On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 11:02:21 AM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>> My hypothesis is that human qualia is an iconic capitulation of 
>> sub-personal and super-personal qualia - meta qualia which synergistically 
>> recovers richer qualities of experience from the Totality. 
>>
>
> Okay.  But it will remain only a hypothesis until you (or someone else) 
> shows how it explains new things or gathers some evidence for it.
>

Sure, yeah it's only a hypothesis. I don't know what I'm supposed to do 
with it. What it explains is old things: consciousness, the hard problem, 
explanatory gap, maybe some important things about physics (how quantum 
mechanics actually makes sense empirically). It's a way to interpret in a 
realistic way what we have until now accepted unrealistic interpretations 
of.

 
>
>>
>>  
>>>
>>>> There isn't  a mechanism because qualia are not objects. They are 
>>>> sensitivities to other experiences. 
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a circular to say qualia (sensations / experiences) are 
>>> sensitivities (sensations) of experiences.
>>>
>>
>> It isn't in the case of qualia. If I'm right, sensation is always a 
>> capitulation and a diffraction of itself. It is the a-mereological and 
>> trans-rational nature of the ground of being from which the mereological 
>> and logical antithesis is foregrounded.
>>
>
> James Hutton, considered a father of Geology, was largely unread because 
> his prose was so difficult to parse.  He had many great ideas, he even beat 
> Charles Darwin regarding the idea of natural selection ( 
> http://www.strangescience.net/hutton.htm ).  Yet, his style of writing 
> was so impenetrable that most of his ideas were ignored in his life time. 
>  After he died one of his friends took up re-writing his books and it 
> became a huge success.
>

It would be great to collaborate with someone who can write about it in a 
more accessible way. Sign me up.
 

>  
>
>>
>>   
>>>
>>>> They are presentations through which we access significant experiences. 
>>>> They are generated as much on our own anthropological level as they are on 
>>>> sub-personal physiological levels and super-personal evolutionary levels. 
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where do you get this stuff?
>>>
>>
>> From the future?
>>  
>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>>
>>>> , the only difference that   
>>>>> makes a difference are the firings patterns of neurons. 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Patterns make no difference to anything without pattern recognition. 
>>>> There are no 'patterns' in and of themselves. The color of X-Rays, for 
>>>> instance, is just as patterned as the color green.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The firing patterns of neurons is noticed by other neurons and groups of 
>>> neurons.
>>>
>>
>> Because they host entities which can recognize each others patterns. If 
>> we look at neuron patterns, they are meaningless to us unless we can 
>> correlate them to something familiar.
>>
>
> If you look at some MRI scan of them, they are meaningless, but not if you 
> *are* them.  Then they do the correlation for you.
>

No, they're still meaningless. Just as an mp3 file that you look at 
visually is not the song that you think the file represents aurally. The 
file is just a form. You need perception to in-form your experience of the 
form (which itself is only a perception of a lower level of more 
physical-tangible qualia).
 

>  
>
>>  
>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the only time information that makes a difference to other   
>>>>> neurons is communicated.  At each moment, all the differences, all the 
>>>>>   
>>>>> information a neuron has received is boiled down to one bit: to fire   
>>>>> or not to fire. 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pure speculation. Neurons fire, but single cell organisms respond to 
>>>> their environment without nervous systems.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Neurons might respond to their environment independently, but 
>>> neighboring neurons don't care what their neighbors might be thinking, what 
>>> matters is whether their neighbors are firing.
>>>
>>
>> It's the same as saying that cars in traffic don't care what their 
>> neighbors might be thinking as long as they follow the flow of traffic and 
>> show normative judgment and awareness of driving laws. The point is that 
>> the purpose of the communication between neurons is only the tip of the 
>> iceberg. Their common purpose is to facilitate human perception and 
>> participation in a human scale world. There is firing, but those are only 
>> the semaphores and gestures which correlate with experiences but are only 
>> the vehicle through which the sharing of experience is modulated.
>>
>
> So in your theory the firing plays is only a minor role in the operation 
> and function of the brain?
>

