On Jan 31, 2:55 pm, acw <a...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/2012 19:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:> On Jan 31, 12:45 pm, 
> acw<a...@lavabit.com>  wrote:
>
> >> A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
> >> eye, actually probably less than the eye.
>
> > Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap on?
>
> First, the eyes don't have a perfect lens cap, photons get through quite
> well.

That's true, but they are getting through my arm too.

> Second, no, but I've seen photos taken in almost (as was feasible
> to be) dark rooms, and there tends to be some noise, if you don't see
> it, try using some filters to better differentiate the pixels.

These patterns in our eyes need no filters to differentiate them
though. You don't have to try very hard to see them. I cannot see any
such patterns in my digital camera's picture.

> I just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens
> > with my hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever.
>
> Check the pixel values directly then.
> In an very dark room, a human might as well not perceive any noise as
> well. Noise is perceived when there's still a few photons here and there
> hitting the retina.

This noise does not seem to decrease with the more darkness though, it
increases, or becomes easier to see anyhow.

>
> > If I unplug the
> > monitor from my computer but leave it powered on - no snow.
>
> That's normal if you have a DVI or HDMI digital display - if the data is
> transmitted digitally, that greatly reduces the chances of it getting
> damaged.

You are saying that noise is intentionally throttled when the plug is
pulled? If that's true it still shows that the ocular noise is
unnecessary.

>The problem I was talking about wasn't as much about display
> and transmitting as much as of the limitation of an ideal photon
> detector. I've seen you mention Feynman and QED - surely that would have
> given you a decent understanding on the limitations of capture devices
> (and no, QM does not contradicted by COMP: COMP predicts the 1p
> indeterminacy which gives rise locally to some QM/observational laws).

The closed eye noise doesn't seem to have to do with external light to
me, but it's possible.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucinationhttp://en.wikipe...
>
> >>   >  Closed-eye hallucinations and closed-eye visualizations (CEV) are a
> >> distinct class of hallucination. These types of hallucinations generally
> >> only occur when one's eyes are closed or when one is in a darkened room.
> >> They are a form of phosphene.
>
> > Phosphene is nothing more than a name. Calling them hallucinations is
> > a loaded term. They are visual qualia, to me pretty obviously related
> > to the physical neurology of the optical system and not to any
> > computational interpretation software. You all can disagree, but I
> > know that what I see seems like analog 'respiration', not digital
> > representation.
>
> I take it you didn't read the rest of the article? The noise is inherent
> in any accurate simulation of such systems, be they the eye, an ideal
> photon detector or some quantum systems.

I did read it, but I didn't see where it says it is inherent in all
simulations of visual systems. Where does it say that? If that's true
it still makes no case for representational qualia. Why wouldn't it be
filtered out?

> Sure, hallucinations is a term, but is it 'wrong'?

Yes, I think it is. In this case no external reality is being
misrepresented.

> If for some reason
> I've been very tired and my cognitive load is high, my brain could start
> making errors when recognizing certain patterns - I would be
> hallucinating as whatever it is I was perceiving wasn't the correct
> perception. Any such mismatches would be hallucinations.

If any simulation of the visual system produces these patterns, then
these qualia match those pattens, not mismatch them.

> Feed just noise
> into a neural network and you'll be sure it'll be making errors, and
> thus "hallucinate"

Hallucinations aren't errors, they are interior sense experiences that
don't match the expected exterior correlates. I'm sure that neural
networks make errors but are they imaginative and reference myths?

> - how do you think dreaming works?

Like waking life, dreaming blends semantic agendas with neurological
agendas. Some regions of the brain are active that normally aren't
while waking, others are less active or inactive, which loosens
inhibitions and associations. The content of the dream can range from
non-sequiturs to highly insightful and poignant narratives.

> If what you
> perceive is likely 3p correct, it's not a hallucination. OF course, 3p
> being an inference done from the 1p, you can only bet on what is real
> and what isn't, you cannot ever truly know, and with COMP, real is just
> sharable reality.

I think with COMP, real is just sharable arithmetic. I don't see where
COMP postulates any reality at all.

>
> Also, you are very sure about your raw access to "analog" data, I wonder
> where you derive that confidence from. I have absolutely no way of
> knowing I have *direct* access to any analog data, actually I would be
> very skeptical of that, because of the implications it would have for
> local physics. Even with qualia, I don't see infinitely complex details
> - the only thing that I can communicate is that my view is coherent and
> unified.

Perception doesn't have to give you access to an analog of *all* of
the details of your experience, only those which are significant to
'you' on your scale. There is no reason to assume that our perception
is indirect just because it is not monolithic and literal. It is a
compromise of many microcosmic and macrocosmic agendas, so it is not
complete by an objective standard, but neither is it a Cartesian
theater of representation. It's more like specular reflection. We are
seeing through our visual sense - into our world or our dreams. The
mechanics associated with that are secondary. They do not produce the
content, but they do influence it.



>
> >> ..
> >>   >  The noise probably originates from thermal noise exciting the
> >> photoreceptor cells in the retina
>
> > That should be easy enough to test. The point though, is that it has
> > no business leaking into our visual software. No computer has
> > comparable thermal noise that leaks into the software, does it? You
> > can get RF interference, sure, but why would a program tuned precisely
> > to represent some things and not others include unfiltered noise in
> > it's representation? I know it's not evidence that contradicts comp,
> > but it's not supportive of it at all.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by 'leaking'. If the
> data that I captured is noisy (such as visual data), the software will
> handle noisy data. Nothing more, nothing less. If I do some image
> recognition or filter or *dynamically reconstruct* the image, it may
> look much cleaner, which is not that much different from what our visual
> system is *sometimes* doing (when it was enough matching patterns).

