Mark, i don't keep my finger on the fast forward, maybe on the "Next".
YOU MISSED the essence of my question: it was directed to Colin's
sentence as I recall: "Chemical field IS electrical field"
So I referred to the explanatory force of "Tohuvabohu IS vohubatovu"
Of course I appreciate Colin's insight, even if I do not attempt to
calculate a differential equation of the time-aspect of knowledge.
I doubt the result: we DO so much things what we don't KNOW!
Live well
John
On 6/19/07, Mark Peaty <mpeaty.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> [Grin] I just found your question here John.
>
> JM: 'What is electric field?'
>
> MP: It is just part of a way of talking about that which is. In
> combination with other good science it is an extremely useful
> description of many consistencies in the world we see. It helps
> us to be more exacting in distinguishing changeable features of
> our world from things which don't change.
>
> But then, as you have said so many times, everything changes -
> if we observe it for long enough. So, what does not change?
> I think the answer to that question is: 'We don't know'. What we
> DO however is to fix on certain ideas and principles and use
> these to guide ourselves in all the big and little things in
> life. Because we humans have words we have a potentially
> infinite number of potential 'fixed points', or at least things
> which may be used as such, to steer our course through life.
> [NB: Hidden in the forgoing is an explanation of why I have
> great difficulty with Bruno's COMP and AR arguments, but I am
> not a mathematician so say no more here.]
>
> I think Colin is doing a tremendous job here in paring down the
> verbiage;
>
> I think this:
> '>
> > d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
> > --------------- = something you know = YOU DO.
> > dt
> >
> is brilliant!
>
> As I see it, this term is an equivalent expression to my UMSITW
> 'updating model of self in the world'. It entails a
> self-referencing, iterative process.
> For humans there is something like at least three iterations
> working in parallel and such that the 'output' of any of them
> can become the 'input' of any other. Something like:
> a/ basic animal responses to the world -
> Senses---------->| brain stem |->| |
> Senses---------->| thalamus |->|body motor image|->muscles
> proprioception-->|basal ganglia |->| body image |
>
> b/ high speed discrepancy checking -
> body motor image->|cerebellum|->muscles
> body sense image->| memory |->body motor/pre motor image
>
> c/ multi-tasking, prioritising ["Global workspace"]
> frontal cortex-------><-|hippocampus|-><-multiple cortex
> brain stem, thalamus-><-| memory |->body motor/pre motor image
> basal ganglia--------><-| |-><-cerebellum
>
> And that is all guesswork of course, based on gleanings from
> some of the writings of A Damasio, G Edelman, J.P.Changeaux, A
> Luria, V.B.Mountcastle, M Gazaniga, and many more who my faulty
> memory has left buried. In fact the interlinking is far more
> complex than I could possibly talk about but the basic drift is
> that Colin's KNOWLEDGE term is the sum total of everything which
> has been assimilated from the individual's prior experience. The
> brain uses about 20% or 25% of the body's energy supply in
> creating representations of changes going on in the world around
> as well as developments in completely internal processes.
> Measuring the changes against prior knowledge and expectation
> allows the individual to achieve her best effort in doing the
> most appropriate thing at the right time and in the most
> efficient way possible.
>
> Oops! That was much longer than expected, I hope you didn't miss
> all the good bits with your finger on the 'fast forward' button?
> :-)
>
>
> Regards
>
> Mark Peaty (Dilettante - still practising :-)
>
> mpeaty.domain.name.hidden
>
> http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
>
>
> John Mikes wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >
> > On 6/16/07, *Colin Hales* <c.hales.domain.name.hidden
> > <mailto:c.hales.domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
> > ....
> > " >Chemical potentiation IS electric field...<
> > ...
> > What is electric field?
> >
> > John M (frmr chemist)
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > I am going to have to be a bit targetted in my responses.... I am a
> TAD
> > whelmed at the moment.....
> >
> > COLIN
> > > > 4) Belief in 'magical emergence' .... qualitative novelty of a
> kind
> > utterly unrelated to the componentry.
> >
> > RUSSEL
> > > The latter clause refers to "emergence" (without the "magical"
> > > qualifier), and it is impossible IMHO to have creativity without
> > emergence.
> >
> > COLIN
> > The distinction between 'magical emergence' and 'emergence' is quite
> > obviously intended by me. A lake is not apparent in the chemical
> formula
> > for water. I would defy anyone to quote any example of real-world
> > 'emergence' that does not ultimately rely on a necessary primitive.
> > 'Magical emergence' is when you claim 'qualitative novelty' without
> > having
> > any idea (you can't point at it) of the necessary primitive, or by
> > defining an arbitrary one that is actually a notional construct
> > (such as
> > 'information'), rather than anything real.
> >
> >
> > COLIN
> > > > The system (a) automatically prescibes certain trajectories and
> >
> > RUSSEL
> > > Yes.
> >
> > COLIN
> > > > (b) assumes that the theroem space [and] natural world are the
> same
> > space
> > and equivalently accessed.
