What is "Mind?"

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 6401 - 6420 of total 22307 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Jan

Mountain climber

Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa

Jul 26, 2015 - 10:20am PT

Interesting research Cintune. I'm sure Dehaene’s team already realizes that their next subjects need to be apes, whose mind is more like our own than a monkey's. What could really tell us something in this regard would be an MRI on apes with no language and apes with sign language. Then if we could measure the brains of dolphins and whales, we'd really begin to understand the evolution of language and more about the brain.

Mathematics and language have long been thought to be related. There are some evolutionary anthropologists who think that the dexterity of human hands and the proportion of the brain dedicated to our hands was also influential in language. They hypothesize that before we had music and language, we had sign language which was more useful for the hunt. Ape brain studies might clarify that.

Ward Trotter

Trad climber

Jul 26, 2015 - 10:49am PT

There are some evolutionary anthropologists who think that the dexterity of human hands and the proportion of the brain dedicated to our hands was also influential in language.

But then again some recent research indicates the human hand might be more primitive than chimps:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150714113043.htm

jogill

climber

Colorado

Jul 26, 2015 - 01:25pm PT

They hypothesize that before we had music and language, we had sign language which was more useful for the hunt (jan)

Interesting. Maybe that's why some of us find talking is easier if we can use our hands in the process.

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

Jul 26, 2015 - 08:37pm PT

This allows us to reinterpret physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as preexisting physical truths. We sketch how this approach might extend to the perception of relativistic quantum objects, and to classical objects of macroscopic scale (D. D. Hoffman)

Glancing over his mathematics I have trouble seeing how numbers can be applied and predictions made - the hallmarks of the physical sciences. He conjures up a nice structure using sophisticated mathematical tools but I don't see where it all leads, and I don't find it a compelling argument that the moon isn't there when we are not looking at it. But then, even as a retired mathematician, my eyes started glazing over after a bit.

JL has his work cut out for him if he hopes to develop similar theory for sentience, awareness, etc. And even if he were to accomplish that, it would be more a descriptive device than a predictive one. Seems ridiculous to even start such a project.

Better to examine the mind of the Feds.

;>)

Edit: Here's something similar, but more naive, that I wrote a couple of years ago when I was thinking about time travel. You will be pleased to note I received no NSF grants to encourage me!

Lem's Ergodic Theory of History

MikeL

Social climber

Seattle, WA

Jul 27, 2015 - 08:38am PT

Ward: Sorry to hear that Oliver Sacks is terminally ill.

We’re all terminally ill.

HFCS: We still [I’m dropping out the “have to”] live our lives day to day . . . . all of it still points to a completely fated mechanistic nature. . . . What are we, robots? . . . what difference would it really matter?

I think you have it perfectly, there, Sir.

Jan

Mountain climber

Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa

Jul 27, 2015 - 10:12am PT

Ward, the human hand may not have evolved since the split with the chimpanzees, but the area of the brain involved with controlling the hands has. The space in the human brain devoted to the hands is 3 1/2 times greater in the chimp. This may well reflect part of the split of ourselves and the chimps - we began to rely on brain evolution more than bodily adjustments.

Jan

Mountain climber

Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa

Jul 27, 2015 - 10:40am PT

There is a movement to teach children simple sign language symbols before they can talk and reports say that it works very well. Instead of screaming, children can sign their needs to their parents and learn how very quickly.

Ward Trotter

Trad climber

Jul 27, 2015 - 11:42am PT

Good points Jan.

We’re all terminally ill.

We are? I didn't get the memo,sorry. I don't normally regard life itself as a terminal illness but in many ways I suppose you're correct.

When I said I was sorry about Oliver Sacks it was said about him and him only. Nevertheless he has led a long and productive life. I hope he is not in too much pain.

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

Jul 27, 2015 - 06:07pm PT

We’re all terminally ill (MikeL)

It's true we are all terminal, but to conclude life is nothing but prolonged illness seems a stretch. Whatever floats your boat ...

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2015 - 07:12pm PT

Intersting link, Mike. One of the problems is was pointed out in a comment about the paper:

"It looks somewhat weird that the same framework that refutes object persistence adopts dogmatic realism. If you "cheerfully admit that there is a reality" the theory is incomplete without a well defined explanation of what reality is."

That is, the authors kept talking about how perception is geared to "fitness" and is NOT a mirror of the "truth" out there (the true physical objects) while simultaneously insisting that these "true" objects do not exist when unobserved.

Second, their entire model of consciousness is modeled on tasking: perceiving, deciding, then action.

Sentience itself is left untouched, or possibly, went undetecteced. Till one detaches from tasking, sentience by all appearances seems identical with tasking, with DOING something.

But hats off to the boys for stepping up with some bold claims that probably have little chance of being accepted by the physicalists' and their Golden Rule: That "reality" exists separate from all observers. After all, they have "proof," though none sans an observer of said proofs.

Hard to get rid of that pesky observer.

JL

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Jul 27, 2015 - 07:38pm PT

"We're in such deep trouble in terms of getting a scientific theory it's time to question assumptions. I'm going to question one deeply held assumption: that perception is normally veridical; and (2) that physical objects have causal powers; and (3) that brain activity causes consciousness. These are apple pie for most of us, I'm going to question them." -Donald Hoffman

Toward a science of consciousness. The three D's together: David, Dan and Don...

[Click to View YouTube Video]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoZsAsgOSes

I'm squarely in Dan's camp, of course.

