WJ

Hi John!

Actually, my thoughts here, I think, are more geared toward the theory that the universe is apparitional:

Sentiency
For any cosmological model in which the Universe is considered to be "actual", the problem of the origin of sentiency and intelligence is insoluble. But if the Universe is apparitional, sentiency is in it from the word "go". Even the atoms are "sentient". We have senses for the perception of gravity, kinetic energy, radiation, electricity and magnetism, because the individual protoplasmic cells can respond to these same five kinds of energy. And the cells can respond to them because the atoms respond to them. The atoms themselves respond to gravity, kinetic energy, radiation, electricity and magnetism. The plumb bob "knows" where the Earth is, and the electron "knows" where the proton is. Sentiency is in this from the word "go", because the underlying existence is "involved" in what we see and must show through.

It is hopeless to expect that something like sentiency or intelligence, or anything, for that matter, could arise by "evolution" (as a rose evolves from a bud), unless it was first put in by "involution". The reason the oak tree can "evolve" from the acorn is because it was first put in the acorn through "involution" by the parent trees. But in the case of the tree and the acorn, the involution is by transformational causation, parinama. Whereas, in the case of the underlying existence and the Universe, the involution is by apparitional causation, or vivarta . What underlies the Universe is involved by apparition in us and what we see. And since what underlies all this is infinite, there is no knowing what may evolve. (1)

The expectation that sentiency and intelligence might arise from "inert matter" is contrary to all the experience of our race. But matter is not inert. It is "ert", (it moves by itself) because what underlies the apparition shows through. And the notion that what is more might evolve from what is less is beyond the domain of reason.

[end quote]

Walrus

tronvillain

excreationist:
Ah. Well, then I am extremely skeptical of your theory, since the idea of a central processor in the brain is quite implausible given what we know of the brain.

I would agree that only a fraction of the activity in the brain will contribute to consciousness, but none of them are "conscious" in of themselves.

It probably does play an important role in consciousness, as well as the rest of the brain's activities - perhaps it initiates the chain reactions of activity. Initiate a pulse through the network, which reconfigures the network as the chain reaction travels through it, initiate another pulse through the network, which reconfigures further reconfigures the network as the chain reaction travels through it, etc. Some of the chain reactions will proceed out into the body to effect behavior, others will feed back into the next round, while still others will simply die out.

Not a bad little theory, but I would suggest throwing away the part about the information being put into working memory. Just let the network do the work rather than trying to centralize things.

John Page

Well, even if it were it would have to be an apparition of something and the something would (eventually?) be the real reality. So, the issue would remain.

I don't know where you got the quote from but the thoughts contained therein don't really provide an alternative explanation - you will still end up with questions like "How does the atom know which way is up...". On balance I just think it smacks of anthropomorphism.

Cheers, John

excreationist

Well what about that quote about the thalamus then:
"...is the cortex's chief source of extrinsic activation. Not only the primary areas for vision ("V1") audition ("A1"), and somatosensory ("S1") sensation (refer to Figure 3), but association cortex as well..."

And as that quote says it is the *chief* source of extrinsic activation in many parts of the brain.
from <a href="http://www.phil.vt.edu/assc/newman/" target="_blank">http://www.phil.vt.edu/assc/newman/</a>
Well I haven't really taken much of that in, but basically there is a central part in the centre of the brain. I think the hippocampus is used to access long-term memories or store them. (Something like that)

That link talks about many different parts and models involving the thalamus.

Well I think that maybe all the information that we are conscious of passes though the central parts of the brain (thalamus? etc) and it relays the slightly processed information to other areas of the brain which look for triggered patterns (memory fragments), etc.
Anyway, that's just what I basically think.

John Page

Nial:

In general, I think I'm asking the questions I ask because its a trait that led my ancestors to be successful. This could be described as an inherited motivation/desire to reconcile dissonant data, the evolutionary benefit being greater understanding/control of one's environment. Hence my philosophy of <a href="http://www.reconciliationism.org/summary.htm" target="_blank">Reconciliationism</a>.

Specifically why I'm asking the question is the following intuition. By working outwards (in both directions) from the border between the mind and the world it percieves, by focusing on the point at which external reality is transmogrified into a perception, the effects of subjectivity can be minimized.

I have developed a theory of abstraction that provides a cognitive model of how the mind might apprehend and manipulate identities (whether deemed to be represented as types or tokens). In my paper documenting the theory, (which I can send you if you like), I also offer observations on how logic works in reality (as opposed to being just an internally consistent abstract system), thereby explaining certain paradoxes as 'logical illusions'.

Acknowledging my own subjectivity, I'm now curious to gather opinions from others on how they envision the fringe of the mind. Anyhow, that's why I think I think I'm asking the question. It's to answer that question (I think). Does it answer yours?

