Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 05:04pm PT
|
The Science article is behind a paywall,
all the others, preprints, are on the bioRxiv and are free, click the "Download PDF" button
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 03:15am PT
|
All great, none of it involves intelligence.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 07:56am PT
|
wasn't posting about intelligence...
...posting about making sense of what goes on inside the brain
(and the utility of artificial neural nets)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2019 - 10:16am PT
|
Ed wrote: part of the argument that Largo has made has been the insufficiency of "orthodox science" to address the OP question.
Earlier he said that I proposed that we cannot objectify experience.
Let me take a whack at both of these statements, and try and explain my views. The trick, as always, is to keep things rooted - so far as we can - on common ground. So let me once again return to my example of the topo map and Ed's experience of climbing Chnagando. Both are undeniably real, so that's a good starting point IMO.
Let's expand Nagel's credo (consciousness in NOT a causal question) to say: We can look at consciousness in two ways: causally, which is to say we study brain function (3rd person objectifying) to see how it relates to experience, and we study experience (1st person) to get a direct feel and take and notion about that which we are seeking to "know."
By studying the topo alone, we are cut off from Ed's experience, and can only know second hand information as it RELATES to experience. Studying the topo gives us a vital data stream and the "medical model" is based on it. But we can't expect the topo to tell us much of anything about the experience itself because it is not nailing down the experiential, rather the objective.
For obvious reasons, no climber is going to claim that the topo IS the experience, or explains the experience. To "know" the climb at depth, you meed to know all the objective information on the topo, and you have to climb the thing yourself. Then, epistemically speaking, we are moving closer to rounder picture of "knowing" what we are talking about.
Per what you learn experientially that you can't possibly learn or know via objective data, lets look at Ed's second statement that I said we cannot objectify experience.
Actually, this is for someone like me (mental) at least as important as trowling around the experiential for the raw data. All of psychology and most of the so-called subjective adventure modes are models involving both an experiential and cognitive aspect. Both are totally vital in the process of learning what the hell we are dealing with when we go deep diving into the consciousness pool. My understanding of modeling as it is used in hard science is that few if any models are said to represent one-to-one representations re; the model is not reality itself, rather it is a means of working with the material and arriving at predictable and reliable results no matter who uses the model.
The belief here, so far as I understand it, is that "objective reality," whatever the hell that is, and however the hell you define it, is pretty constant in the broad strokes, which in some ways greatly simplifies the modeling process, insofar as WHAT you are modeling remains relatively if not entirely selfsame. There is duration and sameness to that which we measure. Certainly this is a simplification, but there are laws and so forth the make it so the earth suddenly does not become square and the heat of the sun does not vary too much, to give a few examples.
When we move to human beings, we find that while there are certain constants that run across the board per biology, our various coping mechanisms, personalities, conditioning, temperament and so forth are not only vastly different person to person, little of this is fixed we can only start to get a feel for the whole thing is terms of a process which itself is continuously changing owing to many factors. So in finding a model that works for you will always be an adventure.
Jungian psychology, hatha yoga, Zen, Vipassana, mental fitness models, and all the rest are vastly different models that all work off one basic truth: The more conscious we can become at the direct experiential level, the more clarity and truth can enter the picture. A huge part of this involves attempting to objectify what the hell is coming up and so forth, without which we, as intelligent people, are largely left in the dark. Topos from those who have gone before us on this adventure are helpful but this is only secondarily a cognitive exercise, essential as that is.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 10:50am PT
|
Garble.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 10:51am PT
|
lol, the struggle to prove the world isn't real will never end.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 11:19am PT
|
Solid! Largo's search for What is Mind goes V9.
What you find in Universities is super chossy and it doesn't go.
Over here in the private sector I found a sweet 5.9 that goes all the way at about ten - twelve pitches that can be mostly climbed bolted or trad with the top half all trad.
Psych departments lost the route at Wundt. Have been bushwacking ever since.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 11:22am PT
|
Don Paul -- " .. the struggle to prove the world isn't real will never end."
