Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
I haven't read this whole thread and I'm a lot dumber than many here, but I'll throw in my 2 cents and say I'd guess you would need the heart (emotions, and maybe some soul) and mind (reason) to make up the "mind". The interplay of emotions and reason seems to start off with a few simple dualities (good/bad & true/false) and expand to an unlimited number of possibilities, thoughts, feelings, etc.
Can science quantify emotions? Should it try to? Is the heart plugged into the physicality of being so something like Love wouldn't fully make sense without the experience of Love?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 6, 2011 - 09:52pm PT
|
I think the problem of qualia which Largo alludes to has to do with how familiar they are, yet how difficult it is to describe them out of more fundamental stuff, like the physical act of seeing, etc...
...qualia in many cases have an immediate familiarity to each of us, yet they are all slightly different, and impossible to describe in a linear fashion, their attributes derive from what appears to be more than just a set of sensations.
Given they are so familiar and seemingly necessary to be able to communicate appropriately, it would seem they are important elements of consciousness, yet they are notoriously difficult to corral.
Are they important or are they unimportant?
-
"Thinking" and the processes of the evaluating mind are also qual, but when you are identified with evaluating, thinking and consciousness can be felt to be the same things. Until you have experiences of being able to watch your mind grind on something, I doubt there is any way to know otherwise. The notion that I am "thinking too hard," or are identified with perceptions is not accurate. The question is to b e able to directly understand how we perceive, the process of perception, 1st person.
To say qual is unimportant is to say that the elements of our experience, basically the lives that we lead, are unimportant.
The insanity John S. mentioned of repeating something endlessly and hoping for different results, is at play (IMO) in terms of believing matter entirely creates experience. Someday we might have a digital model for some processing functions, but replicating self awareness with self determination and intentionality (will) will be a little like cold fusion - it will remain "ten years off" for the next century (but self determination will remain ungraspable).
I'm reminded of a lecture I heard on how classical physics was fine for the macro world but the atomic world needed a new vision and QM was born. Human experience is so radically different from matter - far more so than the macro and the atomic - that I suspect that a new approach, perhaps as novel as QM was B ITD, needs to be cooked up to account for where mere processing models leave off - namely, at the threshold of 1st person experience, which is the only way any of us ever live our lives.
Boehm believed that a standard mechanistic model of consciousness would not wash, but he never gave up hope that some mechanical model could "explain" mind using the regular tools of engagement. Someone, at some time will come along with ideas that are neither strictly materialist or "supernatural." Then worlds will shatter.
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
If only there was a quale of the thread's intent with which one might attempt to sense the locus of its points.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 7, 2011 - 08:09pm PT
|
It was fun while it lasted, but we're circling the drain.
Perhaps next should be a look at causation, and those thorny transitions where one thing becomes another - like a how an impulse becomes a desire which becomes an action which becomes a memory.
Or how we can get almost nowhere in any investigation without a preverbal understanding of nothing at all, of zero. That's a fascinating one for sure.
JL
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
we're circling the drain.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Perhaps next should be a look at causation, and those thorny transitions where one thing becomes another - like a how an impulse becomes a desire which becomes an action which becomes a memory.
What would be the point when you seem to dismiss, ignore, or deny a biological basis for 'causation' and also hold a similarly dismissive ('digital') view of what 'processing' the brain may be capable of.
And take the 'causation' of how desire becomes addiction and vice-versa, no biology involved there either?
Both threads seem like an exercise in rummaging around in the attic all the while denying the house rests on a foundation.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 7, 2011 - 11:15pm PT
|
What would be the point when you seem to dismiss, ignore, or deny a biological basis for 'causation' and also hold a similarly dismissive ('digital') view of what 'processing' the brain may be capable of.
Never did, Fruity. It's just that you have a staunch physicalist, bottom up belief in causality that you hold "all or nothing." I don't hold that view,.
