Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2019 - 08:29pm PT
|
A number of AI languages have been developed to deal with complex reasoning situations: LISP, PROLOG, OPS-5 And OPS-83 etc. I used each of these on various projects. However when AI encountered the engineering world, the geospacial aspect became essential. For example I designed the launch abort detection system for NASA's launch vehicle successor to the space shuttle. The basic FMECA fault trees are essential. But failure modes can rapidly propagate between unrelated systems that are associated only by spacial proximity, potentially creating major failures from minor anomalies that are easily overlooked in the design phase.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2019 - 08:39pm PT
|
It is easy to think of the human brain as a digital computer, with each neuron either firing a signal or not ... zero or one. However the brain function is much more complex than that. A neuron sends a complex pattern of pulses, varying the number of pulses, the rapidity of pulses, the pattern of pulses, and the signal intensity. This means the brain is an analog system.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2019 - 08:48pm PT
|
This means the brain is an analog system.
This is an interesting concept to think and debate about. A new idea not mentioned before.
And for Werner, I agree that the fact Buddhism sees non duality as the goal lends itself to cold abstraction if one is not careful. That is why the Indo Tibetan forms at least put so much emphasis on compassion.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2019 - 08:56pm PT
|
Part of the challenge here is the dogmatic control system of the church during the early development of the sciences. Independent thinkers were tortured and burned at the stake. This resulted in philosophical barriers between the successes of science and engineering vs the thelogical dogma of the church. Scientists became atheists and any step into metaphysical territory invokes a scientific anathema.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2019 - 09:44pm PT
|
Jan:"In answer to jgill, emptiness or non duality is the final goal but it seems to me we always leave out the intermediate steps while discussing meditation on this thread - the compassion component specifically."
PSP also PP has brought up this altruistic feature of the meditative path on several occasions, but it has never gained traction, being effectively buried by followers of no-thingness, who then seem reluctant to move beyond that epiphany. Rationale for this course of inaction not infrequently being quantum mysticism.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2019 - 10:09pm PT
|
Well, it is nice to see the subconscious mind finally getting some attention...
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2019 - 10:33pm PT
|
1991
Evidence for a Primitive DC Electrical Analog System Controlling Brain Function
Robert O. Becker
Abstract
Modern neurophysiology views the problem of integration of brain function as the result of massive interconnectivity of the neurons and almost all research in this area is based upon this concept. In the first article of this series I outlined some of the theoretical problems with this view. In this article I shall review the evidence gathered over the past 50 years indicating that a separate operational system exists, based upon extra-neuronal DC electrical currents, that serves this integrating function.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Jan,
It’s my reading of the literature (I’m no expert) that no archetype can be explained or articulated by the conscious mind. That’s why they are considered symbols. They can’t be articulated by language or conceptually. It’s a direct challenge to logic, science, and the conscious mind to say that there are things that cannot be expressed. It’s a loose definition of art. You know, a picture, song, sonnet, etc. is worth a thousand words—and more.
My friends here in this thread don’t generally believe that there are things and entities that cannot be well-defined. Deities and gods are like this, as you probably know. I’m thinking of many Tibetan deities in tankpas, that if meditated upon, can generate realizations of being. When I pray, for example, to St. Jude (the patron saint of impossible causes), I’m not praying to an actual person. I’m praying to an archetype that can expose understanding that I’m not consciously aware of. When I pray to the Madonna, or the Great Mother, Shakti, or some other archetypal grand female, I am attempting to embrace (and become) a guidance system as it were. (I’m probably not saying any of this very well.) It can be said that a Grand Mother figure expresses not only life but death (a full cycle of becoming). When I view my wife in one of my dreams, it’s not my wife, but the archetype expressed in the form of my wife.
I’ll defer for the moment the compassion thing you said. I have come to see it more an issue of Bodhichitta, which appears to be a little different than compassion, per se.
My point of the post above was to suggest that there seem to be many things about mind that cannot be articulated. What we are confronted with, instead, could be said to be pure metaphor and image—neither of which can be definitively articulated. For example, what would be, or could be, a “metaphorical image?” Taking what appears to exist in the underworld of the unconscious and bring it up into the upper world of consciousness is a categorical error in cognition and in implementation. Give it thought that it cannot be done.
|
|
Trump
climber
|
|
Maybe mind is only 5% above water, like an iceberg. Or maybe it’s 40% above the surface, like a blade of switchgrass. Who knows? Where did we get the numbers from anyway? Did we we do some math on known values - did we estimate our knowledge of mind and our knowledge of our lack of knowledge of mind, and do the math? Did we make a valid analogy between the gross material world of icebergs and the nonmaterial world of mind?
