Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MH2
climber
|
|
Marlow,
Largo is not being dogmatic, he is being Largo.
My favorite result from this thread:
Kant -- "Spirit expresses itself through the object."
Takes one to know one.
"Spirit on the water,
Darkness on the face of the Deep..."
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
MH2
You say: "Largo is not being dogmatic, he is being Largo."
Then: If I accept your sentence, what I am now trying to find out is if part of what it is to be Largo is to be dogmatic about this law.
And my question still stands.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 2, 2011 - 12:00pm PT
|
Think that I into the future had very advanced instruments that measured your brain activity. At the same time you told me what you subjectively experienced during the time I measured your brain activity. After doing this for a long time we turned it all around. I measured your brain activity and told you what you subjectively experienced and you told me when I was right and when I was wrong. And the result was that I was 99% right and 1% wrong - would you then accept that subjective experience could be measured?
--
You're still thinking that measurements and subjective experience are fundamentally the same, or are simply different ways of saying the same things. I'm not going to get into the years I spent doing neurofeedback and looking at qEEGs and so forth (not only is every brain different, but the measurements simply aren't the experience and don't even hint what is going on beyone the most generic mood markers).
Ed gets worked up because 1st person experience is not a reliable method to numerically quantify data. But that's not the function of subjective experience. The function is to appreciate the universe of Miles Davis subjectively, which provides us information totally outside the very limited objective orbit. If you need to know whether it is Miles or a record, open your eyes and let your left brain grind on the sense data that either Miles is there in the room or you're listening to a CD. Different tool of the job.
|
|
pa
climber
|
|
Yang is function. Yin is form.
Yang is energy. Yin is matter.
Yin and Yang are two states of density. They have four relationships:
Opposition. The two sides of a coin.
Interdependence. One cannot exist without the other.
Dynamic balance. They can be further divided ad infinitum.
Intertransformation. Each can become the other.
Function and form mutually define, depend and restrict each other.
Western thinking is stuck in the "either/or" duality.
Eastern thought sees everything on a continuum.
The West seeks to isolate...dividi et impera.
The East seeks to find patterns... follow the flow.
Both descriptions are useful. Their integration might be considered progress.
A Chinese professor was asked: "Are you Taoist or Confucian?"
He said:
"It depends when..."
As for first and third person experience...
"Front and back follow each other"...
|
|
BASE104
climber
An Oil Field
|
|
No tomes on eastern philosophy allowed. It is already too hard to follow the white rabbit.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
ok Largo, hey we are starting to agree on things...
...for the experience, you're saying, it doesn't matter if "it's live or if it's Memorex" to quote that old add (now hopelessly archaic).
But for my point, we already have the means to invoke an experience quite artificially, that is, our sense of Miles is independent, to some extent, to the details of what is invoking the experience.
Why this is important to me is that we know that the recording is not Miles, but since our experience could be identical in the two instances (the live Miles vs. the recored Miles) you have left it only to our "left brain" to grind on the objective differences... but you have left open the possibility that we really cannot tell the difference, so if iRobot were to produce a "Miles" replica, we might not be able to tell the difference... they could be cunning enough to make the robot "intuit" as Miles might have, we have no way of knowing whether or not they got it right because we don't know how Miles did it, either...
...in the end, what's the difference? Miles the person and Miles the product? to our experience, they could be equivalent, which is also to say, we couldn't tell the difference between the two, and thus, it wouldn't really matter if one was "conscious" and the other not. The quality of "consciousness" in the two Miles' is irrelevant to our experience, as you have said...
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 2, 2011 - 02:36pm PT
|
Why this is important to me is that we know that the recording is not Miles, but since our experience could be identical in the two instances (the live Miles vs. the recored Miles) you have left it only to our "left brain" to grind on the objective differences... but you have left open the possibility that we really cannot tell the difference, so if iRobot were to produce a "Miles" replica, we might not be able to tell the difference... they could be cunning enough to make the robot "intuit" as Miles might have, we have no way of knowing whether or not they got it right because we don't know how Miles did it, either...
-----
What I think you're driving at pertains to the fact that subjectively, we can be "fooled" per the "real" content of our consciousness. But where I believe you are going wrong is that you are considering the objective "things" that enter awareness - be they a "real" Miles or an AI Miles - as the sole content of consciousness whereas I consider the content to be experience, which is not itself a quantifiable thing, but includes such things both real and artificial.