As I said, once folks started looking at the atomic world, they had to devise new methods. Once we start looking past mere processing and into sentience itself, as we live it, not as we model it, I suspect new approaches will be needed to get past the blueprint stage.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Largo wrote: Boehm believed that a standard mechanistic model of consciousness would not wash, but he never gave up hope that some mechanical model could "explain" mind using the regular tools of engagement.
but I think you didn't read that part of Bohm's Quantum Theory when he was discussing the big picture. In section 26, page 167 he writes:
"26. The Need for a Nonmechanical Description. The fact that quantum systems cannot be regarded as made up of separate parts working together according to causal laws means that we are now led to a fundamental change in our general methods of description of nature. Only in the classical limit, where the effects of individual quanta are negligible and where their combined effects can be approximated by a causal description, is it possible to separate the world into distinct parts. Even in the classical limit, we recognize the separation between object and environment is an abstraction. But because each part interacts with the others according to causal laws, we can still give a correct description in this way. In a system whose behavior depends critically on the transfer of a few quanta, however, the separation of the world into parts is a non-permissible abstraction because the very nature of the parts (for instance, wave or particle) depends on factors that cannot be ascribed uniquely to either part, and are not even subject to complete control or prediction.
Thus, by investigating the applicability of the usual classical criteria for analyzing a system into distinct parts, we have been led to the same conclusion as that obtained directly in Chap. 6, Sec. 13: The entire universe must, on some very accurate level, be regarded as a single indivisible unit in which separate parts appear as idealizations permissible only on a classical level of accuracy and description. This means that the view of the world as being analogous to a huge machine, the predominant view from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, is now shown to be only approximately correct. The underlying structure of matter, however, is not mechanical.*"
* This means that the term "quantum mechanics" is very much a misnomer. It should, perhaps, be called "quantum nonmechanics."
But Bohm goes on to write down a theoretical realization of this universe, and he does not resort to anything outside of physics, theoretical or experimental, to do it... while a tremendous reach in terms of physical theory, he does not see the need to go beyond in order to describe something which is quite at odds with our "common sense." I don't think his way quite accomplishes what he set out to do, but we can discuss that in more detail... the point is, he views the universe as non-mechanical, but still physical.
I'm surprised that Largo missed that...
|
|
FredC
Boulder climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
It seems there are a couple of approaches to the original "What is Mind" question.
We can think and consider how much we are like computers or digital systems, we can look at what philosophers say, we can maybe get pretty smart doing this.
Or we can consider taking a look at what our mind (or our self) actually is.
The first is like aid climbing, it takes a lot of skills and judgement and such. The second is more like free soloing, you need to be really fit and trained mentally as well as physically.
People have suggested looking directly at our own mind. This suggestion is present in some eastern traditions. It is usually reserved for the "fittest" people.
On another topic, I found myself wanting to respond to Jogill's becoming the thread with my own realization that I was the thread. But after consideration I find that I believe that Jogill has actually become the thread!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
There's your answer.
Just let go and and fall down the drain.
One who holds on too long will never learn .......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 8, 2011 - 01:05am PT
|
the point is, he views the universe as non-mechanical, but still physical.
I'm surprised that Largo missed that...
I didn't miss that, Ed, it's just that Boehm faded from the scene before the next wave came along with "the map is not the territory," arguments that routed pure physicalism as viable to the people who actually got hold of what this meant beyond what the father of general semantics, Alford Korzybski, first had in mind when he used it. The whole qualia/experiential thing changed everything.
Most people can understand the "map" concept at the level of a topo of The Nose not being the Nose itself, or a thought about Paris being different than the capitol in France. But without a deeper understanding of how we only know anything through 1st person experience, people cook up silly mottos like "consciousness IS meat," or the meat brain DOES consciousness, whereby the map IS the terrritory and 1st person experience - which is all we ever have - IS quantifiable material. And when that doesn't fly, the fall back position is that the experience was at any rate entirely "created" by bottom up causation, and lastly, if you don't avow as much you are a hidden proponent of "God."
These, are of course, all circular arguments, but one thing remains certain: you will never know anything other than through your direct, 1st person subject experience, and the inward registering of that experience will always be the most real thing for us.
