Hi Stephen,
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Stephen P. King <[email protected]>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 [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. > -- 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.