Another way to look at this is that from the Subjective point of view, 3rd person objective views are super limited because they are literal. But they work well when literal vaules are needed to build and quantify things. From the Objective view, the 1st person subjective is limited because it is not qualatatively reliable, though it's invaluable for knowing what's true about something beyond a mere numerical representation of something.
Obviously, we can't expect objective POVs to provide much beyond accurate info on objective functioning, and we cannot trust subjective POVs to crunch data in a literal sense. Seen from the each perspective, the opposite has glaring deficiencies and advantages. But considering them to be the same things, or regretting that they compliment rather than duplicate the other's function, is to bet against ourselves.
JL
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Largo
You say:
You're still thinking that measurements and subjective experience are fundamentally the same, or are simply different ways of saying the same things. I'm not going to get into the years I spent doing neurofeedback and looking at qEEGs and so forth (not only is every brain different, but the measurements simply aren't the experience and don't even hint what is going on beyone the most generic mood markers).
Answer:
I am not thinking that measurements and subjective experience is one and the same phenomenon and I am not thinking of getting you into talking about the years you spent doing neurofeedback and so on.
Just think that the instruments I am talking about are far far more advanced than the instruments you used when you studied the brain and think that they are able to measure what happens in the dynamic landscape of the brain perfectly. And then think that while I measure your brain activity you tell me what you’re thinking, feeling and so on, so that connected to the different thoughts and feelings you are experiencing after a long time of study a particular and steady pattern of brain-activity emerges among the analyzed measurements. Then particular patterns of brain activity will correspond to particular thoughts and feelings. If so I can by seeing the perfectly measured dynamic brain-activity of yours alone tell you what you are thinking and feeling nearly without mistakes.
If this situation was achieved, would you then accept that subjective experience could be measured?
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
BES1'st
I agree. Never let anyone do that.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
what I am getting at is that we can't actually know if someone else is conscious...
...we suppose they are, and of course, could be fooled... we might think that "Watson" of recent Jeopardy! fame is "conscious".
Where my argument is taking this conversation is that since we might not be able to tell if someone else is "conscious" we might very well mistake our concept in identifying our own "consciousness."
That is to say, you aren't "conscious" in the way you've defined it.... therefore, your "consciousness" does not exist. ■
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 2, 2011 - 05:57pm PT
|
That is to say, you aren't "conscious" in the way you've defined it.... therefore, your "consciousness" does not exist. ■
How have I defined it? So far most people haven't even attempted to define it, other than through measuring objective functions. And people are still convinced that if only they have the right machine, and enough data, that the measurements would tell us exactly what "experience" someone was having.
This is fundamentally absurd because of the silly mixing and mistaking of atomic and electrochemical objective functioning for something subjective, or a perfect "map" of the subjective, which is like saying that the objective IS the subjective, i.e., "The Map is the Territory," and that violates a Law of mind and cannot be true.
To call the subjective "blathering" is to say Miles Davis simply makes "noise." Even the most in depth review of music would not indicate the qualia of music itself because that requires a meat brain and "mind." The qualia would quite naturally NOT be in the musical score.
I would also add that experience does NOT exist in the way most people are considering it, believing as they do that physiological markers are the actual stuff of experience, which simply is the most jackass thing imaginable and hasn't got one shred of empirical evidence to support it.
Another thing, the data we get from objectifying matter is very limited and narrow, and if we tried to build a life on it alone we'd be written off as autistic and disonnected. On this thread there is a certain virtue placed on a kind of Asperger's take on reality whereby objective data is revered as a idol and everything else is "blather." The crazy thing here is that no one actually lives their life like this. When Marlow, for example, picks a car or Fruity picks a boyfriend or Ed picks a shot to take (photography), there is far more involved and refined processing going on then number crunching. In fact, the majority of our actions are feeling and impulsive driven. The small gear in the brain is the neo-cortex, which is immediately and correctly overriden but the more fundamental functions when the stressors hit.
JL
|
|
MikeL
climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
|
|
So what.
Beyond an academic issue, what difference would it make if consciousness and / or mind could be "mechanically" derived or even created at some point in the future--rather than if it were impossible to reproduce or explain it?
