Re: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennettrightafter all ?
Hi Bruno Marchal Reception requires consciousness, which a thermostat does not have. perception /per穋ep穞ion/ (per-sep磗hun) the conscious mental registration of a sensory stimulus.percep磘ive per穋ep穞ion (pr-spshn) n. 1. The process, act, or faculty of perceiving. 2. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory. perception [p?rsep'sh?n] Etymology: L, percipere, to perceive 1 the conscious recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli that serve as a basis for understanding, learning, and knowing or for motivating a particular action or reaction. 2 the result or product of the act of perceiving. Kinds of perception include depth perception, extrasensory perception, facial perception, and stereognostic perception. perceptive, perceptual, adj. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/26/2012 "The one thing a woman looks for in a man is to be needed." - "Ethan Frome", by Edith Wharton - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-26, 06:41:02 Subject: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennettrightafter all ? On 26 Dec 2012, at 12:14, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Dec 2012, at 17:24, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Consciousness does not emerge from anything. It is simply the act of perception. Roger, when I say "consciousness" what I mean is not the act of perception. A thermostat can perceive the environment and act on it. Conversely, I can be put in an isolation tank and still remain conscious. OK. Well with comp "my consciousness exists" is a 1) true proposition, 2) unprovable, and 3) which supervenes on an infinity of arithmetical relations. So comp doesn't explain what consciousness is, but it tells us why that is unknowable? Eventually this depends on what you mean by "explanation". Computationalism explains why consciousness is true and knowable, actually, but not justifiable, once we can agree on some semi-axiom for consciousness: like it is true for each of us, and invariant for the comp-digital-brain substitution. It explains the universal feeling that we cannot convince any other that we are conscious, and the logic of qualia (S4Grz1, X1*) should be able to explain why consciousness is related to perception field, sensation, etc. Then it explains how the matter illusion organize itself into a quantum logic of observable, and this in a testable way. You can get more if you are willing to accept quasi definition of consciousness, like consciousness = a believe in a reality, or a believe in self-consistency, under the form of an unconscious betting procedure. Waking up in the morning is about equivalent with betting that I will drink some coffee soon, for example. I am betting that there is a reality in which I can consistently achieve that goal. It is akin to Helmholtz theory of perception: unconscious inductive inference. Bruno I think it is not too much wrong to say that it emerges, at least in some sense, from arithmetic. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/24/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-22, 07:11:19 Subject: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett rightafter all ? Hi Stephen, On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/20/2012 6:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, I accidentally sent the previous email before I was done, sorry. Please consider this more complete version of the intended whole: Hi Telmo, Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable, probably were constructed simply by monitoring sensory MRI signals just as one might from a video camera, and displaying them as a raster pattern, artificially converting the time voltage signal into a timespace signal. Ok. We're not even sure what we're looking at. The brain is a gigantic^n kludge. We are seeing stuff happening in the visual cortex that can be meaningfully mapped to images. This stuff correlates with what the subject is seeing, but in a weird way. Hi Telmo, ? As I was watching the brain scan image video I noticed a lot of weird text like stuff mixed into the image. What was that? Artifacts? I think so. I believe they are caused by the new images being constructed from samples of the original images shown to the subjects. So we can speculate that we're watching, for example, a pattern matching process taking place. The most spectacular thing for me is when we see the?nticipation?f the ink blot explosion. That's something you wouldn't get from a video camera (but you could get from a computer running a sophisticated AI). Perception of t
Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennettrightafter all ?
On 26 Dec 2012, at 15:58, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal OK, I was over-reacting. Really? So you are, like Plotinus, open to a form of Pythagorism? That's nice, because this is what makes comp into a neutral monist philosophy. Neither consciousness nor matter is taken as fundamental. It is their coupling which emerges from number relations. And my point is that it is testable, and thanks to Gödel in computer science and Everett in physics, it fits well up to now. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/26/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-26, 05:14:59 Subject: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennettrightafter all ? On 24 Dec 2012, at 17:24, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Consciousness does not emerge from anything. It is simply the act of perception. Well with comp "my consciousness exists" is a 1) true proposition, 2) unprovable, and 3) which supervenes on an infinity of arithmetical relations. I think it is not too much wrong to say that it emerges, at least in some sense, from arithmetic. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/24/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-22, 07:11:19 Subject: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett rightafter all ? Hi Stephen, On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Stephen P. King > wrote: On 12/20/2012 6:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, I accidentally sent the previous email before I was done, sorry. Please consider this more complete version of the intended whole: Hi Telmo, Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable, probably were constructed simply by monitoring sensory MRI signals just as one might from a video camera, and displaying them as a raster pattern, artificially converting the time voltage signal into a timespace signal. Ok. We're not even sure what we're looking at. The brain is a gigantic^n kludge. We are seeing stuff happening in the visual cortex that can be meaningfully mapped to images. This stuff correlates with what the subject is seeing, but in a weird way. Hi Telmo, 牋 As I was watching the brain scan image video I noticed a lot of weird text like stuff mixed into the image. What was