Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-10 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/10/2019 10:47 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 04:24:40PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:


On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000
years ago (Julian Jaynes).

The date more usually given is 40,000 years bp. There was an explosion
of advanced culture that occurred at that time. Steven Pinker promotes
this idea ("the brain's big bang") IIRC.


As I recall, Jaynes put it at the beginning of trade between tribes.  
Because when you're bargaining you have to keep your thoughts to 
yourself and learn to lie.


Brent

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-10 Thread Russell Standish
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 04:24:40PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
> > 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000
> > years ago (Julian Jaynes).

The date more usually given is 40,000 years bp. There was an explosion
of advanced culture that occurred at that time. Steven Pinker promotes
this idea ("the brain's big bang") IIRC.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Coherent states of a superposition

2019-02-10 Thread agrayson2000


On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 8:43:59 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 4, 2019 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3 Feb 2019, at 00:03, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 2:59:30 PM UTC-7, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 1:40:29 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 1 Feb 2019, at 21:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 5:55:30 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 31 Jan 2019, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 6:47:12 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 31 Jan 2019, at 01:28, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 2:38:58 PM UTC-7, agrays...@
>> gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 5:16:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
>>> wrote:


 On 30 Jan 2019, at 02:59, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 4:37:34 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Jan 2019, at 22:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 7:33:05 AM UTC-7, Bruno Marchal 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Jan 2019, at 09:29, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 11:54:43 AM UTC, agrays...@
>> gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:56:17 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal 
>>> wrote:


 On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:50, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 12:09:58 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:
>
>
> On 17 Jan 2019, at 14:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 12:36:07 PM UTC, Bruno 
> Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 Jan 2019, at 09:33, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 3:58:48 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/16/2019 7:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 6:12:43 AM UTC, Brent wrote:



 On 1/13/2019 9:51 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 This means, to me, that the arbitrary phase angles have 
 absolutely no effect on the resultant interference pattern 
 which is 
 observed. But isn't this what the phase angles are supposed to 
 effect? AG


 The screen pattern is determined by *relative phase angles 
 for the different paths that reach the same point on the 
 screen*.  
 The relative angles only depend on different path lengths, so 
 the overall 
 phase angle is irrelevant.

 Brent

>>>
>>>
>>> *Sure, except there areTWO forms of phase interference in 
>>> Wave Mechanics; the one you refer to above, and another 
>>> discussed in the 
>>> Stackexchange links I previously posted. In the latter case, 
>>> the wf is 
>>> expressed as a superposition, say of two states, where we 
>>> consider two 
>>> cases; a multiplicative complex phase shift is included prior 
>>> to the sum, 
>>> and different complex phase shifts multiplying each component, 
>>> all of the 
>>> form e^i (theta). Easy to show that interference exists in the 
>>> latter case, 
>>> but not the former. Now suppose we take the inner product of 
>>> the wf with 
>>> the ith eigenstate of the superposition, in order to calculate 
>>> the 
>>> probability of measuring the eigenvalue of the ith eigenstate, 
>>> applying one 
>>> of the postulates of QM, keeping in mind that each eigenstate 
>>> is multiplied 
>>> by a DIFFERENT complex phase shift.  If we further assume the 
>>> eigenstates 
>>> are mutually orthogonal, the probability of measuring each 
>>> eigenvalue does 
>>> NOT depend on the different phase shifts. What 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-10 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/10/2019 4:42 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
I do not hold to the idea of panpsychism and the existence of God is 
something that can be dismissed with no loss of understanding of 
reality. It is harder to know about consciousness in living things. I 
hesitate in some ways to think that prokaryotes are conscious in the 
way we are, just greatly diminished. My dogs are conscious beings I am 
pretty convinced, but I think their mental landscape is smaller than 
that of a human. So somewhere in that spectrum consciousness may 
emerge. Plants may have some form of consciousness, and they do signal 
and appear to have some level of awareness of their surroundings.


I find the case of octopuses to be especially interesting because they are:

 (1) Quite smart.  They engage in play.  They recognize individual 
humans. They are curious.


(2) They are very different.  An octopus has about 500 million neurons, 
compared to 700 million in your dog.  But in the octopus 2/3 of the 
neurons are in the arms, which show a lot autonomous responses even when 
cut off.


(3) They are not social (although cuttlefish are).  They are short 
lived.  After a female matures she mates and lays a clutch of eggs which 
she then guards without eating until they hatch, and then she dies.


They evolved about 100 mya, probably in a kind of predator/prey arms 
race.  They obviously have a sense of spatial relations similar to 
ours.  They don't have color vision, but they manage to do color camouflage.


Brent

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-10 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I do not hold to the idea of panpsychism and the existence of God is 
something that can be dismissed with no loss of understanding of reality. 
It is harder to know about consciousness in living things. I hesitate in 
some ways to think that prokaryotes are conscious in the way we are, just 
greatly diminished. My dogs are conscious beings I am pretty convinced, but 
I think their mental landscape is smaller than that of a human. So 
somewhere in that spectrum consciousness may emerge. Plants may have some 
form of consciousness, and they do signal and appear to have some level of 
awareness of their surroundings. 

