The Hard Problem of Gravity

[AkuManiMani]

Mercutio, if you haven't already, I suggest you read my expository post. I hope it aids you in understanding my perspective.

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.

I'm saying geocentrism is on par with any centrism.

'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.

How can one convince you of your own existence..?

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.

Oh-ho!? How many different ways are there to not exist?

If the same line of reasoning you employ to render minds non-existent negates all other entities, why do you not just attribute everything with the status of non-existence? There are many implications to your position that you don't seem to realize.

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?

Because they are instances of 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.

So you [who does not exist] are saying there are no images and that 'proximal stimuli' are cats. Thats...interesting...

>:}

[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.

I'm tempted to elaborate on my theory more but I'm extremely curious as to how you'll answer these questions. Your answers so far have been very intriguing.

How can you speak of what you know if you do not exist?

What senses, perceives, and cognates?

If 'qualia' do not exist then what are qualities?

Do you know what a field is?

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".

Scientific theories are merely conceptual models of reality. Are Newton's Laws fictions because General Relativity supersedes it?

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.

Truth is my primary and ultimate concern. I've set my life's purpose to the pursuit of truth. I want to gaze into it's fathomless depths -- to peer into the heart of mystery and see this universe, wondrous and terrible, in all its staggering glory.

Knowledge, understanding, clarity. These I hold dear among all things. There is no practical application absent some grasp of truth. Truth is life.

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.

You've missed my point entirely. There is deeper and more subtle implication in what I've said, and you'd do well to reflect on it a bit more.

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.

Reading on the history of scientific progress happens to be a hobby of mine. Know this: The entire theoretical framework of both Special and General Relativity was crafted from inference and introspection. Empirical corroboration did not come until years after relativity was developed and many more years passed before it was put to practical use.

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.

Mercurial.

 

[AkuManiMani]

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?

All numbers are expressions of infinity.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

I don't know how you got that from the article; right up there near the top it says "Reflection-oriented programming includes self-examination, self-modification, and self-replication."

Code using reflection can examine its own structure and operation, including the reflection. This creates an infinite conceptual loop, but that in no way implies an infinite processing loop, any more than your own brain crashed from reading the previous paragraph.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm saying geocentrism is on par with any centrism.

On par by what criteria? You have already said, not by usefulness.

How can one convince you of your own existence..?

Depends on what you mean by this. I can think of at least three completely separate meanings, and I do not think this is an exhaustive list.

Oh-ho!? How many different ways are there to not exist?

More than one.

If the same line of reasoning you employ to render minds non-existent negates all other entities, why do you not just attribute everything with the status of non-existence? There are many implications to your position that you don't seem to realize.

And if it does not, then not.

Because they are instances of qualia.

Not at all.

So you [who does not exist] are saying there are no images and that 'proximal stimuli' are cats. Thats...interesting...

Cats are distal stimuli. Thank you for the evidence that you do not understand.

I'm tempted to elaborate on my theory more but I'm extremely curious as to how you'll answer these questions. Your answers so far have been very intriguing.

How can you speak of what you know if you do not exist?

How many different "you"s are there? And where did I say I did not exist? There are certainly definitions by which I do not, and definitions by which I do. Are you aware of this? Or will you continue to conflate different definitions?

What senses, perceives, and cognates?

I do. I could go into detail on how, but suffice it to say that these are things that whole organisms do. No brain has ever sensed on its own, much less any mind.

If 'qualia' do not exist then what are qualities?

Sorry, there are several definitions of qualities. I do not understand your question. Color, for example--do you consider that a quality? We could discuss color in great detail if you like. It is not a quale.

Do you know what a field is?

Again, there are several definitions. Thus far, I have not had need of any of them.

Scientific theories a merely conceptual models of reality. Are Newton's Laws fictions because General relativity supersedes it?

Extends, not supersedes. GR had to explain all that Newton did, and more, not deny Newton.

Truth is my primary and ultimate concern. I've set my life's purpose to the pursuit of truth. I want to gaze into it's fathomless depths -- to peer into the heart of mystery and see this universe, wondrous and terrible, in all its staggering glory.

Good luck with that.

Knowledge, understanding, clarity. These I hold dear among all things. There is no practical application absent some grasp of truth. Truth is life.

Again, good luck with that.

You've missed my point entirely. There is deeper and more subtle implication in what I've said, and you'd do well to reflect on it a bit more.

I doubt that. Rejecting is not missing.

Reading on the history of scientific progress happens to be a hobby of mine. Know this: The entire theoretical framework of both Special and General Relativity was crafted from inference and introspection. Empirical corroboration did not come until years after relativity was developed and many more years passed before it was put to practical use.

Funny, then, that no philosopher came up with it, rather than a trained physicist.

Mercurial.

cute.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Behavior of what?

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

Are organisms part of their environment?

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.

So environment influences genes, influences environment, influences genes, etc. There's much talk of influence but what determines?

