On Oct 11, 7:14 am, Colin Hales <C.Ha....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> > This sound like your experiential field is a play performed in the
> > Cartesian theater fof the edification of the observer.No, it's better visualised as 'being a not-mirror' :-)
> Imagine you embedded a mirror in your head, but you were only interested in
> everything the mirror was not. That is, the image in the mirror is
> manipulating the space intimately adjacent to the reflecting surface. Keep
> the space, throw the reflecting surface and glass away. What you are
> interested in is 'being' that space, not the mirror. When you do that the
> 'movie screen' that is the experiential field becomes part of you. Yes it's
> a play, only 1 viewer who literally 'is' the theatre, no regressing
> homunculi.
Oddly, I think I *see* what you mean (and I use the term advisedly).
One of the problems we experience in discussing these issues (certainly
I do, anyway) is the lack of a really effective way to share powerful
*visualisations* of what we're proposing. Not everything we're trying
to express is formalisable (at this stage anyway) in mathematical or
strictly logical terms. I've tried to express before this image of the
relationship between what-is-functioning-as-perceiver and
what-is-functioning-as-percept, and the picture in my head was always
something like you describe. And the key aspect is that you *are* this
relationship, your grasp of the situation is unmediated, there is no
regress. For me, this is the primary intension of 'exists', and it lies
at the heart of what I confusingly referred to as 1-person primacy -
meaning only that you can't come by any of this unless you *are* the
entity in question. The commitment is total - there is no way of
climbing outside of this to study the situation 'objectively'.
David
> Brent Meeker:
>
>
>
>
>
> <snip>
> > > Observation involves (necessitates) the AGI having experiences, some of
> > > which are an experiential representation of the external world. The
> > > process of generation of the experiential field(s) involves the
> > insertion
> > > of the AGI in the chain of causality from that which is observed 'out
> > > there' through the external world to the sensing surface, impact (causal
> > > interaction) measured by sensing, transport (causality again) of the
> > > measurement through the AGI to the brain where the measurement
> > > participates in the causality that is the creation of the experiential
> > > field.
>
> > So that is what is *involved* in creating the experiential field. But
> > what is the field? I understand it is a representation of the external
> > world, but what about it makes it a representation? I hope you're not
> > going to say because "the observer" recognizes or uses it as such.The fields:
> In the case of visual field: virtual bosons as photons
> In the case of aural fields: virtual bosons as phonons
> In the case of touch fields: virtual bosons as touchons :-)
> In the case of touch fields: virtual bosons as tasteons :-)
>
> I don't know the details of the various bosons yet, but there is an infinity
> of possibilities as the virtual bosons are arbitrarily configurable by the
> spatiotemporal behaviour of the neural membranes involved. This is virtual
> matter in the same sense that all the members of the standard model depict
> matter i.e. boson is to matter as virtual boson is to virtual matter.
>
> > >It is by virtue of the existence/reality of the _entire_ causal
> > > chain that the experiential field can be created and be called
> > observation
> > > of the external world. (Clearly experiential fields can also be created
> > as
> > > hallucinations/dreams, without the full causality chain - but that is
> > not
> > > the 'observation' we are talking about). In making use of the complete
> > > causal chain the oberver has access (inherits some of the properties of)
> > > to that which is observed.
>
> > This sound like your experiential field is a play performed in the
> > Cartesian theater fof the edification of the observer.No, it's better visualised as 'being a not-mirror' :-)
> Imagine you embedded a mirror in your head, but you were only interested in
> everything the mirror was not. That is, the image in the mirror is
> manipulating the space intimately adjacent to the reflecting surface. Keep
> the space, throw the reflecting surface and glass away. What you are
> interested in is 'being' that space, not the mirror. When you do that the
> 'movie screen' that is the experiential field becomes part of you. Yes it's
> a play, only 1 viewer who literally 'is' the theatre, no regressing
> homunculi. It's just that the brain material (neurons) paints the space like
> the mirror did.
>
> BTW....Each neuron is like a single paintbrush and they all paint in
> parallel real time. Neurons to not have to actually 'fire' to paint. There
> are no particles actually traveling anywhere. If you slice occipital with a
> scalpel early damage would interfere with learning and ability to report
> contents of vision... but not necessarily the visual field itself. It'd take
> a lot of damage before the visual field was reportably affected...by that
> stage I'm pretty sure you'd have bled to death ... not an experiment I'd
> like to participate in, but that's my prediction. :-)
>
>
>
> > >This is not 'creating reality' in the
> > > Berkeleyian sense. This is participation in it. This is construction of
> > a
> > > representation of it from within the reality.
>
> > > This process I have described is observation and all of observation -
> > > nothin else counts as observation.
>
> > So anything happening in my brain that has a causal connection to the
> > world is an observation. I can buy that, but it seems so broad as to
> > include things, like recalling memories, not usually called
> > "observation".
>
> > Brent MeekerRecalled memories are in the same class as the hallucinations/dreams I
> mentioned. Such internally sourced fields (including all the emotions) are
> not the ones I call 'observation'. The sensory fields are hooked into the
> casual chain from the sensory measurements. They participate in the
> observation process.
>
> All pretty straightforward.
>
> The only weirdness is the solution to the 'hard problem' that enables the
> direct portrayal of the external world in your head (how the few necessary
> external properties are inherited). These are the solution to the
> unity/binding problem. Virtual bosons, whilst easy to see in the brain, do
> not solve the unity/binding problem. That is, why all the painting neurons
> actually general a single picture.
>
> Nevertheless that's my slant on building an observer.
>
> The main thing to get from the depiction is that measurement (or any causal
> interaction, for that matter) is NOT observation from the point of view of
> being able to formulate survivable generalisations about the external world
> in the face of arbitrary levels of novelty. Dumb-as-doggy-do
> machines/computers hooked up to sensing transduction and using a-priori
> rules (programs) do not 'observe' at all. They merely act 'as-if' they are
> observing to the extent that the derived rules are faithful to the distal
> world within which the machine is supposed to be successful. They only
> survive by virtue of their groundedness in the real human observations that
> gave them the rules they use.
>
> That's the basic set of design decisions (gotta choose something!) behind
> the 'artificial scientist' that must have 'real' observations.
>
> Cheers
>
> 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 everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Oct 12 2006 - 19:11:41 PDT