Re: The consciousness singularity
Spudboy100 wrote: To your comment, how do we demonstrate that the Universe is conscious? There must be some cause and effect, some falsifiable, tests that can be done, perhaps centuries, from now, with better equipment. Since we are the universe being conscious of itself, and there is no other outside of it to confirm it, the only way is to realize it for ourselves. It is possible to directly realize that we are the universe (or rather the consciousness that it appears in), an experience that is commonly called samadhi or cosmic consciousness. It is just not valid to ask for a falsifiable test for something that is beyond objective tests and measurements, and beyond falsifiability (just like 1+1=2 is beyond falsifiability and still valid). To say that this means that is can't be true is just scientism. There is nothing in science suggesting that it has to be applicable to everything, and be the sole authority on truth. It is not true that the only alternative to this is pure faith in something more or less abitrary (like in many religions), which is what some scientists and philosophers seem to suggest. We can directly experience, and we can rely on intuition which doesn't exclude skepticism. In fact science already relies on intuition, like the intuition that the universe follows laws that can be described, that the scientfic method of measuring and making theories is the appropiate way to find out which laws these are, etc... If you want to make it plausible that indeed consciousness is all that is, and the source of the universe, and inherently meaningful, there are a number of possibilities. Probably the one that is most convincing is direct experience. Try meditation (my favorite is just doing nothing while being aware not to snooze or think or search for something to do,etc...), or, if you are a bit more daring and very cautious and well informed, psychdelic drugs (eg Salvia, Mushrooms, LSD, DMT) or suspend your belief that you are just a person for long enough (then the reality of unity tends to reveal itself spotaneously). If you are in the right mindset and maybe a bit lucky you can experience states in which it is directly evident that there is fundamentally no other, just this consciousness that you are. If you don't deny your experience (which we unfortunately often do due to cultural conditioning) it is very convincing evidence. There is just no reason that the most extraordinary states of consciousness would be states of oness with everything if everything wasn't really one and the experience is often very powerful and overwhelmingly real (more so than everyday consciousness). There is also indirect evidence, which may be useful until you can experience it directly. First, enlightened people. These people, like historically Buddha and Christ, have had enormous postive cultural influence and they often report permanent sensations of peace, freedom and clarity. Is it really likely that this just comes out of a delusion? Why would a delusion provide liberation? Secondly, modern physics. In modern physics there aren't really seperate particles, there is just a wavefunction, which suggest that everything is one. Also, it is not an accident that we search for a unified theory. Because actually, reality is a unity. That this unity has to be conscious is clear from seeing that a part is conscious (at least you are) and since it can't be seperated from this unity, the unity is conscious. Also, even though faith can't be an ultimate answer, ask yourself whether it couldn't be useful to just make a leap of faith for a while and trust that reality really is good (but not as the opposite of bad, just as inherently meaningful, geared to give results that will be satisfying). If reality is good, it makes sense that it works as one for the goodness. And who could be the one if not all of us? Consider the goodness wager: What is there to lose if you believe that reality is fundamentally good (without making an image what this has to mean, and without attaching to this belief, since these may have bad consequences)? benjayk -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/The-consciousness-singularity-tp32803353p32810552.html Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
On 08 Nov 2011, at 20:56, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I would rather call this consciousness. Indeed I agree with Dan that it is quite accurate to say that there is no person in the sense that experience is not personal, it doesn't belong to anyone (but it is very intimate with itself nontheless). I think we only fear the elimination of personhood because we confuse being conscious as an ego with being conscious. I see this as the confusion between the little ego and the higher self. The first one is a person which identifies itself with the body and memories, the second one identifies itself with its source. By doing so, it dissociate himself with every contingent realities. In my view this confusion is rooted in thinking that the little ego is actual more than a relative identity (like in a roleplay). If taken as reality it becomes the experiental ego; the sense of personal responsibility (not a courageous responsibility, but a sense of responsibility rooted in guilt and authority and dogma), of seperateness, of doership (I am doing something with my body and with my world). Actually the first one is also a sort of dissociation. It is the dissociation from actual experience and Self to an idea of experience and Self. Also the second one is association with the timeless and undisturbable peaceful reality of consciousness, and the freshness of present experience. Really there is just the source, and whatever else there is, is an expression of the source and not an other to the source. Bruno Marchal wrote: We somehow think that if we in the state of feeling to be a seperate individual cease to exist, we as conscious beings cease to exist, which is simply not true. I agree with you. I just call person the conscious being. Ah, OK. We just have to be careful here that we are