On Consciousness

[tensordyne]

And the subjective is ontologically objective. So?

Look up the words you use and be more careful if you can. Consciousness is, or at least I claimed it to be, ontologically subjective. Science is about finding out about things that are epistemically objective.

The subjective makes no sense saying it is ontologically objective.

 

[tensordyne]

I don't need a word for that, because there's no such thing. By the time you are consciously aware of any sensation, it's already an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation.

Look at visual perception - it's one progressively more abstract perception filter after another.

So the idea of breaking down sensory perceptions as analytically as we can is a bad idea. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. So by your logic I can not describe a airplane in terms of progressively simpler observations because "it's already an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation". I am raising the BS flag.

 

[PixyMisa]

Look up the words you use and be more careful if you can. Consciousness is, or at least I claimed it to be, ontologically subjective. Science is about finding out about things that are epistemically objective.

And since the subjective is ontologically objective, it is necessarily epistemologically objective. Any other approach is dualistic and therefore doomed, or puts the cart before the horse and is therefore doomed.

The subjective makes no sense saying it is ontologically objective.

Brains, physical. Mind, brain function. Subjective, objective function. Story, end of.

 

[PixyMisa]

So the idea of breaking down sensory perceptions as analytically as we can is a bad idea.

No. Nor can you rationally infer that position from anything I've said.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. So by your logic I can not describe a airplane in terms of progressively simpler observations because "it's already an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation". I am raising the BS flag.

You're right to raise the BS flag, but it's your own BS.

 

[PixyMisa]

Anyway, to go back to your post #1015, tensordyne, if I had to use a word, I'd say association (per Pulvinar, #961) or metadata.

 

[tensordyne]

No. Nor can you rationally infer that position from anything I've said.

Luckily we have your original words to go by.

I don't need a word for that, because there's no such thing. By the time you are consciously aware of any sensation, it's already an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation.

Look at visual perception - it's one progressively more abstract perception filter after another.

If perception (visual in this case) is progressively more abstract it definitely is not progressively simpler. You can not have it both ways PixyMisa, you can either break perceptions down or you can not. Which is it?

 

[tensordyne]

Anyway, to go back to your post #1015, tensordyne, if I had to use a word, I'd say association (per Pulvinar, #961) or metadata.

I will call it association from here on out. I do not like the idea of calling it metadata because I just can not help but think about XML and data about data.

 

[tensordyne]

And since the subjective is ontologically objective, it is necessarily epistemologically objective. Any other approach is dualistic and therefore doomed, or puts the cart before the horse and is therefore doomed.

I can only conclude you have no idea what the words mean that you are using. In the context we are using here, these words mean the following (source is dictionary.com, number is definition part):

Objective
4. Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Subjective
2. Pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

Ontology
2. (logic) The set of entities presupposed by a theory.

Epistemology
The theory of knowledge, especially the critical study of its validity, methods, and scope.

Now let me quote you again PixyMisa.

And since the subjective is ontologically objective, it is necessarily epistemologically objective.

Here is a translation:

And since the individual characteristic is an entity presupposed by theory to be not influenced by individual or personal characteristics, it is necessarily, as far as the study of knowledge goes, also not influenced by personal influence.

You did know right that subjective and objective are opposites? On the other hand, you are somewhat right, the above does seem to be how you and other Hard-AI types think, so at least you are honest, if a bit schizo.

 

[tensordyne]

Hey, have you guys seen the TED Talk with Jeff Hawkins. I bet you might get a kick out of it?

 

[Belz...]

I know it doesn't answer your question, because your question isn't relevant. Sure the CPU can still function. So what?

You said it cannot fully function. I want to know why you say this.

 

[Belz...]

Hey, have you guys seen the TED Talk with Jeff Hawkins.

I saw the one with Peter Weyland.

 

[PixyMisa]

Luckily we have your original words to go by.

As I said, no, nor can you rationally infer that position from anything I've said.

