Hi Bruno Marchal 

Reception requires consciousness, which a thermostat does not have.


perception /per穋ep穞ion/ (per-sep磗hun) the conscious mental registration of a 
sensory stimulus.percep磘ive 

per穋ep穞ion (pr-spshn) 
n. 
1. The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
2. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.


perception 
[p?rsep'sh?n] 
Etymology: L, percipere, to perceive
1 the conscious recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli that serve as 
a basis for understanding, learning, and knowing or for motivating a particular 
action or reaction. 
2 the result or product of the act of perceiving. Kinds of perception include 
depth perception, extrasensory perception, facial perception, and stereognostic 
perception. perceptive, perceptual, adj. 


[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/26/2012 
"The one thing a woman looks for in a man is to be needed." - "Ethan Frome", by 
Edith Wharton
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-12-26, 06:41:02
Subject: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennettrightafter 
all ?




On 26 Dec 2012, at 12:14, Telmo Menezes wrote:







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.


OK.







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?


Eventually this depends on what you mean by "explanation".


Computationalism explains why consciousness is true and knowable, actually, but 
not justifiable, once we can agree on some semi-axiom for consciousness: like 
it is true for each of us, and invariant for the comp-digital-brain 
substitution. It explains the universal feeling that we cannot convince any 
other that we are conscious, and the logic of qualia (S4Grz1, X1*) should be 
able to explain why consciousness is related to perception field, sensation, 
etc. Then it explains how the matter illusion organize itself into a quantum 
logic of observable, and this in a testable way.
You can get more if you are willing to accept quasi definition of 
consciousness, like consciousness = a believe in a reality, or a believe in 
self-consistency, under the form of an unconscious betting procedure. Waking up 
in the morning is about equivalent with betting that I will drink some coffee 
soon, for example. I am betting that there is a reality in which I can 
consistently achieve that goal. It is akin to Helmholtz theory of perception: 
unconscious inductive inference.


Bruno











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]
12/24/2012 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Telmo Menezes 
Receiver: everything-list 
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,

? 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?nticipation?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)?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.


? 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?ignal and into a useable?xpreswion of
the visual image. 
(From the monadology, we find that each monad 
(you or me) does not ?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?omehow coordinated with motor muscles (left/right,
etc.), but I question that this?s?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.


? 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?olipsism?hen?




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.



-- 
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.



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.

Reply via email to