extending the use of person to something which is not normally considered to be a person. But why not, we can extend the use of words, and in this case I can see the meaning in that. I think it is reasonable to consider consciousness an attribute of a person. Still, we should be aware that this person might indeed by nothing else than consciousness itself, I don't think this makes sense. I don't see what would be the meaning of consciousness is conscious. It makes consciousness into a person, and as I said, it seems to me to be an attribute of a person (concrete, abstract, real, fictive, whatever). and has nothing to do with something that is bound by body, mind, space, time, etc... I do agree with this. In the mechanist theory, we could say that consciousness is bounded by (arithmetical, analytical, psychological, theological, ...) truth. It is not really a bound because truth, even arithmetical truth, have no (effective) bounds. I know you don't like that theory very much despite this, sorry. And it might be useful to realize that actually we can't find the experiencer apart from the experience. They are one, even though we can make relative distinction (the experiencer is what is beyond *particular* experiences, but not experience as such, which would be the same as the experiencer). It might depend on the type of consciousness (normal, altered, etc.) Bruno Marchal wrote: It is just a big change of perspective, and we fear that as we fear the unknown in general. Yes. It is the same type of fear than the fear of freedom, and of knowledge. It is also the root of the fear of other people. There is also a fear that an understanding of the mystery would make the world into a very cold and inhuman place, but this comes from some reductionist idea on the mystery itself. Some people also fears that if the other cease to fear the Unknown, they will become non controllable (which is partially true). Some religion insists that we have to fear God, like some parents, and teachers, confuse fear and respect. Really I think that ultimately fear is not even fear of something in particular. It is (especially in humans) mostly the reaction to the mere possibility of treat, which comes with the feeling of there being an other (which might have bad intentions). We project that fear on everything, so we fear freedom, but also bondage, we fear knowledge, but also ignorance, we fear mystery, but also ordinariness, we fear the bad, but we also fear the good, we fear God, but we also fear the devil, we fear everything, but also nothingness. No wonder we are suffering if everything becomes a reason to be fearful. The only solution is to discover directly that there is *nothing* that ever could threaten what we really are, and so fear becomes just a tool to sense whether there is an actually imminent danger, not something that is constantly (whether obviously or subtly) determining the way we live our lifes. I think fear is a great ally in local survival. Basically there is the little fear (the fear of not being able to eat),
Re: The consciousness singularity
In a message dated 11/9/2011 7:27:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com writes: Probably the one that is most convincing is direct experience. Try meditation (my favorite is just doing nothing while being aware not to snooze or think or search for something to do,etc...), or, if you are a bit more daring and very cautious and well informed, psychdelic drugs (eg Salvia, Mushrooms, LSD, DMT) or suspend your belief that you are just a person for long enough (then the reality of unity tends to reveal itself spotaneously). If you are in the right mindset and maybe a bit lucky you can experience states in which it is directly evident that there is fundamentally no other, just this consciousness that you are. I see, Benjamin. But unless one takes these visions as a solipsism, I would ask, what does this bring to the table? We humans are primates, and for most of us primates, we are group animals. We need each other even though we irritate each other. At the end of the day, can one bring information, that would not, logically, be known, otherwise? For instance, that Uncle, Bruno, left a mathematical puzzle, he worked on, inscribed on page 1273, in the 1999 edition of ARS MATHEMATICA, in his old, study--something like this, let us say? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: QTI, Cul de sacs and differentiation
Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: We somehow think that if we in the state of feeling to be a seperate individual cease to exist, we as conscious beings cease to exist, which is simply not true. I agree with you. I just call person the conscious being. Ah, OK. We just have to be careful here that we are extending the use of person to something which is not normally considered to be a person. But why not, we can extend the use of words, and in this case I can see the meaning in that. I think it is reasonable to consider consciousness an attribute of a person. I don't think that consciousness is an attribute, expect relatively speaking (a person can be conscious or unconscious, but this is only a description of the content of consciousness and doesn't make it an attribute). Consciousness is just experiental, and as such not an attribute, thing, person, form... When we assign consciousness to be an attribute we are really speaking about consciousness not consciousness. Consciousness means that something can be assigned some experience (so you can or can't have consciousness), while consciousness means experiencing as such. Of course both usages are meaningful, but we shouldn't overlook absolute consciouness in favour of relative consciousnss. Absolute consciousness is what is present right here, right now, and can't be an attribute. It simply what is lived, and so can't be anything other than that. Bruno Marchal wrote: Still, we should be aware that this person might indeed by nothing else than consciousness itself, I don't think this makes sense. I don't see what would be the meaning of consciousness is conscious. It makes