Since every organism produces itself from a single dividing cell, it
can be said that there is a single history which unites that body back
to the cellular level. Atoms do not literally reproduce by themselves
so that a machine that is assembled has a no single history to unite
it.

This becomes more relevant if we suppose that experience arises as a
collected and collective unity of sequence, a many-to-one of
integrated participation which is not literal and quantitative, but
figurative, qualitative, and iconic. It is meaning and world.

A machine is an abstraction which takes physical history for granted.
When executed in a material assembly, there is no literal
reproduction, only separate parts brought together unintentionally
(from the point of view of the parts) to imitate the function of a
specialized organic form.

I think that where comp/functionalist assumptions fail is in the
misunderstanding of meaning and world as discrete analytic behaviors
rather than continuous synthetic wholes. We can see them as wholes
because we are unified beings who can see even cartoon characters and
puppets as wholes, but that does not mean that there is any continuous
awareness that unifies the parts of the machine. To compensate for
this, we generally have to build in a monotonously recursive device,
like a clock, pump, or wheel to provide an imitation of continuous
flow. This should not be confused with the continuous flow which
arises organically in a living body. An organic flow is not a clock to
which separate parts are mechanically attached, but a collective
rhythm which is synchronized from within the shared motive of the
reproduced cell. This is can be seen clearly in the behavior of heart
cells as they congregate physically and experientially. Look at what
it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgw19KMcWw4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPHyXOrFQxs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAe3cabBLaM

See the difference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tHgnYo7IwY

The cells are pushing a private negentropic agenda, while the clock
has no agenda at all. You can see it. It is one dimensional tension in
a material like metal or winding down one tick at a time, or an
electronic response from a semiconductor material. Neither materials
have any native motivation or momentum, they must be wound up or
plugged in, wired or bolted together. It is a back door imitation of
an organism, artificially integrated to use borrowed power to generate
the effect of continuous running.

Consciousness has mechanical aspects as well, and indeed the content
of our minds can be said to be running as well, but the difference is
that the mind runs on it's own momentum. More importantly the mind can
be quieted so that deeper, unconscious experiences can rise to
conscious awareness. These experiences do not seem to arise out of the
rapidity of mental syntax as functionalism assumes, but out of deep
metaphorical interiority which presents spontaneously and unbidden
with insight and prescience rather than deterministically or randomly.

This can be explained by understanding the continuity of psychological
experience as the entirety of time being scratched or perturbed by the
collective experience of a subset of time. The entity is made of time
(really meanings, characters, and worlds...stories. Time is an
analytical abstraction that has to do more with objects, space, and
density). This may seem mystical or esoteric at first, but I think
that is because profound truth about subjectivity must by definition
evoke the charms of self fetish. Oriental floridity. Super-signifying
Hermeticism. Pageantry. It is who we are and why we are, as
distinguished from what and how we are (bodies, cells, cities,
planets...Occidental austerity. A-signifying quanta. Physical
engineering).

Experienced history then, under multisense realism, is crucial. We are
the polar opposite of a tabula rasa. The interiority of the stem cell
is not a blank coin to be struck with a cellular role, but a 'Once
upon a time' from which a spectrum of cellular characters and
capacities can be diffracted. This is meaning. This is learning,
understanding, loving, and growing (also hating, killing, forgetting
and half remembering, making things up, creating etc.)

If experience were mechanical, then a clone could be conditioned with
the identical experiences and an identical person would be created. If
since strong computationalism is does not ground identity in material
at all, we would have to say that a cloned body (machine + program)
with cloned experience (runtime) would actually be the same person.

If instead we see experience as a unique and idiosyncratic subset of
the totality of experience, there can be no Boys from Brazil strategy
- no designer identities. Besides nature, nurture, and random
variation, there may be a semantic momentum which opens up a flow of
identity like a pinata of experienced history being hit with a series
of blows: conception, birth, childhood, etc. It is not a process
through which an identity is mechanically assembled or fabricated, but
one in which identity is revealed and developed from within the self
and within experience.

What does 'within experience' mean? It means meaning. Significance.
The qualitative feeling or message 'within' experience. The moral to
the story, the lesson learned, the point to be made, etc. Unlike a
sequence of instructions or registers in memory, there is no a-
signifying transfer of digitally encoded histories. Instead it is a
recapitulation of signifying analog wholes. They are not assembled
together like a device or dataset, but live with the subject as
subjects, growing, changing, and revealing themselves in endlessly new
ways through experience and also from within the subject - ripening
and flowering, bearing fruit, etc.

Experience is not mere decision trees. Even though the visible shape
of a living tree can be modeled in simple mathematical functions,
there is no tree experience there. There is no journey from acorn to
oak, only from vector to vector or pixel to pixel. There is form but
no content. What is so hard to communicate is that the reason for this
is counter-counter-intuitive. We expect the truth of subjectivity to
be in a counter-intuitive hidden form. That there is some fantastic
organization of the brain which gives us human experience. The idea
that human experience is literally what it seems to be - a story of
human life, grounded in the totality of the cosmic story is anathema
to contemporary science. We are looking for the back door, the trick
to the illusion, but the trick is that tricks and illusions are the
exceptions to the rule. We can only know illusion because we have the
sense to know that individual channels of sense can be fooled. That is
no trick and no illusion. That is sanity, awareness, and
consciousness.

A machine has no such sense. To a Turing machine, all binary feeds are
equal. I have no problem at all asserting that there is no meaning and
no world experiencing capacity associated with a binary feed.
Imitation perception makes up for it's qualitative superficiality with
high speed execution, giving us the illusion of intelligence, but
intelligence without meaning or world experience is a different kind
of intelligence - one of pure syntax and no semantic kernel to grow
and change through experience. There is trivial learning and
adaptation, but it is a shadow play through which our own powers of
interpretation can fill in the blanks. A humanoid decision tree,
constantly running, with no creative iconic depths of its own.

Identical twins have many similarities, but even brain conjoined twins
are different individuals. Their histories fundamentally diverge after
conception and further diverge with each experience. Their
perspectives are different. A machine is just the opposite. An old
Macintosh Plus computer could be manufactured today, using the same
materials, different materials, or even by virtually emulated on
another computer entirely and be exactly the same as any Mac Plus that
was ever manufactured. There is no retained history and no world
awareness, no difference in perspective. Unlike conjoined twins,
networked computers don't fight with each other. They don't
differentiate themselves. Why? Because there is no self there to
differentiate, only a perpetual centralized spinning. This is using
space and motion to create the illusion of time - animation.

What we are is neither space, nor motion, nor time, nor information,
but informed, moving, waving firmament. Not the wave but that
infinitely anchored silent stillness of everythingness itself which is
being perturbed in a wavelike manner and making shows within shows
which we call time and experience, or, if you like, energy. Energy is
a concept of the experience of one show being indirectly experienced
in the context of another show. It's anomalous but sensible. Like the
end of Wizard of Oz where the three super-signifying (floridly
fictional) characters are re-contextualized as ordinary (naturalistic
fictional) farmhand characters in the desaturated aftermath of the
dream.

-- 
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