mturner

**

I.,
I'm not sure what you mean. Is it like, "Too many notes."?

**
I very much agree. Which is why I am not a Dualist; Cartesian, Platonic, whatever. I am a Monist. But it is also the reason why I am not a Materialist.

**
Begging your pardon and ignoring the rhetorical construction, this is simply untrue. The very meat and import of Materialism is "limitation". Bounds, parameters and constraints. This is in order to differentiate it from Supernaturalism. If you keep "pushing the envelope", as they say, then the natural and the supernatural will be indistinguishable. Matter must have limits, or Materialism fails as an ontology. I think Materialism was already over-reaching when energy was included in it as mass/energy, and now Quantum Theory renders the term, 'matter', nearly meaningless, or at least, extremely nebulous.

**
Can't follow this statement at all. Please clarify.

**
I understand mass and energy to be two forms of some underlying substrate. But I cannot for the life of me see how that would make 'data' synonymous with 'meaning'.

da·ta (dā'tə, dăt'ə, dä't&#601
pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Computer Science. Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.
Values derived from scientific experiments.
Plural of datum (sense 1).

and

mean·ing (mē'nĭng)
n.
Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.
An interpreted goal, intent, or end: “The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority” (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
Inner significance: “But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city?” (O. Henry).

Raw data has no significance, that is, no meaning. It implies nothing, it refers to nothing but itself. That is, it does not "signify" anything. Meaning, significance, must be abstracted from data by a process (intelligence). Meaning and data are not at all synonymous. Nor can they ever be.

**
From what I've seen of the HGP, I am forced to the exact opposite conclusion.


**
No, it isn't. For now, AI is based upon our current knowledge of computers.

pax,

mturner

Principia

And of course, mturner is wrong here.

Let us take a few examples:

Neural networks (I wonder why 'neural'):
Mimics how neurons reinforces neural connections in the process of learning.

Robotic vision (I wonder why 'vision'):
Mimics the visual systems of living organisms by processing images in a manner that maximizes the information extracted for useful work (e.g. the idea of edge-detection, or face recognition, or color representation).

Speech processing (I wonder why 'speech'):
Processes auditory signals based on, first, understanding how the human cochlea processes sound, and then, second, based on understanding the psychology behind speech (e.g. how brain defects manifest as abnormal speech processing)

Check out <a href="http://www.lcs.mit.edu" target="_blank">http://www.lcs.mit.edu</a> and <a href="http://www.media.mit.edu" target="_blank">http://www.media.mit.edu</a> where research is performed daily to capture aspects of human intelligence for machines and to augment human abilities (e.g. locomotion, sight, etc.) using machines.

It amazes me how mturner can make such an argument to demonstrate why AI will fail to mimic human intelligence in its entirety. I guess those researchers are just wasting their time...

SC

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Theophage

Quoted text by mturner appears in bold:

My point was and is, "How can a strictly mechanical bio-physical process abstract meaning from data". Simply saying that it's just some process that we don't understand doesn't take us very far towards answering that question.

Hello mturner,

You're right, my answer doesn't take us very far in that direction, nor was it intented to; it was simply an honest answer to your question. As far as I am aware, we don't know how the brain encodes things like concepts and memories.

But on examining your question a little further, I notice something particularly significant that it implies. You ask how a strictly mehcanical process can abstract meaning from data, which carries the implication that it may be a non-mechanical (and probably non-physical or non-material) process that performs the function in question. But do we know how such a non-mechanical process could do it? I suspect that the answer to that question is the same as the answer I gave you to yours.

So then the question becomes, "What advantage is there to working from the assumption that there is a strictly mechanical bio-physical process that abstracts meaning from data?" There are two distinct advantages to such an assumption: 1) it complies with parsimony, in that it doesn't assume the existance of any more parts or processes that the brain isn't already considered to have, and 2) our process of empirical study of the brain is better equipped (and more likely) to find a mechanical bio-physical process (if one exists) than it is to find some nebulous non-physical process. It's as simple as that.

I see you edited as I was responding. Now, instead of merely dissing my post, would you like to tell me what you find "odd" about it? I'll look for your answer on that thread.

If I wanted to post in that thread, I would have (and I may yet), but for now since the question came up here I will answer it here.

What do I find odd about your concepts of symoblism/data/information/meaning? I haven't actually read much of the threads in question, but I read this from Scientae:

If this is a correct assessment of your belief about DNA encoding, then I do find it to be odd. The primary reason is the apparent assumption that only an external intelligence (the Grand Old Designer aka GOD) could put the meaning into the DNA. I find this to be non-parsimonius, in opposition to observed physical phenomena, and simply absurd/odd. I'll go into it further if you'd like, but perhaps one of the other threads would be more appropriate for that. (I doubt I would get an account at the ARN board just to discuss it there, however...)

