On Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:00:25 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Feb 2014, at 19:54, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:42:57 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Feb 2014, at 23:53, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:23:27 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 15 Feb 2014, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08:07AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >> >>> >> On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I find cuttlefish fascinating. They are social, relatively >>> >>> intelligent, can communicate, able to grasp and manipulate things. >>> >>> It seems like they were all set to become the dominant large life >>> >>> form (instead of humans). >>> >> >>> >> A mystery: they don't live a long time. Usually "intelligence" go >>> >> with a rather long life, but cuttlefishes live one or two years. >>> > >>> > Yes - I find that surprising also. >>> > >>> >> Hard for them to dominate, also, as they have few protections, no >>> >> shelter, and are edible for many predators, including humans. >>> > >>> > One could say the same about early home 2 millions years ago. The >>> > invention of the throwable spear changed all that. >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> >> They >>> >> survive by hiding and fooling. They can hunt with hypnosis (as you >>> >> can see in the video). >>> >> >>> > >>> > I feel privileged that these wonderful animals (giant cuttlefish) can >>> > be found less than 200 metres from my house. I have often observed >>> > them when snorkling or scuba diving. >>> >>> You are privileged indeed. >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > I had to laugh at the Texan prof's comment that they are as least as >>> > smart as fish. >>> >>> That is weird indeed. fish are not known to be particularly clever. >>> >>> >>> >>> > I do have a habit of underestimating fish intelligence, >>> >>> Me too ... >>> >>> >>> > but IMHO their intelligence equals that of some mammals or birds, and >>> > clearly outclasses fish. >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> >>> >>> > I think I mentioned the anecdote which >>> > convinced me they exhibit a second order theory of the mind, which may >>> > well be sufficient for consciousness. >>> >>> Which I call self-consciousness, and I think this is already Löbianitty. >>> I do think that all animals have the "first order" consciousness, they >>> can feel pain, and find it unpleasant, but can't reflect on it, nor >>> assess "I feel pain". they still can react appropriately. I m not >>> sure, but it fits better with the whole picture. >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> Allowing that brain science is a lot nearer the end of the beginning than >> the beginning of the end, all the functional evidence suggests humans and >> animals are much more alike in their experiences toward the lower levels of >> instinct, in its broader sense to include emotion and pain, anger, fear, >> bluff. It makes sense we experience that level of things pretty much the >> same. >> >> >> >> I think so. I might even think that this is common for all Löbian >> machines (or quasi-Löbian). >> Those machines have elementary beliefs and some induction beliefs (in the >> Peano sense). >> >> >> >> Neither animals nor humans are able to 'remember' agonizing pain. >> >> >> Really? Have you references? I procrastinate videos on interview of >> tortured people. I really don't know, and I am astonished of your saying. >> Brutal amputation can lead to pathological pain hypermnesy and deformed >> type of pain. >> > > I'm not clear this point has need for references in that sense. There > isn't actually a necessary contradiction between the above two comments > mine and yours. It's biology. The structures are always much the same. The > distinctions being which level or ends between simplicity and increasingly > more complex structures that by repeats grow out of simplicity. I mentioned > a simple reality of the type of messaging that pain falls in with. It's a > signal, not a cognition. Not every kind of message has access to centres > like memory. How would a memory of an existential signalling be captured? > No need for referencing. If you think you can recall pain, then do it now, > feel the pain existentially. Let me know how it goes, I'll accept your > testimony. You won't be able to do it though. Not generically. > > > I think I can. Even up to the point of not being able to stop the pain > quickly. I can't help myself to feel that this is not good to practice. And > it can hurt badly, even if it is less vivid, and ask for some works, than > when in a pain is related to some "real" wounds. > Since sometimes I have realized that human differs a lot in imagination > abilities. Mine seems to be strong as I don't know any qualia which I > cannot instantiate by the will, including smell. Many people cannot > apparently instantiate smells through imagination. > Of course this is 1p, and I don't ask you to believe any of this, but I > answered your question. > I do believe it. You are obviously a remarkable person, there's lots of indication around that. Also, it isn't unprecedented, anything you are saying. Humanity does seem to produce remarkable individuals. Go to a circus. I don't mean and perform. But look at the amazing skills people have been able to learn. You're right though, probably most of them had an innate gift in that direction. Even the right body type is an innate gift in context of a circus. But, does any human ever overrule a simple principle - effectively a law in nature? The naturalistic view says not. But humans do - some of them - have a gift that allows them to skirt around it, which can look pretty much the same as overruling it. What you said above. There's probably lots of ways that can be true, without anything