Why do you focus exclusively on electromagnetism as the fundament of "sensorimotive"? Wouldn't strong and weak nuclear forces have the same basic "sensorimotive" properties?
On Jan 27, 5:51 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Craig,
> Why do you focus exclusively on electromagnetism as the fundament of
> "sensorimotive"? Wouldn't strong and weak nuclear forces have the
> same basic "sensorimotive" properties?
Hi Terren,
I use electromagnetism because it has an iron clad association with
sensroimotive experience. That is the main symmetry I want to get
across. Once we understand that, all forces, strong, weak,
electromagnetic, and gravitational would be different inertial frames
of reference of the same thing. They make sense in different ways, as
would be appropriate when you are talking about density of large
objects versus charge of atoms or how atoms are held together and fall
apart, but to me these are just computational details. It's *all*
sensorimotive-electromagnetism.
The most provocative possibility of this is that rather than a
Classical limit in the microcosm at which QED supersedes Newton, there
is a Copernican limit at which we stop detecting objects per se and
begin detecting our own instruments sensitivity itself. Atoms are
antennas, and quantum mechanics are the exterior most aspects of the
broadcasts. The form of the broadcasts looks electromagnetic to us
(from the outside) but feels sensorimotive to us from the inside. Not
that our perception is literally atomic, just as TV programs aren't
only pixels, but our perception is figuratively meta-meta-meta-meta
atomic.
Right on, Right on! That is most telling to me is that what you are saying here is just another way of thinking about what Bruno calls the "level of substitution".
> On Jan 27, 5:51 pm, Terren Suydam<terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Craig,
>> Why do you focus exclusively on electromagnetism as the fundament of >> "sensorimotive"? Wouldn't strong and weak nuclear forces have the >> same basic "sensorimotive" properties?
> Hi Terren,
> I use electromagnetism because it has an iron clad association with > sensroimotive experience. That is the main symmetry I want to get > across. Once we understand that, all forces, strong, weak, > electromagnetic, and gravitational would be different inertial frames > of reference of the same thing. They make sense in different ways, as > would be appropriate when you are talking about density of large > objects versus charge of atoms or how atoms are held together and fall > apart, but to me these are just computational details. It's *all* > sensorimotive-electromagnetism.
> The most provocative possibility of this is that rather than a > Classical limit in the microcosm at which QED supersedes Newton, there > is a Copernican limit at which we stop detecting objects per se and > begin detecting our own instruments sensitivity itself. Atoms are > antennas, and quantum mechanics are the exterior most aspects of the > broadcasts. The form of the broadcasts looks electromagnetic to us > (from the outside) but feels sensorimotive to us from the inside. Not > that our perception is literally atomic, just as TV programs aren't > only pixels, but our perception is figuratively meta-meta-meta-meta > atomic.
I don't understand why you don't allow machine consciousness if in your theory all forces give rise to sense. What is special about the kinds of "forces" inherent in a biological organism? It smells like vitalism.
What is especially confusing about your position is that you allow that structure puts limitations on subjective experience (I.e. lack of rods and cones will prevent one from seeing color). Based on that you are already close to comp. It is very hard for non-comp theories to account for the changes in subjectivity that occur in tandem with brain damage, psychoactive drugs, and so on.
Somewhere in your theory must be an account of the differences between biological cell and a functional silicon-based equivalent, since the same low level forces are involved in both. Why does the substance matter when any physical substrate is subject to basic electromagnetic and nuclear forces? If that silicon version has the proper structure (organization) then why in your theory wouldn't it have subjective experience?
Terren On Jan 27, 2012 6:45 PM, "Craig Weinberg" <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 28, 5:20 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand why you don't allow machine consciousness if in your
> theory all forces give rise to sense.
It's the other way around, sense experience gives rise to all
appearance of force.
> What is special about the kinds of
> "forces" inherent in a biological organism? It smells like vitalism.
Biological organisms are alive. They eat other living organisms to
survive. Most matter is not alive and we cannot eat it. This isn't
some flaky theory, it's just pointing out the obvious. We distinguish
biology from chemistry for a reason. It's only special to biological
organisms. They have an opinion about whether they keep living or not.
> What is especially confusing about your position is that you allow that
> structure puts limitations on subjective experience (I.e. lack of rods and
> cones will prevent one from seeing color). Based on that you are already
> close to comp. It is very hard for non-comp theories to account for the
> changes in subjectivity that occur in tandem with brain damage,
> psychoactive drugs, and so on.
The structure and the experience are opposite parts of the same thing.
If you change one, it can have an influence sometimes on the other.
Not always though. They overlap and diverge. I can consciously
breathe, or I can observe that I am breathing. I can control my body
in important ways, my body can control me in important ways.
> Somewhere in your theory must be an account of the differences between
> biological cell and a functional silicon-based equivalent, since the same
> low level forces are involved in both. Why does the substance matter when
> any physical substrate is subject to basic electromagnetic and nuclear
> forces? If that silicon version has the proper structure (organization)
> then why in your theory wouldn't it have subjective experience?
It matters for the same reason that we can't survive on the Moon
without a space suit. Why are all cells made of carbohydrates and
amino acids and not silicates and sulfuric acid? Why is 79 protons
gold but 79 golf balls just a bucket full of balls? Because the
universe that we see as matter and machines is only the exterior. The
interior is a universe of private narratives that accumulate over
time. The carbon based story turned out to be more interesting for us.
Is it because we're made of carbon or are we lucky that carbon
happened to be interesting. My hunch is a little of both.
> Biological organisms are alive. They eat other living organisms to > survive. Most matter is not alive and we cannot eat it. This isn't > some flaky theory, it's just pointing out the obvious.
I guess plants and photosynthesis are obscure to you.
OK, I think I understand you a little better. You are a vitalist who makes life its own ontological primitive. There is a difference between living things and non-living things, and the gap between them cannot be bridged. Life is magical, in the sense that it cannot be explained.
I cannot subscribe to such a "theory" because it draws a line where no more questions can be asked (like religion). Anyway, I think it's more interesting, challenging, and rewarding to consider possible theories and explanations of how living things can and do self-assemble from non-living parts.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 28, 5:20 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't understand why you don't allow machine consciousness if in your >> theory all forces give rise to sense.
> It's the other way around, sense experience gives rise to all > appearance of force.
>> What is special about the kinds of >> "forces" inherent in a biological organism? It smells like vitalism.
> Biological organisms are alive. They eat other living organisms to > survive. Most matter is not alive and we cannot eat it. This isn't > some flaky theory, it's just pointing out the obvious. We distinguish > biology from chemistry for a reason. It's only special to biological > organisms. They have an opinion about whether they keep living or not.
