Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer
Right. Monads are below the quantum level and you have argued, correctly I think, that not even quantum waves are physical. However, monads may have a complex structure as you say below and string theory derives what that complex structure looks like including the super EM flux that may be what strings are made of. On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > > For the umpteenth time, monads are not physical, they cannot be some kind of > product of EM waves. > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/11/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Richard Ruquist > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-11, 09:56:26 > Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from > brainsviaacomputer > > > Yes, Roger. > > They come with 500 topo holes thru which super EM flux winds. > Given perhaps 6 quantum states for the flux, > there are 6^500 different types of monads. > Richard > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Craig Weinberg >> >> Due to their universal perceptions, monads should be extremely complex. >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 1/11/2013 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Craig Weinberg >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2013-01-11, 08:07:47 >> Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains >> viaacomputer >> >> >> >> >> On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:27:54 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> On 1/10/2013 9:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:33:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> On 1/10/2013 4:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and >> use whatever definitions of "intelligent" and "complex" you want). >> >> >> >> A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under >> my definition. >> >> But much less intelligent. So in effect you think there is a degree of >> intelligence in everything, just like you believe there's a degree of >> consciousness in everything. And the degree of intelligence correlates with >> the degree of complexity ...but you don't think the same about consciousness? >> >> Brent >> >> >> I was thinking today that a decent way of defining intelligence is just 'The >> ability to know "what's going on"'. >> >> This makes it clear that intelligence refers to the degree of sophistication >> of awareness, not just complexity of function or structure. This is why a >> computer which has complex function and structure has no authentic >> intelligence and has no idea 'what's going on'. Intelligence however has >> everything to do with sensitivity, integration, and mobilization of >> awareness as an asset, i.e. to be directed for personal gain or shared >> enjoyment, progress, etc. Knowing what's going on implicitly means caring >> what goes on, which also supervenes on biological quality investment in >> experience. >> >> >> Which is why I think an intelligent machine must be one that acts in its >> environment. Simply 'being aware' or 'knowing' are meaningless without the >> ability and motives to act on them. >> >> >> Sense and motive are inseparable ontologically, although they can be >> interleaved by level. A plant for instance has no need to act on the world >> to the same degree as an organism which can move its location, but the cells >> that make up the plant act to grow and direct it toward light, extend roots >> to water and nutrients, etc. Ontologically however, there is no way to >> really have awareness which matters without some participatory opportunity >> or potential for that opportunity. >> >> The problem with a machine (any machine) is that at the level which is it a >> machine, it has no way to participate. By definition a machine does whatever >> it is designed to do. Anything that we use as a machine has to be made of >> something which we can predict and control reliably, so that its >> sensory-motive capacities are very limited by definition. Its range of >> 'what's going on' has to be very narrow. The internet, for instance, passes >> a tremendous number of events through electronic circuits, but the content >> of all of it is entirely lost on it. We use the internet to increase our >> sense and inform our motives, but its sense and motive does not increase at >> all. >> >> Craig >> >> >> Brent >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/pf0w53nZsoMJ. >> 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:/
Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer
Hi Richard Ruquist For the umpteenth time, monads are not physical, they cannot be some kind of product of EM waves. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/11/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-11, 09:56:26 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer Yes, Roger. They come with 500 topo holes thru which super EM flux winds. Given perhaps 6 quantum states for the flux, there are 6^500 different types of monads. Richard On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Craig Weinberg > > Due to their universal perceptions, monads should be extremely complex. