2C Mary
Dear Folks, Once again I find myself fossicking at the boundaries and need to ask one of those questions. My first experience with an asker of such a question was in the last couple of years at high school. I'll tell you about it because, well, the list could use a little activity and I hope the 'fabric' list doesn't mind the rather voluminous joining post. The story: Person X raises his hand in class and the question is asked. The most insanely stupid question. At least that's what it appeared to be to most of the class. Snicker. Guffaw. Snicker. Rhubarb. Rhubarb. A mexican wave of derision filters through the pubescent ranks. That wave didn't get past me. I looked at person X across the room. Yes, on the face of it that question was the pathetic pleading of the apparently brain dead. Yet I knew it could not be. For person X was one of those kids that got scarily high marks. I knew that the question had answered something far deeper for person X than the shallow meanderings of the distinterested that formed the rest of the class sitting in judgement. And none of them would ever realise that. That's the stupid question story. Now for the apparently stupid question, which I'll pose in 2 parts. The first part is a little background. For those of you who subscribe to the PSYCHE lists, you will have seen my recent question Exploded Brain Mary on PSYCHE-D. This question is in pursuit of understanding of a topic not apparent in the question and I'm afraid I can't go into detail. It's about resolving the bottom layer of a speculative model for qualia. Now this model is around 11 layers deep. It's a very detailed model and I'm going to do my best to bring it into the public eye for scrutiny in due course. Somehow. Suggestions anyone? There is no way I can possibly bring you all up to speed on the whole thing but I can say that I have hit a final wall of mystery which appears to suggest something that may be true about consciousness that may be the 'fundamental' bedrock. Something that is breathtakingly simple yet so odd I am here to ask you folks to see what I see. To see where it leads. I really don't know if it's well trodden ground or not. The second part is 2C Mary. This is a small thought experiment designed to illustrate as simply as I can the possibility for a mechanism for access to apparently physics-violating phenomena. Those interested in philosophy of mind will recognise that poor neuroscientist Mary has been the subject of many a thought experiment and she has acquiesced to appalling things in the name of science. This one is no different! Let's get rid of Mary's brain completely. A radical brainectomy. We are going to replace it with two particles. Each particle is travelling at the speed of light, C, but in perfectly opposing directions. The distance between them is growing at a speed of 2C. Now nothing is actually moving at 2C and all is well for physics. The real question is the ontological status of the 'nothing' in that last sentence. I am starting to believe that the true nature of the 'fundamental' beneath qualia is not only about the 'stuff', but is actually about all of it. That is, the 'stuff' and the 'not stuff'. If you think of Mary, she actually has 3 things in her brain. She has 2 particles doing something and one extra thing defined by their behaviour. The behaviour of a mathematical line between the two centres of mass of the particles. What argument removes that third 'thing' from Mary as an (cognitive) entity occupying our universe? I find I can no longer dismiss this third thing. Now the relationship - the causal chain - between what I have described and the qualia model is not easy to deduce. You'll have to accept for the moment that there is one. The reason I need to explore this is that I have identified what I think is a form of apparent non-locality accessible by simply 'being' part of the universe, and it's like the same form of access to physics violation that 2C Mary gets. Why do I need this? Without going into detail, it possibly supplies the answer to 'Exploded Brain Mary' that seems intuitively right yet so bizarre, to me, anyway. It's the basis for solving the so-called 'unity of consciousness' issue, which, if this goes anywhere at all will simply evaporate as a non-problem and no actual unity at all. The nature of the thought process that has been plaguing me for the last few weeks has slowly found its way to a question of the form I have just outlined. I suppose what I am asking is - Has anyone else been down this road? Is it a road at all? So many times I find I am walking in footsteps and only lack the descriptor to find prior art. In closure, I'd like to support the general way of thinking about this. A cloud is as much defined by what it is as what it is not. All 'reality' as we describe it, has two halves. We have been so preoccupied with what 'is', we (presumptuous here, sorry. Set me straight, please) have completely missed it's opposite. Turn