Or did we just make it up? Do we just not know, and the ratio could be anything at all, and we just don’t know?
How are we going to go about forming a belief about what the ratio is? At some point we’re going to make something up, based on something, based on some prior information or inherent information, and then do some math on our made up belief.
We calculate our beliefs on the basis of prior probabilities. But we make up the prior probabilities that we use based on inherent information (evolved psychological tendencies, somatic connections) and the information and experiences to which we’re exposed.
5%, like the iceberg that we’ve heard about? Ok. I’ve actually factually perceived the way that the unconscious is deep and dark and like being underwater - I didn’t just make that up as some residual predisposition from the process that put me here - so sure, makes sense to me.
I am always skeptical of models that use what ever is the prevailing technology of the time.
I admire that.
But what choice do we think we have? Can we use someone else’s brain, developed according to their genetics, modified by their experiences, processing the information that they’ve been exposed to, in order to create OUR beliefs? Are we going to believe what someone else believes instead of what we believe? If we’re a blade of grass with a defect in our phototropism genes, are we going to display the intelligence of growing towards the light anyway?
After 4 billion years of evolution, WE ARE the latest technology. Are we not going to believe what we believe is true because we’re skeptical of ourselves and our processes for forming beliefs - the ways that we just make up our prior probabilities and then believe them completely despite knowing that we don’t have all of the information and knowing that we’ve believed things that weren’t true in the past?
My sense is no, we’re not going to be skeptical of the latest technology, when that technology is us. We’re just gonna believe whole mindedly that whatever we happen to believe is true is in reality actually factually true, because that’s the way we, the latest and greatest evolved technology, work. We have to believe in ourselves and our beliefs and the ways we form beliefs in order to let our actions be guided by our beliefs. If we don’t do that, we’re not gonna be very successful technology.
What’s the prior probability that what you believe is actually factually true? What’s the probability that what you’re conscious of - what you identify as things that you’re aware of and conscious of and believe are true - are actually factually true? We always set that prior probability to 1, regardless of how often we notice that we’re wrong.
It’s just that the things that we’re conscious of might not actually factually be true. When we notice that we were wrong, what we learn is that we learned to be right, and now (still), everything we believe is actually factually true. We don’t seem to learn that we have a capacity to be conscious of things that aren’t actually factually true.
If we’re going to honestly examine what consciousness is, we probably need to include that we can be conscious of things that don’t actually exist. Maybe even you can do that. Maybe even when we’re trying to come to grips with our own consciousness, we can be conscious of something that isn’t what we think it is and doesn’t work the way that we’re conscious of it working.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
My reading of most of the science comments on this page (healeyje being a big exception) is that no one denies the unconscious mind, they just don't think it's important compared to cognition, a general opinion shared by most in the West (thanks Descartes) to their detriment. I say there's a reason that so many people in such privileged societies are addicted to drugs. It's the only way they know to access that part of their mind.
I agree with what MikeL says about archetypes and symbols, except for the fact that they can't be articulated. I think Jung did a very good job of explaining them. More importantly, all of the schools of meditation that use dream analysis say that you can articulate what those symbols are and what they mean to you. The confusing thing is if you have a lot of cross cultural experience where the same symbol means vastly different things. A serpent in the West is a symbol of evil or of sex. In India it's a symbol of the kundalini and spiritual progress. If I dream of a serpent or Werner does, since we're both steeped in Indian culture, we then have to articulate to ourselves which it was. Meanwhile, everyone has to articulate their personal symbols in order to understand what their unconscious is trying to tell them without words.
The more negative the emotions behind these symbols, the more we definitely need to bring them to consciousness and analyze them and how to deal with the issues so that eventually they go away or no longer have any emotional impact. This is the main difference I see between western psychoanalysis and eastern meditation. Both can bring those archetypes forward and analyze them, but psychoanalysis relies on rationality to deal with them whereas spiritual disciplines use techniques that work directly with the unconscious or subconscious mind with an emphasis on compassion for others, not just dwelling on the injustices to oneself. Being an academic MikeL and others on this thread surely have met as I have, lots of highly intelligent people who have been in analysis for decades and can tell you their hangups in excruciating detail, but can not seem to move past them with pure rationality.