>> What is especially confusing about your position is that you allow that >> structure puts limitations on subjective experience (I.e. lack of rods and >> cones will prevent one from seeing color). Based on that you are already >> close to comp. It is very hard for non-comp theories to account for the >> changes in subjectivity that occur in tandem with brain damage, >> psychoactive drugs, and so on.
> The structure and the experience are opposite parts of the same thing. > If you change one, it can have an influence sometimes on the other. > Not always though. They overlap and diverge. I can consciously > breathe, or I can observe that I am breathing. I can control my body > in important ways, my body can control me in important ways.
>> Somewhere in your theory must be an account of the differences between >> biological cell and a functional silicon-based equivalent, since the same >> low level forces are involved in both. Why does the substance matter when >> any physical substrate is subject to basic electromagnetic and nuclear >> forces? If that silicon version has the proper structure (organization) >> then why in your theory wouldn't it have subjective experience?
> It matters for the same reason that we can't survive on the Moon > without a space suit. Why are all cells made of carbohydrates and > amino acids and not silicates and sulfuric acid? Why is 79 protons > gold but 79 golf balls just a bucket full of balls? Because the > universe that we see as matter and machines is only the exterior. The > interior is a universe of private narratives that accumulate over > time. The carbon based story turned out to be more interesting for us. > Is it because we're made of carbon or are we lucky that carbon > happened to be interesting. My hunch is a little of both.
> Craig
> -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
On Jan 29, 2:20 am, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:> On
1/28/2012 11:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > Biological organisms are alive. They eat other living organisms to
> > survive. Most matter is not alive and we cannot eat it. This isn't
> > some flaky theory, it's just pointing out the obvious.
> I guess plants and photosynthesis are obscure to you.
Good point. Didn't mean to exclude plants. Still, our flavor of
consciousness is not a product of plant experience. Of course eating
other animals is considered pivotal in the development of hominid
intelligence. That may not be the case, but we certainly eat a lot of
animals now. Plants don't seem to have developed much of a
consciousness that we can relate to.
On Jan 29, 10:20 am, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I think I understand you a little better. You are a vitalist who
> makes life its own ontological primitive.
No. Life is only a step from organic molecule to biological cell.
Neither are primitive. There is only one primitive and that is ense,
aka sensorimotive electomagenism. Biology is important to us because
we are biological. Animals, people, and members of our social groups
are imporant to us for the same reason. Life is as special and not
special to the universe as it seems. Now sacred and protected.. now
forsaken and cursed.
> There is a difference
> between living things and non-living things, and the gap between them
> cannot be bridged. Life is magical, in the sense that it cannot be
> explained.
No. Sounds like you are interested in pidgeonholing me. Viruses and
crystals bridge life and abiotic structures. Life is important to
living things. That you must admit. If you think that is a mistake
that should be corrected, I understand, but I disagree. The
significance of survival is not an illusion.
> I cannot subscribe to such a "theory" because it draws a line where no
> more questions can be asked (like religion). Anyway, I think it's more
> interesting, challenging, and rewarding to consider possible theories
> and explanations of how living things can and do self-assemble from
> non-living parts.
What makes atoms form molecules is the same thing that makes molecules
form cells, etc. It's sense. Not just logic or arithmetic or physics,
but experiences of worlds.
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 5:20 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don't understand why you don't allow machine consciousness if in your
> >> theory all forces give rise to sense.
> > It's the other way around, sense experience gives rise to all
> > appearance of force.
> >> What is special about the kinds of
> >> "forces" inherent in a biological organism? It smells like vitalism.
> > Biological organisms are alive. They eat other living organisms to
> > survive. Most matter is not alive and we cannot eat it. This isn't
> > some flaky theory, it's just pointing out the obvious. We distinguish
> > biology from chemistry for a reason. It's only special to biological
> > organisms. They have an opinion about whether they keep living or not.
> >> What is especially confusing about your position is that you allow that
> >> structure puts limitations on subjective experience (I.e. lack of rods and
> >> cones will prevent one from seeing color). Based on that you are already
> >> close to comp. It is very hard for non-comp theories to account for the
> >> changes in subjectivity that occur in tandem with brain damage,
> >> psychoactive drugs, and so on.
> > The structure and the experience are opposite parts of the same thing.
> > If you change one, it can have an influence sometimes on the other.
> > Not always though. They overlap and diverge. I can consciously
> > breathe, or I can observe that I am breathing. I can control my body
> > in important ways, my body can control me in important ways.
> >> Somewhere in your theory must be an account of the differences between
> >> biological cell and a functional silicon-based equivalent, since the same
> >> low level forces are involved in both. Why does the substance matter when
> >> any physical substrate is subject to basic electromagnetic and nuclear
> >> forces? If that silicon version has the proper structure (organization)
> >> then why in your theory wouldn't it have subjective experience?
> > It matters for the same reason that we can't survive on the Moon
> > without a space suit. Why are all cells made of carbohydrates and
> > amino acids and not silicates and sulfuric acid? Why is 79 protons
> > gold but 79 golf balls just a bucket full of balls? Because the
> > universe that we see as matter and machines is only the exterior. The
> > interior is a universe of private narratives that accumulate over
> > time. The carbon based story turned out to be more interesting for us.
> > Is it because we're made of carbon or are we lucky that carbon
> > happened to be interesting. My hunch is a little of both.
> > Craig
> > --
> > 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@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
So if in your theory life is explainable in terms of a "step from organic molecule to biological cell", then why is that one could not make a similar step from a synthetic (silicon, say) substrate to a synthetic cell? What is the difference? Both the organic molecule and the silicon (or whatever) substrate are subject to the same electromagnetic (and nuclear etc) forces, so what specifically makes life possible with one and not the other?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 10:20 am, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> OK, I think I understand you a little better. You are a vitalist who >> makes life its own ontological primitive.
> No. Life is only a step from organic molecule to biological cell. > Neither are primitive. There is only one primitive and that is ense, > aka sensorimotive electomagenism. Biology is important to us because > we are biological. Animals, people, and members of our social groups > are imporant to us for the same reason. Life is as special and not > special to the universe as it seems. Now sacred and protected.. now > forsaken and cursed.
>> There is a difference >> between living things and non-living things, and the gap between them >> cannot be bridged. Life is magical, in the sense that it cannot be >> explained.
> No. Sounds like you are interested in pidgeonholing me. Viruses and > crystals bridge life and abiotic structures. Life is important to > living things. That you must admit. If you think that is a mistake > that should be corrected, I understand, but I disagree. The > significance of survival is not an illusion.
