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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