Do we "downgrade" the dignity of man? Or, do we "upgrade" man's status because he can create life in a full sense? Do we create a new class of being for the not-pure-human creations? Do we push consciousness to more advanced levels than what might be possible at the time? Does it really make any difference at all?
If subjectivity is never mechanically explained, then so what? I guess there's something that falls beyond man's capabilities? We can't be gods after all?
I can't see anyone suggesting any of these ideas. It's just an academic exercise at best. At a minimum, it's pure speculation.
There have been so many movies and novels devoted to the scenario of creating artificial life and how those lives become "human."
I think that's kind of a cool idea. Perhaps they'd be better at being humane than we are.
EDIT: What I also should have remarked on is the intransigence of people's opinions, points of views, ideologies, beliefs. No one changed their minds or even offered that another could have a point. What is it about our beliefs that make us so stubborn and argumentative? Again, it's just an academic exercise, isn't it?
|
|
wack-N-dangle
Gym climber
the ground up
|
|
The crazy thing here is that no one actually lives their life like this. When Marlow, for example, picks a car or Fruity picks a boyfriend or Ed picks a shot to take (photography), there is far more involved and refined processing going on then number crunching.
I always appreciated the self deprecating sense of humor in the stories. That, and the sense of adventure, kind of made me feel complicit in the shenanigans. Or at least wannabe.
I remember a piece about a plague, a stolen plane, and a final trip to the desert.
Anyway, it seems that there is simply some disagreement about the "mind". Also, something seemed to have touched a nerve. I don't know if wanting to rap about "consciousness" to maybe find agreement is indicative of something else going on. Still, if it is, I hope your friends call you on it.
It seems human to ask why. There may be some things, our consciousness, that will never be defined mechanistically. Another question seems to be, "Why invest so much in having the answer?". Maybe it is because of the inherent importance of our own perspective.
Saw this earlier: non sequitur
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
I think at the core it is a search for meaning. What is our purpose? Are we just a long chain of random events, or are we going somewhere in particular?
Still working on that one....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Mind, intelligence and ego (the individual), are the subtle body covering of the individual spirit soul.
The modern foolish scientist wastes his time looking at his defective material instruments trying to find the cause of all causes.
He will always fail because he thinks he's the finger and never feeds the mouth. The finger can not enjoy independently for it must serve the mouth which naturally provides the whole.
One must drive the mind with good intelligence just as one drives a vehicle.
Those who drive with bad intelligence .... crash
Just see this wreak of the modern world ......
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
What is Hank?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 2, 2011 - 08:29pm PT
|
Does it really make any difference at all?
-
Probably not in the actual lives we lead. But if experience cannot be reversed engineered entirely to determined mechanisms within the evolved meat brain - and despite the Second Hard Problem, there is no hard empirical evidence this is so - then we need a new approach to investigating the whole shebang.
I don't suspect that some folks will forego the "broadcast" or emergence model of mind, or maybe as with other non-material "things," folks will seek out a kind of experiential graviton, some physical vortext or slip stream of rip tide that we can measure and say, "There it is." Marlow is already doing thing, with nothing, and that's why he must return to his corner till he can think clearly and know that his experience of watching those old Gomer Pyle reruns is not the same thing as Washington Column.
Ed brought up a terrific point: The only proof that we have subjective experienced is 1st person experience itself. And yet advertising and medicine and (fill in the blank) are all about improving the quality or our 1st person subjective experience, which we all intuitively and by dint of our behavior "know" exists. You don't tell your wife that she looks way fat in that dress because you might not be able to quantifiably prove she has subjective experience, but there's sufficient anecdotal evidence that Loretta (wife) will be shocked and her feelings will be hurt and that her subjective experience, while unproven, will pretty much determine that you will not be getting any for the thirty five years.
People can try and prove experience by dint of meat brain activity, but much like the speed of light, subjective experience is relative to our point of view.
The mystery of intimacy is where we achieve the impossible and move toward a direct experience of another person's 1st person subjective reality. Even the slightest overlap can be life altering, psychological fusion if you will.
JL
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Achieving the impossible is cool.
Might make the universe split apart, though.
|
|
BASE104
climber
An Oil Field
|
|
I think that it has tremendous significance.
Lets pretend that the brain is some type of wild computer. The software has to be tuned to the environment for about 15 years before it goes fully operational. 16 to drive, 21 to drink, 12 to buy weed. It takes years to learn language and other skills. One of the longer adolescences in the animal kingdom.