consciousness into a person, and as I said, it seems to me to be an attribute of a person (concrete, abstract, real, fictive, whatever). OK, it seems we are not speaking about the same consciousness. For me there could be nothing more obvious than that consciousness is conscious. To say the opposite is like denying that water is wet. Bruno Marchal wrote: And it might be useful to realize that actually we can't find the experiencer apart from the experience. They are one, even though we can make relative distinction (the experiencer is what is beyond *particular* experiences, but not experience as such, which would be the same as the experiencer). It might depend on the type of consciousness (normal, altered, etc.) I don't think so. It is just not possible to have an experiencer apart from the experience, since all that can be experienced is the experience. What sense does it make to posit something which can not be experienced as the fundament of experience? What is true is that we can pretend that there is an experiencer apart from experience, but then this is just the experience of pretending that there is an experiencer apart from experience (which is felt as inner division and confusion). Also, the experiencer is not a *particular* experience, but experiencing as such. Bruno Marchal wrote: You cannot remind someone that he is God and so has nothing to be afraid of, when he is going to see the dentist, or when he realizes that he can no more pay the taxes. That will not work and push him a step farther from understanding this, I think. You are right that most of the time just saying it won't do much (just like saying take it like a man won't do much). But sometimes the thought can help to give rise to some realization, so I feel it's quite useful to remind people of it (though of course it is better to be sensitive whether it is appropiate to do it). Bruno Marchal wrote: But you can suggest him to meditate, pray, take holiday, or smoke salvia, etc., and illustrate the result by your example, but words will not work. At least this can be explained by UMs and LUMs about UMs and LUMs. Right, the only use of words is if they help to give rise to direct experiental insight. Bruno Marchal wrote: Anything brought back from Heaven to Earth through normative assertions, will only deepen the illusion, prolongate the Samsara, enlarge the divine gap. Very true. Saying that someone is God doesn't mean: You have to be God or You have to acknowledge you are God. It is more meant to be an invitation to look deeper than personality into your experience, and consider that you might be much, much grander than you imagine yourself to be. Bruno Marchal wrote: Realizing that there is only one One, is an intrinsically personal step, that, eventually (in case it is true) no one can really miss. No worries, then, except for some local painful detours. I agree. Unfortunately believing I will realize it anyway, so I'll just continue with my unconscious behaviour will make the realization difficult (and if it happens it might be very rough), that's why it sometimes makes sense to put some light pressure on your (personal)self and others (the big pressure is given by life itself) so
Re: The consciousness singularity
Benjamin, we may identify terms (concepts? desepts?) in various ways. Singularity is one among them. AI-leaning minds like to make it an AI-term, (Technological S of Wiki) others may prefer different domains. I see 'intelligence' as a related - also hard-to-identify term, what I like to deduce from it's Latin origination: inter-lego i.e. the capability to 'read' BETWEEN (lines, that is) - to decipher a hidden meaning. Singularity, however, according to my ancient studies, points to something unrelated, not connected to other knowables, something standing ALONE. In this meaning NOTHING can be said about it, because ANYTHING would desstroy it's singularity by a connection (information?) to other data. This is not an attack against the Singularity establishments, it is a reflection. * You wrote: * Consciousness learns that it is not bound by time and space...* implying some unit that knows and acts. I boiled down the C-term into an action (process?): a RESPONSE to relations detectable maybe according to our capbilities to do so. I do not argue such definition, but it seems to me that the C-term is not a person/thing. I agree that it(?) is a-temporal, a-spatial. * I do not want to pick on your post: I appreciate it for knowledgeability and its consectquency. Just for the fun of it: *As we collectively realize...* is hard for me to swallow: I did not elevate to such mental democracy as would be necessary to a collective thinking. I believe (again: for myself, based on opinions I read and 'believed') a mini-solipsism about the world (existence, everything, nature, whatever) - our individual and un-matched product of input (information? observational explanations? learning?) deposited into our MIND (I have no idea what THAT may be) with our quite individual genetic build-up and absorbed past experiences as our mental TOOL, usually called: our brains(?). I call such knowledge perceived reality - not to be mistaken for THE REALITY of which we cannot even know if it indeed exists and if yes, in what format? We have our subjective intrinsic worldview and call it objective relity. So EVERY ONE OF US develops a personal 'realization' - not akin to any other one, yet including similarities we can emphasize to call a big part of our perceived reality identical and collectively realized. This happens in the sciences. * You put 'singularity' to domain-names, I prefer complexity and indeed I consider the 'everything' an infinite complexity with structural impenetrablity for us from here, the flimsy and limited models we formulate for our 'world' we know. I think it is based to some extent on Robert Rosen's ideas, adding upon ideas I borrowed from David Bohm. To your final question: I am not sure I am 'false' but I am sure I am ignorant (agnostic is more polite). And I feel comfortable in my agnostic I dunno. Even whatever I DO know is