I would be interested in Mike's definition of boddhicitta. What I think he's hinting at is that it is not just sympathy or empathy and certainly not pity, but a compassion combined with wisdom which knows what's needed and what's doable. A trip to India and how we react to that kind of poverty is always a good lesson in that.
|
|
Trump
climber
|
|
How is a blade of grass growing towards the light a display of intelligence in the first place?
We make that up, as if we know what the purpose of a blade of grass is, as if we know that a blade of grass is supposed to be growing towards the light, that it’s supposed to be getting bigger and fixing more CO2, and that the opposite behavior of not growing towards the light would display a lack of intelligence. And look at that intelligent blade of grass doing what it’s supposed to be doing, and doing what’s “best” for it to do, and growing towards the light. How intelligent of it! And how intelligent of us for noticing how intelligent it is for doing the thing that it does.
And how special of us to notice the beauty in the things that we call beauty.
But we make that up. We don’t know. But that doesn’t stop us from making it up and believing it. That’s something that we do, in the same way that the blade of grass grows towards the light. If we want to make up a belief about ourselves as intelligent for doing what we do, ok, probably beats the alternative.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Trump: We calculate our beliefs on the basis of prior probabilities.
We most certainly do not. Review Daniel Kahneman & Tversky’s seminal works. We WISH were so rational and logical as you portray.
Dear Jan,
My understanding these days about psychological archetypes comes from reading Jung’s “Red Book” and James Hillman (see, http://mythosandlogos.com/Hillman.html, and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hillman);. My understanding of Jung’s ideas comes more from what he recorded during his psychic break (1913-1915) in his now published journal (“The Red Book”) than from his scholarly books on the unconscious. (My motivation to read in these veins is coming from what I’m witnessing in creating art. It’s a mysterious process for me.)
I don’t have a great regard for what you refer to as “pure rationality.” It’s a myth as much as Thanatos, or Mercury, or Zeus is.
I can’t say what Bodhichitta is. What I am aware of is what arises when one sees emptiness. Again, definitions aren’t available. In a world of pure appearances (be they spiritual or mundane), compassion is one of the *means* to seeing how things are. But it is not a goal. You know of the 9 yanas, or the 9 vehicles, don’t you? Vehicles are not goals. They are Buddhist paths, many of which appear to be outwardly contradictory to each other.
I’ve had more than one teacher tell me they can’t say what things are. All they can do is point. One teacher actually said that he’s always lying. He can’t help it because he cannot TELL the truth. If what I see in front of me is beyond my ability to articulate (because it is indescribable), then anything I say about it is incomplete, not final, nor accurate.
As for whether one can change archetypes or amend them somehow, I question whether we’re talking about the same thing. Here I’ll switch gears and refer to literary notions of archetypes that I think Paul is occasionally relying upon (but he may not be). Northrup Frye and Harold Bloom thought that literary frameworks could be understood as archetypes (e.g., romances, tragedies, comedies, ironies, etc.). When we read or see a good tragedy, it rings true because it adheres to a structure. But why is that? Where do those structures come from? Not from our subjective personal experiences, and not from the scenes or situations that we see in front of us. Archetypes are not objective, and they aren’t subjective. They are something else. We could claim they reside in Jung’s idea of a collective unconsciousness, but does that mean they reside in our DNA or cultural residual trappings? These literary structures (myths, if you will) appear to have existed since the recording of time. How did they ever arise, and why do they continue to arise literarily? I mean they are myths for crying out loud.
Ditto for psychological archetypes from the underworld of the unconscious. Unconscious means “not conscious of.” That means we have no real access to them with the upper world conscious mind that only sees materialism, moralism, personalism, naturalism, literalism—all which derive from corporalism.
It’s difficult to say that we could ever plumb the heights or depths of our minds, spirits, and souls—algorithms and neurons notwithstanding.
Be well.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
I can’t say what Bodhichitta is. What I am aware of is what arises when one sees emptiness. Again, definitions aren’t available. In a world of pure appearances (be they spiritual or mundane), compassion is one of the *means* to seeing how things are. But it is not a goal. You know of the 9 yanas, or the 9 vehicles, don’t you? Vehicles are not goals. They are Buddhist paths, many of which appear to be outwardly contradictory to each other.
I’ve had more than one teacher tell me they can’t say what things are. All they can do is point. One teacher actually said that he’s always lying. He can’t help it because he cannot TELL the truth. If what I see in front of me is beyond my ability to articulate (because it is indescribable), then anything I say about it is incomplete, not final, nor accurate.
