The Hard Problem of Gravity

[dv82matt]

It occurs to me that self-referential information processing is an incoherent concept (at least with a straightforward definition of self-referential). A self-reference sets up an infinite loop and so could not be processed by a finite system in a finite amount of time.

Given this it seems to me that self-referential information processing is a hazard to be avoided rather than a solution to the problem of consciousness.

 

[AkuManiMani]

It occurs to me that self-referential information processing is an incoherent concept (at least with a straightforward definition of self-referential). A self-reference sets up an infinite loop and so could not be processed by a finite system in a finite amount of time.

Given this it seems to me that self-referential information processing is a hazard to be avoided rather than a solution to the problem of consciousness.

The universe is a self-referential information process.

 

[Beth]

This is the part I don't get. If the mind, as traditionally defined, is NOT a causal entity, then what do you consider to be a 'causal entity'?

Sorry, I did not explain myself well at all. As traditionally used, the mind is presumed to be causal--we change your behavior by first changing your mind--and yet we have no evidence for the changed mind other than the changed behavior. It could just as well be a possessing animus, a capricious god, or my psychic cat that is controlling your behavior.

If we change x, y, and z in your environment, and you start buying coke instead of pepsi, it is clear that the environment impacted your behavior (yes, we would have a more strict experimental design to be able to really infer causation, but this is just an example). What we do not know, but what we seem entirely too willing to jump to, is that doing x, y, and z made you change your mind, which is what changed your behavior. Doing x, y, and z may have simply appeased the capricious god or amused my psychic cat.

Certainly, we think, feel, imagine, remember, and do all the sort of things that people attribute to a mind. But we do these things--it is not that our minds do these things, but that we do these things and label them mind. They are not an explanation or a cause of behavior; rather, they are more behavior to be explained.

I think (and feel, imagine, yadda yadda...). If I were to infer the presence of a mind from my thinking, then to claim the mind as the cause of the thinking is purely circular. Thinking is something that I do (by definition, then, a behavior--specifically, private behavior); it may be studied by looking at my brain, or at my behavior, but I defy anyone to measure my mind.

That which we typically call mind is effect, not cause. Yes, it is traditionally viewed as a causal agent. As with the HPC, it is the language we use in our folk psychology that gets us into trouble. When we look at what is actually going on, we no longer have to explain magic. We are no longer surprised by Libet's results, no longer reaching for QM to try to invoke some sort of respectable reverse causation. On the other hand, it means we are no longer magic.

You've spent a great many words explaining why 'mind' is not a causal agent. What you haven't done is explain what IS a causal agent. If not mind, then what? Or are they non-existant as mind and rainbows?

 

[AkuManiMani]

You've spent a great many words explaining why 'mind' is not a causal agent. What you haven't done is explain what IS a causal agent. If not mind, then what? Or are they non-existant as mind and rainbows?

The logical conclusion to their arguments is that nothing exists. The funny thing is that they don't even realize it.

 

[dv82matt]

The universe is a self-referential information process.

Perhaps what you mean is that parts of the universe refer to other parts of the universe?

The universe may be a poor example anyway as my point was directed at finite systems and the universe may well be infinite.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Perhaps what you mean is that parts of the universe refer to other parts of the universe?

The universe may be a poor example anyway as my point was directed at finite systems and the universe may well be infinite.

If the universe is infinite there is no such thing as a finite system.

 

[dv82matt]

If the universe is infinite there is no such thing as a finite system.

Why not? Are all numbers infinite since they are part of an infinite number line?

 

[Apathia]

Precisely! Because the observer is the illusion.

Precisely back!

AkuManiMani replies "then everything is an Illusion."

Is nothing real, then?
Not in the classical, metaphysical way of ultimate stuff or transcendent objects.
I'm content with letting processes be the reality instead of their merely appearant derivatives.

 

[nescafe]

It occurs to me that self-referential information processing is an incoherent concept (at least with a straightforward definition of self-referential). A self-reference sets up an infinite loop and so could not be processed by a finite system in a finite amount of time.