unsure and based on figments. Thanks for inducing some self-reflection John Mikes* * On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:36 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Akin to the idea of the technological singularity, a point in time at which technology becomes so powerful that all aspects of our experiences are fundamentally transformed (mainly due to intelligence enhancement), I propose a consciousness singularity: A point in time at which consciousness becomes so poweful, that all aspects of our experience are fundamentally transformed. Consciousness learns that it is not bound by time and space, and by particular bodies, and through becoming conscious of this, it learn to transcend the limitations of time and space and our bodies. We may learn to use telepathy, telekenesis, teleportation, and much more important, we may live in a state where reality and dream/imagination (partly) merge, thus allowing us to do incredible feats and experience in a way that is much more organic and natural and allows us to avoid unpleasant things which come with being an entirely physical being (physical illness, having to go to the toilet) and also makes it possible to explore possibilities in a reversible way (very important for evolution). Our world may also get *drastically* bigger, as we learn to access parallel universes and the dream space. Through this ability, consciousness learns much faster what it means to be conscious, and which possibilities arise out of that (and which possibilities are promising), making a runaway feedback loop of ever more deeply increasing consciousness. I think, though, that this feedback loop will run into ever more complex problems (what do with all these paranormal feats and the incredible sensory and emotional richness of enlightened existence?) so I don't expect that this speed up will be smooth, I rather expect that there will be a lot of experimentation, which will lead to big jumps in consciousness. You may ask: Why would any of this be possible? Simple, consciousness is unlimited, as it has no other to limit it. It
Re: Blindsight crushes absent qualia?
On Oct 28, 10:59 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/10/28 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Oct 28, 8:10 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Let's say that I watch a football game on TV and describe what I see. Is there now a direct connection between my larynx and a football field somewhere? What is this connection made of? Is this the kind of purely semantic-philosophical 'connection' you are talking about being what connects the retina and larynx? There is a causal connection between your larynx and the football field, since what happens on the football field affects your larynx. Any such connection is one that is only inferred. What happens on the football field only affects your larynx if you decide to talk about it. If it did not, you could not describe what happened on the football field. You cannot describe a football game if the light from it has not reached you, for example, since information cannot get to you faster than light. You could listen to it on the radio or read about it in the newspaper. You could invent an imaginary game and describe it in intricate detail. How does the necessity of neurons to respond to their environment go against determinism? Because living cells must confront unanticipated and novel circumstances in their environment which cannot be determined, nor can the responses be determined in advance. Inorganic molecules don't care if they survive or not so their interactions are more deterministic and passive. The environment can provide a rich variety of inputs to an entity but that does not mean that the entity must be programmed to respond differently to every input. Then that means that it isn't deterministic. It is. Every part of it is determined exactly from input + rules, You are assuming that input exists independently of the subject. I don't. A black and white TV has no capacity to ever show color broadcasts, so that the all of it's inputs can only be rendered in monochrome. A living organism, unlike a TV, can learn and adapt by itself. It can choose what to foster and what to avoid. It is not just input + rules against a dumb lookup table, it is volition and affinity. It is determined by the organism itself as well as the environment. what isn't (from the point of view of the model) is the environment, that has been said *from the beginning of the discussion*. We don't model the environment, and we don't have to, since what we want is connect the model to the environment, we don't want to model the universe *but a brain* (in the though experiment) One of the main purposes of the brain is to model the environment, just as the purpose of a TV set is to provide TV programs. Without factoring that in, any model of the brain is a waste of time. You cannot separate the brain from the universe which is created through that brain. For example, a neuron may see see a concentration of dopamine molecules that varies over a trillionfold range, but it has only two responses: depolarise its membrane if the concentration is above a certain threshold, don't if it isn't. The neuron does not know what the dopamine concentration is going to be ahead of time, but it looks at what it is and responds according to this algorithm. It has to be able to tell the difference between dopamine and every other molecule in the body first. It's outrageously simplistic to say that the neuron can only respond to this binary algorithm It's like saying that we can respond to our environment by living or dying. You are beating around the bush... You do straw man arguments all the times. A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based *on misrepresentation of an opponent's position* I think that your position is actually that simplistic though. I'm describing it in another case to expose that reductionism, but I'm not trying to misrepresent it. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Blindsight crushes absent qualia?
