Hi Stephen,

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:

>  On 12/20/2012 6:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> Hi Roger,
>
>
>> I accidentally sent the previous email before
>> I was done, sorry. Please consider this more complete version
>> of the intended whole:
>>
>>  Hi Telmo,
>>
>> Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable,
>> probably were constructed simply by monitoring
>> sensory MRI signals just as one might from a video camera,
>> and displaying them as a raster pattern, artificially
>> converting the time voltage signal into a timespace signal.
>>
>
>  Ok. We're not even sure what we're looking at. The brain is a gigantic^n
> kludge. We are seeing stuff happening in the visual cortex that can be
> meaningfully mapped to images. This stuff correlates with what the subject
> is seeing, but in a weird way.
>
>
> Hi Telmo,
>
>     As I was watching the brain scan image video I noticed a lot of weird
> text like stuff mixed into the image. What was that? Artifacts?
>

I think so. I believe they are caused by the new images being constructed
from samples of the original images shown to the subjects.


>
>
>   So we can speculate that we're watching, for example, a pattern
> matching process taking place. The most spectacular thing for me is when we
> see the anticipation of the ink blot explosion. That's something you
> wouldn't get from a video camera (but you could get from a computer running
> a sophisticated AI).
>
>
>>
>> Perception of the moving image from a given perspective
>> by the brain might take place in the following way :
>>
>> 1) FIRSTNESS (The eye). The initial operation in processing the
>> raw optical signal is reception of the sensory signal.
>> This is necessarily done by a monad (you or me),
>> because only monads see the world from a given
>> perspective.
>>
>
>  In my opinion you are conflating intelligence and consciousness. I see
> two separate issues:
>
>  1) The human being as an agent senses things, assigns symbols to them,
> compares them with his memories and so on. The brain tries to anticipate
> all possible futures and then choses actions that are more likely to lead
> to a future state that it prefers. This preference can be ultimately
> reduced to pain avoidance / pleasure seeking. In my view, the fundamental
> pain and pleasure signals have to be encoded some how in our DNA, and were
> selected to optimise our chances of reproduction. All this is 3p and can be
> emulated by a digital computer. Some of it already is.
>
>  2) There is a "me" here observing the universe from my perspective. I am
> me and not you. There's a consciousness inside my body, attached to my mind
> (or is it my mind)? I suspect there's one inside other people too, but I
> cannot be sure. This is a 1p phenomena and outside the realm of science. It
> cannot be explained by MRI machines and clever algorithms - although many
> neuroscientists fail to realise it. This mystery is essentially what makes
> me an agnostic more than an atheist. If there is a god, I suspect he's me
> (and you). In a sense.
>
>  You can have 1 without 2, the famous zombie.
>
>
>     I disagree! The very act of fulfilling the requirements of 1 "connects
> it to"  the #2 version of itself. The isomorphism between 1 and 2 is just a
> fact of how logical algebras can be represented as spaces (sets +
> relations) and vice versa! What gets glossed over is that Human beings (and
> any other physical system that has the potential to implement a universal
> machine) are not static structures. The logical algebra that represents
> them cannot be static either, it has to evolve as well.
>     Think of how you would model a neural network X as it learns new
> patterns.... The propositions of your logical algebra for X would have to
> be updated as the learning progresses, no?
>

Ok, I agree that humans beings and neural networks are not static
structures. This is trivially true. I still don't get how consciousness is
supposed to emerge out of a dynamic process.

Are you claiming, for example, that if I start running game of life it will
become conscious and have a 1p perspective? I'm not using this as a
counter-example, I am honestly asking. I don't know the answer to that.


>
>
>
>
>>   This is not a visual display, only  a
>> complex sensory signal.
>>
>> 2) SECONDNESS (the hippocampus ? the cerebellum? ).
>> The next stage is intelligent processing of the
>> optical signal and into a useable expreswion of
>> the visual image.
>>
>> (From the monadology, we find that each monad
>> (you or me) does not  perceive the world directly,
>> but is given such a perception by the supreme monad
>> (the One, or God). This supreme monad contains
>> the ability to intelligently construct the visual image
>> from the optical nerve signal)
>>
>> 3) THIRDNESS (cerebrum ?) Knowing this visual expresson
>> by the individual monad according to its individual perspective.
>> This perspective is somehow coordinated with motor muscles (left/right,
>> etc.), but I question that this is an actual 2D or 3D "display,"
>> such as in the videoclips. (The videoclips are another matter
>> as they are artificialy constructed.)
>>
>
>  I agree with you, but maybe videoclips can still be created from there.
> If the neural network contains a piece of information A, and this
> information can be represented by image B, there has to be a function f: A
> -> B. Of course finding this function (and/or computing it) might be
> incredibly hard.
>
>
>     It is helpful to see function f: A -> B as a Functor and not a plain
> jane function. Maybe a presheve is a better model.
>

Fair enough for functor. I don't know what a presheve is.


>
>
>
>
>>
>> If there is an actual or simulated display then we are
>> faced with Dennett's problem: the infinite regress of
>> spectators, spectators of spectator, etc.
>>
>
>  Ok, but here we're back to 1p.
>
>
>     We defeat Dennett by showing that the regress cannot occur when there
> are physical resources required by the computations for each level of the
> recursion. We can cutoff recursions in our algorithms with code: if count
> of loops is 10, stop. But physical systems can not count, they just run out
> of juice after a while....
>

Yes. For example, in the simulation argument, you still end up having to
have an ultimate reality which is no longer a simulation.


>
>
>
>
>>
>> But if there is no display, we do not need an observer self,
>> and are possibly ending up with Michael Dennett's materialist
>> concept of the self. This might be called epi-phenominalism.
>> The self is simply an expression of the brain.
>>
>
>  I don't believe it is just an expression of the brain (I suspect you
> don't either), but part of the reason why I don't believe is 1p, so I
> cannot communicate it (can I?). I don't know. I tried at dinner parties and
> got funny looks.
>
>
>     I do think that the consciousness is an expression of the brain *and*
> all of its environment that molds its behavior. It is silly to think that
> skin is the boundary that a mind associates with!
>

Agreed.


> We cannot forget causal closure in our reasoning about 1p!
>     Telmo, can't you see that the defining characteristic of 1p is that
> one cannot communicate it?
>

I can.


> Only I can know exactly what it is like to be me. So I can infer or bet
> that you have a "what it is like to be Telmo" but I cannot know it, by
> definition and this relation is symmetrical between any pair of conscious
> entities.
>

Ok, but why shouldn't I just believe in solipsism then?


>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I do not at present know the answer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>     Consider dual aspect monism! It works!
>

What's the best place to read about it?


>
> --
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>  --
> 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.
>

-- 
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