As for whether one can change archetypes or amend them somehow, I question whether we’re talking about the same thing. Here I’ll switch gears and refer to literary notions of archetypes that I think Paul is occasionally relying upon (but he may not be). Northrup Frye and Harold Bloom thought that literary frameworks could be understood as archetypes (e.g., romances, tragedies, comedies, ironies, etc.). When we read or see a good tragedy, it rings true because it adheres to a structure. But why is that? Where do those structures come from? Not from our subjective personal experiences, and not from the scenes or situations that we see in front of us. Archetypes are not objective, and they aren’t subjective. They are something else. We could claim they reside in Jung’s idea of a collective unconsciousness, but does that mean they reside in our DNA or cultural residual trappings? These literary structures (myths, if you will) appear to have existed since the recording of time. How did they ever arise, and why do they continue to arise literarily? I mean they are myths for crying out loud.
Ditto for psychological archetypes from the underworld of the unconscious. Unconscious means “not conscious of.” That means we have no real access to them with the upper world conscious mind that only sees materialism, moralism, personalism, naturalism, literalism—all which derive from corporalism.
It’s difficult to say that we could ever plumb the heights or depths of our minds, spirits, and souls—algorithms and neurons notwithstanding.
For a different approach to "What is Mind?"
I believe that dogs and cats have minds. From what I see them do and what I see in their eyes, they are self-assured, not given to self-examination (at least not to self-doubt) and adapt to unforeseeable problems of survival with what Bernd Heinrich preferred not to call intelligence, in his book Mind of the Raven.
Cats and dogs I look up to as examples of how to live. I don't know if they meditate, but am pretty sure that they don't have schools or traditions of meditation, and don't feel a need to try to know their own minds.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Apology to Werner
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
This Raven comes to my house every day. He is very intelligent and teaches me things. I am a fan of Bernd Heinrich's writings.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 2, 2019 - 06:03am PT
|
Mike said: That means we have no real access to them with the upper world conscious mind that only sees materialism, moralism, personalism, naturalism, literalism—all which derive from corporalism.
-
If you only look at what you can physically grasp, what appears to our sense organs and rational minds as objects, that will be the extent of your world. And any learning will be in those terms.
I was recently at the Picasso exhibit here in Switzerland and it was a fun study to observe literalists looking cockeyed at some of Pablo's more absteract canvasses, wondering, I imagine, why he chose to intentionally distort "reality."
Caramba, pues! What the hell did Pablo "mean" with any of this?
This one's fun, from Richard F.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
What the hell did Pablo "mean" with any of this?
And what did Atticus M. Finch think about?
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
If a climber strokes their ego on the internet, does it make a sound...
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
I gotta say, this thread makes me focus on certain words for weeks at a time. The latest is algorithm. I've been thinking about it a lot. That and biochemical algorithm.
To me, here's the simple way it works. Genes mainly do two things:
* genes build and maintain things
* genes replicate or reproduce
The way that genes accomplish their work is through algorithms. There are three basic kinds, and they operate at different times within the organism's lifespan:
* Build algorithms
* Maintenance algorithms
* Survival algorithms
Build algorithms operate during embriogenesis. Maintenance algorithms evolved to maintain the bodily necessities of the organism. Survival algorithms are concerned with making sure that the organism passes on it's genes in the face of a dangerous and unpredictable world. Mind falls under the survival algorithm umbrella.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Now for biochemical algorithm. I just started rereading Eric Kandel's, In Search of Memory. I can't believe my capacity for forgetting things that I used to know, because I read this just two years ago and had forgotten some rather fundamental things about how memory and learning work. Suddenly I see it more clearly. Let's jump forward to a point in time where you already have neurons to work with -- the basic signalling network/system that evolved in animals with nervous systems.
The thing is (as Kandel points out), a network of neurons is informational but it also involves a lot of chemical agents (sorry), like neurotransmitters. There are chemical reasons that LSD and marijuana make us "feel" good. This is why I keep bringing up "feeling".
I guess I'm saying that consciousness is likely highly dependent on the chemical rather than purely informational. This is what makes me doubt that intelligence is the prime ingredient needed for consciousness. I can imagine really smart conscious beings and less-smart conscious beings.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
I guess I'm saying that consciousness is likely highly dependent on the chemical rather than purely informational.
Guessing is the gross materialist method.
The intelligent class calls the manufacturer and doesn't waste time guessing and stabbing into the dark.
You keep proving that gross materialists are and remain completely clueless and totally guessing and are ultimately far away from the mark ....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!