On 11/9/2011 8:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 28, 10:59 am, Quentin Anciauxallco...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/10/28 Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com On Oct 28, 8:10 am, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Let's say that I watch a football game on TV and describe what I see. Is there now a direct connection between my larynx and a football field somewhere? Strawman: He didn't say *direct* connection. What is this connection made of? Is this the kind of purely semantic-philosophical 'connection' you are talking about being what connects the retina and larynx? There is a causal connection between your larynx and the football field, since what happens on the football field affects your larynx. Any such connection is one that is only inferred. Strawman: No one suggested it was other than inferred. What else would it be? a mathematical theorem? Almost everything we know about the world is inferred. What happens on the football field only affects your larynx if you decide to talk about it. Strawman: The hypothetical was that you watch and football game and describe it. That there are other possibilities, like not describing it, is a red herring. If it did not, you could not describe what happened on the football field. You cannot describe a football game if the light from it has not reached you, for example, since information cannot get to you faster than light. You could listen to it on the radio or read about it in the newspaper. You could invent an imaginary game and describe it in intricate detail. How does the necessity of neurons to respond to their environment go against determinism? Because living cells must confront unanticipated and novel circumstances in their environment which cannot be determined, nor can the responses be determined in advance. Inorganic molecules don't care if they survive or not so their interactions are more deterministic and passive. The environment can provide a rich variety of inputs to an entity but that does not mean that the entity must be programmed to respond differently to every input. Then that means that it isn't deterministic. It is. Every part of it is determined exactly from input + rules, You are assuming that input exists independently of the subject. I don't. A black and white TV has no capacity to ever show color broadcasts, so that the all of it's inputs can only be rendered in monochrome. A living organism, unlike a TV, can learn and adapt by itself. It can choose what to foster and what to avoid. It is not just input + rules against a dumb lookup table, it is volition and affinity. It is determined by the organism itself as well as the environment. Strawman: He is not assuming that the possible inputs are not constrained by the subject. Only that the input can vary independently of the subject. It is not true that an organism can change from black and white to color vision. A computer or robot can also learn and adapt. Strawman: No one suggested a dumb lookup table. what isn't (from the point of view of the model) is the environment, that has been said *from the beginning of the discussion*. We don't model the environment, and we don't have to, since what we want is connect the model to the environment, we don't want to model the universe *but a brain* (in the though experiment) One of the main purposes of the brain is to model the environment, just as the purpose of a TV set is to provide TV programs. Without factoring that in, any model of the brain is a waste of time. You cannot separate the brain from the universe which is created through that brain. Strawman: No one has suggested modeling the brain in some universe other than this one. And it nonsense to talk of separating a brain from a universe created through that brain. For example, a neuron may see see a concentration of dopamine molecules that varies over a trillionfold range, but it has only two responses: depolarise its membrane if the concentration is above a certain threshold, don't if it isn't. The neuron does not know what the dopamine concentration is going to be ahead of time, but it looks at what it is and responds according to this algorithm. It has to be able to tell the difference between dopamine and every other molecule in the body first. It's outrageously simplistic to say that the neuron can only respond to this binary algorithm It's like saying that we can respond to our environment by living or dying. You are beating around the bush... You do straw man arguments all the times. A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based *on misrepresentation of an opponent's position* My advice is Give it up, Quentin. Brent I think that your position is actually that simplistic though. I'm describing it in another case to expose that reductionism, but I'm not trying to misrepresent it. Craig No virus found in
Sounds dodgy - anyone heard of this?
http://www.fabioghioni.net/blog/2011/09/15/scientists-successfully-implant-chip-that-controls-the-brain-allowing-thoughts-memory-and-behavior-to-be-transferred-from-one-brain-to-another/ Kim Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Blindsight crushes absent qualia?