that? Artifacts? I think so. I believe they are caused by the new images being constructed from samples of the original images shown to the subjects. So we can speculate that we're watching, for example, a pattern matching process taking place. The most spectacular thing for me is when we see the燼nticipation爋f the ink blot explosion. That's something you wouldn't get from a video camera (but you could get from a computer running a sophisticated AI). Perception of the moving image from a given perspective by the brain might take place in the following way : 1)燜IRSTNESS (The eye). The initial operation in processing the raw optical signal is reception of the sensory signal. This is necessarily done by a monad (you or me), because only monads see the world from a given perspective. In my opinion you are conflating intelligence and consciousness. I see two separate issues: 1) The human being as an agent senses things, assigns symbols to them, compares them with his memories and so on. The brain tries to anticipate all possible futures and then choses actions that are more likely to lead to a future state that it prefers. This preference can be ultimately reduced to pain avoidance / pleasure seeking. In my view, the fundamental pain and pleasure signals have to be encoded some how in our DNA, and were selected to optimise our chances of reproduction. All this is 3p and can be emulated by a digital computer. Some of it already is. 2) There is a "me" here observing the universe from my perspective. I am me and not you. There's a consciousness inside my body, attached to my mind (or is it my mind)? I suspect there's one inside other people too, but I cannot be sure. This is a 1p phenomena and outside the realm of science. It cannot be explained by MRI machines and clever algorithms - although many neuroscientists fail to realise it. This mystery is essentially what makes me an agnostic more than an atheist. If there is a god, I suspect he's me (and you). In a sense. You can have 1 without 2, the famous zombie. 牋 I disagree! The very act of fulfilling the requirements of 1 "connects it to" the #2 version of itself. The isomorphism between 1 and 2 is just a fact of how logical algebras can be represented as spaces (sets + relations) and vice versa! What gets glossed over is that Human beings (and a
Re: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennettrightafter all ?
Hi Bruno Marchal OK, I was over-reacting. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/26/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-26, 05:14:59 Subject: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennettrightafter all ? On 24 Dec 2012, at 17:24, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Consciousness does not emerge from anything. It is simply the act of perception. Well with comp "my consciousness exists" is a 1) true proposition, 2) unprovable, and 3) which supervenes on an infinity of arithmetical relations. I think it is not too much wrong to say that it emerges, at least in some sense, from arithmetic. Bruno [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 12/24/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-12-22, 07:11:19 Subject: Re: How visual images are produced in the brain. Was Dennett rightafter all ? Hi Stephen, On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/20/2012 6:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Roger, I accidentally sent the previous email before I was done, sorry. Please consider this more complete version of the intended whole: Hi Telmo, Those images in the videoclips, while still remarkable, probably were constructed simply by monitoring sensory MRI signals just as one might from a video camera, and displaying them as a raster pattern, artificially converting the time voltage signal into a timespace signal. Ok. We're not even sure what we're looking at. The brain is a gigantic^n kludge. We are seeing stuff happening in the visual cortex that can be meaningfully mapped to images. This stuff correlates with what the subject is seeing, but in a weird way. Hi Telmo, ? As I was watching the brain scan image video I noticed a lot of weird text like stuff mixed into the image. What was that? Artifacts? I think so. I believe they are caused by the new images being constructed from samples of the original images shown to the subjects. So we can speculate that we're watching, for example, a pattern matching process taking place. The most spectacular thing for me is when we see the?nticipation?f the ink blot explosion. That's something you wouldn't get from a video camera (but you could get from a computer running a sophisticated AI). Perception of the moving image from a given perspective by the brain might take place in the following way : 1)?IRSTNESS (The eye). The initial operation in processing the raw optical signal is reception of the sensory signal. This is necessarily done by a monad (you or me), because only monads see the world from a given perspective. In my opinion you are conflating intelligence and consciousness. I see two separate issues: 1) The human being as an agent senses things, assigns symbols to them, compares them with his memories and so on. The brain tries to anticipate all possible futures and then choses actions that are more likely to lead to a future state that it prefers. This preference can be ultimately reduced to pain avoidance / pleasure seeking. In my view, the fundamental pain and pleasure signals have to be encoded some how in our DNA, and were selected to optimise our chances of reproduction. All this is 3p and can be emulated by a digital computer. Some of it already is. 2) There is a "me" here observing the universe from my perspective. I am me and not you. There's a consciousness inside my body, attached to my mind (or is it my mind)? I suspect there's one inside other people too, but I cannot be sure. This is a 1p phenomena and outside the realm of science. It cannot be explained by MRI machines and clever algorithms - although many neuroscientists fail to realise it. This mystery is essentially what makes me an agnostic more than an atheist. If there is a god, I suspect he's me (and you). In a sense. You can have 1 without 2, the famous zombie. ? I disagree! The very act of fulfilling the requirements of 1 "connects it to" the #2 version of itself. The isomorphism between 1 and 2 is just a fact of how logical algebras can be represented as spaces (sets + relations) and vice versa! What gets glossed over is that Human beings (and any other physical system that has the potential to implement a universal machine) are not static structures. The logical algebra that represents them cannot be static either, it has to evolve as well. ? Think of how you would model a neural network X as it learns new patterns The propositions of your logical algebra for X would have to be updated as the learning progresses, no? Ok, I agree that humans beings and neural networks are not static structures. This is t
