Re: Reality, the bogus nature of the Turing test

From: Colin Geoffrey Hales <>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:39:51 +1000 (EST)

> Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>> >> The problem is that cells are defined and understood only through
>> being
>> >> observed with our phenomenal consciousness.
>> >
>> > Not "only". Cognition and instrumentation are needed too.
>> Yes. But the instruments are observed. All the instruments do is extend
>> the causal chain between your phenomenality and the observed phenomena.
>> Provided you can justify the causal source...all is OK... but that's
>> part
>> of the critical argument process using existing knowledge. The observer
>> is
>> fundamentally in the causal chain from the deepest levels all the way
>> through all of the instrumentation and into the sensory systems of the
>> observer. The observer is part of every observation.
> Hmmm. Are you sure? Is an earthbound astronomer fundamentally
> part of a supernovca which exploded millionsof years ago ? What
> do you mean by "fundamentally" ?
Yes. Causal chains, no matter how improbable, executed at the tiniest of
scales the same ones that make LUCY our literal ancestor..... connect us.
Consider them entropy transactions. When you objectify it, formalise it
and it looks (is equivalent to) 'light cone' causal proximity, but that's
only how it appearas.

Causal chains all the way from the sub-sub-quark level, all the way out of
the experiment, up through the instruments, across the room, into your
eye, action potentials along nerves and then the neuron(s) that deliver
the qualia... observation.

>> Consciousness is not a 'high level' emergent property of massive numbers
>> of neurons in a cortex context. It is a fundamental property of matter
>> that single excitable cells make good use of that is automatically
>> assembled along with assembling cells in certain ways.
> There are a number of leaps there. from "basal" areas
> to "single neurons", for instance.

When you look at the imaging it's very small cohorts of neurons. They look
identical to other sorts of neuron cohorts nearby. One set delivers
qualia. The others do not.

So there are 2 parts to an explanation:
a) single neuron properties
b) cohort organisation

Unless thesre is a property of single neurons to use for a cohort to do
something with, you are attributing 'magical emergence' to a cohort. This
is a logical inevitability.

Magical emergence means attributing some sort of property inherent in
organisation itself. This leads to logical nonsense in other
considerations of organisation (eg sentient plumbing in Beijing).

That leaves us with a property of excitable cells which can
a) be optionally established by a single cell
b) be used to collective effect (including cancellation/nullification)

At this stage I don;t know which option does the priordial emptions. What
I do know is that without single cell expression of a kind of
'elemental-quale' you can't make qualia.

Crick and Koch also attributed qualia to small cohorts or possibly single
cells (but in cortical material in 2003). No we have moved it out of the
cortext, the arrow is pointing towards single cells... and what do you
know? they are all different - 'excitable' = electromagnetic behaviour. We
have a fairly large pointer which says this is a single cell
electromagnetic phenomenon as like a pixel in a qualia picture.

colin hales

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Thu Sep 28 2006 - 18:41:00 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST