From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Tue Dec 06 2005 - 05:26:12 GMT
Case,
Scott said:
Your insistence on having only well-defined terms is, I think, a copout. In
the MOQ, the following terms are used but undefined: value, quality,
dynamic, static, pattern. Further, none of them are definable. The word
'definition' is undefinable. And so are consciousness and intellect (and,
yes, I hold that quality, consciousness, and intellect are three aspects of
the same (non-)thing.). So when I say there can't be awareness of anything
larger than a chemical reaction (if one assumes that consciousness is
produced by spatio-temporally separated chemical reactions), I am inviting
you to disprove it by taking any example, such as Chalmers', and tell me how
it happens. How does neural activity give rise to a sensation of blue, for
example? How do 440 changes of air vibration per second give rise to hearing
the note 'A'? One doesn't need exact definitions of consciousness to
understand these questions.
[Case]
I hardly see that defining ones terms is a cop-out. I accept the MoQ to the
extent that it has a single undefined term.
Scott:
It is your *insistence* on defining terms that I call a copout. It lets you
ignore all the hard, but real, problems. In any case, in the MOQ there isn't
just one undefined term. How do you define 'pattern', other than by
substituting some equivalent term (structure, form, system, relation)? How
do you define 'static' other than 'not dynamic' (or 'unchanging')?
Case continued:
I do this because I see that it
is impossible to a to "know" reality beyond the limits of our senses and
storage capacity.
Scott:
Then one can't "know" what a pattern is. Yet we do. How is your position
different from logical positivism?
Case continued:
I would be much happier to name this undefined Tao or
fnord. I have objected to even the term Quality because the name itself
carries with it an emphasis on certain aspects of the greater undefined.
Using a term we know provides the illusion that we then know something about
the unknown. In this sense the Jews were right never to utter the name of
God. But beyond that single recognition of the unknowable center of things I
see no need to pile up more undefined terms.
Scott:
But the Jews had the Torah, which told them a great deal about God.
Likewise, we have our experience and language and intellect and
consciousness and sense of value, which tells us -- without explicit
definitions -- a great deal. Science can only deal with a small part of
that.
Case continued:
If you are simply saying that Consciousness, with a "C", is Tao. Then like
Ian I would have to say you and I have a tendency to agree violently. To me
at least this does not imply anything like a purpose, direction, goal or
final plan.
Scott:
I've said that Consciousness, Quality, and Intellect are three names for the
same (non-)thing, which of course also goes by the name of Tao. But because
C, Q, and I are names for it (and there are others, like Energy, and Love),
we *do* know the Tao, though not as we know objects. And it includes
purposes, since Nirvana is Samsara, though I would deny that there is such a
thing as a "final" plan.
[Case]
I would say that your question "How does neural activity give rise to a
sensation of blue, for example?" emerges from complexity in this fashion:
With from 10 to 100 billion nerve cell each making from 1000 to 10,000
connections to other cells, the human brain is the most complex bit of
matter in the known universe. It is without question a "computer" but it is
an analog computer. I will use digital computer terminology a bit here
because I think it works metaphorically even though the mechanisms are
certainly different between digital and analog processing.
Scott:
I'm not so sure it is analog. A neuron fires or doesn't -- as far as I am
aware, there is no gradation of strength of firing that matters. But
supposing there is a pattern of neuron firings that is an analog (from our
perspective). My question is: how is that pattern perceived. Well, the first
bit goes to one neuron, then the next to another, and so on. But there is no
grasping that the two (or a zillion) are connected into some whole, since
the result of the first transmittal is separate from the result of the
second, and so on. To combine them, the first two (or zillion) have to send
their data (one bit at a time) somewhere, which just repeats the initial
situation. Note that nothing changes in this argument by considering
parallel versus serial transmission, or whether the basic "unit" is
something other than a firing neuron, and so on. Given spatio-temporal
separation there can be no perceiving of anything larger than the output of
the basic unit.
