Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
we can look at our first person experience and draw conclusions from those experiences...
we can construct a "third person" POV and infer "first person" POV experience and compare...
don't the differences tell us something about mind?
this is a reductionist process, I agree...
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 1, 2011 - 04:54pm PT
|
we can construct a "third person" POV and infer "first person" POV experience and compare...
--
Putting all bombast and cocking around aside, I have looked at this and other conundrums with the whole "science of mind" thing and have been unimpressed with their conclusions, mainly because there is no common terminology, and because the differences between first/third person, subjective/objective, mechanistic/experiential are not fully understood and or even imagined and so the genres get muddled and lost are all hopes for a meaningful confluence of ideas. Much of the problem lies in methodologies.
For instance, while systems theory are required/helpful to explore meta-functions, bottom-up, reductive explanations are fundamental for functional analysis. When it comes to first-person data, however, this model breaks down quickly because the data of subjective experience is not about objective functioning. That is, in and of itself, experience, as a dynamic subjective process, is not a mechanism. Put differently - (this is an inviolate Law of Consciousness) as data, first-person data is irreducible to third-person data.
Much as some folks would like it, third-person will never be the whole or even the partial story about human experience. People insist this is not so, that third-person date IS experience, that experience IS what the evolved meat brain does, that in essence, third person data totally explains experience - en toto. This last idea also violates another Law of Consciousness: The Map is not the Territory. Of course, we have real world, empirical experience to clear the air on the last point.
Take Hal and Petunia. They venture onto the South Face of the Column, but forget the water. It is mid August and Valley temps are upwards of 100 degress on most days. For reasons not described here, Hal and Petunia cannot reverse course and so they have to top out, in the most wasted state, after bashing and gasping their way up the collum in 105 temps, for three days, sans water. They make it back to Camp 4 on last legs, more dead than alive.
Several days later, when the memory is still very much alive in his head, a friend of Hal's presents him with a 25,000 page which breaks down every statistical fact about his three days on the Column without water. He and Petunia were wired with probes and gizmos and so forth and the tome has all the scientific info, all the dehyradation markers, pH levels on down to the thirsty quarks. There is no more to learn about being thirsty on the South Face for three longs days beyond what's in the tome. The tome, his friend insists, is the WHOLE STORY, and "explains" his experience right down to the atom.
Of course Hal begs to differ since the statistics, accurate as they are, tell nothing about the subjective qualia of being so damn thirsty. And no matter how hard he tries, Hal will never be convinced that the figures in the tome "is the whole story" about his epic with Petunia. In fact, the statistics don't tell any of the story, because numbers are not the selfsame thing as dying of thirst on the column.
So long as we insist that they are, that our experience is not real, or is entirely reductive, the science of mind can do nothing but circle and go nowhere. We are standing fast on principals which do not stand up to direct empirical evidence.
More later.
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Still back to processing and content as simply expressions of the same thing - not unlike waves and particles in physics.
I also go back to an opinion that evolutionary contributions to the development of consciousness of an arms race of predation were significant; where being able to construct anticipatory first and third person points-of-view have high intrinsic value to both predator and prey.
[ Edit: If your matter is getting a little grey around the edges you might want to check out http://www.lumosity.com/ for exercising what matters. ]
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 2, 2011 - 12:32am PT
|
Still back to processing and content as simply expressions of the same thing.
---
Nope. You're failing to discriminate the real world differences between first/third person, subjective/objective, mechanistic/experiential, ergo, you fail to actully see the difference between (in the example provided) the experience of dying of thirst and a statistical breakdown of being thirsty.
"Expressions of the same thing" is in yet another effort to back up into "the map IS the territory," and this violates a Law of Consciousness (First Person experience is NOT reducive to third person data).
There are some other very common myths per the science of mind that are worth looking at - and which keep the inquiry on a treadmill - and I'll type up a few words tomorrow if I get a chance. Chalmers has done a wonderful job of listing most of the false approaches to the study.
