Alex and Michael DB,
To Alex: I agree with what you wrote, but with three important qualifications:
(1) Every node in a diagram represents a concept. (2) Every linear notation
for mathematics is a special case of some diagram; in some cases, the
linearization is a one-to-one mapping; but in other cases, it loses some of the
information, or it encodes that information in a more obscure way. Euclidean
geometry is the most obvious example, but other kinds of geometry are even
stronger reasons for multi-dimensional diagrams. (3) The tensors that
represent LLMs are special cases of diagrams with special-case operations; for
full generality, they must be supplemented with more general diagrams and
operations on them.
And by the way, the title of my first book, Conceptual Structures, emphasizes
the point that diagrams represent structures, and every structure can be
represented by a diagram. Linear notations are just one-dimensional diagrams.
Mapping a multi-dimensional structure into a one-dimensional line adds a huge
amount of complexity. As just one example: direct connections by lines must
be replaced by special symbols called names. And those names create a huge
amount of complexity when they are constantly being renamed.
To Micheal: Since you agree with me, I agree with you.
Re consciousness: The fact that the cerebellum has over 4 times as many
neurons as the much larger cerebral cortex is important. Even more important
is that (1) Those neurons are essential for high-speed mathematical computation
and reasoning. (2) They are aslo essential for all complex methods of
performance in music, gymnastics, art architecture, and complex design of
machinery of any kind. and (3) Nothing in the cerebellum is conscious.
Just look at the fantastic gymnastics by Simone Biles. She required years of
dedicated *conscious* training to learn those moves, but the details of the
high-speed performance are outside of any conscious control. It would be
impossible to think in words about each of those details at the speed at which
they were performed. Each performance was initiated and controlled by
conscious decisions, but the speed is too fast for any conscious control. She
was conscious of the performance, but not of every detail computed by her
cerebellum.
That is a very important distinction: the computation in the cerebellum is not
conscious. And no definition of consciousness would have the slightest value
for understanding what and how the cerebellum computes its operations
But since you mention Searle, I'm not surprised at his response about
panpsychism. I remember another story about a dinner party he attended, where
the guests were sitting outside while the food was being prepared. At one
point, Searle jumped up and proclaimed in a loud voice that frightened the
neighbors, their children, and their dogs, a denunciation of "Derrida and the
other inhabitants of Frogistan."
John
___
From: "Alex Shkotin"
John,
I look forward to reading your article, as the presentation is more or less
sketchy. Diagrams are a wonderful tool, but thinking in concepts is what
science and technology, and thinking in general, relies on.
And creating, researching and using structures is also very important.
Formula is amazing way to keep process definition, like
h = gt^2/2
where h - height, g - gravity constant, t - time of falling from the Leaning
Tower of Pisa.
Alex
__
From: "Michael DeBellis"
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Re: On the concept of consciousness
I was going to write a reply to this... actually I did anyway but it's shorter
because John Sowa already said what I was going to say. No-one really has a
clue and virtually all the discussions I've ever seen on this end up going
nowhere. IMO there are some questions that are amenable to scientific analysis
and some (given our current knowledge) that aren't and consciousness is one of
those that currently aren't. You have extremes such as a paper I saw years ago
by some leading neuroscientists that talked in depth about consciousness and
defined it as the opposite of being asleep or in a coma. And on the other
extreme people like Kristof Koch who believe in Pansychism, that everything in
the universe is conscious.
Many years ago I sat in on a Philosophy of Mind lecture series led by John
Searle at Berkeley. One of my favorite classes was a guest lecture by Koch.
Searle started out by lauding him as one of the most brilliant minds ever
(which at the start of his talk I could see why, Koch really knows his
neuroscience). Then Koch started getting into his Pansychism philosophy and you
could just see the color draining from Searle's face and Searle finally said
something like "Wait, you are serious?! I thought you were talking about
Pansychism as an example of a clearly wrong theory!" And it got more
entertaining from there.
