RE: computer pain

From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:13:49 +1100

Colin,
You have described a way in which our perception may be more than can
be explained by the sense data. However, how does this explain the response
to novelty? I can come up with a plan or theory to deal with a novel situation
if it is simply described to me. I don't have to actually perceive anything. Writers,
philosophers, mathematicians can all be creative without perceiving anything.
Stathis Papaioannou
----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 10:54:05 +1100
> From: c.hales.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: RE: computer pain
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>
>
> Stathis said:
> <snip>
> > If you present an object with "identical sensory measurements" but get
> different results in the chip, then that means what you took as "sensory
> measurements" was incomplete. For example, blind people might be able to
> sense the presense of someone who silently walks into the room due to
> their body heat, or the breeze created by their breathing, or perhaps
> even
> > some proximity sensor that we have not as yet discovered.
> >
> > But even supposing that perception involves some non-local
> > interaction (which would of course be an amazing finding
> > on its own, regardless of the
> > implications for consciousness), much interesting scientific
> > work has nothing to do with the scientist's direct
> > connection with his object of study. A
> > scientist can read about empirical data collected
> > by someone on the other side of the world and come
> > up with a theory to explain it; for all he knows, the data
> > is completely fabricated, but this makes no difference
> > to the cognitive processes
> > which result in the theory.
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
>
> RE: "Incomplete" sensing
>
> Sorry, Stathis, but no amount of sensory feeds would ever make it
> 'complete'. The sensory data is fundamentally ambiguous statistic of it's
> original source. That argumant won't do it. The question is: what physical
> processes cause the brain's field structure to settle on a particular
> solution. That constraint is NOT in the sensory data.
>
> Yes it will be an amazing result to everyone else. but me. I find it
> amazing that eveyone thinks it could be anything else or that somehow the
> incomplete laws derived using appearances can explain the appearance
> generation system. It's like saying the correltated contents of the image
> in a mirror somehow fathom the reflective surface of the mirror that
> generated the appearances.
>
> RE: Science
> I know accurate science requires certain behavioural normatives. Effective
> science has skill sets, individual characteristics of the temperament and
> genetic propensities of individual scientists. I know it has a social
> aspect. All this is true but irrelevant.
>
> From one of the metascience gurus:
>
> "Science is not done by logically omniscient lone knowers but by
> biological systems with certain kinds of capacities and limitations. At
> the most fine grained level, scientific change involves modifications of
> the cognitive states of limited biological systems".
> Philip Kitcher, 1993
> "The advancement of science : science without legend, objectivity without
> illusions"
>
> It's going to be fun watching the macro-scale electric field change in
> response to different objects when the sensory measurement is demonstrably
> the same. The only reason we can;t do it in brain materia is we can't get
> at it without buggering it up with probes and other junk related to the
> measurement. Our imaging techniques measure the wrong things.
>
> It'll light up a light when the subjective experience changes. We can wire
> it up like that. That will be a spooky day. I have to leave now. Merry
> XMAS and 2007 all you everything folk...
>
> cheers
>
> colin
>
>
>
> >
_________________________________________________________________
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Received on Sun Dec 17 2006 - 21:14:08 PST

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