On 2/22/2013 3:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, February 22, 2013 4:54:05 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

    On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com 
<javascript:>>
    wrote:

            >> What to you think with, your elbow?


         > my point was that you have a double standard about which brain 
activities
        represent nothing but evolutionary driven illusions


    Illusions? Evolutionary drive is what made you the man you are today. And
    interpreting a 1D signal from the eye as 3D space is as valid a 
interpretation as
    any other, and apparently Evolution has determined that particular 
interpretation
    gets the most genes into the next generation. Thus you are good at 3D 
visualization
    because your ancestors were good at it too. You come from a long line of 
winners,
    most animals never manage to reproduce but every single one of your 
ancestors did.


A successful evolutionary outcome doesn't have anything to do with the veracity of the content of a signal. If someone has a delusion that their ancestors are sacred turnip people and it causes them to plant turnips and survive a famine, that doesn't mean that their belief is not a delusion. There seems to be this theme with your positions which fanatically exaggerates the importance of winning, and how winning justifies whatever distortions of the truth are required

On the contrary, John is saying that evolution must align perception at least roughly with reality because misalignment is likely to go badly - like when the turnip people keep planting turnips because their ancestor said so even though the turnip beetle keeps decimating their crops.

...but then when it comes to science and math, there seems to be a different 
standard.


        > and which ones represent an independent and absolute truth.


    Huh? 2+2=4 is as close to a absolute truth as I can think of, what double 
standard
    are you talking about?


What's 2+2=4 other than an electrical reaction in your brain?

It's an abstraction from pairs of things and the operation of putting them 
together.


    Evolution is like history, it could have been different, a very small 
change in the
    distant past could cause gargantuan changes in the present, is that what 
you mean?


No, I don't know why you're going over evolution101 with me.


        > A signal is a sign.


    I can't argue with that.

        > A sign means that it has to be interpreted by someone or some thing.


    Yes and in this case the brain is doing the interpretation, and electronic 
cochlear
    implants can create a sequence of impulses that the brain interprets as 
sound, and
    we're well on the way of doing the same thing with 3D vision.


We don't really know that the brain is doing an interpretation, so much as a complex notification.

Notification to what...your immortal soul?

The interpretation may not be local to the brain, but to the lifetime of the personal experience associated with the brain.

How does a lifetime of experience exist in the present, and how does it read 
notes?

Why would one part of the brain receive and encode information from the outside world only for another part of the brain to decode the same information for some artificial inner world?

Because by seeing what happens in the inner world one my anticipate what will happen in the real world.

If the brain can interpret the outside world as code, surely it would remain as code - invisible, intangible, precisely transmitted information states.

Sure, at least up until it needs to coded into bodily reactions: motion, 
hormone release,...



        > Our experience of 3D images is not useful to the brain in any way.


    The 3D visualization of space would be very useful indeed if it's the most 
efficient
    way to figure out how to jump out of the way when a saber toothed tiger 
lunges at
    you on the African savanna.


But it could not be any more efficient than no presentation at all. Absolutely, clearly, and unarguably: not possible.

But there would have to be an inner presentation in order to plan for avoiding or killing a saber tooth tiger. And while there is generally no conscious presentation in reactions to sudden threats the brain still knows which way to jump in three dimensions.



        > The electronic sequences need not be interpreted at all because they 
are
        already neurological signals.


    That statement is nuts. To a animal without genes for interpretation a 
neurological
    signal is just a neurological signal and there would be no reason to move 
when a
    predator starts to run at it


The reason would be the that they received a neurological to move - just like a computer does. IF TIGER = 1 THEN RUN. You really are not seeing that your legs are cut off here.

Do you not see you are simply assuming what you are required to argue - that intelligent action can exist without consciousness.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to