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/11/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > - Receiving the following content - > From: Craig Weinberg > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2013-01-11, 08:07:47 > Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains > viaacomputer > > > > > On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:27:54 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > On 1/10/2013 9:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:33:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > On 1/10/2013 4:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and > use whatever definitions of "intelligent" and "complex" you want). > > > > A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under my > definition. > > But much less intelligent. So in effect you think there is a degree of > intelligence in everything, just like you believe there's a degree of > consciousness in everything. And the degree of intelligence correlates with > the degree of complexity ...but you don't think the same about consciousness? > > Brent > > > I was thinking today that a decent way of defining intelligence is just 'The > ability to know "what's going on"'. > > This makes it clear that intelligence refers to the degree of sophistication > of awareness, not just complexity of function or structure. This is why a > computer which has complex function and structure has no authentic > intelligence and has no idea 'what's going on'. Intelligence however has > everything to do with sensitivity, integration, and mobilization of awareness > as an asset, i.e. to be directed for personal gain or shared enjoyment, > progress, etc. Knowing what's going on implicitly means caring what goes on, > which also supervenes on biological quality investment in experience. > > > Which is why I think an intelligent machine must be one that acts in its > environment. Simply 'being aware' or 'knowing' are meaningless without the > ability and motives to act on them. > > > Sense and motive are inseparable ontologically, although they can be > interleaved by level. A plant for instance has no need to act on the world to > the same degree as an organism which can move its location, but the cells > that make up the plant act to grow and direct it toward light, extend roots > to water and nutrients, etc. Ontologically however, there is no way to really > have awareness which matters without some participatory opportunity or > potential for that opportunity. > > The problem with a machine (any machine) is that at the level which is it a > machine, it has no way to participate. By definition a machine does whatever > it is designed to do. Anything that we use as a machine has to be made of > something which we can predict and control reliably, so that its > sensory-motive capacities are very limited by definition. Its range of > 'what's going on' has to be very narrow. The internet, for instance, passes a > tremendous number of events through electronic circuits, but the content of > all of it is entirely lost on it. We use the internet to increase our sense > and inform our motives, but its sense and motive does not increase at all. > > Craig > > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/pf0w53nZsoMJ. > 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: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer
Hi Roger, Imagine a very simple brain that can recognise two things: a cat and a mouse. Furthermore, it can recognise if an object is still or in motion. So a possible perceptual state could be cat(still) + mouse(in motion). The visual cortex of this brain is complex enough to process the input of a normal human eye and convert it into these representations. It has a very simple memory that can store states and temporal precedence between states. For example: mouse(still) -> cat(in motion) + mouse(still) -> cat(still) + mouse(in motion) -> cat(still) Through an MRI we read the activation level of neurons that somehow encode this sequence of states. An incredible amount of information is lost BUT it is possible to represent a visual scene that approximates the meanings of those states. In a regular VGA screen with a synch signal I show you an animation of a mouse standing still, a cat appearing and so on. Of course the cat may be quite different from what the brain actually perceived. But it is also recognised as a cat by the brain, it produces an equivalent state so it's good enough. Now imagine the brain can encode more properties about objects. Is is big or small? Furry? Dark or light? Now imagine the brain can encode more information about precedence. Was it a long time ago? Just now? Aeons ago? And so on and so on until you get to a point where the reconstructed video is almost like what the brain saw. No synch signal. On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Telmo Menezes > > Yes, but the display they show wouldn't work if there were no > sync signal embedded in it. There's nothing in the brain to provide that, > so they must have. > > > [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] > 1/7/2013 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Telmo Menezes > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2013-01-07, 09:33:30 > *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from > brainsviaacomputer > > Hi Roger, > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > >> Hi Telmo Menezes >> >> Well then, we have at least one vote supporting the results. >> > > Scientific results are not supported or refuted by votes.� > � > >> >> I remain sceptical because of the line sync issue. >> The brain doesn't provide a raster line sync signal. >> > > The synch signal is a requirement of a very specific technology to display > video. Analog film does not have a synch signal. It still does sampling. > Sampling is always necessary if you use a finite machine to record some > visual representation of the world. If one believes the brain stores our > memories (I know you don't) you have to believe that it samples perceptual > information somehow. It will probably not be as neat and simple as a sync > signal. > > A trivial but important point: every movie is a representation of reality, > not reality itself. It's just a set of symbols that represent the world as > seen from a specific point of view in the form of a matrix of discrete > light intensity levels. So the mapping from symbols to visual > representations is always present, no matter what technology