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
The statistics of being thirsty are irrelevant - "dying of thirst" (the [first person / subjective] experience) is the 'content' / programing of nerve cells firing (processing) - i.e. first person, subjective experience is both.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Thanks to Ed and Largo for finally defining the issue in terms that are easy to understand and free of specialized professional vocabulary. First person and third person data and how they interact? That is a simply stated and comprehensible question.
To use some other examples:
No one would argue that when a person goes to a concert of beautiful, emotionally uplifting music, that the only reason they have that response is solely the provenance of the physical properties of the musical instruments. No one would argue that the composer was immaterial to the total experience, yet that seems to me to be the material reductionsist stance.
On the other hand, it seems inaccurate to state that first person experience can never be translated to third person data. While it's true that we will never know exactly the experience of a composer like Bach, Mozart, Handel, or Beethoven, we are able to understand huge amounts of their skill, their innovativeness, and their emotions nevertheless. And of course music critics and mathematicians can analyze it even more minutely in terms of the mechanics of the composition.
Yet another aspect for consideration, is that statistically speaking, all but 1 or 2 % of those who have listened to this great music have appreciated it for its emotional evocation, not it's acoustical balance or rhythmic symmetry and their mathamatical descriptions. Between first person subjectivism and third person reductionism, there is also a social and emotional consciousness that communicates between the two.
Consciousness bedevils us because it is multi-layered and not reduceable to either subjective or objective reductionism. A quadraplegic who has been rendered mute and is unable to even press a stick against a computer screen but is still conscious, is having a subjective experience while the people who measure physical and mental responses can reduce that consciousness to brain waves on a graph. What's lacking in this case is not first or third person, but the ability to communicate between the two of them.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
No one would argue that when a person goes to a concert of beautiful, emotionally uplifting music, that the only reason they have that response is solely the provenance of the physical properties of the musical instruments
And that "response" is nerve cells firing - anyone who thinks first-person experience happens in the absence of nerve cells firing is serious kidding themselves.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
No one on this thread has ever said that first person experience occurs without the firing of nerves?!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
A fundamental Law of Consciousness is that third-person data cannot totally explain first person experience, and vica versa.
where does this come from? empirical?
or is there a proof?
your "Hal and Petunia" story isn't relevant because it isn't something that we are proposing as "third person" though a reconstruction of the 3 days could possibly be built out of the data so collected.
In computer immersive environments where "reality" is simulated, there is a true invocation of first-person experience as if the person were actually involved in the simulation, as if it were real, though we know it is not.
The ability to invoke the experience is a "third person" act... the way in which the invocation is designed is through "first person" experience... is sounds like a violation of your fundamental law.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
No they haven't, they just tend to ignore they are firing and discount the possibly that firing 'is' consciousness.
|
|
dogtown
Trad climber
JackAssVille, Wyoming
|
|
That good Acid is going around again. Right? Well if not, I wish it was so I could keep up with what you just wrote!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Didn't you hear? Acid couldn't possibly taint experience - it would be too 'reductionist' a concept.
|
|
dogtown
Trad climber
JackAssVille, Wyoming
|
|
Right, How foolish of me.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
Acid doesn't taint experience, it enhances it,
and helps one to understand that there are multiple levels of consciousness
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
SoCal
|
|
Don't buy this one folks. Acid sucks. It is straight up poisoning and total fogging of the mind.
Hallucinations include sensations that approximate epiphany but in the end the conclusion is gibberish.
I've been down that road and a wish I hadn't a gone.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
chemical alteration of our minds, be it modern or ancient, be it ingesting something or just stressing ourselves to the limit... all of these are ways of understanding how our perceptions and experience are shaped by biology, by factors "external" to the conscious experience, but "internal" to our bodies.
all of these activities, taken together, are a strong indication that the source of the conscious experience, the first person yada yada, have their origin within the body, and the site of the effect, the brain, an overwhelming clue that that is where the experience originates.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Articles variously attribute LSD’s action as being upon either serotonin or dopamine receptors. There does seem to be consistency in reports of very persistent and perhaps permanent effects upon functioning of the brain both at the cerebral cortex(mood, cognition, and perception) and on the locus ceruleus(which receives sensory signals). The latter, among other symptoms, can include unreliable peripheral vision.