The material world is only temporary real and doesn't need approval or proof as it is an absolute fact.
Thus it is ultimately not real for the living entity that is ultimately always eternally real which is also an absolute fact ......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2019 - 12:18pm PT
|
Psych departments lost the route at Wundt. Have been bushwacking ever since.
---
We're all bushwhacking. It boils down to what kind of machete you wield. But you won't get too far eyeballing the map, no matter how accurate the information thereon.
"The route," as viewed on the topo, is quite another thing than what you find when you rope up, wouldn't you say?
Did you ever learn how to climb by reading the topo? How-to books are helpful so far as orienting you and giving compass directions to steepen the learning curve, but you learn by consciously doing, don't you think?
At first we aren't very conscious because it all feels so new and unknown. As we get dialed into the terrain, and our experience deepens, we start improving and are better able to pay attention, get good and bad feedback from others, and try that sh#t on for size where the rubber meets the road: ON THE ROUTE.
In my experience, that's exactly how the consciousness process works. If MH2 finds that process "garbled," perhaps he needs to seek out another modality that better suites him.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 12:26pm PT
|
So while most of us can only stare at topos, you're the one who can actually climb the route? You got this ability through hard work?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2019 - 12:53pm PT
|
What are you actually asking or trying to put on me, Paul.
Where, in anything I have written, was it implied or even faintly suggested that I and I alone climbed the route. All of my examples so far have ED climbing the route?
The point, of course, is that if you want to learn something directly about actual climbing, you have to actually go climbing, lest we only have a concept of the experience. I've stated that the consciousness process is the same.
Granted, there is much to be learned from objective information and anecdotal reports, but at some time you have to rope up and cast off or else climbing will merely be a concept. And the concept is NOT the experience.
I have never said that you have to climb like me, do my routes, have my experience, or that I was the only person climbing. Nobody else can climb for you, and if you want to know about it, you'll have to do things on your own.
A modality is like a partner in this regards - and most of us have to try a few on for size to find the right ropemate, so to speak.
Is this something you disagree with? If you do, what specifically do you take issue with and what do you suggest as a more coherent general strategy?
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 01:10pm PT
|
JL: ". . . vastly different models that all work off one basic truth: The more conscious we can become at the direct experiential level, the more clarity and truth can enter the picture."
What is Truth?
Just curious.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 01:38pm PT
|
John, you're claiming that through meditation or study you have some kind of direct experience of the world that others don't have. I think your analogy, of looking at a topo versus looking at the actual route, or climbing it, breaks down because no one can perceive things except through their senses, interpretations, etc. That's why all the debate about qualia and so on seems like a dead end.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2019 - 02:05pm PT
|
I think your analogy, of looking at a topo versus looking at the actual route, or climbing it, breaks down because no one can perceive things except through their senses, interpretations, etc.
----
How, specifically, do you believe that the analogy breaks down? I'm saying that attempts to "know" what is happening in the experiential world requires you to go there. Are you saying you disagree with this? If so, how, specifically? Can you in fact know about the experience of climbing the route, so to speak, by studying the topo? If so, how?
When you say you "perceive things through," is it your belief of understanding or direct experience that "perceiving" only involves the mechanical registration of a stimulus through your sense organs, after which you "interpret" that stimulus? This makes it sound as though awareness/consciousness of the stimulus is not in play in this process, or am I reading this wrong?
What is your impression of what a qual IS? Or isn't.
And John, if you got quiet and sank into your experience you are bound to find something true about yourself that you wouldn't otherwise know because so much of our process is unconscious. the consciousness process is bringing awareness to all that stuff as it bubbles up. What's true for you will obviously NOT be true for me in the same way, but there are ways of going about the process that are "true" for most everyone, and like anything else, these are worth knowing because it makes the process more efficient.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 02:14pm PT
|
Yes, that's what I believe. There is just no other way into your brain, other than your nervous system. What I don't believe in, is "direct" experience through some other method.