>> I cannot subscribe to such a "theory" because it draws a line where no >> more questions can be asked (like religion). Anyway, I think it's more >> interesting, challenging, and rewarding to consider possible theories >> and explanations of how living things can and do self-assemble from >> non-living parts.
> What makes atoms form molecules is the same thing that makes molecules > form cells, etc. It's sense. Not just logic or arithmetic or physics, > but experiences of worlds.
> Craig
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Jan 28, 5:20 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I don't understand why you don't allow machine consciousness if in your >> >> theory all forces give rise to sense.
>> > It's the other way around, sense experience gives rise to all >> > appearance of force.
>> >> What is special about the kinds of >> >> "forces" inherent in a biological organism? It smells like vitalism.
>> > Biological organisms are alive. They eat other living organisms to >> > survive. Most matter is not alive and we cannot eat it. This isn't >> > some flaky theory, it's just pointing out the obvious. We distinguish >> > biology from chemistry for a reason. It's only special to biological >> > organisms. They have an opinion about whether they keep living or not.
>> >> What is especially confusing about your position is that you allow that >> >> structure puts limitations on subjective experience (I.e. lack of rods and >> >> cones will prevent one from seeing color). Based on that you are already >> >> close to comp. It is very hard for non-comp theories to account for the >> >> changes in subjectivity that occur in tandem with brain damage, >> >> psychoactive drugs, and so on.
>> > The structure and the experience are opposite parts of the same thing. >> > If you change one, it can have an influence sometimes on the other. >> > Not always though. They overlap and diverge. I can consciously >> > breathe, or I can observe that I am breathing. I can control my body >> > in important ways, my body can control me in important ways.
>> >> Somewhere in your theory must be an account of the differences between >> >> biological cell and a functional silicon-based equivalent, since the same >> >> low level forces are involved in both. Why does the substance matter when >> >> any physical substrate is subject to basic electromagnetic and nuclear >> >> forces? If that silicon version has the proper structure (organization) >> >> then why in your theory wouldn't it have subjective experience?
>> > It matters for the same reason that we can't survive on the Moon >> > without a space suit. Why are all cells made of carbohydrates and >> > amino acids and not silicates and sulfuric acid? Why is 79 protons >> > gold but 79 golf balls just a bucket full of balls? Because the >> > universe that we see as matter and machines is only the exterior. The >> > interior is a universe of private narratives that accumulate over >> > time. The carbon based story turned out to be more interesting for us. >> > Is it because we're made of carbon or are we lucky that carbon >> > happened to be interesting. My hunch is a little of both.
>> > Craig
>> > -- >> > 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@googlegroups.com. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
On Jan 29, 10:34 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So if in your theory life is explainable in terms of a "step from
> organic molecule to biological cell", then why is that one could not
> make a similar step from a synthetic (silicon, say) substrate to a
> synthetic cell? What is the difference?
There may not be a difference at all. If you can make a silicon cell
that lives and dies and grows by itself, then you might indeed have
synthetic life. The problem is that it would be uncontrollable to the
same extent that it is alive. If we could make computers out of living
tissues or organisms now, we would do it, but they aren't reliable.
They have their own agenda. I don't see why silicon life would be any
different.
> Both the organic molecule
> and the silicon (or whatever) substrate are subject to the same
> electromagnetic (and nuclear etc) forces, so what specifically makes
> life possible with one and not the other?
Gathering from what we see in the universe, either
1. Carbon happened to get lucky first but anything can become alive
under the right conditions. Everything will come to life eventually or
some things will randomly.
or
2. Carbon is uniquely chemically friendly because of it's atomic
properties. Maybe no other atom can substitute. Synthetic life may
never be conscious and DNA is a unique recipe.
3. Life may be a top down phenomena with a cell as it's irreducible
unit, like a language, which uses a particular range of low level
molecular configurations as we use circles, lines, dots, and loops to
form our written language. Life can't make it's complex genetic
spaghetti out of just any substance, it has to be able cook itself al
dente, just as we can't build our computers out of pasta. We could
make synthetic life from another recipe, but it has to be similar to
DNA.
4. Life may be in the eye of the bolder. If we were the size of
Jupiter and lived for billions of years, our scope of perception might
be such that the atmospheres of planets were like waltzing cells or
faces that sum up the content of the entire planet's activities as our
perception sums up our brain's activities. We could be neurons in the
Earth's brain, who knows? In which case, life vs non life is a matter
of perspective - anything can come to life under the influence of the
right stuff.
5. Life may be relative to a point, but have invariant properties as
well. Maybe even at a rate of a thousand years a minute, the solar
system is still too dull to be thought of as life. Maybe it's a
different kind of sensemaking than life. Synthetic life could be life-
like, but never really alive.
6. Comp - Life is a degree of complexity and self-reflexivity in
logic. Intelligence and compassion are just an android away...
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 10:20 am, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> OK, I think I understand you a little better. You are a vitalist who
> >> makes life its own ontological primitive.
> > No. Life is only a step from organic molecule to biological cell.
> > Neither are primitive. There is only one primitive and that is ense,
> > aka sensorimotive electomagenism. Biology is important to us because
> > we are biological. Animals, people, and members of our social groups
> > are imporant to us for the same reason. Life is as special and not
> > special to the universe as it seems. Now sacred and protected.. now
> > forsaken and cursed.
> >> There is a difference
> >> between living things and non-living things, and the gap between them
> >> cannot be bridged. Life is magical, in the sense that it cannot be
> >> explained.
> > No. Sounds like you are interested in pidgeonholing me. Viruses and
> > crystals bridge life and abiotic structures. Life is important to
> > living things. That you must admit. If you think that is a mistake
> > that should be corrected, I understand, but I disagree. The
> > significance of survival is not an illusion.
> >> I cannot subscribe to such a "theory" because it draws a line where no
> >> more questions can be asked (like religion). Anyway, I think it's more
> >> interesting, challenging, and rewarding to consider possible theories
> >> and explanations of how living things can and do self-assemble from
> >> non-living parts.
> > What makes atoms form molecules is the same thing that makes molecules
> > form cells, etc. It's sense. Not just logic or arithmetic or physics,
> > but experiences of worlds.
> > Craig
> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Jan 28, 5:20 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> I don't understand why you don't allow machine consciousness if in your
> >> >> theory all forces give rise to sense.
> >> > It's the other way around, sense experience gives rise to all
> >> > appearance of force.
> >> >> What is special about the kinds of
> >> >> "forces" inherent in a biological organism? It smells like vitalism.
> >> > Biological organisms are alive. They eat other living organisms to
> >> > survive. Most matter is not alive and we cannot eat it. This isn't
> >> > some flaky theory, it's just pointing out the obvious. We distinguish
> >> > biology from chemistry for a reason. It's only special to biological
> >> > organisms. They have an opinion about whether they keep living or not.