In the late 60’s a good friend ceased using the substance because it was causing “brain rot.”
It would seem using the substance is akin to playing with fire. And as Ed points out, the brain is crucial to everything we do and perceive. Anything that can pass the blood-brain barrier needs to be treated with care. Alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine - all small molecules soluable in fat - have a free pass
What Are the Effects of LSD?
From National Institute on Drug Abuse,
Updated January 10, 2011
About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by the Medical Review Board
The effects of LSD can be described as drug-induced psychosis-distortion or disorganization of a person's capacity to recognize reality, think rationally, or communicate with others. Some LSD users experience devastating psychological effects that persist after the trip has ended, producing a long-lasting psychotic-like state. LSD-induced persistent psychosis may include dramatic mood swings from mania to profound depression, vivid visual disturbances, and hallucinations. These effects may last for years and can affect people who have no history or other symptoms of psychological disorder.
Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder
Some former LSD users report experiences known colloquially as "flashbacks" and called "HPPD" by physicians. These episodes are spontaneous, repeated, sometimes continuous recurrences of some of the sensory distortions originally produced by LSD.
The experience may include hallucinations, but it most commonly consists of visual disturbances such as seeing false motion on the edges of the field of vision, bright or colored flashes, and halos or trails attached to moving objects. This condition is typically persistent and in some cases remains unchanged for years after individuals have stopped using the drug.
No Known Treatment
Because HPPD symptoms may be mistaken for those of other neurological disorders such as stroke or brain tumors, sufferers may consult a variety of clinicians before the disorder is accurately diagnosed. There is no established treatment for HPPD, although some antidepressant drugs may reduce the symptoms.
Psychotherapy may help patients adjust to the confusion associated with visual distraction and to minimize the fear, expressed by some, that they are suffering brain damage or psychiatric disorder.
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/lsd/f/lsd_faq04.htm
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Another interesting source. Reportedly 10% of ingested LSD molecules pass the blood-brain barrier with effects described below.
Physical Response
LSD is a structure comprised of four cyclic structures and three notable functional groups- two ethyl groups and a methyl group. The structure of LSD bears a striking similarity to that of serotonin, which is the molecule principally responsible for determination of mood. (3) A useful explanation for the brain's receptivity to LSD is its structural similarity to serotonin. A C14 marking of ingested LSD shows that about 10% of LSD molecules ingested by a subject pass through the blood brain barrier and bind to serotonin receptors in the hypothalamus. (4) The hypothalamus is part of the limbic system, which has a diverse array of functions associated with homeostasis, movement and more importantly emotion and organization of responses. (5) Once the LSD molecule binds to the serotonin site, it alters the responsiveness of the subject's neurotransmitters. A hallucinogen produces the sensory distortion known as hallucination by lowering the threshold at which nerves produce a response signal. This means that neurons which normally require a large chemical stimulus to produce a signal which is then sent to the brain produce signals at the slightest chemical prompting. (6) This increased volume of neuron activity and signaling means more sensory information is being sent to the brain than it can handle.
The consequence of this mechanism is that LSD molecules, when introduced into the system can become an inhibitor of serotonin. This may cause depression depending on other factors. However, non-hallucinogenic LSD derivatives such as 2-brominated-LSD can be used as serotonin inhibitors to control chemically-based psychological disorders. (7)
Consciousness and Mind Expansion
If the hypothalamus, a center of organizational control and emotion is adversely affected by the binding of LSD to its serotonin receptor sites and functioning irregularly, the outward effects of LSD seem sensible. However, this explanation of neurochemical phenomena barely begins to address the idea of altered and different forms of consciousness. Once one becomes able to see sounds and hear smells, and experience a trip outside of his normal neurological configuration, one could truly say he has experienced a different form of consciousness. (8) Could thoughts generated during an acid trip have been generated under "normal" conditions? If consciousness is merely a function of the pattern or manner of impulse generation and reception, can consciousness be electrically manipulated?