Given this it seems to me that self-referential information processing is a hazard to be avoided rather than a solution to the problem of consciousness.

You are simply wrong. A self reference only sets up an infinite loop if you are naive in handling it. Computers handle self reference all the time without going into infinite loops.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Why not? Are all numbers infinite since they are part of an infinite number line?

Do you really wanna know....?

 

[dv82matt]

You are simply wrong. A self reference only sets up an infinite loop if you are naive in handling it. Computers handle self reference all the time without going into infinite loops.

I would suggest that getting rid of the infinite loop necessarily gets rid of the self-reference. That is if the computer is referencing itself minus the self-reference it is referencing something that is not identical to itself and so only referencing a doppelganger of itself.

 

[Mercutio]

You've spent a great many words explaining why 'mind' is not a causal agent. What you haven't done is explain what IS a causal agent. If not mind, then what? Or are they non-existant as mind and rainbows?

I'm sorry, I thought you would have gleaned that from my other posts.

Causation is in the environment, of course. Behavior is selected for by its function--its effect upon the environment. In the same sense that the "cause" of the giraffe's neck length is in the environment that selected it, rather than in the willful stretching of that neck or some intelligent designer's intervention. Selection by environmental consequences, in both cases. The time scale is different, of course, and the mechanics of "how" are different, but behavior is a replicant. We can demonstrate that we repeat our behaviors, with variation, and that these behaviors are more or less effective. This is sufficient for environmental selection (in this case, known as operant conditioning) to work on behavior and to cause changes in behavior.

And yes, in this view, a causal mind is the functional equivalent of creationism.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Causation is in the environment, of course. Behavior is selected for by its function--its effect upon the environment.

Behavior of what?

In the same sense that the "cause" of the giraffe's neck length is in the environment that selected it, rather than in the willful stretching of that neck or some intelligent designer's intervention. Selection by environmental consequences, in both cases. The time scale is different, of course, and the mechanics of "how" are different, but behavior is a replicant. We can demonstrate that we repeat our behaviors, with variation, and that these behaviors are more or less effective. This is sufficient for environmental selection (in this case, known as operant conditioning) to work on behavior and to cause changes in behavior.

Are genes part of the 'environment'?

And yes, in this view, a causal mind is the functional equivalent of creationism.

What creates things like cars, PCs, films, computer programs, organizations, web forum posts, books, etc...?

 

[dv82matt]

Do you really wanna know....?

It seems as though you are asserting that infinite sets cannot contain finite sets. If that is correct then yes I would like to see your proof of this.

 

[Mercutio]

It does "rise and fall" in the sky from our perspective on earth's surface.

So... the idea of qualia is on par with geocentrism. I can live with that.

'Mental image' and 'qualia' are simply terms we use to describe those processes. I don't think that its really justified to conclude from that that 'minds' or 'qualia' do not exist.

They certainly need not exist. They are superfluous; unless there is some sort of positive evidence for them, rather than a circular assumption, we are perfectly safe in dismissing them. The moment you present evidence of their existence, we can worry about that.

If you want to take that route, one can argue that atoms do not exist; they are simply something that sub-atomic particles do. What are sub-atomic particles? Merely the behaviors of their constituents. One can continue this chain of reasoning all the way down until you've 'dispelled' all of reality, in much the same way you've dispelled the 'illusion' of the mind.

Different form of non-existence.

And yet, you cannot speak on the subject without assuming qualia. 'Qualia' is just a term that we use to label the class of phenomenon you just invoked ["we think", "it feels", "it looks", etc].

Why do you think those assume qualia? Those are things we do. I don't see the need to add the baggage that you do; could you please explain why you think these terms assume qualia?

If [as it seems by your last statement there] you want to argue that we just directly perceive our environment you're simply taking things at face value, the very same thing you're accusing the 'qualia' advocates of. In reality every observation of an 'external' event is the observation of an 'internal' sensory event.

If you are speaking of proximal and distal stimuli, that is well understood and has nothing to do with qualia or "copy theory". We see cats, not images of cats. The proximal stimulus on our retina is not "an image of a cat". And it certainly is not a quale.