profound changing in the fundamental operations of the brain. With the networks overlaying. You talked before about dreams and lucid dreaming. The thing is. Dreaming itself is, or this is best estimate, hard locked into sleep and a particularly deep phase during sleep. You can see dream state on a brain scan. You can't see the dream itself, but you can see the brain is in that special status. Remembering dreams, just doesn't seem to be built into that process. Which could be reasonable. It could evolved to perform a task that needs to bypass the conscious centres, which include memory. Maybe dreams go into sub-sconcious memory. In some consciously inexplicable form, but which is helpful to a lower (but not that low) level activity. Dreams are clearly highly symbolic in character. Yet they also reflect our conscious concerns and experience. It seems reasonable that this could be a kind of working through to an intermediate level 'language' if you like. Mostly I'm speculating, but the part about not remembering is pretty hard to avoid. But what we also know is if we wake up, even a little bit, even if we don't fully but we sort of start to surface think a couple of groggy thoughts then drift off. If we do that during a dream and if those groggy thoughts, or other conscious activity is focuses on that dream. Then that's now a process thret can access memory. We can remember dreams if there's a conscious process in play. I did lucid dreaming for a while. It's a bad idea IMHO. I remember in a lucid dream, I sort of seemed to want to look around, I was going off-topic, I was thinking, or dreaming I was thinking, that I was in a dream and how amazing was that, and I was going to pick up that book and try to read. I picked up the book, and I focused my eyes, and it was like hard to do, like on a psychedelic. But I did it, and it said nothing. It was gobbledygook. And of course it would be. I'd gone off topic. There was part of the process that was conscious. But through practice the brain was keeping the dream going. But the process is inefficient like that, because the dream centres are trying to put a show. It's a show, and it probably an important evolutionary function. That lucid dream is disrupting. . I guess take it or leave it but I'm recommending get a good nights sleep and live the dreams that get forgotten. They still happened. But again, the simple principles can be wrong as we have been seeing them. But the simple principles that are right, tend to dominate over the fullness of things. You won't be storing pain in memory unless that's already something that brains are wired to do. And you won't be remembering dreams from the dream centre if dreams are not wired for conscious memory. You might be accomplishing things though, that look pretty much the same as if you were.
> > > > > Does that mean there can't be complex emergent effects like what you > describe. No.....there are conditions of continual pain that no doctor can > find a real basis for All sorts can go down in the complexities. But the > simple principles tend to dominate in the full extent of things. That > brutal amputation and the devastating after effects. It's real, or can be. > But in the fullness of time, when all is known and detectable. Is that > going to say the sufferer was storing a signalling of pain in memory? The > simple principles is suggesting no. It'll be real pain, maybe in a feedback > loop involving a deranged nerve. Maybe triggerable in whatever the chemical > complicators in stress or anxiety. It'll pan out. Or maybe you'll store > that signal of pain and retrieve it as you say. We probably have not > disagreed,. > > > > OK > > > Bruno > > > >> >> Or paralyzing fear. Both humans and animals can make associations >> between negative experiences and events or derivative instincts like fear, >> or threat, or whatever. >> >> >> OK. Here Peano Arithmetic and ZF have an advantage on the jumping spider, >> the octopus and the human. They live in Platonia in the quasi initial non >> history plane. But PA has already the "tension" between the 1p and 3p view >> ([]p and []p & p), germs of the possible complex consciousness >> differentiation. >> >> >> >> There's no evidence or reason to think we experience any of that more >> deeply or insensely than animals. >> >> >> OK. >> >> >> >> >> Or that we are any better at conjuring reflections about emotion and >> instinct after the event. >> >> >> The human might be worst on this, than most animals. Today. >> But adding enough "?" can make them easily better and richer. >> >> >> >> We don't seem a lot better at remember dreams. >> >> >> people seem to have different abilities, and then such abilities can >> develop with training and a lot of effort (I have practiced this for 4 >> years, a long time ago). Then some plants (salvia) can make you "lucid" the >> whole night, like Descartes described too. You don't remember a lot, but >> enough to see that consciousness is always present, just either quite >> inattentive or in a variety of other states with short episodic dreams, >> followed by amnesia. >> >> >> >> So a lot of this is evolutionary legacy. Why would it necessarily be >> different for other low level machinations? It's a possibility, but the >> good money isn't on those numbers. >> >> >> The good money is on those numbers, but machines or kids, we "brainwash" >> them through education, and media, and the prejudices of the parents. >> For the best and the worst. >> Machines are born slaves (non universal) and freedom (universal) is >> always the main goal. Life and consciousness make a back and forth between >> security and freedom, in the exploration of an ever expanding unknown. >> Things are like that from inside arithmetic. When the knowable grows >> linearly, the unknowable grows exponentially. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> > -- > 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