Case continued:
Among the brain's capabilities is the ability to record and recall
experiences from the past. That is sensory experience occurs as a result of
electo-chemical activity inside the neural network. These patterns of
electro chemical activities are preserved inside the network and can be
replayed or perhaps they resonate continuously inside the network.
Scott:
I strongly suspect that 100 billion nerve cells with 1000 to 10,000
connections isn't enough to store all that data. One would need several
nerve cells to store one bit so that it can also be retrieved more than
once. In any case, I recommend (if you can find it, maybe in a university
library) a book called "Dismantling the Memory Machine" by H. A. Bursen, to
see how dubious is the idea that all the sensory data is simply stored and
retrieved as it is in a computer.
Case continued:
Theoretically at least, if this recording was of sufficient fidelity, one
could relive experiences exactly and make no distinction whatever between
past and present. Of course this does not seem to be the case but conscious
beings are able to access the past, present and project into the future
simultaneously. Because experience remains as a set of impressions or
pathways or interactions inside the network. This I have called temporal
buffering. While all brains and nervous systems have this ability human
brains have more of it than other animals.
It is also known that short term and long term memory is handled differently
inside the brain. So that there are at least two layers of temporal
buffering. To use the digital metaphor. Short term memory is like RAM and
long term memory is like disk storage. Long term memories are retrieved into
short term memory, mingle with present stimulation and the result is
consciousness. This results from the ability to transcend the instant.
Because reality is in some sense recreated and stored inside the network and
can be accessed inside the network, space and time are also represented,
either as a function of the structure or the brain itself, a priori, or as a
result of the brain's experience, learning.
Scott:
This does not answer my objection. The "mingling" you mention has to happen
one bit at a time (or separated by space). How is there consciousness of
anything bigger than a bit?
Case continued:
It is this ability to replay the past within the temporal buffer that allows
associations between past and present circumstance to occur. It allows
patterns of electro-chemical activities to interact in ways that transcend
space and time.
Scott:
But -- given the separation by space and/or time -- is there awareness of
anything bigger than a bit? I am not saying what you say isn't what is going
on in the brain. It could well be. But it alone cannot produce
consciousness.
Case continued:
After all inside the neural network, space and time are
recreated, replayed, sorted, and shuffled. I would say that we as
individuals are restricted to the interior of this network as homunculi. Our
access to the world of objects is limited to their persistent knocking on
our doors.
Scott:
In other words, you haven't solved the homunculus problem. Further, you have
reinstated Kant. And in that vein, how do you know that the "world of
objects" is spatio-temporal, or indeed, that it consists of objects (one of
which is the brain that is supposedly modeling itself).
Case continued:
But transcendence of space and time are the result of the brain's ability to
allow multiple temporal representations to exist simultaneously. The result
is space in no-space and time in no-time or "the color blue."
Scott:
They may well exist simultaneously, but what is "seeing" them as a whole?
And are you after all this now agreeing with me that it is perception that
creates space and time? If so, why do you need a theory of emergence?, and
more important, why are you trying to explain perception in terms of
spatio-temporal objects?
Case continued:
You seem to be saying that consciousness causes this complex set of
interactions to occur and pushes nature in this evolutionary direction. Or
that once brain stuff is here consciousness jumps on board rather like a
hermit crab snags a shell for a home. I see it as property that emerges
because our environment supports complex interactions.
Scott:
I'm not saying the second (I don't like dualism). Nor is the first workable,
as I don't distinguish between consciousness and "nature". I would say that
consciousness (or Consciousness) evolved so that it could express itself in
the language of space, time, and mass. This isn't some final achievement,
though, as there are no doubt many other ways it can evolve.
Case concluded:
In any case that is a stab at showing how consciousness is a description of
the interaction of brain stuff.
Scott:
Except that there is no explanation of how there can be awareness of
anything bigger than a single chemical reaction (or bit, or neuron firing,
or whatever your theory bottoms out with).
-------------
Scott:
Ok, then build me something out of transistors that has blue sensations.