> >> >> What is especially confusing about your position is that you allow that
> >> >> structure puts limitations on subjective experience (I.e. lack of rods and
> >> >> cones will prevent one from seeing color). Based on that you are already
> >> >> close to comp. It is very hard for non-comp theories to account for the
> >> >> changes in subjectivity that occur in tandem with brain damage,
> >> >> psychoactive drugs, and so on.
> >> > The structure and the experience are opposite parts of the same thing.
> >> > If you change one, it can have an influence sometimes on the other.
> >> > Not always though. They overlap and diverge. I can consciously
> >> > breathe, or I can observe that I am breathing. I can control my body
> >> > in important ways, my body can control me in important ways.
> >> >> Somewhere in your theory must be an account of the differences between
> >> >> biological cell and a functional silicon-based equivalent, since the same
> >> >> low level forces are involved in both. Why does the substance matter when
> >> >> any physical substrate is subject to basic electromagnetic and nuclear
> >> >> forces? If that silicon version has the proper structure (organization)
> >> >> then why in your theory wouldn't it have subjective experience?
> >> > It matters for the same reason that we can't survive on the Moon
> >> > without a space suit. Why are all cells made of carbohydrates and
> >> > amino acids and not silicates and sulfuric acid? Why is 79 protons
> >> > gold but 79 golf balls just a bucket full of balls? Because the
> >> > universe that we see as matter and machines is only the exterior. The
> >> > interior is a universe of private narratives that accumulate over
> >> > time. The carbon based story turned out to be more interesting for us.
> >> > Is it because we're made of carbon or are we lucky that carbon
> >> > happened to be interesting. My hunch is a little of both.
> >> > Craig
> >> > --
> >> > 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@googlegroups.com.
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> >> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> > --
> > 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@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Now my next question is, why can't a synthetic organism (like one made of silicon that you have allowed may be alive, given the proper organization) have subjective experience? Again with the usual reminders that carbon-based and silicon-based life forms would both be subject to identical electromagnetic/nuclear/gravitational forces.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 29, 10:34 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So if in your theory life is explainable in terms of a "step from >> organic molecule to biological cell", then why is that one could not >> make a similar step from a synthetic (silicon, say) substrate to a >> synthetic cell? What is the difference?
> There may not be a difference at all. If you can make a silicon cell > that lives and dies and grows by itself, then you might indeed have > synthetic life. The problem is that it would be uncontrollable to the > same extent that it is alive. If we could make computers out of living > tissues or organisms now, we would do it, but they aren't reliable. > They have their own agenda. I don't see why silicon life would be any > different.
>> Both the organic molecule >> and the silicon (or whatever) substrate are subject to the same >> electromagnetic (and nuclear etc) forces, so what specifically makes >> life possible with one and not the other?
> Gathering from what we see in the universe, either
> 1. Carbon happened to get lucky first but anything can become alive > under the right conditions. Everything will come to life eventually or > some things will randomly.
> or
> 2. Carbon is uniquely chemically friendly because of it's atomic > properties. Maybe no other atom can substitute. Synthetic life may > never be conscious and DNA is a unique recipe.
> 3. Life may be a top down phenomena with a cell as it's irreducible > unit, like a language, which uses a particular range of low level > molecular configurations as we use circles, lines, dots, and loops to > form our written language. Life can't make it's complex genetic > spaghetti out of just any substance, it has to be able cook itself al > dente, just as we can't build our computers out of pasta. We could > make synthetic life from another recipe, but it has to be similar to > DNA.
> 4. Life may be in the eye of the bolder. If we were the size of > Jupiter and lived for billions of years, our scope of perception might > be such that the atmospheres of planets were like waltzing cells or > faces that sum up the content of the entire planet's activities as our > perception sums up our brain's activities. We could be neurons in the > Earth's brain, who knows? In which case, life vs non life is a matter > of perspective - anything can come to life under the influence of the > right stuff.
> 5. Life may be relative to a point, but have invariant properties as > well. Maybe even at a rate of a thousand years a minute, the solar > system is still too dull to be thought of as life. Maybe it's a > different kind of sensemaking than life. Synthetic life could be life- > like, but never really alive.
> 6. Comp - Life is a degree of complexity and self-reflexivity in > logic. Intelligence and compassion are just an android away...
> Craig
>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Jan 29, 10:20 am, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> OK, I think I understand you a little better. You are a vitalist who >> >> makes life its own ontological primitive.
>> > No. Life is only a step from organic molecule to biological cell. >> > Neither are primitive. There is only one primitive and that is ense, >> > aka sensorimotive electomagenism. Biology is important to us because >> > we are biological. Animals, people, and members of our social groups >> > are imporant to us for the same reason. Life is as special and not >> > special to the universe as it seems. Now sacred and protected.. now >> > forsaken and cursed.
>> >> There is a difference >> >> between living things and non-living things, and the gap between them >> >> cannot be bridged. Life is magical, in the sense that it cannot be >> >> explained.
>> > No. Sounds like you are interested in pidgeonholing me. Viruses and >> > crystals bridge life and abiotic structures. Life is important to >> > living things. That you must admit. If you think that is a mistake >> > that should be corrected, I understand, but I disagree. The >> > significance of survival is not an illusion.
>> >> I cannot subscribe to such a "theory" because it draws a line where no >> >> more questions can be asked (like religion). Anyway, I think it's more >> >> interesting, challenging, and rewarding to consider possible theories >> >> and explanations of how living things can and do self-assemble from >> >> non-living parts.
>> > What makes atoms form molecules is the same thing that makes molecules >> > form cells, etc. It's sense. Not just logic or arithmetic or physics, >> > but experiences of worlds.
>> > Craig
>> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Jan 28, 5:20 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I don't understand why you don't allow machine consciousness if in your >> >> >> theory all forces give rise to sense.
>> >> > It's the other way around, sense experience gives rise to all >> >> > appearance of force.
>> >> >> What is special about the kinds of >> >> >> "forces" inherent in a biological organism? It smells like vitalism.
>> >> > Biological organisms are alive. They eat other living organisms to >> >> > survive. Most matter is not alive and we cannot eat it. This isn't >> >> > some flaky theory, it's just pointing out the obvious. We distinguish >> >> > biology from chemistry for a reason. It's only special to biological >> >> > organisms. They have an opinion about whether they keep living or not.