The brain thrives on subjective experience, if you want to toss the word experience altogether and just say data. The idea that it is subjective is pretty easy to see. Show five people the same thing and you are likely to get five different accounts of the same event. Eyewitness testimony is now known to be awful, and has probably sent many innocent people to execution.
So lets pretend or agree that the brain is a computer. It comes with software installed, but the software is very flexible and is tweaked during adolescence by experiences and other data.
This computer seems to be fundamentally very different from our more familiar binary computers. Those operate very objectively and can far outstrip the human brain's ability to crunch lots of numbers without error.
The brain has no problem with subjective data, and is terrific at making intuitive conclusions from that data.
If you could combine those two strengths in one place, it would make for a pretty bitchin computer.
Perhaps awareness and consciousness involve the ability to understand subjective or abstract ideas and make decisions based on that.
The brain is a monster computer. My brain is so big that the docs had to install a cooling fan when I was in college.
Anyway, I have a big hunch that the brain doesn't operate on ones and zeros. It has a complicated three dimensional architecture, and has been evolving since the Cambrian or somewhere around there.
I am not even drawing the line at the human brain. You can look at the brain of a mouse and see the structural similarities to ours.
If or when we are able to understand how the brain operates, it will lead to many new ideas regarding machines. As for this brain/mind duality, I have never been able to buy into it.
What I do buy into is the notion that no matter how hard we try to be all calm and objective, our brains still operate subjectively. That is why we are lousy at repetitive quantitative calculating. Hell, that is why we need the rulers and yardsticks that JL can't stand in the first place. We have to use tools that do not reside in our brains just to operate objectively. Same with the intense and rigorous symbolic language that is necessary to accurately convey ideas in many of the hard sciences like math and physics. Those ideas can't really be effectively communicated in language or subjective speech.
An example is F=MA. Each of those symbols have rigourous definitions and have to be dimensionally consistent. If so, that is how you measure force.
F=MA is pretty damn easy to remember. Without that symbolic quantitative language, communicating the idea to others would be filled with error.
The strength in our brains resides in its ability to process subjective data and make intuitive conclusions. If we want to get highly quantitative, we need to use an invented symbolic language, and having machines crunch the quantitative data for us doesn't hurt either. We suck at it and are very prone to error. Conversely, it is very difficult to program a machine to do many of the tasks that are simple for us. Like recognize your grandmother.
I would go so far as to say that prior to written language, humans were nakedly unable to think in quantitative terms. We HAVE to have written language in order to communicate on a much clearer level.
So all this measuring and stuff that JL doesn't like is actually a necessary construct to think quantitatively (objectively).
But yeah, I now see that the brain is really limited to its ability to process subjective data. It can handle a little objective stuff, but it is a smaller part of it.
|
|
BASE104
climber
An Oil Field
|
|
People can try and prove experience by dint of meat brain activity, but much like the speed of light, subjective experience is relative to our point of view.
I agree 100% with this statement if you deny the ability to objectively understand anything.
It is possible to prove experience. Experience is just something that happens, and pretty much anything that happens can be defined in quantitative terms if you are clever enough to understand the types of data coming from the experience.
That doesn't mean that everything can be reduced and understood in hard quantitative numbers. So far. A lot of things can be.
You hear a loud noise. Well, if you use something to measure and adequately explain that noise, you can accurately recreate it, or at the least understand it. You can even calibrate from the ear that heard it.
Yes, subjective experience is nigh by definition relative to our point of view. However if you are very careful, you can force the matter to be described objectively and qualitatively. Not everything yet, but it is getting better every day.
Everything that we experience in our lives comes to us through notoriously error prone and probably poorly calibrated senses. The trick, and here is where I am going to toss in the word science as a loose generic term, is to force yourself into an ultra critical and quantitative point of view. The scientific method is designed to deal with this very problem, although I have never looked at it from this perspective before.
If we were able to avoid the problem of our own subjective and error prone minds and senses in the first place, it would be far easier to communicate things quantitatively, as well as understand them in a very standard way.
Neat stuff. The brain operates in a way that is both fantastic and inadequate, given the problem at hand.
Maybe if we weren't so subjective and intuitive we would have never had Miles Davis to begin with, not to mention anyone who enjoyed turning up the volume on So What.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!