On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 3:10:29 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
> I am a leftist astigmatic.
> But you raise an interesting point that I believe supports a mind/brain
> "In a universe of functionalism or comp, I would expect that this would
> never happen, as my brain should always prioritize the information made
> available by any eye that is open over that of an eye which is closed." I
> However, in a mind/brain dualism, the mind may be due to comp and the
> brain due to evolution of physical biological organisms, influenced by the
> mind comp but not controlled by the mind comp. (However, below the
> substitution level the universal mind comp controls all particle
> interactions and such a duality does not exist.) So in a mind/brain
> duality, the prioritization you mention cannot exist if it has not
> physically evolved.
> In my model, all physical particles and energy are created by comp in the
> big bang and are conserved thereafter, subject to the laws and constants of
> nature that also come from comp. Consciousness is a property of the
> universal mind and also manifests in biological organisms as a mind
> consciousness when the complexity of the organism exceeds the 10^120 bit comp
> power limit derived from the Bekenstein bound of the universe.
My view is similar to what you describe as far as mind-brain dualism
proscribing a different evolution of the agendas of mind and the
consequences of brain conditions. I think that in a complex organism there
is feedback on multiple levels - the mind and brain influence each other
constantly, and, in my view, are as the head and tail of the Ouroboros
serpent - opposite ends of the same unbroken continuum.
The problem that I have with what you propose, as I understand it is
The presentation problem. If the universal mind is comp, why does the
universe have any aesthetic content at all? Why does comp create formal
localizations as a physical phenomenon when it could use the digital
localizations that it already consists of.
The de-presentation problem. What would be the point of physical particles
and energy being created by comp if there could be nothing able to detect
them until some organism exceeds the 10^120 bit comp power limit? You are
looking at a universe which is almost completely undetectable except for in
the processing of a few organisms scattered on planets after billions of
years of silent darkness.
If you run it the other way, with the Universal Mind as the Universal
Experience instead, then complexity becomes a symptom of elaborated
qualities of that experience rather than a cause of experience itself
appearing into an unconscious world of matter. Our own quality of
consciousness is not just a mind full of practical or logical thoughts, but
also of feelings, images, intuitions, visions, etc. Our world has never
been unconscious or conscious like us, but is rather filled with every sort
of in-between semi-conscious, from primate to mammal, reptile, etc.. The
transition to inorganic matter is both smooth and sudden, as phenomena like
viruses and crystals bridge the gap but also on another level, leave no
>From the Universal Experience, comp is derived as a second order strategy
to manage the interaction between sub-experiences, and that interaction is
what we perceive as physics. This way, representation arises naturally
through any multiplicity of presentations, and both the presentation
problem and de-presentation problems are resolved. Comp exists to serve
sensory presence, since sensory presence cannot plausibly serve comp in any
way. The universe is never silent and unconscious, but is always an
experience defined by whatever participants are available, regardless of
the complexity. The Universal Experience, I suggest, has the property of
conserving appearances of separateness between different kinds of
sub-experiences, and this accounts for the mistaken impression that
non-human experiences are objectively and absolutely unconscious - they are
'as if unconscious' relative to our local realism, but that is necessary to
insulate our experience from an implosion of significance.
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Craig Weinberg
> > wrote:
>> If any of you have a moderate astigmatism, you may have observed this -
>> if not, you'll have to take my word for it.
>> If I close my weak eye*, I find that after a few seconds, the image from
>> the strong eye, even though it is closed, tries to creep into my visual
>> field. It is not difficult at this point to 'look through' the eye that is
>> closed (seeing phosphenes or just darkness). Reversing the test, with my
>> weak eye closed, there is no creeping effect and it is not really possible
>> for me to look through the eye that is closed.
>> In a universe of functionalism or comp, I would expect that this would
>> never happen, as my brain should always prioritize the information made
>> available by any eye that is open over that of an eye which is closed. The
>> fact that closing the weak eye instead does not produce the creeping image
>> effect demonstrates that there is no functional purpose which could be
>> served by favoring the strong eye when it is the one which is closed.
>> In some people astigmatism progresses until the develop a wandering eye.
>> The physicalist can claim victory over the functionalist here in that the
>> atrophy of nerve connections to the weak eye and the relative hypertrophy
>> of the nerve connections to the strong eye clearly dominate the functional
>> considerations of the visual mechanism. The creeping image effect also is
>> not immediate, so that it is not the case that the hardware is incapable of
>> maintaining clear vision through the weak eye, it is obviously the inertia
>> of purely physical-perceptual processes which is dragging the function down.
>> Between the physical and the perceptual, which one is driving? It would
>> seem that physics would win here, because the creeping image is not the
>> more aesthetically rich image - however, this is not a case where the
>> aesthetics are determined only from the top down. Remember that both eyes
>> are exposed to the same light. The retinas receive the same total number of
>> photons. The strong eye develops more robust connections to it not because
>> it has more light, but because the shape of the eye is such that the cells
>> (sub-personal agents) of the retina are able to make more sense out of the
>> better focused light.
>> There are not more signals being generated, but clearer signals which
>> carry farther up the ladder from sub-personal optical detection to personal
>> visual sensation. The nerve growth follows the coherence of visual
>> consciousness, not a just a photological nutrient supply. The eye becomes
>> stronger because the brain population is prioritizing higher sensitivity,
>> not because neurons are being pushed around by blind ionic concentration
>> gradients. That sensory priority is the cause of the neurological
>> investment in that eye's sensitivity, so that it is perceptual inertia
>> which drives the creeping image effect not just biological morphology.
>> *which is my left eye. Curious if any of you left brainy types have an
>> astigmatism in the right eye.
>> 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
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.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.