you use. > Again, the sync signal is just a detail of the implementation of one such > technologies. > > The way the brain encodes images is surely very complex and convoluted. > Why not? There wasn't ever any adaptive pressure for the encoding to be > easily translated from the outputs of an MRI machine. If we require all > contact between males and females to be done through MRI machines and wait > a couple million years maybe that will change. We might even get a sync > signal, who knows? > > Either you believe that the brain encodes images somehow, or you believe > that the brain is an absurd mechanism. Why are the optic nerves connected > to the brain? Why does the visual cortex fire in specific ways when shown > specific images? Why can we tell from brain activity if someone is nervous, > asleep, solving a math problem of painting? > � > >> >> >> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] >> 1/7/2013 >> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen >> - Receiving the following content - >> From: Telmo Menezes >> Receiver: everything-list >> Time: 2013-01-07, 06:19:33 >> Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains >> viaacomputer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roger Clough 爓rote: >> >> Hi Craig Weinberg >> ? >> Sorry, everybody, I was snookered into b
Re: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer
Hi Telmo Menezes Yes, but the display they show wouldn't work if there were no sync signal embedded in it. There's nothing in the brain to provide that, so they must have. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 09:33:30 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brainsviaacomputer Hi Roger, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Telmo Menezes Well then, we have at least one vote supporting the results. Scientific results are not supported or refuted by votes.? ? I remain sceptical because of the line sync issue. The brain doesn't provide a raster line sync signal. The synch signal is a requirement of a very specific technology to display video. Analog film does not have a synch signal. It still does sampling. Sampling is always necessary if you use a finite machine to record some visual representation of the world. If one believes the brain stores our memories (I know you don't) you have to believe that it samples perceptual information somehow. It will probably not be as neat and simple as a sync signal. A trivial but important point: every movie is a representation of reality, not reality itself. It's just a set of symbols that represent the world as seen from a specific point of view in the form of a matrix of discrete light intensity levels. So the mapping from symbols to visual representations is always present, no matter what technology you use. Again, the sync signal is just a detail of the implementation of one such technologies. The way the brain encodes images is surely very complex and convoluted. Why not? There wasn't ever any adaptive pressure for the encoding to be easily translated from the outputs of an MRI machine. If we require all contact between males and females to be done through MRI machines and wait a couple million years maybe that will change. We might even get a sync signal, who knows? Either you believe that the brain encodes images somehow, or you believe that the brain is an absurd mechanism. Why are the optic nerves connected to the brain? Why does the visual cortex fire in specific ways when shown specific images? Why can we tell from brain activity if someone is nervous, asleep, solving a math problem of painting? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/7/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Telmo Menezes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-07, 06:19:33 Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains viaacomputer On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Roger Clough ?rote: Hi Craig Weinberg ? Sorry, everybody, I was snookered into believing that they had really accomplished the impossible. So you think this paper is fiction and the video is fabricated? Do people here know something I don't about the authors? The hypothesis is that the brain has some encoding for images. These images can come from the optic nerve, they could be stored in memory or they could be constructed by sophisticated cognitive processes related to creativity, pattern matching and so on. But if you believe that the brain's neural network is a computer responsible for our cognitive processes, the information must be stores there, physically, somehow. It's horribly hard to decode what's going on in the brain. These researchers thought of a clever shortcut. They expose people to a lot of images and record come measures of brain activity in the visual cortex. Then they use machine learning to match brain states to images. Of course it's probabilistic and noisy. But then they got a video that actually approximates the real images. So there must be some way to decode brain activity into images. The killer argument against that is that the brain has no sync signals to generate the raster lines. Neither does reality, but we somehow manage to show a representation of it on tv, right? ? ? ? [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 1/6/2013 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2013-01-05, 11:37:17 Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains via acomputer On Saturday, January 5, 2013 10:43:32 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote: Subjective states can somehow be extracted from brains via a computer. No, they can't. ? The ingenius folks who were miraculously able to extract an image from the brain that we saw recently ? http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity somehow did it entirely through computation. How was that possible? By