It's the same role that traffic signals, airports, and harbors play in the 
operation and function of all of the cities on Earth. Minor in the sense 
that they aren't the purpose or the content of the cities, but not minor in 
the sense that malfunctions will be catastrophic. Our brains are 
civilizations of sub-persons. They do things together but they also 
experience things, which we experience as well but in this iconicized 
presentation. Our personal experience comes through our sub-personal 
experience, not through sub-personal functions. On the personal level, we 
perform functions because we are motivated to do so by the sense we make of 
ourselves and our environment. I am saying that dynamic goes all the way 
down, even if the sub-sub-personal motivations being experienced by 
molecules might be unfamiliar to us. Is it really any more unfamiliar than 
imagining what we already believe is there, in terms of millions of 
molecules making up every compound eye of every fly...each one in constant 
electromagnetic flux, changing states in response to temperature, velocity, 
other molecules, etc. All I suggest is that there is experience there too. 
How could there realistically not be if we have experience and are made of 
nothing more special than they are? 

The only other option is that experience spontaneously appears for no 
reason at some level of description - which seems like a crutch to me. If 
we truly can get a sense of the depth of our own naive realism, and how we 
have even extended and exaggerated it to some degree by using instruments 
which favor tactile and optical sense, then there is no reason to hold on 
to human exceptionalism, and no reason to assume infocentric universality 
either. When we understand the totality of how sense shapes our experience 
of even fundamentals like time, space, pattern, and logic, then we should 
not be surprised at how truly bottomless cognitive bias is and how 
absolutely relativistic the cosmos can be. Sanity is not the only game the 
universe knows how to play.


>  
>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>> You are conflating the physiology associated with human experience with 
>>>> the ontology of subjective experience in general. Information and bits are 
>>>> not real, they are analytical abstractions that are not capable of any 
>>>> causes or effects.
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>> According to you, only experiences are real.  If this is where you stand 
>>> then you should admit that this idea gives up any hope of explaining 
>>> anything about experience.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. Admitting that experience is the ground of being is the 
>> necessary starting point to explain anything about experience. There is a 
>> whole new universe to explore.
>>  
>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Using information theory, and known limitations if information   
>>>>> representation in physics, It could be shown that a biological brain   
>>>>> has only some certain and finite information available to it.  This   
>>>>> places an upper bound on the things it knows and can talk about.  An   
>>>>> equivalent artificial brain could be engineered to contain the same   
>>>>> information and the same knowledge.  There would be nothing the   
>>>>> biological brain could know that the artificial brain does not: they   
>>>>> were created to have identical information content.  If one knows 2+2 
>>>>>   
>>>>> is 4, they both do, if one knows what red is like, they both do. 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Information feels nothing and knows nothing, and it never will.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't say information feels or knows, only that the brains, 
>>> (biological or artificial), in the above hypothetical, have the same 
>>> limited information and therefore neither is wiser or more knowledgeable 
>>> than the other.
>>>
>>
>> They don't have the same information, since in-formation is a subjective 
>> in-terpretation of objectively meaningless forms. Even though a picture of 
>> a person might look like a living person on TV, they are actually not 
>> living people. An artificial brain may look like we think a brain looks, 
>> and act like we think a brain acts, but its just a puppet running on 
>> recorded instructions to operate in exactly the way that best fools us into 
>> imagining it is alive.
>>
>>
> Information content can be objectively measured.  There is a whole field 
> of information theory based on this.
>

Objectively measured by what? Human minds using solid objects to interact 
in carefully controlled ways? Haha, totally objective. It's not a surprise 
that using this approach we find no trace of anything that has ever been 
important to the inner life of human beings.

Craig

 

>
> Jason
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/CwDEqhvmKlIJ.
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