This reminds me of something: this is the best test question I ever came up with: In the language of the Japanese quails, what was the gödel' statement that started the universe over again at 0 AD? explain your answer precisely in pure mathematical terms without appeal to the existence of mayan buddhists or other forms of the axiom of choice. Q.E.D.? On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1676 As stated above, blindsight is seen clinically as a contrast between a lack of declarative knowledge about a stimulus and a high rate of correct answers to questions about the stimulus (1). People suffering from blindsight claim to see nothing, and are therefore unable to reach spontaneously for stimuli, cannot decide whether or not stimuli are present, and do not know what objects look like. In this sense, they are blind. However, they are able to give correct answers when asked to decide between given alternatives (1). Studies done with subjects that exhibit blindsight have shown that they are able to guess reliably only about certain features of stimuli having to do with motion, location and direction of stimuli. They are also able to discriminate simple forms, and can shape their hands in a way appropriate to grasping the object when asked to try. Some may show color discrimination as well (2). Subjects also show visual capacities, including reflexes (e.g. the pupil reacts to changes in light), implicit reactions and voluntary responses (3). Sounds like absent qualia to me. people suffering from blindsight claim to see nothing So Stathis, Jason, Bruno... how do you know that your computer brain doesn't have blindsight if it's eyes seem to work? Is it lying when it says it can't see, or is it seeing without being able to look at what it is seeing? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Blindsight crushes absent qualia?
Apologies, meant to capitalize Gödel and explain. Anal-retentive to post just to fix that, I know. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Felix Hoenikker fhoenikk...@gmail.com wrote: This reminds me of something: this is the best test question I ever came up with: In the language of the Japanese quails, what was the gödel' statement that started the universe over again at 0 AD? explain your answer precisely in pure mathematical terms without appeal to the existence of mayan buddhists or other forms of the axiom of choice. Q.E.D.? On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1676 As stated above, blindsight is seen clinically as a contrast between a lack of declarative knowledge about a stimulus and a high rate of correct answers to questions about the stimulus (1). People suffering from blindsight claim to see nothing, and are therefore unable to reach spontaneously for stimuli, cannot decide whether or not stimuli are present, and do not know what objects look like. In this sense, they are blind. However, they are able to give correct answers when asked to decide between given alternatives (1). Studies done with subjects that exhibit blindsight have shown that they are able to guess reliably only about certain features of stimuli having to do with motion, location and direction of stimuli. They are also able to discriminate simple forms, and can shape their hands in a way appropriate to grasping the object when asked to try. Some may show color discrimination as well (2). Subjects also show visual capacities, including reflexes (e.g. the pupil reacts to changes in light), implicit reactions and voluntary responses (3). Sounds like absent qualia to me. people suffering from blindsight claim to see nothing So Stathis, Jason, Bruno... how do you know that your computer brain doesn't have blindsight if it's eyes seem to work? Is it lying when it says it can't see, or is it seeing without being able to look at what it is seeing? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sounds dodgy - anyone heard of this?
It's just a big joke, obviously. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: http://www.fabioghioni.net/blog/2011/09/15/scientists-successfully-implant-chip-that-controls-the-brain-allowing-thoughts-memory-and-behavior-to-be-transferred-from-one-brain-to-another/ Kim Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Blindsight crushes absent qualia?
This is a joke. Quantumly the quines computed the qualia of the quails and so on until... That's why we have qualia before everything else! On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1676 As stated above, blindsight is seen clinically as a contrast between a lack of declarative knowledge about a stimulus and a high rate of correct answers to questions about the stimulus (1). People suffering from blindsight claim to see nothing, and are therefore unable to reach spontaneously for stimuli, cannot decide whether or not stimuli are present, and do not know what objects look like. In this sense, they are blind. However, they are able to give correct answers when asked to decide between given alternatives (1). Studies done with subjects that exhibit blindsight have shown that they are able to guess reliably only about certain features of stimuli having to do with motion, location and direction of stimuli. They are also able to discriminate simple forms, and can shape their hands in a way appropriate to grasping the object when asked to try. Some may show color discrimination as well (2). Subjects also show visual capacities, including reflexes (e.g. the pupil reacts to changes in light), implicit reactions and voluntary responses (3). Sounds like absent qualia to me. people suffering from blindsight claim to see nothing So Stathis, Jason, Bruno... how do you know that your computer brain doesn't have blindsight if it's eyes seem to work? Is it lying when it says it can't see, or is it seeing without being able to look at what it is seeing? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Sounds dodgy - anyone heard of this?
Again and again, the same joke. Sorry about it, this time we got it really good. Thank you. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Felix Hoenikker fhoenikk...@gmail.com wrote: It's just a big joke, obviously. On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: http://www.fabioghioni.net/blog/2011/09/15/scientists-successfully-implant-chip-that-controls-the-brain-allowing-thoughts-memory-and-behavior-to-be-transferred-from-one-brain-to-another/ Kim Jones -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
