On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > > I think it depends on the particular setup on GoL you are running. Turing machines have been discovered in the GoL, which means any possible program can be executed in GoL. Therefore, if you believe the physics and chemistry relevant to the operation of your brain is computable, and you disbelieve in zombies, and you believe the existence of your brain implies the existence of your consciousness, then really we cannot determine whether we are in the universe we think we are in or if our brain is emulated by a Turing machine that exists in a GoL simulation. As to how computation might lead to consciousness, I think it helps to start with a well-defined definition of consciousness. Take dictionary.com's definition: "awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc." Well what is awareness? dictionary.com defines it as: "having knowledge" dictionary.com's simplest non-circular definition of knowledge is simply "information". Putting it all together we see consciousness is merely: "having information of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc." So what kind of systems can have information? Information by itself is not informative. Any string of bits can be interpreted an infinite number of ways, there is no such thing as a self-identifying message which can be interpreted the same way independently by anyone. There always must be some interpreter of that information for the information to be meaningful. The simplest example of a system that interprets information is one which will enter one state vs. another based on some information. E.g., an if-then statement is one example. if (a == true) then doX(); else doY();. You might say this process is the smallest atom of awareness, it is aware of whether a is true or false, and reacts accordingly. More complex processes can enter more states and interpret more information than single bits at a time, but ultimately all ways of interpreting and processing information can be accomplished via a certain computer program. If we are to believe dictionary.com's definition of consciousness, and the Church Turing Thesis, then it is the processing and interpretation of information (computation) that is at the heart of consciousness. Jason -- 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.