People argue that there is no such thing as "running," meaning "running" is not a real (physical/measurable) thing, but merely describes the action of a physical body moving through time and space. We could say the same thing about gravity - what's real being bodies with mass in motion, gravity being a by product. Likewise they argue that subjective experience/qualia is not real (physical/measurable) in any primary way, that it is simply what the meat brain "does."
In these cases, qualia and "running" are posited as semantic abstractions or representations of real things - a meat brain and a physical body in motion. No more.
Do you see the problem here?
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Do you see the problem here?
probably not the the same one you do...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Never did, Fruity. It's just that you have a staunch physicalist, bottom up belief in causality that you hold "all or nothing." I don't hold that view.
Fruity? Hmmm, pretty good coming from a guy who can't seem to resolve or even entertain the possibility of brain / mind being analogous to a particle / wave (if you are buying into the complete stretch of consciousness / quantum mechanics).
So far it's pretty hard to ascertain that you hold any particular view at all other than 'meat can't be mind', but then proffer little beyond that beyond endless recitation of 'bottom up causality'. Weak at best from my perspective.
As I said, once folks started looking at the atomic world, they had to devise new methods. Once we start looking past mere processing and into sentience itself, as we live it, not as we model it, I suspect new approaches will be needed to get past the blueprint stage.
Here you seem to have a naive understanding of what forms [biological] 'processing' can take and it's potential (somewhat amazing given you're breathing); seems an uninformed and dismissive mindset at best. And given an fMRI can distinguish between quales and the focus of 'awareness' I'd say your idea that sentience is 'emergent' or apart from the meat is in serious need of rethinking.
Another take on your approach would be you're like Dorothy who has forsaken the Kansas of the meat for the Oz of the mind but who, unlike Dorothy, has no interest in going home having decided it was never all that real to begin with whereas Oz is definitely the shizzle.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 8, 2011 - 04:33am PT
|
This is my last word on the subject.
Time for new explorations.
The dismissive quips are curious, and putting ideas in my mouth is silly. Just know that people often mistake function for sentience and data processing for consciousness. They also gift the most fantastic experiential properties to matter, though there is nothing in matter suggesting anything beyond miraculous capacities for information processing. This is overcome through the ludicrous notions, in one for or another, that experience IS a function mechanically produced, or at any rate, 1st person subjectivity is meat brain produced somewhat as a trumpet "produces" Taps. Of course this is leaping back to the long ago routed argument that the map IS the territory. Sure, if you drive a steam roller over the trumped - no more Taps. So what.
At least we can agree on one point: That subject, first person experience, and qual (stuff) that enters our subjective orbit, is all we humans can ever know as real. So long as you have a beating heart, that one is incontrovertible. The rest is open for debate.
But as I said about cold fusion being a decade off for a century, if you truly expect a programmer to "create" a machine with subjective, first-person sentience and self determination, I have real estate for you on Mars. Cheap, too.
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Your notion of 'programming' here is appropriate in that I don't think AI or any form of programming will ever produce 'sentience' or a 'conscious' machine. And offhand, while I think Ray Kurzweil is an interesting guy, ala folks like Dean Kamen, I believe he is so far off the mark relative to AI and neural nets as to be laughable.
The micro architecture of nerves isn't remotely the same as the [functionally differential] macro architecture of brain - we understand the former and barely have a clue about the latter. In particular we don't have much of any idea around how the brain self-organizes and dynamically re-organizes to satisfy various functional needs.
Ray's assertion that by 2019...
The summed computational powers of all computers is comparable to the total brainpower of the human race.
...is likewise ridiculously off the mark and hopelessly misguided from the perspective that ops/sec or ops/watt are somewhat pointless metrics if it takes a million machine watts of processing to accomplish the same task as .0001 watts of brainpower. It's not the 'raw' power that counts, it's how it's functionally organized and optimized for results.
But again, all that meat business aside, that an fMRI can in fact differentiate between and identify subjective quale should tell you that meat and mind are different aspects of the same thing and utterly inseparable. There is no consciousness without meat, not the other way around, and the 'reality' of a spectrum of observable behavior from bacteria to humans supports that assertion. You can philosophize an 'emerged', independent, or universal consciousness all you want - but in the end I suspect we'll give up the notion that our 'experience', 'mind', or 'awareness' is anything but self-aware processing.
