the unitary mind vs the modular brain
Hi Bruno Marchal As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind: brain objective and modular mind subjective and unitary The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced. I believe that the only subjective and unitary item in the universe is the monad. It is the eye of the universe, although for us we can only perceive indirectly. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/12/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11, 09:52:29 Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated! On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote: It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the total. This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts, you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact the very idea of non-consciousness might be a construct of consciousness, and be realized by partial amnesia. I dunno. For the same reason I have stopped to believe that we can be unconscious during sleep. I think that we can only be amnesic-of-'previous-consciousness'. With due respect to your salvia experiences, which I dare not follow, I'm still more presuaded by the likes of Daniel Dennett, and his pandemonia theory of the mind. In that idea, many subconscious process, working disparately, solve different aspects of the problems at hand, or provide different courses of action. The purpose of consciousness is to select from among the course of action presented by the pandemonium of subconscious processes - admittedly consciousness per se may not be necessary for this role - any unifying (aka reductive) process may be sufficient. The reason I like this, is that it echoes an essentially Darwinian process of random variation that is selected upon. Dawinian evolution is the key to any form of creative process. The brain parts I was talking about must be enough big and integrated, like an half hemisphere, or the limbic system, etc. What I said should not contradict Daniel Dennett pandemonia or Fodor modularity theory, which are very natural in a computationalist perspective. Only sufficiently big part of the brain can have their own consciousness as dissociation suggests, but also other experience, like splitting the brain, or the removing of half brain operation(*) suggest. The sleeping or paralysis of the corpus callosum can also leads to a splitting consciousness, and people can awake in the middle of doing two dreams at once. This consciousness multiplication does echoed Darwinian evolution as well, I think. Yet, I am not sure that Darwin evolution is a key to creativity. It might be a key to the apparition of creativity on earth, but creativity is a direct consequence of Turing universality. Emil Post called creative his set theoretical notion of universal probably for that reason: the fact that universal machine can somehow contradict any theories done about them, and transform itself transfinitely often. Or look at the Mandelbrot set. The formal description is very simple (less than 1K), yet its deployment is very rich and grandiose. It might be creative in Post sense, and most natural form, including biological, seem to appear in it. So very simple iteration can lead to creative process, and this echoes the fact that consciousness and creativity might appear more early than we usually thought. I was of course *not* saying that all parts of the brain are conscious, to be clear, only big one and structurally connected. Bruno (*) See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSu9HGnlMV0 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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: the unitary mind vs the modular brain
On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind: brain objective and modular mind subjective and unitary OK. You can even say: brain/body: objective and doubtable soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced. Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, but the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong assumption like mechanism. I believe that the only subjective and unitary item in the universe is the monad. It is the eye of the universe, although for us we can only perceive indirectly. I am open to this. The monad would be the center of the wheel, or the fixed point of the doubting consciousness. The machines already agree with you on this : ) (to prove this you need to accept the most classical axiomatic (modal) definition of belief, knowledge, etc.) See my paper here for an introduction to the theology of the ideally correct machine: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/12/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11, 09:52:29 Subject: Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated! On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote: It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the total. This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts, you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact the very idea of non-consciousness might be a construct of consciousness, and be realized by partial amnesia. I dunno. For the same reason I have stopped to believe that we can be unconscious during sleep. I think that we can only be amnesic-of-'previous-consciousness'. With due respect to your salvia experiences, which I dare not follow, I'm still more presuaded by the likes of Daniel Dennett, and his pandemonia theory of the mind. In that idea, many subconscious process, working disparately, solve different aspects of the problems at hand, or provide different courses of action. The purpose of consciousness is to select from among the course of action presented by the pandemonium of subconscious processes - admittedly consciousness per se may not be necessary for this role - any unifying (aka reductive) process may be sufficient. The reason I like this, is that it echoes an essentially Darwinian process of random variation that is selected upon. Dawinian evolution is the key to any form of creative process. The brain parts I was talking about must be enough big and integrated, like an half hemisphere, or the limbic system, etc. What I said should not contradict Daniel Dennett pandemonia or Fodor modularity theory, which are very natural in a computationalist perspective. Only sufficiently big part of the brain can have their own consciousness as dissociation suggests, but also other experience, like splitting the brain, or the removing of half brain operation(*) suggest. The sleeping or paralysis of the corpus callosum can also leads to a splitting consciousness, and people can awake in the middle of doing two dreams at once. This consciousness multiplication does echoed Darwinian