>> >> >> What is especially confusing about your position is that you allow that >> >> >> structure puts limitations on subjective experience (I.e. lack of rods and >> >> >> cones will prevent one from seeing color). Based on that you are already >> >> >> close to comp. It is very hard for non-comp theories to account for the >> >> >> changes in subjectivity that occur in tandem with brain damage, >> >> >> psychoactive drugs, and so on.
>> >> > The structure and the experience are opposite parts of the same thing. >> >> > If you change one, it can have an influence sometimes on the other. >> >> > Not always though. They overlap and diverge. I can consciously >> >> > breathe, or I can observe that I am breathing. I can control my body >> >> > in important ways, my body can control me in important ways.
>> >> >> Somewhere in your theory must be an account of the differences between >> >> >> biological cell and a functional silicon-based equivalent, since the same >> >> >> low level forces are involved in both. Why does the substance matter when >> >> >> any physical substrate is subject to basic electromagnetic and nuclear >> >> >> forces? If that silicon version has the proper structure (organization) >> >> >> then why in your theory wouldn't it have subjective experience?
>> >> > It matters for the same reason that we can't survive on the Moon >> >> > without a space suit. Why are all cells made of carbohydrates and >> >> > amino acids and not silicates and sulfuric acid? Why is 79 protons >> >> > gold but 79 golf balls just a bucket full of balls? Because the >> >> > universe that we see as matter and machines is only the exterior. The >> >> > interior is a universe of private narratives that accumulate over >> >> > time. The carbon based story turned out to be more interesting for us. >> >> > Is it because we're made of carbon or are we lucky that carbon >> >> > happened to be interesting. My hunch is a little of both.
>> >> > Craig
>> >> > -- >> >> > 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@googlegroups.com. >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> >> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> > -- >> > 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@googlegroups.com. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. >> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
On Jan 30, 4:02 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, great, we're on the same page.
> Now my next question is, why can't a synthetic organism (like one made
> of silicon that you have allowed may be alive, given the proper
> organization) have subjective experience?
I think it does have a subjective experience, just probably a very
limited one. If you can get a synthetic organism to grow out of
silicon and write it's own program like a human cell does, then it's
subjective experience will reflect that. If you just make a silicon
machine, that has no idea what kinds of symbolic intentions are being
projected onto it's one dimensional subjectivity, then you have a
clever design of a microelectronic puppet.
> Again with the usual
> reminders that carbon-based and silicon-based life forms would both be
> subject to identical electromagnetic/nuclear/gravitational forces.
If they were subject to identical forces then they would be identical.
They aren't. This doesn't even get into my view that forces are
behaviors of matter and not disembodied metaphysical principles. If
I'm right, ALL forces (experienced changes over time) are
interphysical.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Jan 28, 5:20 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't understand why you don't allow machine consciousness if in your > > theory all forces give rise to sense.
> *Craig wrote*: > Biological organisms are alive. They eat other living organisms to > survive. Most matter is not alive and we cannot eat it. This isn't > some flaky theory, it's just pointing out the obvious. We distinguish > biology from chemistry for a reason. It's only special to biological > organisms. They have an opinion about whether they keep living or not.
JM: as I like to say: a sperm and an egg are alive, because you would not get conception from dead material. The reason we distinguish chemistry from biology is our ignorance: we know precious little of the so called 'chemistry' and much much less from what we like to call 'bio'. Just think about the alterations in the past about those (conventional) science terms. Atom? explanation mainly matheamtical, on the so far available (misunderstood?) observations - changed whenever a new item (aspect?) emerges from the unknown. What is the opinion of your sperm to keep living?
> *Craig wrote*: > It matters for the same reason that we can't survive on the Moon > without a space suit. Why are all cells made of carbohydrates and > amino acids and not silicates and sulfuric acid? Why is 79 protons > gold but 79 golf balls just a bucket full of balls? Because the > universe that we see as matter and machines is only the exterior. The > interior is a universe of private narratives that accumulate over > time. The carbon based story turned out to be more interesting for us. > Is it because we're made of carbon or are we lucky that carbon > happened to be interesting. My hunch is a little of both.
*JM:* Are "79 "protons" (what are they?) really GOLD? Nothing else? I like your "univers that we see *AS *matter and machines" - I don't. We 'think' in conventional science terms, not necessarily true ones. I have no idea what that "infinite complexity" is constructed of that is beyond our 'model' of our universe in which we think we live. It is (according to MY narrative) necessarily exuding universes of quite (unrestricted) qualia and re-absorbing them into the complexity. Tima and Space are OUR coordinates for THIS universe of ours. Carbon??? Matter? I don't speculate beyond the capabilities of human thinking.
> *John Mikes > -- > *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@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Great, still on the same page. Without getting into speculations about the kinds of subjective experience a synthetic organism might have, we agree that whatever they do experience would be shaped in some way by their organization (like having rods and cones or the silicon equivalents would allow for the possibility of the experience of color).
We also apparently agree that it is the interactions among the parts (eg the forces), and not what the parts are made of per se, that determines the subjectivity (granting your point that different substrates might not have identical dynamics). If a silicon organism and a carbon based organism did hypothetically experience identical forces, as you say, they would be identical.
Terren On Jan 30, 2012 5:47 PM, "Craig Weinberg" <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 4:02 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > OK, great, we're on the same page.
> > Now my next question is, why can't a synthetic organism (like one made > > of silicon that you have allowed may be alive, given the proper > > organization) have subjective experience?
> I think it does have a subjective experience, just probably a very > limited one. If you can get a synthetic organism to grow out of > silicon and write it's own program like a human cell does, then it's > subjective experience will reflect that. If you just make a silicon > machine, that has no idea what kinds of symbolic intentions are being > projected onto it's one dimensional subjectivity, then you have a > clever design of a microelectronic puppet.
> > Again with the usual > > reminders that carbon-based and silicon-based life forms would both be > > subject to identical electromagnetic/nuclear/gravitational forces.
> If they were subject to identical forces then they would be identical. > They aren't. This doesn't even get into my view that forces are > behaviors of matter and not disembodied metaphysical principles. If > I'm right, ALL forces (experienced changes over time) are > interphysical.
> Craig
> -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > On Jan 28, 5:20 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't understand why you don't allow machine consciousness if in your
> > > theory all forces give rise to sense.
> > *Craig wrote*:
> > Biological organisms are alive. They eat other living organisms to
> > survive. Most matter is not alive and we cannot eat it. This isn't
> > some flaky theory, it's just pointing out the obvious. We distinguish
> > biology from chemistry for a reason. It's only special to biological
> > organisms. They have an opinion about whether they keep living or not.
> JM: as I like to say: a sperm and an egg are alive, because you would not
> get conception from dead material. The reason we distinguish chemistry from
> biology is our ignorance: we know precious little of the so called
> 'chemistry' and much much less from what we like to call 'bio'. Just think
> about the alterations in the past about those (conventional) science terms.