Like your trumpet and notes - the note isn't the trumpet and the trumpet isn't the note - the note is the processing of air being blown through the trumpet. No blowing, no note. In your conjecture, laudable as it is, an fMRI wouldn't be able to detect and identify conscious thought or quale.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
good place for last thoughts on this thread...
sorry to Largo if he took offense at perceived quips.
From my point of view there are a number or vast difficulties confronting the understanding of "mind," and while I have been painted with the brush of closed-mindedness with regards to this "puzzle" let me just restate some of those difficulties.
Largo's central argument is that the subjective experience common to all humans cannot be explained in objective terms.
From there the argument expands to require the inclusion of subjectivity as a major aspect of the human description of the universe. Further, that that subjectivity creates the "universe."
Because of relatively common subjective experiences, the "mind" is not a local phenomena, but is pervasive. This non-locality suggests that the seat of mind is not in the body.
Given the reality of "mind" this set of ideas suggests we need to expand our description of the "universe" to include such phenomena.
The major difficulty with this line of reasoning is the appeal to our common perception of mind and consciousness and eschewing any attempt to define what those things are. My major frustration in my own thinking of this is the issue of unfolding the subjective and the objective parts of the description.
What evidence is there that an objective description is possible? First there are equally common experiences of loss of consciousness associated with the brain. The effects of various chemicals in inducing changes in consciousness that act in physiologically well described manner in the brain. And the evolution of humans, which is a physical process which does not require a subjective explanation.
Evolution is a powerful constraint on various subjective explanations of mind and consciousness. Largo avoided discussing it though I tried to bring it up multiple times. It is the fundamental unifying theory of biology and it has much to say about the development of behavior, of which language, mind, consciousness, etc. must all be a part of, whether or not we have a detailed objective explanation.
The objective approach to explaining mind will be difficult, but separating the important aspects from the unimportant detail is a task that is still in progress. Many will protest that this process will relegate what they perceive to be the most important aspects to the status of irrelevant, and thus miss the point, or at best fail to explain what our mind is all about.
In particular, the objective inquiry may make a thing that seems very special not so special. A common criticism of a scientific outlook by those who value the subjective aspects of our lives, perhaps the most.
Certainly one has to thank Largo for the overly ambitious attempt to discuss this ancient puzzle on the forum.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
From Largo's last words on the subject:
That subject, first person experience, and qual (stuff) that enters our subjective orbit, is all we humans can ever know as real.
Of course this is leaping back to the long ago routed argument that the map IS the territory.
The conventional view in neurobiology is that the brain creates maps of the real world. The maps might be visual, auditory, or olfactory maps of the external world, or kinesthetic (or sensorimotor) maps of how brain activity causes the muscles and limbs to move.
These maps can be demonstrated by recording from or stimulating central neurons and observing the responses.
IF your contention is that all we ever know is real is what enters our subjective orbit, then you are saying that these maps ARE the territory. Your personal territory, that is. I don't see any problem there, but I do wonder whether Largo sees what he himself is saying.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Ed, overall, that's much better said than I can state the case, particularly the emotional response to re-framing the exceptional as common.
Certainly one has to thank Largo for the overly ambitious attempt to discuss this ancient puzzle on the forum.
I agree, but in the end, what he was unwilling to discuss was as telling as the direction he steadfastly attempted to steer the conversation. To try and restrict the discussion to a philosophical context of the subjective / objective debate and exclude topics of the evolution and spectrum of behavior, impact of insults to the brain, and the real potential of bio-'processing' seems both one-sided and counterproductive to a rounded understanding of question itself.
|
|
GBrown
Trad climber
Los Angeles, California
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2011 - 01:20am PT
|
Gawd! It may have been a year since I've checked into the SuperTopo forum. I reviewed the 1st page and the last page of this thread. What I get is: NO MOTION. NO CHANGE. A BOGUS STATIC OF OPPOSING FORCES. A vehicle missing on 5 out of 6 cylinders. Choke! Hasta la vista.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!