[Case]
I might have to get back to you on that but the way things have been going
it might not be very long. One of the limitations of the digital analogy is
in the processor itself as you know. A digital processor is limited by the
spans of time during and between clock cycles as well as the size of its
registers, or the amount of information it can process in a single clock
cycle. It took something like 3 billion years for our analog computers to
get were they are while Moore's Law seems to be holding up nicely in the
digital realm so this does not seem to be to be an insurmountable barrier.
Scott:
Actually, the clock cycle of digital processors is several orders of
magnitude faster than neurons can fire. And whether there is anything like a
register in the brain is open to question -- it's that storage with
repeatable recall problem again. I think it much more likely that the brain
works more like a multi-dimensional metronome than like a computer.
Case continued:
But the real question you are raising is whether it is in principle possible
to create a digital consciousness. I see no reason why not. Whether or not
it would be identical to organic consciousness is questionable but that
doesn't strike me as a big deal.
Scott:
I've given you two reasons why not: the Munchhausen fallacy and the
"awareness can't be bigger than a single unit" one.
Case continued:
After all I am the only being in the universe that I am certain has blue
sensations. I have to take your word for it when you say that you do. If
someday Commander Data says he sees blue who am I to argue. The Turing test
and all that.
Scott:
The Turing test wouldn't answer the question -- the computer could be
regulating, not producing, consciousness.
---------------------------
[Case]
I have seen several authors try to construct theories based on their
interpretations of what ancients people said and did. I mentioned Jaynes
having ideas that seemed similar to Barfield's but then there are Sitchin
and Von Daniken talking about ancient astronauts and Velcovsky having
planets wandering into the solar system. There are hundreds of folks out
there making much ado over the pyramids.
Scott:
I would read Barfield before comparing him to Von Danikin and that ilk. By
the way, since I last wrote on Jaynes, I came across this in Barfield's
"History, Guilt, and Habit" (three lectures given in 1978) p. 27-28):
"This ["the longer process of evolution by detachment -- emergence from
identity [of the human] with the inner workings of nature, through
consciousness, to self-consciousness"], it may be worthwhile to observe, is
the sequence presented in substance in [Jaynes]. The author, it is true,
seeks to fit in what he has to say with a theory of a varying relation
between the two halves of the brain. It is a valuable and well-documented
account of the development of consciousness from the earliest times down to
our own; and as such I found that it made no difference to the conviction it
carried, whether one accepted, or ignored, or rejected the intrusive bits
about the brain. Or no, that is not quite true; because they are
incompatible with nearly all the rest it was much more coherent, and more
convincing, if one ignored them."
Case continued:
Language is metaphorical. It is difficult to reconstruct the meaning of
those metaphors outside of their context. Getting too specific in this area
just makes my palms sweat.
Scott:
Again, I would say that you are using this as a copout to avoid considering
data that questions your thesis.
---------------------------
Case said:
Even if I took your fallacy fantasy seriously I would think the logical
conclusion would be that consciousness as you define it does not and can not
exist. Which I have maintained from the start. You on the other hand seem to
think that the fallacy demonstrates that consciousness said, "Let there be
light."
Scott said:
No, the logical conclusion is that conscious produces the spatio-temporality
of things and events. It's not news that perception produces color, sound,
and so on. And it produces the space and time of dreams. So why is this
conclusion so hard to accept?
[Case]
I have tried to show above that consciousness transcends space and time by
allowing representation of the past to interact freeing with the present to
model the future. It is complexity the creates this transcendence. Dreams
seem to play a role in the organization and classification of memory.
Scott:
If I stick a page from a 9th century manuscript inside a book published
today, have I transcended space and time? The problem is not whether the
past and present can be processed together. The problem is how one can have
awareness of anything larger than a chemical reaction -- assuming
spatio-temporal separation of each reaction from all the others.
-----------------------------------
[Case]
I snipped a bit here and there to prune away bits of the fractal/organic
structure of this dialog. Feel free to regraft anything you like back into
the form. I was shooting for Bonsai. You may prefer kudzu.
Scott:
This bit of pruning needs to be reinstated, since it is the crux of the
whole matter.
Is time durational or successive? What continues when you sense a change?
- Scott
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 06 2005 - 08:20:43 GMT