$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience.
It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.
If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one. In this central sense of "consciousness", an organism is conscious if there is something it is like to be that organism, and a mental state is conscious if there is something it is like to be in that state.
When simple methods of explanation are ruled out, we need to investigate the alternatives. Given that reductive explanation fails, nonreductive explanation is the natural choice.
Although a remarkable number of phenomena have turned out to be explicable wholly in terms of entities simpler than themselves, this is not universal. In physics, it occasionally happens that an entity has to be taken as fundamental. Fundamental entities are not explained in terms of anything simpler. Instead, one takes them as basic, and gives a theory of how they relate to everything else in the world. For example, in the nineteenth century it turned out that electromagnetic processes could not be explained in terms of the wholly mechanical processes that previous physical theories appealed to, so Maxwell and others introduced electromagnetic charge and electromagnetic forces as new fundamental components of a physical theory. To explain electromagnetism, the ontology of physics had to be expanded. New basic properties and basic laws were needed to give a satisfactory account of the phenomena.
Other features that physical theory takes as fundamental include mass and space-time. No attempt is made to explain these features in terms of anything simpler. But this does not rule out the possibility of a theory of mass or of space-time. There is an intricate theory of how these features interrelate, and of the basic laws they enter into. These basic principles are used to explain many familiar phenomena concerning mass, space, and time at a higher level.
I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness. We might add some entirely new nonphysical feature, from which experience can be derived, but it is hard to see what such a feature would be like. More likely, we will take experience itself as a fundamental feature of the world, alongside mass, charge, and space-time. If we take experience as fundamental, then we can go about the business of constructing a theory of experience.
Where there is a fundamental property, there are fundamental laws. A nonreductive theory of experience will add new principles to the furniture of the basic laws of nature. These basic principles will ultimately carry the explanatory burden in a theory of consciousness. Just as we explain familiar high-level phenomena involving mass in terms of more basic principles involving mass and other entities, we might explain familiar phenomena involving experience in terms of more basic principles involving experience and other entities.
PeakOil is You
The universe, how can it be?
Re: The universe, how can it be?
by Omnium » Sun 13 Aug 2006, 13:41:55
-
Omnium - Wood
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Fri 11 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Re: The universe, how can it be?
by Omnium » Sun 13 Aug 2006, 13:44:25
To solve the problem of consciousness, one needs to shift context. Stop thinking about physical systems, and start thinking about patterns. Consider patterns as foundational: consider the universe as being made of patterns. Consider there as being a set of elemental items, and then patterns among these elemental items. Assume each elemental item has a finite set of finitely-describable properties.
This “pattern philosophy” perspective has many philosophical roots, from early-Wittgensteinian logical positivism to Machian psychologism, to the more explicitly pattern-based approaches of Charles Peirce, Gregory Bateson and Benjamin Whorf and late Nietzsche. But for the present purposes, we don’t need to explore the metaphysical nature of these assumptions too carefully, we can simply proceed with them and see where they lead.
What is a pattern? A pattern in some entity X is a function f that computes X from some data D, with the property that
[align=center]
simplicity(f) + simplicity(D) < simplicity(X)[/align]
The entity X is the “ground” of the pattern. In other words, a pattern is a simplification, a representation-as-something-simpler (Goertzel, 1997). This notion of pattern is closely tied to algorithmic information theory (Chaitin, 1992).
To define pattern, one must therefore already have a notion of “simplicity.” We assume this is elemental and given – more will be said about this later.
Now, suppose one has a dynamical universe, in which new patterns are continually occurring. In this context, I posit a general principle of consciousness:
[align=center]When a new (pattern,ground) pair appears in the universe,
a quale is associated with it[/align]
This “pattern philosophy” perspective has many philosophical roots, from early-Wittgensteinian logical positivism to Machian psychologism, to the more explicitly pattern-based approaches of Charles Peirce, Gregory Bateson and Benjamin Whorf and late Nietzsche. But for the present purposes, we don’t need to explore the metaphysical nature of these assumptions too carefully, we can simply proceed with them and see where they lead.