.....

Related to mind, AI of course. This is really scary...

http://futureoflife.org/AI/open_letter_autonomous_weapons

"If you’re against a military AI arms race, please sign this open letter." -Elon Musk tweet

Recall the Vijay Kumar TED talk posted a couple years ago...

[Click to View YouTube Video]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ErEBkj_3PY

Imagine hundreds of these insect like drones weaponized and then coordinated by sophisticated software.

And this example was in the news just this week. Yes, the creator's an engineering student...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_kfUVZdTkU

If ever a heads-up was necessary this is it.

(Yes, I think I might know why the Milky Way isn't buzzing with ETIs in every direction.)

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber

joshua tree

Jul 27, 2015 - 08:03pm PT

from Fruitys link:

a global arms race is virtually inevitable, and the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious:

Duh! Don't rest now, lest you rust ; O

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2015 - 08:05pm PT

Fruity, I posted that link earlier (Chalmers does a fine job of positing the questions and clarifying what "objective functioning is) but it never found traction from those on this thread, possibly due to it's imposing length and that long stretches are BORING - yet interesting to a mind geek like me.

One of the long-standing challenges of accepting Dennett at face value is his insistance that the brain is tricking us into believing we have experience, that our experience is not real - though it undeniably SEEMS that way.

What do you think "real" means to Dennett in this regards? And what do you think would constitute "real" experience to Dennett, as opposed to the phony baloney version our brain is supposedly serving up?

JL

High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber

Jul 27, 2015 - 09:02pm PT

Humor me. First things first..

http://www.livescience.com/16331-discoverers-beetle-beer-bottle-sex.html

"it was a serendipitous study where we just observed large male beetles in Western Australia trying to mate with discarded beer bottles along the side of the road."

http://news.discovery.com/animals/beetles-dying-beer-bottles-111003.htm

Like moths to a flame, like australian jewel beetles to a beer bottle.

"all you needed was a little disturbance to the [ecological] niche and game over." Don Hoffman

Enter: (1) killer asteroid (2) weaponized automated AI drones (3) fossil fuel depletion (4) super bug

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

Jul 27, 2015 - 09:23pm PT

Sentience itself is left untouched, or possibly, went undetecteced. Till one detaches from tasking, sentience by all appearances seems identical with tasking, with DOING something (JL)

Clearly we are at a point where to bring in math or physics analogies or metaphors is inappropriate. According to JL, to investigate sentience means to go into a meditative trance suspending thought and thereby witness that which cannot be explained by reason.

No more Hilbert spaces or fields or virtual particles . . . just empty minds. Sounds good.

Looks like JL and fruity are on the same wavelength. A compromise of Iranian proportions. Maybe now there will be progress.

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2015 - 10:11pm PT

I think bringing in math or physics analogies or metaphors is inappropriate for investigating objective functioning as described by Chalmers.

I also know that sentience can be approached with reason and analysis.

Why do you think those seeking to understand "consciousness" rarely if ever try and get a handle on awareness, focus and attention? Instead of investigating the light of consciousness - for the lack of a better term - we see only what the light shines on - content, tasking, etc.

JL

MikeL

Social climber

Seattle, WA

Jul 27, 2015 - 10:17pm PT

Largo:

Glad you enjoyed Hoffman’s paper. The video does well, too.

You can see from the reviewers’ comments in the paper that they resist Hoffman & Prakash’s ideas, but I thought that Hoffman and Prakash provided a number of reasonable responses to criticisms.

I don’t think I’ve seen a journal article that was half devoted to printing restatements and responses to reviewers’ criticisms within a paper like this. In the past, I’ve seen that done in separate but short responses and rejoinders (which can make for a lively back and forth among experts).

The back-and-forth is what academia has become to me. It’s the conversation that matters, not Truth. The conversations are fun, like watching an interesting movie or tv show or reading a novel. For the best and brightest, academic research is like some sort of an arcane ballet. That can be fun, too (like attending a German opera or an English Renaissance play if one has the relevant skill set and the acquired taste).

Everyone gets to decide where they want to be on the continuum of talking / conversing about things. I don’t take any of it all that seriously anymore, and I think I’ve learned to enjoy it all the more for that reason.

Questioning object permanence seems fully worthy of efforts. (That notion seems to apply to every assumption we make.)

Like the authors said, math can only mimic a structure, not the essence. Simulations are trials and afford a kind of test. But neither is “the thing.”

Largo

Sport climber

The Big Wide Open Face

Topic Author's Reply - Jul 27, 2015 - 11:48pm PT

The whole questioning of object permanence is the very opposite of what a physicalist has been trained to believe, their goal being to "prove" the existence of things, our there, which exist before, above and beyond any mind that might fathom same. Or not. Funny thing is, as counterintuitive as this seems, the notion simply will not go away. And people with stakes in the physicalist camp will continue to refute it with their dying breath, much as people insist that abiding with our awareness produces a "trance." When asked by what means did they arrive at this silly notion, it is always wild guessing. One wonders what experiences people have had that lead them to believe that the forms we "see" are sourced by "mind," that the moon is not there with no one to witness it. The article says that this belief (in object permanance) is one of our earliest mental patterns (citing Piaget). Those are especially hard to route out. What could be more "obvious" than the idea that the grub in the fridge is there whether I am thinking about/observing it or not?

Trippy material.

JL