> Atom? explanation mainly matheamtical, on the so far available
> (misunderstood?) observations - changed whenever a new item (aspect?)
> emerges from the unknown.
Right. I feel like science has become another wing of the
entertainment industry. Titillate the public with exotic scenarios to
cover up the fact that we have no idea what is actually going on.
> What is the opinion of your sperm to keep living?
Not sure I get your meaning there.
> > *Craig wrote*:
> > It matters for the same reason that we can't survive on the Moon
> > without a space suit. Why are all cells made of carbohydrates and
> > amino acids and not silicates and sulfuric acid? Why is 79 protons
> > gold but 79 golf balls just a bucket full of balls? Because the
> > universe that we see as matter and machines is only the exterior. The
> > interior is a universe of private narratives that accumulate over
> > time. The carbon based story turned out to be more interesting for us.
> > Is it because we're made of carbon or are we lucky that carbon
> > happened to be interesting. My hunch is a little of both.
> *JM:* Are "79 "protons" (what are they?) really GOLD? Nothing else?
Right, if 79 protons are gold, then that must make a proton 1/79th of
a gold atom. We could make a whole chemo-arithmetic out of that. A
proton is .25 of a Boron atom, 0.004201 of a uranium atom. We could
announce that as a certainty. Ta-daa, this is where qualia comes
from.Never mind that it's meaningless...it's a fact!
> I like your "univers that we see *AS *matter and machines" - I don't.
> We 'think' in conventional science terms, not necessarily true ones.
> I have no idea what that "infinite complexity" is constructed of that is
> beyond our 'model' of our universe in which we think we live.
> It is (according to MY narrative) necessarily exuding universes of quite
> (unrestricted) qualia and re-absorbing them into the complexity. Tima
> and Space are OUR coordinates for THIS universe of ours. Carbon???
> Matter? I don't speculate beyond the capabilities of human thinking.
Thanks, yes, that is a big part of what I am trying to get across.
It's great to be able to peer into other levels of the universe, but
ultimately the only universe we can ever really know is the one that
is presented to us directly. Everything else is important only to the
extent that it translates into something meaningful to us in the here
and now as humans.
On Jan 30, 10:33 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great, still on the same page. Without getting into speculations about the
> kinds of subjective experience a synthetic organism might have, we agree
> that whatever they do experience would be shaped in some way by their
> organization (like having rods and cones or the silicon equivalents would
> allow for the possibility of the experience of color).
It's bi-directional. The organization and experience shape each other.
They are part of the same thing, although perpendicular (organization
is material forms across volumetric space, experience is entangled
perceptions through sequential time...exact opposites, always.)
> We also apparently agree that it is the interactions among the parts (eg
> the forces), and not what the parts are made of per se, that determines the
> subjectivity
No, the interactions arise from the parts themselves, just as
civilization arises from a history of actual human beings living and
working together. The culture is not an expression of abstract forces
among people, it is a concrete realization of people themselves, just
as a coral reef is an expression of coral, not reefness.
> (granting your point that different substrates might not have
> identical dynamics). If a silicon organism and a carbon based organism did
> hypothetically experience identical forces, as you say, they would be
> identical.
Right, because forces are figurative. All forces are experiences of
physical beings (person, asteroid, star, atom, etc). When we
experience our own forces, it's consciousness, life, work, family,
friends, dreams, etc. When we experience something else's forces, it
depends how similar that thing is to us. If it's pretty similar, we
say it's an animal, and it's forces are instincts. If it's a cell or
molecule, we say it's chemical reactions. If it's a physical substance
we say it's energy. It's all one thing - stuff being and doing. Not
beingness and doingness pretending that it's stuff. Again, it's more
useful to model it the wrong way, because that's how we can figure out
how to cheat the system, but if we want to understand what is actually
going on and what consciousness really is, we need to turn it inside
out and come to our own senses.
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > They are part of the same thing, although perpendicular (organization > is material forms across volumetric space, experience is entangled > perceptions through sequential time...exact opposites, always.)
This contradicts what you said earlier, when you said experience and organization overlap and influence each other, but not always. I can dig out the reference if you need me to, it was just a couple days ago.
>> We also apparently agree that it is the interactions among the parts (eg >> the forces), and not what the parts are made of per se, that determines the >> subjectivity
> No, the interactions arise from the parts themselves, just as > civilization arises from a history of actual human beings living and > working together. The culture is not an expression of abstract forces > among people, it is a concrete realization of people themselves, just > as a coral reef is an expression of coral, not reefness.
We are basically saying the same thing here. To disagree is to get caught up in semantics.
>> (granting your point that different substrates might not have >> identical dynamics). If a silicon organism and a carbon based organism did >> hypothetically experience identical forces, as you say, they would be >> identical.
> Right, because forces are figurative. All forces are experiences of > physical beings (person, asteroid, star, atom, etc). When we > experience our own forces, it's consciousness, life, work, family, > friends, dreams, etc. When we experience something else's forces, it > depends how similar that thing is to us. If it's pretty similar, we > say it's an animal, and it's forces are instincts. If it's a cell or > molecule, we say it's chemical reactions. If it's a physical substance > we say it's energy. It's all one thing - stuff being and doing. Not > beingness and doingness pretending that it's stuff. Again, it's more > useful to model it the wrong way, because that's how we can figure out > how to cheat the system, but if we want to understand what is actually > going on and what consciousness really is, we need to turn it inside > out and come to our own senses.
OK, but I will just add my voice to the chorus and ask: how do you know this? Just as Bruno says, you speak as if you know the truth of the matter, when at best all anyone has is a nice model that explains what is happening, and/or simulates such a model to make predictions. After all this time I still don't understand your model, and you haven't made any predictions in spite of your religious confidence in your theory.
My hunch is that you have developed strong intuitions over the years and formulated what, to you, feels like a cohesive integration of all your intuitions about the way the world is, and gave it a name. The funny thing, to me, is that many of your intuitions *would* make you a computationalist, except that you have an even stronger intuition in the primacy of "sense" and its assumed symmetry with electromagnetic force (and nuclear forces, and gravity). However, once you make "sense" primary, you assume what is to be explained (as Bruno says), and just as bad, there is still the mystery of how the sense/force symmetry works, how it can have "bidirectional causality", and so on. It has never been clear what the payoff is for going along with all that - it's an awful lot to assume out of the gate.