Re: 2C Mary
I think your idea makes sense. Just like the distance between two particles is not 'nothing' but a real property of the universe at that time (therefore there are 3 things in mary's brain), also the specific configuration of neurotransmitters and electrical impulses in the brain is something not less real than the individual constituent parts of the brain itself. So it could very well be that we are this something (this configuration). Maybe there is something it feels like for the distance between two particles to increase. Another possibility is that subjective sensations and qualia are the only things that exist, the very structure of the universe, and the existence of the physical, and even the way it seems to all make sense, these maybe only details of the experiences that we happen to have. I imagine an infinite dimensional space in which every possible quale has one dimension, with intensity ranging from 0 to infinity. Within such a framework, every stream of consciousness could be defined as a multidimensional curve. At Point A you have pain in your neck of intensity X, see a red blob with intensity Y and so forth. Then your point at that time would be (x,y) in a 2dimensional space (for simplicity). This solves copy paradoxes and teleportation arguments, if it's not clear how it does so feel free to mail me. I have an additional thought about qualia that I haven't found in the literature. For us to talk about qualia the brain needs to represent them. If the brain represents them, then they are not qualia anymore. When we say the redness of red, the brain is representing this, so in the end it IS all a matter of data structures and representation. This in my opinion invalidates all dualistic theories, since it eliminates the need for any kind of soul and for a connection between soul and hardware. Any thoughts on this? mirai++ - Original Message - ??? : Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?? : 'everything' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : 2003?6?3? 22:35 ?? : 2C Mary Dear Folks, Once again I find myself fossicking at the boundaries and need to ask one of those questions. My first experience with an asker of such a question was in the last couple of years at high school. I'll tell you about it because, well, the list could use a little activity and I hope the 'fabric' list doesn't mind the rather voluminous joining post. The story: Person X raises his hand in class and the question is asked. The most insanely stupid question. At least that's what it appeared to be to most of the class. Snicker. Guffaw. Snicker. Rhubarb. Rhubarb. A mexican wave of derision filters through the pubescent ranks. That wave didn't get past me. I looked at person X across the room. Yes, on the face of it that question was the pathetic pleading of the apparently brain dead. Yet I knew it could not be. For person X was one of those kids that got scarily high marks. I knew that the question had answered something far deeper for person X than the shallow meanderings of the distinterested that formed the rest of the class sitting in judgement. And none of them would ever realise that. That's the stupid question story. Now for the apparently stupid question, which I'll pose in 2 parts. The first part is a little background. For those of you who subscribe to the PSYCHE lists, you will have seen my recent question Exploded Brain Mary on PSYCHE-D. This question is in pursuit of understanding of a topic not apparent in the question and I'm afraid I can't go into detail. It's about resolving the bottom layer of a speculative model for qualia. Now this model is around 11 layers deep. It's a very detailed model and I'm going to do my best to bring it into the public eye for scrutiny in due course. Somehow. Suggestions anyone? There is no way I can possibly bring you all up to speed on the whole thing but I can say that I have hit a final wall of mystery which appears to suggest something that may be true about consciousness that may be the 'fundamental' bedrock. Something that is breathtakingly simple yet so odd I am here to ask you folks to see what I see. To see where it leads. I really don't know if it's well trodden ground or not. The second part is 2C Mary. This is a small thought experiment designed to illustrate as simply as I can the possibility for a mechanism for access to apparently physics-violating phenomena. Those interested in philosophy of mind will recognise that poor neuroscientist Mary has been the subject of many a thought experiment and she has acquiesced to appalling things in the name of science. This one is no different! Let's get rid of Mary's brain completely. A radical brainectomy. We are going to replace it with two particles. Each particle is travelling at the speed of light, C, but in perfectly opposing directions. The distance between them is growing at a speed of 2C. Now nothing is actually moving at 2C and all is well for
RE: 2C Mary