I mean that if I am looking at a picture on the screen, and introduce
thermal noise into the environment, it is not going to cause changes
in the digital content of the jpeg file.

>
> >> Why don't we see clean images instead of a noisy convoluted mess during
> >> our daily lives? Because we actually "see" patterns which also happen to
> >> "correct" the input data (look at the hierarchical structure of the
> >> cortex or read "On Intelligence" for some examples. I could also link
> >> some PLoS articles about this, but I don't have them handy right now.) -
> >> we don't usually see raw unfiltered inputs.
>
> > We shouldn't ever see raw unfiltered inputs, that's why the phosphene
> > doesn't make sense as a filtered process.
>
> Why not? Well, we don't quite see, completely raw unfiltered inputs, but
> if the visual system can't recognize any high-level patterns, thus it
> cannot "fix" the image, I see no reason why noise/static shouldn't be
> experienced.

There is no image though. The qualia doesn't represent anything
functionally. All of the optical illusions which are used to point out
that our visual sense is fabricated are contradicted here. It's a
pointless fabrication of noise which adds nothing functionally to the
interpretation of the experience.

>
> >> Static and noise can occur just as well within COMP - they are
> >> incredibly common within the UD at various levels. Set up a system with
> >> some random rules and you have a good chance of observing noise. Noise
> >> is so damn easy to make... However, if considered from the COMP
> >> perspective, even incompressible noise (Kolmogorov random) is very
> >> common due to 1p indeterminacy. I think you must have the wrong
> >> conception about what COMP really is.
>
> > Noise should either be unavoidable or absent, not present if we pay
> > attention to the front of our visual field and absent if we visualize
> > darkness. The fact that there is a difference for human vision behind
> > closed eyes and within the mind's eye would need to be explained.
>
> Imagine you have this amazing piece of software, it can reconstruct
> images really well, if it can process enough to recognize high-level
> patterns, it will dynamically redraw the picture to better fit those
> high-level patterns... it'd be like having your own little master
> painter constantly improving and embellishing your dull captured noisy
> image to give you a perfect crystal-clear image - one which uses all the
> patterns that you could possibly know or recognize. It's all good when
> you feed it things which are usual and can be understood, but imagine
> you would be feeding it only noise (you're already feeding it noise, but
> plenty of information as well, but now it's devoid of information) -
> what happens now is that either your master painter mismatches
> ("hallucinates") some patterns, or it just fails to recognize anything
> and leaves your picture as it is - a mess, "garbage in - garbage out"

You have to make up your mind as to whether you are saying these
patterns are inherently true in all visual systems or whether they are
hallucinatory mismatches. I would find it hard to believe that a
visual system that has been evolving in homo sapiens for millennia
would be thrown into confusion by the natural state of closing one's
eyes.

.> I don't know what people think I don't understand about COMP is. It
> > makes perfect sense to me, it just happens to be exactly wrong in the
> > real world. In a theoretical world, COMP is the way to go, definitely.
>
> There are many details about COMP which you seem to miss, at least when
> I read your posts about COMP. Here, it seemed like you were surprised
> there would be noise in either the 1p indeterminacy of COMP or some
> non-COMP digital physics - there's absolutely no problem with there
> being noise in either, in one case you get free incompressible random
> noise, in the other you get compressible, but not easily humanly
> recognizable as compressible noise (that is, statistically random).

It's not that that the noise surprises me, it's that it's inconsistent
with the lack of noise in our 'mind's eye'. It means that this noise
is intentionally created or left unfiltered. Either way it doesn't
make sense for the qualia to work that way in comp. In functionalism,
the purpose of our sense of sight is to see something - even
hallucinations, but why a default hallucination associated with no
signal? This being the case, it would surprise me if COMP were true.

> I also have no clear idea about what your theory *actually is*. Some
> details are understandable, but the whole makes little sense to me, and
> whatever your thought processes about your theory - they seem opaque to
> me, and you don't seem to explain why should one theory be preferred
> over the other and how you got to some conclusion or another. What's
> worse, we use different terms and sometimes even when using the same
> terms, the semantics I have for some of the terms and the semantics you
> have for them are sometimes different.

Semantics are tricky. If I use different terms it's only because I am
experimenting to try to get better descriptions. My theory is that
reality is a continuum of different experiences presented as varying
degrees of private time and public space. The more subjective the
experience, like listening to music in your mind, the less the
experience can be understood by it's public shadow (neural correlate,
facial expression, maybe humming or gestures). The more objective the
experience, like driving a truck, the more relevant the public aspects
are. Time and space are therefore opposite and time is tied with
subjectivity, space with objectivity. This means that since energy is
nothing but change over time, that energy is also subjective. It is an
experience. It is not a wavelength, but a frequency with space scalar
consequences. I'm happy to try to explain anything that's not clear. I
have written a lot about it already, so it's hard for me to respond to
'what your theory actually is'. My theory is that the symmetry of
matter and experience is what is real and what makes the universe
real. It is the same thing in an interior sense and an exterior sense,
so that I can make sense of things in my world because I *am* my world
on one level, I am in my world on another level, and my world is in me
on another level.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to