[This particular issue is yet another reason that I invoke the 'field' hypothesis. I wont elaborate on it here but if you inquire about it, I will in another post.]

Please do--everything I know about sensation, perception, cognition, behavior, etc., tells me that I don't need what I am getting from your field hypothesis. Either I am not understanding you, or you are quite simply wrong. I always like to assume that I am the one who is wrong, so please enlighten me.

The reality is that neither introspection or extrospection are more "true". Their relation is complementary in the same way that qualities and quantities are.

Well... the job of science (specifically, psychophysics) is to study the relation between introspective report and extrospective (interesting word!) stimulus. There is nothing wrong with this. But while we can use both public and private behavior in science, it is not proper to use explanatory fictions circularly inferred from either public or private behavior. Such explanations are every bit as evidence-based as chi, gods, magic, or PK as explanations for our behavior. Our culture is simple more accustomed to "mind".

But, in truth, its really all relative to one's perspective. Relative to an observer on earth, the earth is indeed stationary and the sun, the planets, and the rest of the cosmos are moving relative to it. We assume the perspective of the earth being the body in relative motion because its the easier to calculate of the two perspectives. Neither one is more 'true' than the other; in a transcendent sense, they both are the same.

As a pragmatist, I am not searching for true or false, but more or less useful. But once again, you are equating your view with geocentrism. Certainly, we can get a lot of use out of geocentrism. But you are quite right--heliocentrism is more useful to us.

Here's a question for you to think on: Were the theories of Special & General Relativity developed via introspection or extrospection?

I doubt they were developed in a vacuum, but I must beg off of this question, as I have very little information about the development of these theories, beyond watching the PBS special last year or so.

I will, however, point out that you are now using the word "introspection" in a very different sense than before. If you really think the thought that went into Relativity and the structural dissection of the elements of consciousness are functionally equivalent, I humbly ask what the weather is like on your planet.

 

[AkuManiMani]

It seems as though you are asserting that infinite sets cannot contain finite sets. If that is correct then yes I would like to see your proof of this.

How many times can one be divided?

 

[Mercutio]

Behavior of what?

Organisms. Today, some will add technology to this, but one need not.

Are genes part of the 'environment'?

Yes and no. Your current genes have been selected by the environment of your ancestors, from long before we were multicellular up through your parents (potentially). They are the collection of environmental influence over the extremely long view. Your genes do influence your morphology and behavior--or rather, they mediate an environmental influence on your morphology and behavior.

What creates things like cars, PCs, films, computer programs, organizations, web forum posts, books, etc...?

A particular social organism (H. sapiens), which has the advantage of a second replicant (operant behavior, shared with many organisms) and, many would argue, a third replicant (memes or elements of culture, shared with few or none).

Seriously, if you would like to look at the selection process of any of these things, you will find an evolutionary process at work. Cars have even been used in publications (a friend and colleague of mine did the illustration) as replicants that are subject to natural selection. I can elaborate if you like, but frankly I think the example explains itself.

 

[PixyMisa]

It occurs to me that self-referential information processing is an incoherent concept (at least with a straightforward definition of self-referential). A self-reference sets up an infinite loop and so could not be processed by a finite system in a finite amount of time.

Funny, because not only do I do this sort of thing all the time, but modern languages like Java and Python have explicit support for it.

Given this it seems to me that self-referential information processing is a hazard to be avoided rather than a solution to the problem of consciousness.

Not given this, then, not.

 

[dv82matt]

How many times can one be divided?

How many times can one be divided by what, and what does this have to do with your original assertion?

If you are pointing out that there is an infinite number of real numbers between zero and one that's true but fails to support your assertion since "between zero and one" describes a range not a number.

This is getting OT. I suppose you'll bring up Zeno's paradox next?

 

[dv82matt]

Funny, because not only do I do this sort of thing all the time, but modern languages like Java and Python have explicit support for it.

Thanks for the link. Reflection doesn't appear to be an instance of self-reference as I am concieving the term. The reference in reflection appears to be to a subset of the system not to the full system which would have to include the self-reference itself.