The most profound manifestation of this difference in consciousness is the flashback. In a flashback, an individual returns unexpectedly to the mental state of an acid trip. Whether there are residual LSD molecules involved in a flashback, it is unclear, but a flashback, with its deviation from an individual's perceived reality, provides an excellent juxtaposition between the individual's normative consciousness and the consciousness generated by LSD. The flashback concept also introduces the idea of an LSD placebo of sorts. A brain can generate an LSD-like consciousness state without the aid of the drug itself, showing an ability to redirect the processing of neuron impulses in ways usually thought to be automated.
Ultimately the barrier to LSD research is the inherently philosophical nature of the drug itself (not to mention its illegality). The realms of consciousness reserved for psychology are yet to be blended with the realms of neurophysiology and biochemistry. LSD is peculiar amongst drugs in that it produces emotions and sensations which bend the realm of ordinary human conceptions of consciousness and defy chemical and scientific description at our current level of scientific advancement.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro04/web1/mfichman.html
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 2, 2011 - 01:49pm PT
|
your "Hal and Petunia" story isn't relevant because it isn't something that we are proposing as "third person" though a reconstruction of the 3 days could possibly be built out of the data so collected.
---------------------
This reiterates Chalmers point that first person data (the experience of thirst), the data of subjective experience, is not data about objective/3rd person functioning. So far so good.
You miss the relevance because you are still not perceiving the real world, empirical differences between subjective/objective, mechanistic/ experiential, first/third person. Likely you are commiting the fatal and common mistake of blurring the obvious connection between first and third person and thinking they are qualitatively the same. Tell that to Petunia.
If you violate the Law that first person experience is not entirely reductive to first person processes, you end up with howlers like - experience and the figures about experience are the same thing, or that the "reconstruction" Ed just mentioned could (with sufficient data) explain the ENTIRE first person experience, meaning experience and measurement are exact equals (the map IS the territory).
The trouble arises when third person information gathering techniques are felt to be the only reliable tools for gathering first person, subjective experience. This leads people to try and posit the first person subjective (experiential) as a third person phenomenon (third person objective functioning) in the hopes of measuring the first person in the same way. This in turn leads to the howlers (again, ask Petunia) that experience and figures are the same, derive from the same thing, that experience is what the meat brain does, that figures tell the ENTIRE STORY about experience. This is a closed circle, but so long as it violates one of the two laws mentioned (First person is not totally reductive to third person analysis, and, The map is not the territory), such claims will always be empirically false.
I'll try and jot out some general principals later, including the way to escape the "closed circle" just mentioned. These things have been dealt with for decades and the way is pretty clear.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Likely you are commiting the fatal and common mistake of blurring the obvious connection between first and third person and thinking they are qualitatively the same.
no, what I am getting at is our "first person experience" isn't complete, that it is full of holes and in actual recollection, and in real time, many things are "missed" by our perception. We "fill in" the details based on similar experience learned both by first person and by third person recollection.
The individual experience is less than it seems, your overwhelming stream of data is not apparently necessary for us to form the "experience," that being said, it is not so hard to "trick" the process into evoking the responses that we assume were a part of the experience.
Think of the out takes on the Touching the Void DVD where Joe Simpson is recreating his crawl, he is talking to himself about the overwhelming sensation that he is still on the crawl, and that he had just been hallucinating the intervening time period... I would guess he had the full physiological "rush" of that feeling. But his "experience" is evoked, not by the absolute infinitesimal reproduction of the actual event, but by just being in the same place acting out similar motions... he didn't need the details because he didn't have those details in the first place.
Your first person experience isn't an actual experience at all, it is our interpretation of all those things going on, both subconsciously and consciously, during our perception of the events, many details which we do not actually know.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!