On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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], [[email protected]] <[email protected]]> > 12/24/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> > *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 <[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, >> >> 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 [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. > > > -- > 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. > > > 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 [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.