I hope it is apparent that I have made an honest attempt to understand your ideas, but I don't really expect you to be able to answer my queries in a way that satisfies my curiosity and desire for coherence, because my impression is that you are too invested in your worldview to look at it from a skeptical outsider's point of view. Instead, my expectation is that you will tell me I'm wrong, or that I haven't made the effort, or you will continue to use imprecise language and metaphors to explicate what is ultimately a haphazard pile of disconnected and fuzzy intuitions, when what would make me happy is some equations and some predictions. That's why Bruno's ideas are compelling, because he actually has equations and predictions and a story for the mind/body problem that doesn't assume anything but elementary math... pretty awesome when you think about it, wouldn't you say? Even if he's wrong, that's a hell of a contribution.
On Jan 31, 5:24 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Craig - see below...
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They are part of the same thing, although perpendicular (organization
> > is material forms across volumetric space, experience is entangled
> > perceptions through sequential time...exact opposites, always.)
> This contradicts what you said earlier, when you said experience and
> organization overlap and influence each other, but not always. I can
> dig out the reference if you need me to, it was just a couple days
> ago.
They do influence each other, but they are still opposites. I might
want an app on my Droid and go seek it out and install it, or I might
get a message to update an app that causes me to install that. There
is the possibility of causal influence going in both directions, but
that doesn't mean that I am becoming software or software is becoming
me. We are still always 'opposites' in this context.
> >> We also apparently agree that it is the interactions among the parts (eg
> >> the forces), and not what the parts are made of per se, that determines the
> >> subjectivity
> > No, the interactions arise from the parts themselves, just as
> > civilization arises from a history of actual human beings living and
> > working together. The culture is not an expression of abstract forces
> > among people, it is a concrete realization of people themselves, just
> > as a coral reef is an expression of coral, not reefness.
> We are basically saying the same thing here. To disagree is to get
> caught up in semantics.
There is an important difference though. You are using the
conventional notion of 'forces' like 'laws' which govern interaction
rather than what I am talking about which is sense and motive. There
are no forces floating around free, it's all layers of different kinds
of motive capacities of different molecules, cells, bodies, brains,
etc.
> >> (granting your point that different substrates might not have
> >> identical dynamics). If a silicon organism and a carbon based organism did
> >> hypothetically experience identical forces, as you say, they would be
> >> identical.
> > Right, because forces are figurative. All forces are experiences of
> > physical beings (person, asteroid, star, atom, etc). When we
> > experience our own forces, it's consciousness, life, work, family,
> > friends, dreams, etc. When we experience something else's forces, it
> > depends how similar that thing is to us. If it's pretty similar, we
> > say it's an animal, and it's forces are instincts. If it's a cell or
> > molecule, we say it's chemical reactions. If it's a physical substance
> > we say it's energy. It's all one thing - stuff being and doing. Not
> > beingness and doingness pretending that it's stuff. Again, it's more
> > useful to model it the wrong way, because that's how we can figure out
> > how to cheat the system, but if we want to understand what is actually
> > going on and what consciousness really is, we need to turn it inside
> > out and come to our own senses.
> OK, but I will just add my voice to the chorus and ask: how do you
> know this?
I don't know it, I suggest that it seems true.
> Just as Bruno says, you speak as if you know the truth of
> the matter, when at best all anyone has is a nice model that explains
> what is happening, and/or simulates such a model to make predictions.
> After all this time I still don't understand your model, and you
> haven't made any predictions in spite of your religious confidence in
> your theory.
My model predicts order, life, feeling, emotion, significance,
progress, civilization, as well as randomness, chaos, meaninglessness.
I don't understand what it is that you want it to predict? It's like a
general picture of a car, showing that the interior is a certain way
and the exterior is a certain way, and how the two relate, why they
relate and why the thing as a whole is a car. It's not a manual for
manufacturing or repairing cars. As for speaking as if I know the
truth, I don't know how else I'm supposed to speak. Obviously these
are my own ideas, I have only thought experiments to support them,
should I say 'maybe' in every sentence? I'm really only interested in
the ideas, not the politics and persuasion. I'm happy to clarify
anything, answer questions, collaborate, debate, but I don't see the
relevance of my writing style or attitude. If I say something that
seems untrue, tell me why you think it's untrue, otherwise, why not
entertain the possibility that I might be right and see if makes sense
to you?
> My hunch is that you have developed strong intuitions over the years
> and formulated what, to you, feels like a cohesive integration of all
> your intuitions about the way the world is, and gave it a name. The
> funny thing, to me, is that many of your intuitions *would* make you a
> computationalist, except that you have an even stronger intuition in
> the primacy of "sense" and its assumed symmetry with electromagnetic
> force (and nuclear forces, and gravity).
I don't know that I would label them intuitions. They are thoughts,
experiences, reasoning. But yes, it feels like a fairly cohesive
integration and I gave it a name. Computationalism I think it almost
exactly true, but if you are trying for a more absolute understanding,
then comp is exactly inverted. Sense can make information but
information cannot make sense without something to make sense of it.
> However, once you make
> "sense" primary, you assume what is to be explained (as Bruno says),
Yes, because that is the explanation. You cannot explain one in terms
of the other, even though they are both symmetrical parts of the same
thing. I think that there is no better or simpler way to model the
cosmos.
> and just as bad, there is still the mystery of how the sense/force
> symmetry works, how it can have "bidirectional causality", and so on.
Because you are privileging the what and how over the who and why. How
do you change your mind? How do you pay attention to something? You
just do it. It doesn't matter what mechanism lies on the other side of
your feeling of doing it, the reality is that in your natural
experience of yourself, in the part of the cosmos that is you and your
life, the rules are such that this is how you think and do things. You
generate a motive impulse out of your sense of what may fulfill
various sensorimotive agendas, or you suppress your inhibition of a
motive which is already present, and the result is that the motive is
felt to be realized as a motor effect of your body. You don't need to
exercise any mechanism to do this, the mechanism follows your lead,
because it is in fact you. The chunky side of you that lives in space,
as opposed to the sentient side that lives in time.
> It has never been clear what the payoff is for going along with all
> that - it's an awful lot to assume out of the gate.
I'm not assuming anything. I only say that I may have found a new way
of reconciling the hard problem of consciousness and the explanatory
gap. Reimagining physics and the cosmos is the gravy.
> I hope it is apparent that I have made an honest attempt to understand
> your ideas, but I don't really expect you to be able to answer my
> queries in a way that satisfies my curiosity and desire for coherence,
> because my impression is that you are too invested in your worldview
> to look at it from a skeptical outsider's point of view.
It may be the case that my worldview is not possible to understand as
a skeptic. You have to at least entertain the idea and suspend
disbelief for long enough to see what it's about. This is indicated
within the theory as well of course. The universe is only half facts.