evolution as well, I think. Yet, I am not sure that Darwin evolution is a key to creativity. It might be a key to the apparition of creativity on earth, but creativity is a direct consequence of Turing universality. Emil Post called creative his set theoretical notion of universal probably for that reason: the fact that universal machine can somehow contradict any theories done about them, and transform itself transfinitely often. Or look at the Mandelbrot set. The formal description is very simple (less than 1K), yet its deployment is very rich and grandiose. It might be creative in Post sense, and most natural form, including biological, seem to appear in it. So very simple iteration can lead to creative process, and this echoes the fact that consciousness and creativity might appear more early than we usually thought. I was of course *not* saying that all parts of the brain are conscious, to be clear, only big one and structurally connected. Bruno (*) See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSu9HGnlMV0 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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
Re: the unitary mind vs the modular brain
On 8/12/2012 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind: brain objective and modular mind subjective and unitary OK. You can even say: brain/body: objective and doubtable soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced. Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, but the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong assumption like mechanism. I believe that the only subjective and unitary item in the universe is the monad. It is the eye of the universe, although for us we can only perceive indirectly. I am open to this. The monad would be the center of the wheel, or the fixed point of the doubting consciousness. By Leibniz' definition, a monad would be the entire consciousness, the ego of i or self of the monad would be the fixed point. The machines already agree with you on this : ) (to prove this you need to accept the most classical axiomatic (modal) definition of belief, knowledge, etc.) See my paper here for an introduction to the theology of the ideally correct machine: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/12/2012 - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-11, 09:52:29 *Subject:* Re: Libet's experimental result re-evaluated! On 10 Aug 2012, at 14:04, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Aug 2012, at 00:23, Russell Standish wrote: It is plain to me that thoughts can be either conscious or unconscious, and the conscious component is a strict minority of the total. This is not obvious for me, and I have to say that it is a point which is put in doubt by the salvia divinorum reports (including mine). When you dissociate the brain in parts, perhaps many parts, you realise that they might all be conscious. In fact the very idea of non-consciousness might be a construct of consciousness, and be realized by partial amnesia. I dunno. For the same reason I have stopped to believe that we can be unconscious during sleep. I think that we can only be amnesic-of-'previous-consciousness'. With due respect to your salvia experiences, which I dare not follow, I'm still more presuaded by the likes of Daniel Dennett, and his pandemonia theory of the mind. In that idea, many subconscious process, working disparately, solve different aspects of the problems at hand, or provide different courses of action. The purpose of consciousness is to select from among the course of action presented by the pandemonium of subconscious processes - admittedly consciousness per se may not be necessary for this role - any unifying (aka reductive) process may be sufficient. The reason I like this, is that it echoes an essentially Darwinian process of random variation that is selected upon. Dawinian evolution is the key to any form of creative process. The brain parts I was talking about must be enough big and integrated, like an half hemisphere, or the limbic system, etc. What I said should not contradict Daniel Dennett pandemonia or Fodor modularity theory, which are very natural in a computationalist perspective. Only sufficiently big part of the brain can have their own consciousness as dissociation suggests, but also other experience, like splitting the brain, or the removing of half brain operation(*) suggest. The sleeping or paralysis of the corpus callosum can also leads to a splitting consciousness, and people can awake in the middle of doing two dreams at once. This consciousness multiplication does echoed Darwinian evolution as well, I think. Yet, I am not sure that Darwin evolution is a key to creativity. It might be a key to the apparition of creativity on earth, but creativity is a direct consequence of Turing universality. Emil Post called creative his set theoretical notion of universal probably for that reason: the fact that universal machine can somehow contradict any theories done about them, and transform itself transfinitely often. Or look at the Mandelbrot set. The formal description is very simple (less than 1K), yet its deployment is very rich and grandiose. It might be creative in Post sense, and most natural form, including biological, seem to appear in it. So very
Re: the unitary mind vs the modular brain errata
On 8/12/2012 2:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/12/2012 10:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Aug 2012, at 14:28, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal As before, there is the natural, undeniable dualism between brain and mind: brain objective and modular mind subjective and unitary OK. You can even say: brain/body: objective and doubtable soul/consciousness: subjective and undoubtable The brain can be discussed, the mind can only be experienced. Exactly. I would say the soul, as the mind can be discussed in theories, but the soul is much more complex. We can discuss it through strong assumption like mechanism. I believe that the only subjective and unitary item in the universe is the monad. It is the eye of the universe, although for us we can only perceive indirectly. I am open to this. The monad would be the center of the wheel, or the fixed point of the doubting consciousness. By Leibniz' definition, a monad would be the entire consciousness, the ego of i or self of the monad would be the fixed point. What I wrote was incorrect. The monad is defined by the closure on the topological space that is dual to the Boolean algebra representing the consciousness. The I is the fixed point that is defined in this closure. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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.