I am pretty psyched about this research decoding the signals of the auditory cortex. A huge advance, if it works. And it makes so much sense, as an analytical method. Those signals have to resemble the auditory sounds, even if they are encoded in some complex way. You hear your own conscious thoughts in your head - your consciousness is essentially auditory. I know that if I want to remember something, like a long number, I repeat it to myself over and over. That works because its auditory.
The technique seems brand new and barely works. If it can be perfected, the next step is to trace those signals back to other parts of the brain. If they are recognizable, it proves that conscious thought is auditory. The voice you hear in your head, really is based on spoken words. The next question is, how do we verbalize our ideas? This is real progress in answering your question, what is mind.
As for qualia, I took an entire course in college dedicated to Edmund Husserl, can speak German to some extent, and still have no idea what they are, lol. The analogy to desktop icons is good enough for me.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2019 - 02:37pm PT
|
I said: When you say you "perceive things through," is it your belief of understanding or direct experience that "perceiving" only involves the mechanical registration of a stimulus through your sense organs, after which you "interpret" that stimulus?
You said, Yes, that's what I believe. There is just no other way into your brain, other than your nervous system. What I don't believe in, is "direct" experience through some other method.
I can understand that if that is your understanding, then qualia would throw you entirely. I would point out that you are making sweeping statements about "mind" while at the same time making no room for consciousness or awareness above and beyond a stimulus response mechanism as automatically carried out in your brain by way of external stimulus.
Have you ever had a strong reaction to something? Did that reaction "get into your nervous system" from the outside, or was it automatically generated by your brain? If it was, it goes without saying that you were conscious of the stimulus lest you wouldn't have reacted as you did. Got me so far? Your reaction was a direct experience. And you were conscious of that experience, and probably to a lesser degree, you were aware of yourself and your reaction. You had a sense of HAVING that reaction. And of existing in some vague but innate sense and of having that reaction.
This being aware of, this sense of existing to HAVE a reaction is the conscious 1st person dimension that a machine does not have. The machine is not aware of being a machine, of having a reaction, of having meta thoughts and feelings and impulses to having that conscious experience. It simply registers an impulse, processes according to programing, and responds - all mechanically.
In other words, you have something entirely lacking in the machine: a conscious process or experience. You can start to extrapolate from there that WHAT you experience is not the same as being AWARE of that which you experience. That which you experience can be roughly categorized as feelings, thoughts, sensations, memories, and ideas, which are the five basic categories of qualia.
It's also telling that you look at the consciousness process in terms of registration, and that this is a "method," by that I guess you mean mechanical physical process by which the content of your consciousness gets registered by your brain.
When you look at your own process, do you experience being conscious of the room or glass or monitor as a "method," above and beyond the fact that your brain served it up for "you" to experience?
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 02:58pm PT
|
I agree, if you're comparing human brains to computers. I'm not impressed with the computer chess programs at all. Instead, how about comparing a human brain to the brain of a dog? An ant? What about the smallest organisms that have nerve cells? Don't they feel things too? I think this has been called awareness rather than consciousness. If you're talking about self-consciousness, even fairly simple animals can recognize themselves in a mirror. This doesn't depend on language, or analytical thought associated with the prefrontal cortex. I agree with you that a sense of self is part of the definition of consciousness.
If you have a strong reaction to a stimulus that seems out of proportion to it, it's probably coming from your hippocampus, that records trauma and warns you in no uncertain terms when you're going to make the same mistake. The amygdala is the motor for the adrenaline, but doesn't rely on memory to recognize threats. A newborn baby can't recognize objects, that has to be learned. The searing pain of putting your hand on a stove burner does not.
Husserl didn't use the word qualia, but ciphers. The best translation is "symbols" but he could have just said symbols (also a German word), but preferred to use an unusual term. He's only one of many German philosophers who made the same argument you make. Your impressions of things aren't the things themselves. On the other hand, there is the problem that different people observe the same thing the same way. They're not just making it up. If you don't recognize what a truck is, you will die anyway when it runs you over. It's real. Problem #2 is that there is no example of consciousness, or awareness, existing independently of a brain.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 03:18pm PT
|
self-consciousness
Self-consciousness has nothing to do with seeing yourself in the mirror.