Cheers, John

excreationist

Well I think it is a fundamental motivation/desire as well, but I say that we seek connectedness/coherence. It is about "convergence"... like how artificial neural networks can converge into a stable state. It's about a realization. When we experience that we have an urge to repeat that signal. Since we are compelled to seek that signal, it is "desireable" to us - we demonstrate our "desire" by actively seeking it. The signal we seek is called "pleasure".
I think surprise/shock which comes from unexpected inputs (dissonant data) compels us to analyse it. And then we might learn the new pattern which "resonates" very well with what we already know (the connectedness pleasure) or this attempt might be fruitless and after a while the "frustration" pain would build up and we'd give up... unless this was outweighed by some greater pleasure or pain that forced us to continue analysing that input.
So anyway, I think the terms "resonation", "connectedness" and "coherence" are similar to your ideas.

excreationist

Well I think "the will" is a synonym for plan or goals (that are based on fundamental motivations/goals). Without a "will", a thing wouldn't be doing anything intelligent. It would just sit around or blindly move around bumping into everything. Anyway, by (my) definition, intelligent things need a will. And a "mind" is part of a very intelligent system so therefore it has to have a will.

Suicide often is part of people's will. Huge numbers of people attempt suicide. Some even succeed. It isn't a universal fundamental desire because it doesn't do much to help pass on our genes. Passing on your genes involves having as many offspring as possible - not killing yourself.

About the "need to be"... I think you mean "the need to survive". Well I think some of the main reasons that stop people from killing themselves is our inborn compulsion to avoid bodily pain signals. But if we believe that the pain involved in living is greater, then we would choose the lesser of the two pains. Another main reason is guilt... I think that is because it means forsaking your religion or your family or friends... we want to have a lot of "connectedness" and therefore that needs to be outweighed if you're going to kill yourself. So the undesireable things - bodily pain and guilt, would need to be outweighed by something even more undesireable - the pain of continuing to live. They might feel very alienated in their life so they hardly feel any connectedness anyway. Escaping that would actually be a relief. Maybe that's the main reason people feel suicidal - because they feel alienated (a lack of connectedness). There's probably some other reasons but I can't think of them at the moment. Anyway, people's motivations are partly inborn and partly cultural/experiential and those who didn't kill themselves (early on at least) would pass their genes/wisdom on. BTW, suicide in the elderly is fairly widespread... but since they've had their kids it doesn't matter much, in an evolutionary sense, whether they kill themselves or not.

excreationist

I think that subjectivity starts at the retinas and other sense receptors.
Here aspects of the external world are detected. Since the external world is so complex (lots of little photons, etc), we see things slightly differently - even if we all were identical twins.
There I was assuming that subjectivity meant a "difference of opinion".
But if subjectivity means that it can't be studied directly by others then at the moment most of the brain has subjective processes. But I think in the future we might be able to decode the contents of the brain and translate people's thoughts into meaningful information - such as sound or pictures. This would probably require the brain to be scanned 40 times a second and decoded. It would give results like a shape being "67% desireable", etc.

====================
Just another note about the <a href="http://www.phil.vt.edu/assc/newman/" target="_blank">thalamus page</a> and my model:
This is kind of what I expected... the contents of working memory would trigger off many, many different associations. And much of working memory would be discarded to make room for "new ideas" (triggered associations). So say there initially was 1000 pieces of information in there... 800 pieces might be useless (they don't satisfy the sub-goals) and the remaining 200 pieces trigger 800 more pieces. Then of those 200, 100 might no longer be relevant and 700 of the 800 might be useless. Basically there is a chain of reasoning which is goal-directed which ultimately is about following our fundamental desires (seeking connectedness/coherence, newness, avoiding bodily pain signals, frustration, etc). There is a cycle where LTM fragments are continously retrieved and working memory is discarded or copied over that is no longer important (and you then "forget" about it).

WJ

Hi John!

"On balance I just think it smacks of anthropomorphism."

Well john, if all truth is subjectivity, where would the inconsistency lie?


Walrus

John Page

Hi Walrus!

I don't agree with "all truth is subjectivity". Our observations are subjective so the results of those observations can be inaccurate/misleading. In turn this can lead us to believing certian things as true when there are false or less than 100% true. These inconsistencies are some of the things I'm trying to get a handle on.

Regarding your suggestion, for an atom to "know" something in a human sense it would need something like a mind to accept, memorize and manipulate sense data in order to "decide" what to do. This seems very different to a straightforward physically causal chain where the outcome is based on non-mind mechanics. While Maxwell's demons are an interesting concept, for example, we don't have any evidence in Physics that the elements "decide" what to do on a sentient basis. Hence my anthropomorphism comment.

I believe inconsistencies must lie in reality (which includes our minds) and be conveyed through facts. Those facts are distilled from information that enters the mind, the realm of our perception, so I want to explore the nature of the mind/reality interface.

Cheers, John