What is a pattern? A pattern in some entity X is a function f that computes X from some data D, with the property that
[align=center]
simplicity(f) + simplicity(D) < simplicity(X)[/align]
The entity X is the “ground” of the pattern. In other words, a pattern is a simplification, a representation-as-something-simpler (Goertzel, 1997). This notion of pattern is closely tied to algorithmic information theory (Chaitin, 1992).
To define pattern, one must therefore already have a notion of “simplicity.” We assume this is elemental and given – more will be said about this later.
Now, suppose one has a dynamical universe, in which new patterns are continually occurring. In this context, I posit a general principle of consciousness:
[align=center]When a new (pattern,ground) pair appears in the universe,
a quale is associated with it[/align]
-
Omnium - Wood
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Fri 11 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Re: The universe, how can it be?
by Omnium » Sun 13 Aug 2006, 13:46:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')ttp://www.andrewcohen.org/quote/?quote=178
Everything and Nothing in One Breath
Consciousness is not an object, so you cannot say it is something. And yet it is not nothing. Nothing is void; it has no attributes, no qualities. Consciousness is empty of any thing, and yet there is something endlessly compelling in that emptiness. When you contemplate consciousness, you discover a mysterious sense of knowing that is both knowing nothing and knowing everything at once. Whatever you are becoming cognizant of, its nature seems to be everything—fullness, completeness. The emptiness is full. That's why the emptiness is compelling, because it is full of the knowing of some mysterious everything that is not a thing. It's everything; it's nothing—you can go on forever: everything, nothing, nothing, everything, always meaning the same thing. If you could say everything and nothing in one breath, perhaps you could capture the paradoxical nature of consciousness.
Everything and Nothing in One Breath
Consciousness is not an object, so you cannot say it is something. And yet it is not nothing. Nothing is void; it has no attributes, no qualities. Consciousness is empty of any thing, and yet there is something endlessly compelling in that emptiness. When you contemplate consciousness, you discover a mysterious sense of knowing that is both knowing nothing and knowing everything at once. Whatever you are becoming cognizant of, its nature seems to be everything—fullness, completeness. The emptiness is full. That's why the emptiness is compelling, because it is full of the knowing of some mysterious everything that is not a thing. It's everything; it's nothing—you can go on forever: everything, nothing, nothing, everything, always meaning the same thing. If you could say everything and nothing in one breath, perhaps you could capture the paradoxical nature of consciousness.
-
Omnium - Wood
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Fri 11 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Re: The universe, how can it be?
by markam » Sun 13 Aug 2006, 19:45:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('armegeddon', 'b')ig bang, hmmm.. So something blew up, and it happened to create this beautiful earth, that is the exact distance from the sun to sustain life, and it never alters it course, and has an eco system that is balanced to perfection, and developes gravity to sustain the molecular structure of atoms to keep livings things alive ? And somehow trees develop to take in poiseness gas and turns it into oxygen for all living things to breathe. And millions of unique and distinctive creatures form, and give birth to one another to keep their population alive. And the marvulous human body forms from all this, that has a brain capacity that can think and reason better than a supercomputer. And somehow water formed that is essential for life , and the ground produces food for living things to eat. Boy, that was one heck of a smart explosion. Thats like blowing up a paper factory, and an entire set of encyclopedias come crashing down in full form.
Smarts has nothing to do with. It is estimated that there are 70 sextillion stars in the known universe. That's a 7 followed by 22 zeros. Random probability would ensure that a planet just like ours would have to be created at some point. Don't think that we are something miraculous, we are just 1 of 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 variations out there.
I am sure that the other 70 sextillion variations are just as neat and just as improbable.
BTW, I bet if you blew up a paper and ink factory 70 sextillion times, you would probably form a book at least once.
- markam
- Lignite
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: PA
Re: The universe, how can it be?
by Lighthouse » Sun 13 Aug 2006, 19:57:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '
')
How did God exist before anything else?
')
How did God exist before anything else?
You still think in very limited terms. Again There is no before! Nothing. This question is irrelevant. No time, no "before"
Hard to grasp I know ...
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
-
Lighthouse - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1290
- Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