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)

If the 'environment' ultimately determines behavior, and inventions are expressions of behavior, then all those things were created by 'environment'.

many would argue, a third replicant (memes or elements of culture, shared with few or none).

WHAT!?!? Memes and culture may exist but minds cannot??? Tell me, what are cultures made of?

What you've done is tantamount to saying atoms are a fiction but genes are plausible.

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.

Cars were invented by humans who developed and refined their designs over time. The idea of a car was conceived and knowledge was put to use in actualizing that concept. The various designs are subject to selection pressures but they are no more examples of natural selection than the process of domestication and animal husbandry. Cars are intentional designs.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

Huh?

This is a very bizarre conclusion. Are you suggesting that consciousness is best modeled by an algorithm that can actually halt?

In the book "Accelerando" Charles Stross mentions some sort of viral "idea" that actually causes the human consciousness algorithm to halt. I don't know if he was just being metaphorical about death of if he really meant halt.

Anyway, I suppose it is something to think about, but as far as I know most researchers --and people otherwise educated in these things -- would say that consciousness, if it is an algorithm, doesn't halt on any input set.

 

[rocketdodger]

Cars were invented by humans who developed and refined their designs over time. The idea of a car was conceived and knowledge was put to use in actualizing that concept. The various designs are subject to selection pressures but they are no more examples of natural selection than the process of domestication and animal husbandry. Cars are intentional designs.

It isn't "natural selection," but only because cars are not organisms. Other than that, the mechanisms are mathematically the same.

 

[rocketdodger]

Truth is my primary and ultimate concern. I've set my life's purpose to the pursuit of truth. I want to gaze into it's fathomless depths -- to peer into the heart of mystery and see this universe, wondrous and terrible, in all its staggering glory.

Knowledge, understanding, clarity. These I hold dear among all things. There is no practical application absent some grasp of truth. Truth is life.

Yes, we know you want truth.

You want truth so much you are willing to add anything you don't understand as an "axiom."

How many fundamental forces will your unified theory have?

1) Gravitational
2) Electromagnetic
3) Strong
4) Weak
5) Consciousness
.
.
.
n) Anything AkuManiMani can't understand in terms of forces 1 through n-1

 

[AkuManiMani]

Yes, we know you want truth.

You want truth so much you are willing to add anything you don't understand as an "axiom."

That fact that I am conscious is self evident. Therefore the existence of consciousness, what ever its nature, is axiomatic -- its a given.

How many fundamental forces will your unified theory have?

1) Gravitational
2) Electromagnetic
3) Strong
4) Weak
5) Consciousness
.
.
.
n) Anything AkuManiMani can't understand in terms of forces 1 through n-1

Wow....rocketdodger, this post eveals that 1) you completely misunderstand my position and 2) you misunderstand what a unified theory means.

First off, I'm not proposing any new force. Electromagnetism seems like a likely enough candidate since that is the fore by which chemicals interact.

You clearly don't know what is meant by 'fundamental force'. Essentially, physicists' are searching for a unified field theory; essentially a theory in which all forces are difference expressions of the same force. As of now, physicist have theoretically unified EM, weak, and strong forces, and currently are working on trying to unify gravity.

All I'm saying is that all biological phenomenon, including onsciousness, must fall within the laws of physics and I'm speculating on ways in which they might be better understood in this light. I Wanna know the physical reason for qualitative experience. What astounds me is that while I'm proposing that there is a physicalist way of understanding these things I get accused of invoking 'magic'. Seriously, what the hell is up with all the hysteria?

 

[dv82matt]

I don't know how you got that from the article; right up there near the top it says "Reflection-oriented programming includes self-examination, self-modification, and self-replication."

Note that they don't actually mention self-reference. I took that as deliberate.

Code using reflection can examine its own structure and operation, including the reflection. This creates an infinite conceptual loop, but that in no way implies an infinite processing loop, any more than your own brain crashed from reading the previous paragraph.

I don't see how an infinite conceptual loop can fail to imply an infinite processing loop. Either there is no actual self-reference or there is some sort of halting mechanism to prevent the system from repeating an infinite loop.

I will stress that I am using the straight forward understanding of self-reference as in, "This sentence is a self-reference." I would expect that any actual implementation of "self-reference" in computer programs is not of this type.

 

[PixyMisa]

Huh?

This is a very bizarre conclusion. Are you suggesting that consciousness is best modeled by an algorithm that can actually halt?

In the book "Accelerando" Charles Stross mentions some sort of viral "idea" that actually causes the human consciousness algorithm to halt. I don't know if he was just being metaphorical about death of if he really meant halt.

He really meant halt. He was playing with the idea (like Hofstadter and others before him) of the human Godel statement, and it crops up in various forms in some of his other books. It's a lot like Stephenson's nam-shub of Enki, or Langford's basilisks.

Realistically it's rather unlikely; human consciousness is anything but a mathematical formal system.

Anyway, I suppose it is something to think about, but as far as I know most researchers --and people otherwise educated in these things -- would say that consciousness, if it is an algorithm, doesn't halt on any input set.

