Hi
On 6/16/07, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .... " >Chemical potentiation IS electric field...< ... What is electric field? John M (frmr chemist) > Hi, > I am going to have to be a bit targetted in my responses.... I am a TAD > whelmed at the moment..... > > COLIN > >> 4) Belief in 'magical emergence' .... qualitative novelty of a kind > utterly unrelated to the componentry. > > RUSSEL > > The latter clause refers to "emergence" (without the "magical" > > qualifier), and it is impossible IMHO to have creativity without > emergence. > > COLIN > The distinction between 'magical emergence' and 'emergence' is quite > obviously intended by me. A lake is not apparent in the chemical formula > for water. I would defy anyone to quote any example of real-world > 'emergence' that does not ultimately rely on a necessary primitive. > 'Magical emergence' is when you claim 'qualitative novelty' without having > any idea (you can't point at it) of the necessary primitive, or by > defining an arbitrary one that is actually a notional construct (such as > 'information'), rather than anything real. > > > COLIN > >> The system (a) automatically prescibes certain trajectories and > > RUSSEL > > Yes. > > COLIN > >> (b) assumes that the theroem space [and] natural world are the same > space > and equivalently accessed. > > RUSSEL > > No - but the system will adjust its model according to feedback. That is > the very nature of any learning algorithm, of which EP is just one > example. > > COLIN > Ok. Here's where we find the big assumption. Feedback? HOW?...by who's > rules? Your rules. This is the real circularity which underpins > computationalism. It's the circularity that my real physical qualia model > cuts and kills. Mathematically: > > * You have knowledge KNOWLEDGE(t) of 'out there' > * You want more knowledge of 'out there' ....so > * KNOWLEDGE(t+1) is more than KNOWLEDGE(t) > * in computationalism who defines the necessary route to this?... > > d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) > --------------- = something you know = YOU DO. > dt > > So this means that in a computer abstraction. > > d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) > --------------- is already part of KNOWLEDGE(t) > dt > > You can label it 'evolutionary' or 'adaptive' or whatever...ultimately the > rules are YOUR rules and come from your previously derived KNOWLEDGE(t) of > 'out there', not intrinsically grounded directly in 'out there'. Who > decided what you don't know? YOU DID. What is it based on? YOUR current > knowledge of it, not what is literally/really there. Ungroundedness is the > fatal flaw in the computationalist model. Intrinsic grounding in the > external world is what qualia are for. It means that > > d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) > --------------- > dt > > is > (a) built into the brain hardware (plasticity chemistry, out of your > cognitive control) > (b) partly grounded in matter literally/directly constructed in > representation of the external world, reflecting the external world so > that NOVELTY - true novelty in the OUTSIDE WORLD - is apparent. > > In this way your current knowledge minimally impacts > > d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) > --------------- > dt > > In other words, at the fundamental physics level: > > d(KNOWLEDGE(t)) > --------------- > dt > > in a human brain is NOT part of KNOWLEDGE(t). Qualia are the brain's > solution to the symbolic grounding problem. > > > RUSSEL > > Not at all. In Evolutionary Programming, very little is known about the > ultimate solution the algorithm comes up with. > > COLIN > Yes but that is irrelevant....the programmer said HOW it will get > there....Sorry...no cigar....see the above.... > > >> My scientific claim is that the electromagnetic field structure > literally the third person view of qualia. > > > Eh? Electromagnetic field of what? The brain? If so, do you think that > chemical potentiation plays no role at all in qualia? > > Chemical potentiation IS electric field. There's no such thing as > 'mechanical' there's no such thing as 'chemical'. These are all metaphors > in certain contexts for what is there...space and charge (yes...and mass > associated with certain charge carriers). Where did you get this weird > idea that a metaphor can make qualia? > > The electric field across the membrane of cells (astrocytes and neurons) > is MASSIVE. MEGAVOLTS/METER. Think SPARKS and LIGHTNIING. It dominates the > entire structure! It does not have to go anywhere. It just has to 'be'. > You 'be' it to get what it delivers. Less than 50% of the signalling in > the brain is synaptic, anyway! The dominant cortical process is actually > an astrocyte syncytium. (look it up!). I would be very silly to ignore the > single biggest, most dominant process of the brain that is so far > completely correlated in every way with qualia...in favour of any other > cause. > ------------------- > > Once again I'd like to get you to ask yourself the killer question: > > "What is the kind of universe we must live in if the electromagnetic field > structure of the brain delivers qualia?" > > A. It is NOT the universe depicted by the qualia (atoma, molecules, > cells...). It is the universe whose innate capacity to deliver qualia is > taken advantage of when configureed like it appears when we use qualia > themselves to explore it....cortical brain matter. (NOTE: Please do not > make the mistake that sensors - peripheral affect - are equivalent to > qualia.) > > My original solution to > > Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious? > > stands. The computer must have a qualia-depiction of its external world > and it will know it because it can do science. If it doesn't/can't it's a > rock/doorstop. In any computer model, every time an algoritm decides what > 'is' (what is visible/there) it intrisically defines 'what isn't' (what is > invisible/not there). All novelty becomes thus pre-ordained. > > anyway.....Ultimately 'how' qualia are generated is moot. > > That they are _necessarily_ involved is the key issue. On their own they > are not sufficient for science to occur. > > cheers > colin > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