Consciousness is in a way a sort of bootstrap process where a being 
generates an internal representation of themselves and themselves in this 
world. It is then a sort of virtual process, and one where there being 
encodes a representation of themselves within themselves. I think it has 
some form of truncated self-reference such as Gödel's theorem. It might 
serve to give an estimate on say Chaitin's halting probability so the being 
is able to take a risk. This may be extended in part to all sort of complex 
self-adaptive systems, in particular biological organisms. 

LC

On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 5:34:01 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> Two recent books:
>
> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
> Arthur S. Reber
> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
>
> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
> Paul Thagard
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
>
> via
> When Did Consciousness Begin?
> Paul Thagard
>
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>
> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>
> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
>
> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
> ago. 
>
> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
> ago (Reber). 
>
> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
> ago. 
>
> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>
> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
> around 560 million years ago. 
>
> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
> much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
> years ago. [Thagard]
>
> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
>
> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
> years ago (Julian Jaynes).  
>
> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 
>
> - pt
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-10 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



Two recent books:

The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
Arthur S. Reber
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ

Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
Paul Thagard
https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ

via
When Did Consciousness Begin?
Paul Thagard
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin

Thagard's 10 hypotheses:

1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.

2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion 
years ago.


3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion 
years ago (Reber).


4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million 
years ago.


5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
neurons, around 580 million years ago.


6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains 
with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons 
(zebrafish) around 560 million years ago.


7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals 
developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 
200 million years ago. [Thagard]


8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years 
ago.


9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
years ago (Julian Jaynes).


10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
(behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).


A good exposition, but I wish he had taken some time to consider what is 
consciousness.  I think he recognizes that there are different kinds and 
levels of consciousness, but he doesn't make it clear what they are; how 
are they related to memory and communication and planning.  It seems 
clear to me that different kinds and levels of consciousness appeared at 
different times.


Brent

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-10 Thread Philip Thrift


Two recent books:

The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
Arthur S. Reber
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ

Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
Paul Thagard
https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ

via
When Did Consciousness Begin?
Paul Thagard
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin

Thagard's 10 hypotheses:

1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.

2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
ago. 

3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
ago (Reber). 

4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
ago. 

5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
neurons, around 580 million years ago. 

6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
around 560 million years ago. 

7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
years ago. [Thagard]

8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.

9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
years ago (Julian Jaynes).  

10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
(behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 

- pt

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The semantic view of theories and higher-order languages

2019-02-10 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 3 Feb 2019, at 04:35, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 04:06:49PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> But when used in physics, this type of inductive inference assume not only a
>> reality, but a “brain-mind” identity, which is not consistent with the
>> mechanist hypothesis.
>> 
> 
> How so? All it assumes is that there is a relationship (correlation if
> you will) between elements of phenomenology. If something is
> phenomenally true (observed) , then some other thing is likely to be
> phenomenally true.
> 
> It is up to the learning algorithm to figure out what the relationships are.
> 
> None of this assumes reality, nor any sort of mind-brain identity.


Imagine that you let a ball falling. To compute the probability that it will 
hit the ground, people will usually assume that there is a ground, that there 
is ball, and that the ball obeys some law, so as to make the 
computation/prediction.
They will also assume that their mind remains attached to the body doing those 
computation/prediction.
Yet, with mechanism, this does not work, as there is no ball, no ground, and no 
identification possible between your first person possible experience and some 
world in which you would be there. The only way is to take into account all 
computations going through your mental state, as this one is attached to the 
infinitely many computations doing this in arithmetic, and the statistics will 
be given roughly by the number of computation which realise the experience of 
seing the ball falling on the grounds, “divided” by all computation leading to 
the initial state and where the ball does or not fall on the ground. 
Mathematically, it is more subtle, because the accessible states of the machine 
is structured by the logic of self-reference (probability one is given by the 
mode with “<>t” in the provability variant). That includes the computations 
involving white rabbits, speed quicker than light, etc. (a bit like the virtual 
particles on quantum filed theory, which can also “violate” the physical laws, 
like physical laws can violate in dreams, and thus in the apparence related to 
some computations. 
A learning algorithm also supposed some stable stream of inputs, which with 
mechanism have to be justified from that statistics on *all* computations.  It 
is not a problem in applied AI, but it is the problem we have to solve (and 
that the Löbian machine do solve in arithmetic) when trying to get a coherent 
theory of the relation between mind and matter appearance.
Just to involve a material universe, or a god, does not work, as it would make 
such God or Matter into a magical thing capable of making some computations 
more “real” than other, without changing anything in the computation, and that 
violates the “yes doctor”, as it call for something not Turing emulable (be it 
a substantial Matter or a God).

Bruno





> 
> Cheers
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The semantic view of theories and higher-order languages

2019-02-10 Thread Russell Standish
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 04:06:49PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> But when used in physics, this type of inductive inference assume not only a
> reality, but a “brain-mind” identity, which is not consistent with the
> mechanist hypothesis.
> 

How so? All it assumes is that there is a relationship (correlation if
you will) between elements of phenomenology. If something is
phenomenally true (observed) , then some other thing is likely to be
phenomenally true.

It is up to the learning algorithm to figure out what the relationships are.

None of this assumes reality, nor any sort of mind-brain identity.

Cheers
-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.