colin's KNOWLEDGE term is the sum total of everything which
> has been assimilated from the individual's prior experience. The
> brain uses about 20% or 25% of the body's energy supply in
> creating representations of changes going on in the world around
> as well as developments in completely internal processes.
> Measuring the changes against prior knowledge and expectation
> allows the individual to achieve her best effort in doing the
> most appropriate thing at the right time and in the most
> efficient way possible.
>
> Oops! That was much longer than expected, I hope you didn't miss
> all the good bits with your finger on the 'fast forward' button?
>   :-)
>
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Peaty (Dilettante - still practising :-)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
>
>
> John Mikes wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >
> > On 6/16/07, *Colin Hales* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > ....
> > "  >Chemical potentiation IS electric field...<
> > ...
> > What is electric field?
> >
> > John M (frmr chemist)
> >
> >
> >     Hi,
> >     I am going to have to be a bit targetted in my responses.... I am a
> TAD
> >     whelmed at the moment.....
> >
> >     COLIN
> >     > > 4) Belief in 'magical emergence' .... qualitative novelty of a
> kind
> >     utterly unrelated to the componentry.
> >
> >     RUSSEL
> >     >  The latter clause refers to "emergence" (without the "magical"
> >     >  qualifier), and it is impossible IMHO to have creativity without
> >     emergence.
> >
> >     COLIN
> >     The distinction between 'magical emergence' and 'emergence' is quite
> >     obviously intended by me. A lake is not apparent in the chemical
> formula
> >     for water. I would defy anyone to quote any example of real-world
> >     'emergence' that does not ultimately rely on a necessary primitive.
> >     'Magical emergence' is when you claim 'qualitative novelty' without
> >     having
> >     any idea (you can't point at it) of the necessary primitive, or by
> >     defining an arbitrary one that is actually a notional construct
> >     (such as
> >     'information'), rather than anything real.
> >
> >
> >     COLIN
> >     > > The system (a) automatically prescibes certain trajectories and
> >
> >     RUSSEL
> >     >  Yes.
> >
> >     COLIN
> >     > > (b) assumes that the theroem space [and] natural world are the
> same
> >     space
> >     and equivalently accessed.
> >
> >     RUSSEL
> >     >  No - but the system will adjust its model according to feedback.
> >     That is
> >     the very nature of any learning algorithm, of which EP is just   one
> >     example.
> >
> >     COLIN
> >     Ok. Here's where we find the big assumption. Feedback? HOW?...by
> who's
> >     rules? Your rules. This is the real circularity which underpins
> >     computationalism. It's the circularity that my real physical qualia
> >     model
> >     cuts and kills. Mathematically:
> >
> >     * You have knowledge KNOWLEDGE(t) of 'out there'
> >     * You want more knowledge of 'out there' ....so
> >     * KNOWLEDGE(t+1) is more than KNOWLEDGE(t)
> >     * in computationalism who defines the necessary route to this?...
> >
> >          d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
> >          --------------- = something you know = YOU DO.
> >                 dt
> >
> >     So this means that in a computer abstraction.
> >
> >     d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
> >     ---------------  is already part of KNOWLEDGE(t)
> >           dt
> >
> >     You can label it 'evolutionary' or 'adaptive' or
> >     whatever...ultimately the
> >     rules are YOUR rules and come from your previously derived
> >     KNOWLEDGE(t) of
> >     'out there', not intrinsically grounded directly in 'out there'. Who
> >     decided what you don't know? YOU DID. What is it based on? YOUR
> current
> >     knowledge of it, not what is literally/really there. Ungroundedness
> >     is the
> >     fatal flaw in the computationalist model. Intrinsic grounding in the
> >     external world is what qualia are for. It means that
> >
> >     d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
> >     ---------------
> >           dt
> >
> >     is
> >     (a) built into the brain hardware (plasticity chemistry, out of your
> >     cognitive control)
> >     (b) partly grounded in matter literally/directly constructed in
> >     representation of the external world, reflecting the external world
> so
> >     that NOVELTY - true novelty in the OUTSIDE WORLD - is apparent.
> >
> >     In this way your current knowledge minimally impacts
> >
> >     d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
> >     ---------------
> >           dt
> >
> >     In other words, at the fundamental physics level:
> >
> >     d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
> >     ---------------
> >           dt
> >
> >     in a human brain is NOT part of KNOWLEDGE(t). Qualia are the brain's
> >     solution to the symbolic grounding problem.
> >
> >
> >     RUSSEL
> >     >  Not at all. In Evolutionary Programming, very little is known
> >     about the
> >     ultimate solution the algorithm comes up with.
> >
> >     COLIN
> >     Yes but that is irrelevant....the programmer said HOW it will get
> >     there....Sorry...no cigar....see the above....
> >
> >     > > My scientific claim is that the electromagnetic field structure
> >     literally the third person view of qualia.
> >
> >     >  Eh? Electromagnetic field of what? The brain? If so, do you think
> >     that
> >     chemical potentiation plays no role at all in qualia?
> >
> >     Chemical potentiation IS electric field. There's no such thing as
> >     'mechanical' there's no such thing as 'chemical'. These are all
> >     metaphors
> >     in certain contexts for what is there...space and charge (yes...and
> mass
> >     associated with certain charge carriers). Where did you get this
> weird
> >     idea that a metaphor can make qualia?
> >
> >     The electric field across the membrane of cells (astrocytes and
> >     neurons)
> >     is MASSIVE. MEGAVOLTS/METER. Think SPARKS and LIGHTNIING. It
> >     dominates the
> >     entire structure! It does not have to go anywhere. It just has to
> 'be'.
> >     You 'be' it to get what it delivers. Less than 50% of the signalling
> in
> >     the brain is synaptic, anyway! The dominant cortical process is
> actually
> >     an astrocyte syncytium. (look it up!). I would be very silly to
> >     ignore the
> >     single biggest, most dominant process of the brain that is so far
> >     completely correlated in every way with qualia...in favour of any
> other
> >     cause.
> >     -------------------
> >
> >     Once again I'd like to get you to ask yourself the killer question:
> >
> >     "What is the kind of universe we must live in if the electromagnetic
> >     field
> >     structure of the brain delivers qualia?"
> >
> >     A. It is NOT the universe depicted by the qualia (atoma, molecules,
> >     cells...). It is the universe whose innate capacity to deliver
> qualia is
> >     taken advantage of when configureed like it appears when we use
> qualia
> >     themselves to explore it....cortical brain matter. (NOTE: Please do
> not
> >     make the mistake that sensors - peripheral affect -  are equivalent
> to
> >     qualia.)
> >
> >     My original solution to
> >
> >     Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?
> >
> >     stands. The computer must have a qualia-depiction of its external
> world
> >     and it will know it because it can do science. If it doesn't/can't
> >     it's a
> >     rock/doorstop. In any computer model, every time an algoritm decides
> >     what
> >     'is' (what is visible/there) it intrisically defines 'what isn't'
> >     (what is
> >     invisible/not there). All novelty becomes thus pre-ordained.
> >
> >     anyway.....Ultimately 'how' qualia are generated is moot.
> >
> >     That they are _necessarily_ involved is the key issue. On their own
> they
> >     are not sufficient for science to occur.
> >
> >     cheers
> >     colin
> >
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to