The self is NOT the physical material body.
You should learn consciousness and not keep making up sh!t you know nothing about .....
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2019 - 03:32pm PT
|
Don, I'm not making an argument. That's the first point
Now let's look at what you said and see if can get giggy with the main ideas. My impression is that with a tiny shift in perspective you will GET what seems like obscure stuff. The reference point in not so much my examples, but your own, direct experience.
Your impressions of things aren't the things themselves.
That's the first one. My impression (qual) of blue, for example, will never be found in light at 490–450 nm and 610–670 THz. Blue is the conscious experience of (in simple causal terms) what your brain does with light in a certain frequency. Depending on the biological design of your eyes and how different brains translate 490–450 nm 610–670 THz, this animal might "see" orange where we see blue. But we only "see" color at all when we are aware of it. Leave awareness out of the equation, and we don't "see" anything.
The reason that you and I see the sky as blue is because we have the same machinery churning out the qual in much the same way. Our awareness is also the same because awareness is not a function in the sense that mechanical registration is a function.
And this: If you don't recognize what a truck is, you will die anyway when it runs you over. It's real.
What's telling is your use of the word "real." In this case, as used, you could replace "real" with physical. Now return to our example of Ed climbing Chigando. We could have a topo that listed every last physical process going on during Ed's climb, millions of pages of data, and yet that data would never disclose the first thing about Ed's subjective experience itself, only physical processes SANS CONSCIOUSNESS.
Are we prepared to say Eds' experience is "unreal" or only imagined? Or even more of a stretch, are we willing to say that we can "understand" Ed's experience without acknowledging conscious awareness? If we are, we have essentially described the physical goings on of a zombie who just completed a task, this one climbing Chingando. In hoping the physical description goes the entire way in "explaining" Ed's experience, we have simply left Ed's experience OUT of the description.
And lastly, Problem #2 is that there is no example of consciousness, or awareness, existing independently of a brain.
Actually, there is no example of any force or object existing independently from everything else. There is no stand alone anything whatsoever. Everything is described and explained relationally. The fact that we can posit this or that from an imagined "view from nowhere" (1st person perspective) doesn't mean such a vantage exists. Any vantage postulates consciousness. No exception.
What's more there is no physical example of consciousness "existing" at all except from your own direct experience.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2019 - 04:25pm PT
|
OK. Now, here is what I learned on supertopo this week. The brain processes SOUND WAVES, at least to some degree. Words, or perhaps combinations of phonemes, are waveforms stored in your brain. So what is the best way to encode a waveform? Well, you could do what Korg, Roland, etc. do in wavetable synthesizers, which is to store the fourier transform of the waveform. That saves lots of space, at the cost of some sound quality. Optical images can be stored as fourier transforms too. That's why I blinked when I saw the researchers talking about convolutions and spectral coherence. HSFC reminded me of it too, when he posted that video about fourier series, although they are crude compared with the elegant transforms. The brain is probably storing the fourier transforms of the waveforms of basic sounds. When you hear a word, it matches one of your stored patterns, and viola - the symbolic nature of language is revealed as the most natural way to encode waveforms.
I still own an original korg wavestation, which was one of the first wavetable synthesizers. The early synths used oscillators to make sine waves, triangle waves, square waves, then applied low pass, high pass, etc. filters to modulate them. When digital electronics and computers were invented, analog synthesizers became obsolete, and the sine waves etc were just read from a table. Not only sine waves, but any sound can be modeled using a wavetable, which is the fourier transform of the sound. You're dealing with frequency space, sometimes called reciprocal space. Real or imaginary? Who knows, but it works.
I was going to find a waveform of a simple word to illustrate this post, but found much more interesting research than that. Here are some graphs that show the development of babies crying. No doubt this is the origin of conscious thought, in each of us.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!