Jochen, et al, I have now read Baars, as best I can, and he seems to be headed in precisely the direction you suggest. Stages within stages; theatres all the way down. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Jochen Fromm <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Date: 10/25/2009 5:53:58 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] In the theater of consciousness > > A thoughtful response. You are right, > one inconsistency for the theater > metaphor is the missing distinction > between sensoric and motoric regions. > The coupling between them is also > completely neglected. > > Another one is the missing distinction > between different levels of abstraction > for the various actors on the stage, > ranging from concrete perceptions to > abstract perception and beliefs, and > from concrete actions to abstract actions > and intentions. > > Perhaps one could imagine a theater > with multiple stages, like a disco or club > with multiple dance floors. Theaters and > clubs are similar, in both of them there are > always a lot of people watching (the > unconscious elements), and only a > few are moving around in the spotlight > (the conscious ones). > > -J. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ERIC P. CHARLES" <[email protected]> > To: "Jochen Fromm" <[email protected]> > Cc: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:52 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] In the theater of consciousness > > > > I have not read Baars, but... One of the problems with the cognitive > > theatre > > metaphor (and most other dualistic metaphors) is that it makes the > > modeler's > > life harder NOT easier. > > > > Let us assume that, at the most fundamental level, my consciousness is > > about my > > keeping in touch with the world (i.e., my consciousness might well do > > other > > things, but for now we will stick with a presumably primitive function). > > > > It is very hard to model exactly how this works, but psychologists and > > systems > > biologists are making good headway. Sensory information (spread over space > > and > > time) is quite complex, but does specify a significant amount of > > world-properties we are interested in. A sensory system, properly > > integrated > > with an action system, can therefore allow us to act intelligently towards > > the > > world. That coupling, through complex/dynamic physiological systems, > > should > > form the heart of any model of consciousness. For simplicity, lets call > > that > > the "realist's model". > > > > Many people think we can simplify the problem by going inside the > > Cartesian > > theartre. That is, maybe things will be simpler if we only worry about how > > mental images relate to intended actions. The problem is that such a model > > has > > to be just about as complicated as the realist's model. Then, even once > > you > > have a completely satisfactory model, you will still find that you have > > two > > mysteries to solve: First, how physical interaction with the world forms > > the > > mental ideas. Second, how intended actions "in the mind" become physical > > actions. This mysteries must be solved, because even if you are a dualist, > > it > > is still the case that consciousness is about keeping in touch with the > > world. > > So, for the slight bit that the theatre metaphor simplifies your initial > > problem, it greatly complicates the final solution, by requiring at least > > three > > complex models where before you only needed one. Modifying my sentence in > > the > > prior paragraph, in a satisfactory dualistic model: A sensory system > > integrates > > with the mind such that a complex/dynamic processes projects "ideas" on a > > stage > > (only some of which correspond in anyway to the world); watching those > > "ideas" > > play out a complex/dynamic process leads us to form "hypotheses" both > > about the > > causes of those "ideas" and the consequences of our actions upon those > > "ideas" > > and whatever caused those ideas; then we must have a complex/dynamic > > process > > that leads from our hypotheses to action in a world, by which I mean > > action of > > the me on the stage and the me watching the stage and the me whose head > > the > > stage is in. Yuck! > > > > That's not the only problem with dualism, but from a modeling perspective, > > I > > think it might be the main one. > > > > Eric > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
