> Yes… I can see how one could assume that. But not exactly what I assume 
> though. Who knows if there is a real world? 
>
> All I know (and even that is open to question) is I experience my 
> existence as occurring within this (shared) high fidelity environment that 
> in my experience – for me as I experience it -- is the real word. This 
> actually says nothing more than what it does say. Again who knows. I don’t. 
> Do you?
>
I agree, but we can take it a step further and say what we can understand 
is that the expectation of knowing is not necessarily valid.
 

> And yet the experience stream is not random – reality has order, 
> directionality, sense; it is repeatable (touch a hot stove and you will 
> burn your finger every time); and it is sequenced in a knotty chain of 
> causality. A lot can be – and has been – discovered about it… basic laws, 
> constants, relationships, phases & states; mathematics, equations… and 
> theories about what this whatever it is must be.
>
> When I say the mind models reality – I actually am not assuming any 
> reality in reality – just that there is some sense stream that is being 
> generated by something – open to discussion what that something is
>

What if it isn't being generated by something, but rather everything is 
generated by it? What leads us to believe that the universe is other than a 
nested stream of sense which is not only self-generating, but defines 
generation itself?
 

> – and that the “reality” we actually experience in our mind is a highly 
> artifacted reification and synthesis of the various sensorial streams 
> (leaving whatever they actually are the result of out of the discussion – 
> for the moment to focus on the point). 
>

Highly artifacted compared to what though? If we don't know whether there 
is an objective reality, then all of our expectations are just as 
artifacted as any experience we can have - the expectations of reification 
is itself an artifacted experience. So again, we have no footing outside of 
artifact to suspect that any such footing is possible. Physics itself may 
be artifacting reification. This is what I mean by 
multisenserealism.<http://multisenserealism.com>
 

> I am guessing we can all pretty much agree that our minds exist behind 
> sensorial surfaces and portals – our organs of sense. 
>
No, not at all. Our mind is an organ of sense too. Thoughts are qualia, 
just like colors and flavors. They are particular kinds of qualia which are 
optimized to represent in a way which dehydrates the appearance of feeling 
and emotion as much as possible, and in so doing makes them optimized for 
meta-qualitative comparison. Our entire body is made of cellular sense 
organs, which are made of molecular sense organs, which are made of 
motivated sensations. Instead of assuming that only we have interiority, I 
assume that the capacity to discern interiority from exteriority and to 
create that polarization is actually more primitive than physics. Physics 
is more indirect than sensorial surfaces or minds. It is a generalization 
based on instrumental measurements performed by the body for the mind.

 

> Without getting into to what it is that is causing our sense streams to 
> produce the signals and information streams they are in fact producing – we 
> can all agree (I hope) – that these streams are our experience of our 
> reality environment. 
>
I though we agreed that whether there is a reality environment is 
unknowable? I do agree that our experience is as real as any reality can 
ever be but I do not agree that they are producing any 'information' or 
'signals'. Sense is not a product, it is the fabric of the Absolute. Only 
sense can be informed or signaled. A sign or significance is only a 
saturation of sense - an associative promiscuity which renders locally 
divided sensations transparent to their underlying Absolute unity.
 

> Again without ascribing any rules or form about what that environment 
> ultimately is or is not; beyond stating and formulating the hypothesis we 
> have been able to discern, the replicating patterns  we have discovered. We 
> also all know on a gut level (our enteric co-brains) how our future reality 
> experience depends current actions – we know that if we leap off the cliff 
> that gravity will take over and that – at least in this world-line of our 
> multi-selves – we will splatter onto the rocks below…. There is no doubt 
> about this – in those of sane mind at least. 
>

Absolutely. I'm not advocating solipsism or idealism, except on the 
Absolute level. Locally, our personal consciousness does indeed depend on 
human sense organs. but those organs depend on sub-personal sense organs. 
We join the universal story already in progress. There is a lot of 
momentum/inertial of all of these experiences on many different scales 
which holds it all together.
 

> Whether or not reality is real is another matter – and a very interesting 
> one too J
>
> However without getting into that – it is useful I believe to start 
> drilling down from what we do know. (which in truth is nothing, but that is 
> also another discussion) 
>
> I am going from current understanding of how our minds arise within our 
> physical brains; of how sense streams become reified into perception. 
>

If I'm right, that would not be the correct way to think about it. This 
approach would be equivalent to "I am going from current understanding of 
how Facebook users arise within our physical computers, of how their words 
become reified into status updates.
 

> It is still just a partial picture and a lot is changing – for example the 
> role glial cells (by far most of the brain matter) – once dismissed as 
> minor actors – in the formation of long term memory. 
>
I think that the whole approach will eventually have to be trashed. We are 
as deluded now, in a new way, as we were in the final hours of the dark 
ages. We are printing indulgences and arguing about angels on the head of a 
pin. The way forward will, I think, require a complete 180 turnaround.
 