Hi, From: Mirai Shounen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I think your idea makes sense. Just like the distance between two particles is not 'nothing' but a real property of the universe at that time (therefore there are 3 things in mary's brain), also the specific configuration of neurotransmitters and electrical impulses in the brain is something not less real than the individual constituent parts of the brain itself. So it could very well be that we are this something (this configuration). Maybe there is something it feels like for the distance between two particles to increase. Another possibility is that subjective sensations and qualia are the only things that exist, the very structure of the universe, and the existence of the physical, and even the way it seems to all make sense, these maybe only details of the experiences that we happen to have. I imagine an infinite dimensional space in which every possible quale has one dimension, with intensity ranging from 0 to infinity. Within such a framework, every stream of consciousness could be defined as a multidimensional curve. At Point A you have pain in your neck of intensity X, see a red blob with intensity Y and so forth. Then your point at that time would be (x,y) in a 2dimensional space (for simplicity). This solves copy paradoxes and teleportation arguments, if it's not clear how it does so feel free to mail me. I have an additional thought about qualia that I haven't found in the literature. For us to talk about qualia the brain needs to represent them. If the brain represents them, then they are not qualia anymore. When we say the redness of red, the brain is representing this, so in the end it IS all a matter of data structures and representation. This in my opinion invalidates all dualistic theories, since it eliminates the need for any kind of soul and for a connection between soul and hardware. Any thoughts on this? mirai++ Re the latter thought: Can I suggest reading a pile of Daniel Dennett? The 'representationalist' or its extremum: the eliminativist end of consciousness is, as are all other philosophical positions as far as I can tell, both right and wrong. (The exception: the projectivist, this seems to match the model). I have said elsewhere: If representation is all these is to consciousness then a mediocre poet could make paper hurt. Yes there is representation. However, the representation is in matter, literally. Not just a bunch matter pointing at a thing, but the thing. Re the former thought: I am at the end of a very long formulation of a theory and it is sourced entirely through the multi-disciplinary study of brain matter over 2 years of 'lockup'. I already know where and how and why the effects I describe are carried out with anatomical clues in neurons and glia (astrocytes). That side of it is all in the bag. I don't need a solution to that end of the detail to qualia. Job's done. It's the fundamental nature of the _visibility_ of the phenomena used to generate that is what my question is all about. -- An observation: 1) There is a spectacular lack of posts with links to papers and other supporting material. 2) Nobody has come out with a silver bullet to refute it to death. I conclude that I am out on a novel but breezy little speculative ismuth at the frontier of knowledge. I'm starting to get used to that. :-) It seems to be the lot of the guy holding this kind of proposal. It's a dirty job but Oh well, I tried. Cheers, Colin Hales
Re: 2C Mary
On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 03:17 PM, Colin Hales wrote: Re the latter thought: Can I suggest reading a pile of Daniel Dennett? The 'representationalist' or its extremum: the eliminativist end of consciousness is, as are all other philosophical positions as far as I can tell, both right and wrong. Hmm.. I've read a few piles of Dennett myself, so I wonder what your take is on the essays Instead of Qualia and Quining Qualia.. I believe Dennett makes a good case that before you seek confirmation for your favorite theory behind qualia, you first ought to argue that the very idea of qualia is something worth taking seriously. Also.. you say that there are 3 things in 2C Mary's brain..the two points and their distance..well, why not every subdivision of that distance too? Or every set of subdivisions? You ask: What argument removes that third 'thing' from Mary as an (cognitive) entity occupying our universe? I find I can no longer dismiss this third thing. I have an argument: no 'things' in this sense can be cited as playing any informative, explanatory roles in Mary's behavior. In any case one ought to have arguments for including entities in theories, not against. (..sorry to occupy everything-list with this, but I'd be interested in continuing somewhere else. One day I'd like to have the time to discuss how consciousness relates to the computationalist TOE views presented here (especially Bruno's and Juergen's) though..)