> >
> > RUSSEL
> > > No - but the system will adjust its model according to feedback.
> > That is
> > the very nature of any learning algorithm, of which EP is just one
> > example.
> >
> > COLIN
> > Ok. Here's where we find the big assumption. Feedback? HOW?...by
> who's
> > rules? Your rules. This is the real circularity which underpins
> > computationalism. It's the circularity that my real physical qualia
> > model
> > cuts and kills. Mathematically:
> >
> > * You have knowledge KNOWLEDGE(t) of 'out there'
> > * You want more knowledge of 'out there' ....so
> > * KNOWLEDGE(t+1) is more than KNOWLEDGE(t)
> > * in computationalism who defines the necessary route to this?...
> >
> > d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
> > --------------- = something you know = YOU DO.
> > dt
> >
> > So this means that in a computer abstraction.
> >
> > d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
> > --------------- is already part of KNOWLEDGE(t)
> > dt
> >
> > You can label it 'evolutionary' or 'adaptive' or
> > whatever...ultimately the
> > rules are YOUR rules and come from your previously derived
> > KNOWLEDGE(t) of
> > 'out there', not intrinsically grounded directly in 'out there'. Who
> > decided what you don't know? YOU DID. What is it based on? YOUR
> current
> > knowledge of it, not what is literally/really there. Ungroundedness
> > is the
> > fatal flaw in the computationalist model. Intrinsic grounding in the
> > external world is what qualia are for. It means that
> >
> > d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
> > ---------------
> > dt
> >
> > is
> > (a) built into the brain hardware (plasticity chemistry, out of your
> > cognitive control)
> > (b) partly grounded in matter literally/directly constructed in
> > representation of the external world, reflecting the external world
> so
> > that NOVELTY - true novelty in the OUTSIDE WORLD - is apparent.
> >
> > In this way your current knowledge minimally impacts
> >
> > d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
> > ---------------
> > dt
> >
> > In other words, at the fundamental physics level:
> >
> > d(KNOWLEDGE(t))
> > ---------------
> > dt
> >
> > in a human brain is NOT part of KNOWLEDGE(t). Qualia are the brain's
> > solution to the symbolic grounding problem.
> >
> >
> > RUSSEL
> > > Not at all. In Evolutionary Programming, very little is known
> > about the
> > ultimate solution the algorithm comes up with.
> >
> > COLIN
> > Yes but that is irrelevant....the programmer said HOW it will get
> > there....Sorry...no cigar....see the above....
> >
> > > > My scientific claim is that the electromagnetic field structure
> > literally the third person view of qualia.
> >
> > > Eh? Electromagnetic field of what? The brain? If so, do you think
> > that
> > chemical potentiation plays no role at all in qualia?
> >
> > Chemical potentiation IS electric field. There's no such thing as
> > 'mechanical' there's no such thing as 'chemical'. These are all
> > metaphors
> > in certain contexts for what is there...space and charge (yes...and
> mass
> > associated with certain charge carriers). Where did you get this
> weird
> > idea that a metaphor can make qualia?
> >
> > The electric field across the membrane of cells (astrocytes and
> > neurons)
> > is MASSIVE. MEGAVOLTS/METER. Think SPARKS and LIGHTNIING. It
> > dominates the
> > entire structure! It does not have to go anywhere. It just has to
> 'be'.
> > You 'be' it to get what it delivers. Less than 50% of the signalling
> in
> > the brain is synaptic, anyway! The dominant cortical process is
> actually
> > an astrocyte syncytium. (look it up!). I would be very silly to
> > ignore the
> > single biggest, most dominant process of the brain that is so far
> > completely correlated in every way with qualia...in favour of any
> other
> > cause.
> > -------------------
> >
> > Once again I'd like to get you to ask yourself the killer question:
> >
> > "What is the kind of universe we must live in if the electromagnetic
> > field
> > structure of the brain delivers qualia?"
> >
> > A. It is NOT the universe depicted by the qualia (atoma, molecules,
> > cells...). It is the universe whose innate capacity to deliver
> qualia is
> > taken advantage of when configureed like it appears when we use
> qualia
> > themselves to explore it....cortical brain matter. (NOTE: Please do
> not
> > make the mistake that sensors - peripheral affect - are equivalent
> to
> > qualia.)
> >
> > My original solution to
> >
> > Re: How would a computer know if it were conscious?
> >
> > stands. The computer must have a qualia-depiction of its external
> world
> > and it will know it because it can do science. If it doesn't/can't
> > it's a
> > rock/doorstop. In any computer model, every time an algoritm decides
> > what
> > 'is' (what is visible/there) it intrisically defines 'what isn't'
> > (what is
> > invisible/not there). All novelty becomes thus pre-ordained.
> >
> > anyway.....Ultimately 'how' qualia are generated is moot.
> >
> > That they are _necessarily_ involved is the key issue. On their own
> they
> > are not sufficient for science to occur.
> >
> > cheers
> > colin
> >
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Tue Jun 19 2007 - 17:59:46 PDT