As for "dissing your post", if you don't want to criticism of what you write, then don't post your ideas in a public forum; no sense whining about criticism when it appears.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Principia

Theopage,

Don't take my word for it.

Here are the quotes from ARN:

SC

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

owleye

Ierrellus...

I confess I do not quite see the connection between your introductory comments on this topic with the topic title until I got down to:

"The purpose of the human brain appears to be to modify empirical data (ranges or fields of intensity of matter} and somatic drives or impulses in order for the human organism to achieve adaptational survival. The mind has access to all such physical modifications, included its own genetic evolution"

This passage, so full of psychologisms and biologisms, hardly makes me wish to contribute. Despite this, let me pick out of it the first part: "The purpose of the human brain appears to be to modify empirical data (ranges or fields of intensity of matter}."

I confess not quite being able to follow how you arrive at this conclusion from your evolutionary - psychological perspective, but let me not dwell on that part of it, but instead try to home in on the "brain modifying empirical data (ranges or fields of intensity of matter)."

1. This manner of speaking strikes me as odd. The brain (in isolation) doesn't modify matter. Rather I would say that the organism, in which the brain is an organic part, does this. True, the brain (at least in the sense in which it is a neural network and sophisticated control and informaton processing system) exercises control over its input variables in order to produce neural activity that often ends up with behavior that is purposeful, but this does not mean that the brain itself modifies matter.

Second, you will note that I translated "empirical data (...)" as 'matter', doing so on the basis of the thesis presented in the topic title. I do so also because I have great difficulty understanding how we are to understand this translation. As far as I can tell, 'data' is another word for 'unprocessed information'. While there is a physical aspect of this (an underlying material component), the underlying material component is merely a means of conveying it. Data is not in itself physical. As such, while it may be lost or gained through the medium that conveys it, it is not in itself modifiable and can not in itself be "ranges or fields of intensity of matter" (though it is conceivable that such physical phenomena may be a medium in which data is stored or conveyed).

If, however, I have to assume this to be literally true in order to proceed further, I would be grateful if you would explicitly tell me, since that assumption will be a deal-breaker for me and I will excuse myself so as to not get in the way of your project.

owleye

mturner

**
Hello Daniel;

I'm saying that claiming qualities in the brain are the result of physical mechanisms of which you have no scientific evidence is premature. Further to that there is evidence that the interpretation of data is not a mechanical event, since the same sense data can be interpreted in different ways, for different 'realities', with each 'reality' acceptable. Optical illusions, for instance.


**
I suppose you're right. I don't know the answer, I can only hypothesize. My hypothesis is that Intelligence/Mind/Consciousness/Psyche, or whatever you wish to call it, is as real as mass/energy, and that they are intertwined, and interacting, in a dynamic process.

**
Yes, it does, as you admit, above. Quote: "As far as I am aware, we don't know how the brain encodes things like concepts and memories."



**
I don't think it is all as simple as you assume. The mind/brain issue is not a 'soft' problem.


**
I suggest that, in future, you limit your assessment of my position, (for better or for worse), to what you get from me first hand.

**
This is not at all my position.

**
You seem to be trying to provoke a quarrel with me, Daniel, when you use loaded terms like 'odd' and 'whining'. There's a difference between a criticism and an oblique insult. If I find your language and tone combatative, condescending, or disrespectful, then I'll leave you to the people on this board who relish that sort of thing. I'd rather debate with you, if that's what you want as well.

pax,

mturner

Vorkosigan

detele

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Ierrellus

mturner, I like you. In fact I appreciate all who have devoted time to this discussion. In discussions of this type, I take literally Blakes's adage, "Opposition is true friendship."

Also, I hope that my sometimes inability to define certain terms does not estrange from the discussion anyone who could teach me how these terms are currently used.

In GULLIVER'S TRAVELS, Gulliver finds a scientist who has employed monkeys to turn a number of wheels on which all letters of the alphabet
are placed. The theory of the scientist who supervised the monkey experiment was that, eventually, with enough turns of the wheels and enough wheels, the monkeys would produce all of Shakespeare" works.

The wheels knew not what they were doing. Neither did the monkies. Only the supervisor had imposed meaning on the experiment and its expected outcome. In my view the wheels letters, and monkeys do not constitute data. Raw data, as exmplified by words and symbols out of context, is not what I consider usable or practical data, but is a "reductio ad absudum."