Re: 2C Mary - Check your concepts at the door
My physics is decades-old first-year U level (I'm a computer science type). But if I'm not mistaken, there's no such thing as a 2C speed, or a 2C closing of separation between two objects. All speeds can only be measured from some reference frame that is travelling with one of the objects (say A) or another, and no other object (say B) can be observed to be closing at faster than C. Similarly, if we're measuring the approach speed of A from our reference frame that is travelling with B, we can never observe A approaching at greater than C. I'm not really sure how this relativistic stuff impinges on the rest of your argument. I've always held out the weirdness of what happens to the concept of speed at high speeds to be an example of the limited domain of applicability of every concept idea. i.e. speed only makes sense at low speeds, paradoxically enough. Similarly, color wouldn't make sense below the size of wavelengths of light, etc. What this tells us is that words (terms) e.g. speed, color, right-wing zealot make sense only within delineated contexts. (e.g. the latter term probably is hard to apply to slugs, but then again... ok it is really hard to apply to rocks sensibly..) Words are descriptions which arguably only make sense within a (theory - in the formal-logic sense) or at most within a closely related cluster of similar theories. Theories just being possibly large but finite self-consistent logical descriptions of lots of things and relationships between those things. Every theory has a domain of discourse that it can be said to be about. It may be a very broad domain of discourse, but there will always be perfectly valid and coherent other concepts and theories whose domains of discourse bear no relationship (or no essential relationship) whatsoever to the domain of discourse of the first theory. -- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. - Oscar Wilde
Re: 2C Mary - How minds perceive things and not things
Colin Hales wrote: The real question is the ontological status of the 'nothing' in that last sentence. I am starting to believe that the true nature of the 'fundamental' beneath qualia is not only about the 'stuff', but is actually about all of it. That is, the 'stuff' and the 'not stuff'. So. Anyone care to comment on the ontological status of 'not thing'? I believe our brains and minds are difference engines. What they do is respond in a feedback loop with perceptual signals in such a way as to continually sort things, by the single rule of this is more different from that than it is from that, so I'll represent that comparative level of difference (in a compact way that can be stored and retrieved quickly). In other words, it organizes its internal representation of what's out there so that the more different, less different relations between representational symbols in the brain are as close as possible to mirroring the more different, less different relations among chunks of reality. Objects in the world, for example, are individuated (their boundaries from other objects determined, and thus the extent that their identity applies to) on the basis of a rigorously mathematical, and simple, algorithm of these are the best clusters of all kinds of similarities and their boundaries are where the most differences (of many kinds) occur. This individuation by difference-measurement applies equally well when turned inward on itself to create abstract theories of abstract domains (e.g. higher math and logic, language about thoughts). I would contend that notions like abstraction into generalization-specialization hierarchies of noun and verb (thing and relationship) concepts emerge spontaneously if you simply mix a represent the differences principle with an achieve most compact representation principle. So what does all this musing about conceptualization of the world have to do with the world (universe) itself, or what that universe really is ? That's a hard one. The best I could come up with is that the multiverse or plenitude is the capacity for all differences and configurations of differences to manifest themselves. Most parts of that will be ungrokable by brains like ours because only those parts which have organized configurations of differences exhibiting space-time-like locality, energy, matter etc which behave within limits that allow formation of emergent systems of bigger, observable, simple configurations of differences will be observable universes (to difference-engine brains like ours that were lucky enough to emerge as one of those emergent systems in a hospitable energy regime. Or Whatever. -- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. - Oscar Wilde
Re: 2C Mary
At 23:35 03/06/03 +1000, Colin Hales wrote: Dear Folks, Once again I find myself fossicking at the boundaries and need to ask one of those questions. My first experience with an asker of such a question was in the last couple of years at high school. I'll tell you about it because, well, the list could use a little activity and I hope the 'fabric' list doesn't mind the rather voluminous joining post. The story: Your post is not very clear to me. If you can link me (us) to a place where you elaborate a little bit, that could help ... Bruno