Yep. Unless you class baseball bats as an input set.

 

[Mercutio]

Are organisms part of their environment?

this is actually a reasonable question, with different answers depending on context. As should be expected. As Skinner said, the skin is not all that important as a boundary.

So environment influences genes, influences environment, influences genes, etc. There's much talk of influence but what determines?

Same question. I say influence because some people will think of determination as 100%, and equate ignorance with free will. WHat selects in natural selection? Natural selection is determined by the environment, but not predetermined.

If the 'environment' ultimately determines behavior, and inventions are expressions of behavior, then all those things were created by 'environment'.

Yes. Do you have another possibility? Magic?

WHAT!?!? Memes and culture may exist but minds cannot??? Tell me, what are cultures made of?

Behavior.

What you've done is tantamount to saying atoms are a fiction but genes are plausible.

You'll have to explain much more clearly, then, because I don't agree. Another competing possibility is that you don't understand.

Cars were invented by humans who developed and refined their designs over time. The idea of a car was conceived and knowledge was put to use in actualizing that concept. The various designs are subject to selection pressures but they are no more examples of natural selection than the process of domestication and animal husbandry. Cars are intentional designs.

So the Edsel was designed to be unpopular? or was its success or failure determined as a consequence, well after the intentional design part was done? Cars are replicants--they happen to be parasitic, and rely on us for their reproduction, but they do display parent-offspring similarity from model year to model year, variability among offspring, and differential success. Does natural selection require more than this? Did Darwin specify a mechanism?

The "invention" of cars began well before the first horse-drawn cart. Successful function reinforces. "The idea of a car was conceived and knowledge was put to use in actualizing that concept" sounds all sweet and all, but the idea of a car was not even on the horizon when the car's ancestors were proving their functional worth.

 

[dv82matt]

Huh?

This is a very bizarre conclusion. Are you suggesting that consciousness is best modeled by an algorithm that can actually halt?

No. Only that consciousness should not get stuck in a trivial infinite loop.

In the book "Accelerando" Charles Stross mentions some sort of viral "idea" that actually causes the human consciousness algorithm to halt. I don't know if he was just being metaphorical about death of if he really meant halt.

Anyway, I suppose it is something to think about, but as far as I know most researchers --and people otherwise educated in these things -- would say that consciousness, if it is an algorithm, doesn't halt on any input set.

I tenatively agree. Though I wonder what would happen given no input whatsoever.

 

[PixyMisa]

No. Only that consciousness should not get stuck in a trivial infinite loop.

Right. And that's exactly why self-referential information processing is the essence of consciousness - so that you can say, ah, doing this will leave me stuck in a loop, so I won't do that.

Of course, people get stuck in loops all the time, but they're sufficiently complex that we don't immediately recognise them as such. We do recognise them as pathologies.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Right. And that's exactly why self-referential information processing is the essence of consciousness - so that you can say, ah, doing this will leave me stuck in a loop, so I won't do that

This doesn't really seem to fit with your previous definitions of consciousness, does it?

 

[PixyMisa]

This doesn't really seem to fit with your previous definitions of consciousness, does it?

Yes.

Or to put it another way, why not? All along I've said that consciousness is self-referential information processing. Here we see one reason why what we call consciousness has to be self-referential information processing.

Whether you call it introspection or reflection or self-reference, it's what we are talking about when we distinguish the conscious from the non-conscious.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Yes.

Or to put it another way, why not? All along I've said that consciousness is self-referential information processing. Here we see one reason why what we call consciousness has to be self-referential information processing.

Whether you call it introspection or reflection or self-reference, it's what we are talking about when we distinguish the conscious from the non-conscious.

Yes, I'm with you there, but defining the essence of conscious as being able to

"say, ah, doing this will leave me stuck in a loop, so I won't do that."

seems to add a whole 'nother layer on top of it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Right, I see where you're coming from.

No.

Once you have self-reference, the whole thing is a loop. Conceptually, if you like, it has infinite layers. There is no longer a top to add another layer to.

It's a tricky one - Hofstadter has devoted two entire books to it, and he wrote the second one because people missed the point of the first one.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Linky (png, wiki)

This assumes that qualia refers to the experiential aspect of a percept. A and B are actually the same shade.

Yup, when looking at optical illusions like that, one wonder about how much of interpretation is involved in what we generally would at first glance simply refer to as sensation. It's good that you mentioned 'percept' because it might be relevant to discern it from 'stimulus'.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Right, I see where you're coming from.

No.

Once you have self-reference, the whole thing is a loop. Conceptually, if you like, it has infinite layers. There is no longer a top to add another layer to.

It's a tricky one - Hofstadter has devoted two entire books to it, and he wrote the second one because people missed the point of the first one.

Well, maybe I'm one of those people missing the point.

You can write a computer program that avoids going into a loop. It doesn't seem like you need a second layer of programing allowing it to identify the purpose of the first layer for it to count as conscious under your definition.