On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

>
> On 24 Dec 2012, at 17:24, Roger Clough wrote:
>
>  Hi Telmo Menezes
>
> Consciousness does not emerge from anything.
> It is simply the act of perception.
>
>
Roger, when I say "consciousness" what I mean is not the act of perception.
A thermostat can perceive the environment and act on it. Conversely, I can
be put in an isolation tank and still remain conscious.


>
>
> Well with comp "my consciousness exists" is a 1) true proposition, 2)
> unprovable, and 3) which supervenes on an infinity of arithmetical
> relations.
>

So comp doesn't explain what consciousness is, but it tells us why that is
unknowable?


> I think it is not too much wrong to say that it emerges, at least in some
> sense,  from arithmetic.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] <rclo...@verizon.net]>
> 12/24/2012
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> *From:* Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> *Time:* 2012-12-22, 07:11:19
> *Subject:* Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett
> rightafter all ?
>
>  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,
>>
>> 牋� 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燼nticipation爋f 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)燜IRSTNESS (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.
>>
>>
>> 牋� 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.
>> 牋� 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爏ignal and into a useable爀xpreswion of
>>> the visual image.
>>> �
>>> (From the monadology, we find that each monad
>>> (you or me) does not 爌erceive 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爏omehow coordinated with motor muscles (left/right,
>>> etc.), but I question that this爄s燼n 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.
>>
>>
>> 牋� 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.
>>
>>
>> 牋� 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.
>>
>>
>> 牋� 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!
>> 牋� 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爏olipsism爐hen?
> �
>
>>
>>
>>
>>   �
>>
>>>  �
>>> I do not at present know the answer.
>>> �
>>> �
>>> �
>>> �
>>>
>>>
>> 牋� 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.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> 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