Eqivalence of mass and energy simply provides an open pathway for the extension of the type of scientific reductionism that has yielded atom and gene splicing profitable. What is unknown cannot be a dead end and an impetus to further scrutiny at the same time.

In the early 1950s proteins were made in a beaker. The only reason these proteins did nothing but be what they are structurally supposed to be is that they were produced out of the context
of DNA.

Enough for now.

Ierrellus

Theophage

As is the way of the capricious Theophage, quoted text by mturner will appear in bold:

Hello Daniel;

I'm saying that claiming qualities in the brain are the result of physical mechanisms of which you have no scientific evidence is premature.


Not at all. The assumption in science that any given phenomena X is due to a physical mechanism is a fundamental one. It is covered under "methodological naturalism" that you may have heard about. How does one go about studying non-physical things anyway? (For that matter, what non-physical things have been shown to exist?)

[re: answering the question with a non-physical mechanism] I suppose you're right. I don't know the answer, I can only hypothesize. My hypothesis is that Intelligence/Mind/Consciousness/Psyche, or whatever you wish to call it, is as real as mass/energy, and that they are intertwined, and interacting, in a dynamic process.

The funny thing is that a purely physical explanation agrees with everything you said above, but it does not require that the mechanism be non-physical. There's that parsimony thing again.

[re: my comment that a purely physical process is more parsimonious by not assuming additional entities] Yes, it does, as you admit, above. Quote: "As far as I am aware, we don't know how the brain encodes things like concepts and memories."

Please don't confuse how something works with the question of whether it does work at all. Let me give you a better example:

We both agree that the brain plays a role in consciousness, correct? We both agree that by some brain facilitated mechanism abstract meaning is procesed by data, correct? (whether that mechanism by physical or non-physical...)

Thus it boils down to two options: either the brain does this alone, or the brain does this with the aid of a non-physical component. Since the former is indeed more parsimonious, my comment refernced above stands.

Parsimony itself is no guarantee of correctness. You may be right, there may be a non-physical component. But until you have evidence for such, the most correct explanation is that the physical brain does it all by itself. I'm sorry if you dislike this conclusion. Do you have any evidence for the non-physical part of consciousness? The burden of proof is not equal here...

I don't think it is all as simple as you assume. The mind/brain issue is not a 'soft' problem.

I disagree; I feel that the whole "qualia" thing is vastly overrated. (That is the difference between the hard and soft problems of consciousness, correct?) Feel free to consider my view "odd".

I suggest that, in future, you limit your assessment of my position, (for better or for worse), to what you get from me first hand.

That is always the best method, of course, but I had no reason to suspect that Scientiae was misrepresenting you. Feel free to give a short clarification here if you'd like; no need to go into too much detail.

You seem to be trying to provoke a quarrel with me, Daniel, when you use loaded terms like 'odd' and 'whining'.

You will note that I keep this part of the commentary at the end, since I don't find it particularly relevant to the issue at hand (but still worthy of some mention). I can only assure you that I am not trying to provoke a quarrel with you, but you may take (or leave) my comments as you wish.

In the case of "odd", if the position outlined by scientiae were indeed your position, then calling them odd is certainly appropriate. Odd is hardly a loaded, quarrelsome, or combative term. I think perhaps you are looking for a quarrelsome attitude.

As for "whining", I consider complaints about criticism to be whining; YMMV. If this isn't what you were doing, then no harm done.

There's a difference between a criticism and an oblique insult.

I'm not terribly concerned whether you feel insulted or not. What I gave, I felt was simple ciriticism; I cannot control how you percieve it.

If I find your language and tone combatative, condescending, or disrespectful, then I'll leave you to the people on this board who relish that sort of thing. I'd rather debate with you, if that's what you want as well.

This is a given, why bother mentioning it? (I don't like discussing things with people who treat me poorly either, only the more masochistic among us really do...)

To quickly summarize:

Where we seem to disagree is over whether or not physical explanations are by default preferred/justified over non-physical explanations. I say they are, you seem to believe they are not. Please feel free to expand on this.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Ierrellus

Dear Theophage,

Would you and our friend mturner conclude that an animal with no brain has no consciousness? Or would you both agree that an animal with a rudimentary nervous system would have rudimentary consciousness?

Words or phrases which are bloated with diverse meanings tend to encourage debate on the expression of a theory and not on the theory itself. I am referring to such fat expressions as "consciousness", "subconscious", "noumena" and "innate ideas".

Reading responses to this thread very carefully, I find that some indicate intellectual disgust at the topic posted while others see data only as sensory input to the brain. Given three types of information provided to the brain, sensory data, somatic data and evolutionary data, am I overstuffing the word "data"?

Ierrellus