If perception (visual in this case) is progressively more abstract

Which it most certainly is. The MIT OCW Introduction to Psychology lecture series covers this well - the lecturer for the year they recorded is a researcher in visual perception.

it definitely is not progressively simpler.

Which is entirely false. The entire reason we use abstractions is that they are simpler than the thing they are abstracting.

 

[PixyMisa]

I can only conclude you have no idea what the words mean that you are using. In the context we are using here, these words mean the following (source is dictionary.com, number is definition part):

Objective
4. Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Yep.

Subjective
2. Pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

Yep.

Ontology
2. (logic) The set of entities presupposed by a theory.

Nope. Well, it's not wrong, but it's misleading unless you understand exactly what they're getting at.

Epistemology
The theory of knowledge, especially the critical study of its validity, methods, and scope.

Sure.

You did know right that subjective and objective are opposites?

There's no such thing as an opposite to objective in reality.

That's the point: We do not live in a dualistic Universe. It's all the same sort of stuff, with a single, universal set of interactions.

The entire difference between the subjective and the objective is one of perspective, and the subjective is merely a subset of the objective.

 

[PixyMisa]

I will call it association from here on out.

Association is good because it's both a noun and a verb, and we're talking about verbs here, even if we want to think they're nouns.

I do not like the idea of calling it metadata because I just can not help but think about XML and data about data.

Well, yes, because that's what it is. An experience, what makes seeing the colour red feel the way it does, is all the metadata attached to the signal from the retina by the time it arrives from its roundabout trip through the visual perception centres of the brain, the memory associations (there's that word again), the reflective processing. It's not a thing, it's a process, a burst of neural activity.

 

[PixyMisa]

You said it cannot fully function. I want to know why you say this.

Because by the time you have the subroutines necessary for the processor to interact with whatever it needs to interact with, and to control the program that is running, you have built an operating system.

Stored-program computers (that is, every computer built since about 1950) accrete operating systems the way snails do their shells; they are not functional without them.

 

[Dancing David]

Science is about finding out about things that are epistemically objective.

This is rubbish.

Science does no such thing, it is all about approximate models. This is the SMT forum, not the R&P forum, so who else defines science this way? Philosophers?

 

[Belz...]

Because by the time you have the subroutines necessary for the processor to interact with whatever it needs to interact with, and to control the program that is running, you have built an operating system.

But, er... the first few computers did not have an OS and were programmed bit by bit by a person for a specific task at a time. Were they not fully functional ? Is there something I'm missing ?

 

[steenkh]

But, er... the first few computers did not have an OS and were programmed bit by bit by a person for a specific task at a time. Were they not fully functional ? Is there something I'm missing ?

It really depends on what you call an operating system. As PixyMisa said, whenever you have something that interacts with the outside world, you have a de facto operating system. You could also use a definition where an OS must be independent of the program that the machine is running, ie the OS can serve more than one program (consecutively or concurrently). I am in doubt whether the CPU analogy helps us very much in this case.

 

[Belz...]

Well it depends if we define the guy operating the punched cards as an OS.

 

[rocketdodger]

You said it cannot fully function. I want to know why you say this.

Oh.

One, what Pixy suggested, and two, because furthermore many instructions are meaningless without an OS.

For example there are instructions dealing with security layers in memory, I.E. only the OS gets to access certain address spaces, etc. Without an OS, those instructions aren't ever used.

The analogy with emotion-attention is simple: Just because you have something like the limbic system that apparently functions without a neocortex does not imply that the full functionality of the limbic system is available without a neocortex. I would like someone without a functioning neocortex to demonstrate emotion, in particular. That would be pretty hard for them, I imagine, since they would be a non-functioning vegetable.

Similarly, just because you have a CPU that apparently functions without an OS does not imply that the full functionality of the CPU is available without an OS. I would like a CPU without an OS to help me write this post, in particular. That would be pretty hard for it, I imagine, since it would be little more than a calculator.

EDIT -- I just realized there has been a miscommunication. I have been meaning to say "cortex" where I say "neocortex". So I don't think there is any contention here, I think everyone would agree that you can't have emotion without any cortex at all.