> On 9 Apr 2021, at 02:40, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 4/8/2021 12:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> Hi Telmo, >> >> Thank you for these links, they are very helpful in articulating the >> problem. I think you are right about there being some connection between >> communication of qualia and the symbol grounding problem. >> >> I used to think there were two kinds of knowledge: >> Third-person sharable knowledge: information that can be shared and >> communicated through books, like the population of Paris, or the height of >> Mount Everest >> First-person knowledge: information that must be felt or experienced first >> hand, emotions, feelings, the pain of a bee sting, the smell of a rose >> But now I am wondering if the idea of third-person sharable knowledge is an >> illusion. The string encoding the height of Mount Everest is meaningless if >> you have no framework for understanding physical spaces, units of length, >> spatial extents, and the symbology of numbers. All of that information has >> to be unpacked, and eventually processed into some thought that relates to a >> basis of conscious experience and understanding of heights and sizes. Even >> size is a meaningless term when attempting to compare relative sizes between >> two universes, so in that sense it must be tied somehow back to the subject. >> >> There also seem to be counter-examples to a clear divide between first- and >> third-person knowledge. For example, is the redness of red really >> incommunicable between two synesthesiacs who both see the number 5 as red? >> If everyone in the world had such synesthesia, would we still think book >> knowledge could not communicate the redness of red? In this case, what makes >> redness communicable is the shared processing between the brains of the >> synesthesiacs, their brains process the symbol in the same way. > > I think you exaggerate the problem. Consider how bats "see" by sonar. I > think this is quite communicable to humans by analogies.
That will communicate the third person aspect, but not the qualia itself. > And submarines have sonar which produces images on screens. Is redness > communicable? My father who was red/green color blind had to guess at the > color of traffic lights or just watch other cars when he first started to > drive around 1928. But he understood the concept of color because he could > tell blue from red/green. And later, traffic engineers adjust the spectrum > of traffic lights so that he could tell the difference (they also started to > put the red at the top). Yes, in practice there is not much problem, which explains the lack of interest in the mind-body problem, but this does not help to solve the conceptual issue. It is a bit like saying that in practice GR and QM works very well, so that we lost our time when trying to get a coherent theory of all forces. It depends if we are interested in foundational issues and understanding or in practical applications, I guess. Bruno > > Brent >> >> >> More comments below: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 11:11 AM Telmo Menezes <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Hi Jason, >> >> I believe that you are alluding to what is known in Cognitive Science as the >> "Symbol Grounding Problem": >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem> >> >> My intuition goes in the same direction as yours, that of "procedural >> semantics". Furthermore, I am inclined to believe that language is an >> emergent feature of computational processes with self-replication. From >> signaling between unicellular organisms all the way up to human language. >> >> That is interesting. I do think there is something self-defining about the >> meaning of processes. Something that multiplies two inputs can always be >> said to be multiplying. The meaning of the operation is then grounded in the >> function and processes of that process, which is made unambiguous. The >> multiplication process could not be confused with addition or subtraction. >> This is in contrast to a N-bit string on a piece of paper, which could be >> interpreted in at least 2^N ways (or perhaps even an infinite number of >> ways, if you consider what function is applied to that bit string). >> >> >> Luc Steels has some really interesting work exploring this sort of idea, >> with his evolutionary language games: >> https://csl.sony.fr/wp-content/themes/sony/uploads/pdf/steels-12c.pdf >> <https://csl.sony.fr/wp-content/themes/sony/uploads/pdf/steels-12c.pdf> >> >> Evolving systems that can communicate amongst themselves seems to be a >> fruitful way to explore these issues. Has anyone attempted to take simple >> examples, like computer simulated evolved versions of robots playing soccer, >> and add in a layer that lets each player emit and receive arbitrary signals >> from other players? I would expect there would be strong evolutionary >> pressures for learning to communicate things like "I see the ball", "I'm >> about to take a shot", etc. to other teammates. >> >> >> >> I have been working a lot with language these days. I and my co-author >> (Camille Roth) developed a formalism called Semantic Hypergraphs, which is >> an attempt to represent natural language in structures that are akin to >> typed lambda-calculus: >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10784 