> The “reality” we experience – as delivered to us by our sense streams – is 
> re-assembled by the brain into the “reality” we experience. 
>
No, I don't think it is assembled at all. There is no region of the brain 
doing that kind of thing. We already have seen that. There are many levels 
of simultaneity within human sense - nested holarchies of sympathetic 
coherence. There are conflicts and distortions, just as we can get trouble 
with certain websites by losing local connectivity, but there is no there 
is no "us" to deliver sense streams to. We *are* sense streams, just like 
everything else in the universe. The brain has mechanisms, but that relates 
to translating our private experience into a public experience as a human 
being's body. I am working with a view of the universe which is radically 
different from the one we have inherited. I am saying that we must start 
from scratch or we will be wasting our time, and I would bet my life on 
that.
 

> We are one remove from “reality” (whatever reality is real or not).
>

Not if there is no truly objective reality. Our human experience is 
complicated, and we can, through our own intentions or the unintentional 
consequences on some sub-personal or super-personal level, confuse and 
distort our experience until it no longer represents human expectations for 
sanity, but whatever we experience can only be an illusion relative to some 
other set of experiences.
 

> Far from being another problem this is useful knowledge. It opens a lot of 
> doors and is leading us to try to discover the algorithms of consciousness, 
> of how we arise from within our brains
>
We don't arise from within our brains. Brains arise from the efforts of 
human stem cells. We descend from the context of eternity of experiences, 
as human experiences. 
 

> – at a neural (and glial level as well) level. It is a fruitful strategy 
> as well; it is biomimetic – let’s look at how our brains did it.
>
> See…. I don’t see it as a problem. 
>
That's the problem. I understand why you don't see it as a problem. Few 
people do, but it is a problem of historic proportions. It is a Ptolemaic 
astronomy sized problem.
 

> I see it as being the necessary approach to proceed from first principles. 
>
Some people should be pursuing that approach, I agree. It ultimately won't 
work though.
 

> (thankfully we all enjoy so much cultural knowledge and can rely on the 
> previous hard work of others)
>
Also a huge mistake. We have inherited all of their mistakes and live 
within the accretion of its myopic focus like a beautiful cocoon of false 
certainty.
 

> What can we say of our existence? All we really know is that whatever we 
> are experiencing; we feel alive in it – and like observers. 
>
Why passive observers only? Why not active participants also?
 

> So why not proceed from there and begin a rigorous – (and new 
> instrumentation is advancing the art) – 
>
Because it's a dead end. I'm not saying stop doing neuroscience, just that 
we need to also do it in the opposite way. We need to begin from our actual 
awareness and meet ourselves halfway. Otherwise we will be investing in a 
universe in which we could have never have existed.
 

> investigation into how we arise within our brains;
>
We don't arise within our brains. Brains are what an animal's eyeballs and 
fingers think of the inside of an animals head. They are what machines 
designed by animals to extend their eyeballs and fingers to tell us when 
they are reflecting back to us what their bodies are made of.
 

> into how the world we see for example gets formed – from the very initial 
> excitations of the cones and rods in the retina into the ancient thalamus 
> and hence to the primary visual cortex and then through multiple layers and 
> chains of integration, with triggered memories and with other – by now 
> highly interpreted -- sensorial streams to our artifact of experience.
>
To me this is like reading "...form the condensation of the phlegmatic 
humours and the transubstantiation of the eucharist...". Not to put anyone 
down, I am just reporting what it is like for me. To me, this entire model 
expired in the 1980s.
 

> What you, may, see as another layered problem; I see as an approach.
>
> An approach that – I believe -- is just as useful in terms of providing 
> value and understanding, whether or not there is any actual fundamental 
> reality out there or if everything is information relating to information.
>
> There is also a lot of practical value in discovering the algorithms of 
> pattern recognition in a noisy environment, of consciousness and 
> situational awareness, of decision making in an uncertain environment. If 
> you doubt me; just take a look at the kind of stuff DARPA is interested in 
> these days. Sadly the killing machine angle of this is really driving 
> things – autonomous hunter killer robots is every control freaks ultimate 
> fantasy.
>

I don't think it's 'sadly', I think it is inextricably linked. Control is 
rooted in certainty, which is rooted in the oversigification of the body's 
view of other bodies. There is a lot of practical value there though, sure. 
Nothing wrong with the research, it is the fundamental assumptions which 
must be radically reassessed.
 

> There is a lot of focus on a biomimetic approach in discovering these 
> algorithms (and meta design patterns) – a look at how the brain does it 
> approach. I think we are getting close to being able to start figuring out 
> what these brain algorithms are. For example what are the brains noise 
> reduction algorithms? (it is a very noisy environment); what is its 
> decision making algorithms? The signal amplification algorithms? What are 
> the flow chains… i.e. how does information flow in the brain… 
> directionality, feedback etc. 
>

You are looking a cross section of a billion years of experience grouped 
together artifactually by the relativity of human perceptual inertia. It's 
a footprint.
 

> That is when I expect to see the first AI… once we figure out our own AI 
>
I think that we have figured out more than we know, and less than we 
imagine.

Craig
 

> -Chris 
>
>  
>
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> 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 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to