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10784> >> >> One curiosity is that all human languages appear to be "Turing complete" in >> the sense that we can use natural language to describe and define any finite >> process. I don't know how significant this is though, as in general it is >> pretty easy to achieve Turing complete languages. >> >> I think the central problem with "Mary the super-scientist >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument>" is our brains, in >> general, don't have a way to take received code/instructions and process >> them accordingly. I think if our brains could do this, if we could take book >> knowledge and use it to build neural structures for processing information >> in specified ways, then Mary could learn what it is like to see red without >> red light ever hitting her retina. But such flexibility in the brain would >> make us vulnerable to "mind viruses" that spread by words or symbols. Modern >> computers clearly demarcate <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_bit>executable >> and non-executable memory to limit similar dangers. >> >> This might also explain the apparent third-person / first-person >> distinction. We can communicate through language any Turing machine, and >> understand the functioning of that machine and processing in a third person >> way, but without re-wiring ourselves, we have no way to perceive it in a >> direct first-person way. >> >> >> >> >> Here's the Python library that implements these ideas: >> http://graphbrain.net/ <http://graphbrain.net/> >> >> >> Very cool! >> >> So far we use modern machine learning to parse natural language into this >> representation, and then take advantage of the regularity of the structures >> to automatically identify stuff in text corpora for the purpose of >> computational social science research. >> >> Something I dream of, and intend to explore at some point, is to attempt to >> go beyond the parser and actually "execute the code", and thus try to close >> the loop with the idea of procedural semantics. >> >> >> I have often wondered, if an alien race discovered an english dictionary >> (containing no pictures) would there be enough internal consistency and >> information present in that dictionary to work out all the meaning? I have >> the feeling that because there is enough redundancy in it, together with a >> shared heritage of evolving in the same physical universe, there is some >> hope that they could, but it might involve a massive computational process >> to bootstrap. Once they make some headway towards a correct interpretation >> of the words, however, I think it will end up confirming itself as a correct >> understanding, much like the end stages of solving a Sudoku puzzle become >> easier and self-confirming of the correctness of the solution. >> >> Is this the problem you are attempting to solve with the semantic hyper >> graphs/graph brain, or that such graphs could one day solve? >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> Am Mi, 31. Mär 2021, um 17:58, schrieb Jason Resch: >>> I was thinking about what aspects of conscious experience are communicable >>> and which are not, and I realized all communication relies on some >>> pre-existing shared framework. >>> >>> It's not only things like "red" that are meaningless to someone whose never >>> seen it, but likewise things like spatial extent and dimensionslity would >>> likewise be incommunicable to someone who had no experience with moving in, >>> or through, space. >>> >>> Even communicating quantities requires a pre-existing and common system of >>> units and measures. >>> >>> So all communication (inputs/outputs) consist of meaningless but strings. >>> It is only when a bit string is combined with some processing that meaning >>> can be shared. The reason we can't communicate "red" to someone whose never >>> seen it is we would need to transmit a description of the processing done >>> by our brains in order to share what red means to oneself. >>> >>> So in summary, I wonder if anything is communicabke, not just qualia, but >>> anything at all, when there's not already common processing systems between >>> the sender and receiver, of the information. >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhC%3Dq%3D1t6mQzo%2BLLZCOrpXFK9etNojhQ-hgb%2BZaE2wr0A%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhC%3Dq%3D1t6mQzo%2BLLZCOrpXFK9etNojhQ-hgb%2BZaE2wr0A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> >> -- >> 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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/60bab9c1-98a1-4001-830f-fd7a469b3a8d%40www.fastmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/60bab9c1-98a1-4001-830f-fd7a469b3a8d%40www.fastmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> -- >> 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] >> <mailto:[email protected]>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgWHah6t6fAoAKd7kZ6Ch%3D-WPL%2BzLwqa1J0psVrKC-oJQ%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgWHah6t6fAoAKd7kZ6Ch%3D-WPL%2BzLwqa1J0psVrKC-oJQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3efb84d8-39bd-0a7e-e00e-106c44fafc8c%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3efb84d8-39bd-0a7e-e00e-106c44fafc8c%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/89B0C3FF-FEC1-4178-AF74-14CD5FB6CBEF%40ulb.ac.be.