The other half requires a personal investment. You don't have to join
the circus, but you at least have to attend the show. I can't prove
that you exist, so you have to allow for yourself that what you
experience is actually part of the universe. Not that the content has
to be factual - the strong man might not actually be the strongest man
in the world, but the existence of the fiction itself, as a
phenomenon, is real.
> Instead, my
> expectation is that you will tell me I'm wrong, or that I haven't made
> the effort, or you will continue to use imprecise language and
> metaphors to explicate what is ultimately a haphazard pile of
> disconnected and fuzzy intuitions, when what would make me happy is
> some equations and some predictions.
Equations and predictions are a powerful approach in some ways, but
the weakest approach in others. The universe is not just an equation.
If I made a universe out of equations and predictions, there would be
no universe there. No stories, no meaning, no life, no show. You need
both. You cannot collapse one into the other. There may very well be
some equations and predictions from more capable minds based on my
ideas. I did a simple linguistic equation which I thought had
promising results:
> That's why Bruno's ideas are
> compelling, because he actually has equations and predictions and a
> story for the mind/body problem that doesn't assume anything but
> elementary math... pretty awesome when you think about it, wouldn't
> you say? Even if he's wrong, that's a hell of a contribution.
Absolutely, and it's never been my intention to take anything away
from Bruno's work or comp. In fact, I would rather that nobody even
consider my ideas unless they are already familiar with comp. My ideas
come out of comp, just as empiricism came out of hermetic mysticism.
The problem with comp is that it is only one of four cardinal points
on the
...
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is an important difference though. You are using the > conventional notion of 'forces' like 'laws' which govern interaction > rather than what I am talking about which is sense and motive. There > are no forces floating around free, it's all layers of different kinds > of motive capacities of different molecules, cells, bodies, brains, > etc.
But then it sounds like you're saying that by force of will we cause forces to take shape. By your own admission this includes gravity and nuclear forces. So my will causes gravity? Why can't I fly? What I really mean is, what is your explanation for why my "motive capacity" is so limited by these forces that are so reliably characterized as "laws" which govern interaction?
>> OK, but I will just add my voice to the chorus and ask: how do you >> know this?
> I don't know it, I suggest that it seems true.
You say that now.
>> Just as Bruno says, you speak as if you know the truth of >> the matter, when at best all anyone has is a nice model that explains >> what is happening, and/or simulates such a model to make predictions. >> After all this time I still don't understand your model, and you >> haven't made any predictions in spite of your religious confidence in >> your theory.
> My model predicts order, life, feeling, emotion, significance, > progress, civilization, as well as randomness, chaos, meaninglessness. > I don't understand what it is that you want it to predict? It's like a > general picture of a car, showing that the interior is a certain way > and the exterior is a certain way, and how the two relate, why they > relate and why the thing as a whole is a car. It's not a manual for > manufacturing or repairing cars.
You're not predicting any of that stuff, you start with it. What I want you to predict is something that the standard models don't. If your theory is so revolutionary, then surely you can use the differences between your account and the standard account to find ways to imagine some future reality in a way the standard model can't. IOW find a significant point of divergence between your account and the standard account and use that to make a claim that the standard models disagree with. Then we can test your ideas. If we can't test your ideas it's just mental masturbation.
Failing that, at least try and explain something that the standard models can't explain. So far you haven't convinced me that there's anything that comp can't account for (including blindsight, etc). But maybe you have an explanation for dark matter - that would be impressive. But it wouldn't even have to be a big mystery. Just explain a small mystery that the standard models currently can't.
Failing that, how's this. You seem like you have a good imagination and a gift for prose. How might you write a short story that somehow integrates the key ideas of your theory, yet clearly sets it apart from mainstream ways of describing the world? What form would that story take? If you wrote it, I would read it.
> As for speaking as if I know the > truth, I don't know how else I'm supposed to speak. Obviously these > are my own ideas, I have only thought experiments to support them, > should I say 'maybe' in every sentence?
I'm not going to tell you how to present your ideas, but having the humility that comes from the understanding that we do not have access to the truth would go a long way. All we have are conceptual models (conscious or otherwise) that somehow (amazingly) correspond to the way the world, as we experience it, works.
> I'm really only interested in > the ideas, not the politics and persuasion. I'm happy to clarify > anything, answer questions, collaborate, debate, but I don't see the > relevance of my writing style or attitude. If I say something that > seems untrue, tell me why you think it's untrue, otherwise, why not > entertain the possibility that I might be right and see if makes sense > to you?
You're communicating with humans, so style matters. And as above, asserting that you know the truth of deep matters is a pretty clear signal to those who know better that you don't know what you're talking about.
I am open to new ideas or I wouldn't be here. In fact, exposing myself to Bruno's ideas has set me back in terms of ideas I had been developing on my own, as I struggle to reconcile my thoughts with Bruno's (and the thoughts of the many other excellent thinkers on this forum). If I was emotionally invested in my ideas it would have been difficult for me to take UDA and particularly AUDA seriously. So your accusation that I am closed minded is unfounded. The reasons I find your ideas unpalatable are:
- overconfidence in the truth of your claims - closed mindedness in considering alternatives and the arguments of others - imprecise language and metaphor - fuzziness of concepts, no ability to formalize your ideas - contradictions with well established models with no apparent payoff - constant usage of new words and phrases - pettiness in your argumentation style
You said earlier (to someone else) that you are here to learn, not to push your ideas on anyone. I have found your overall presentation to completely contradict that assertion.
>> My hunch is that you have developed strong intuitions over the years >> and formulated what, to you, feels like a cohesive integration of all >> your intuitions about the way the world is, and gave it a name. The >> funny thing, to me, is that many of your intuitions *would* make you a >> computationalist, except that you have an even stronger intuition in >> the primacy of "sense" and its assumed symmetry with electromagnetic >> force (and nuclear forces, and gravity).
> I don't know that I would label them intuitions. They are thoughts, > experiences, reasoning. But yes, it feels like a fairly cohesive > integration and I gave it a name. Computationalism I think it almost > exactly true, but if you are trying for a more absolute understanding, > then comp is exactly inverted. Sense can make information but > information cannot make sense without something to make sense of it.
>> However, once you make >> "sense" primary, you assume what is to be explained (as Bruno says),
> Yes, because that is the explanation. You cannot explain one in terms > of the other, even though they are both symmetrical parts of the same > thing. I think that there is no better or simpler way to model the > cosmos.
Well, I think that's where just about everyone else on this list disagrees with you. You make arguments based on refusal to see other possibilities... aka argument from ignorance. Just because *you* don't think sense can be derived from something more fundamental, doesn't mean it can't. Go ahead and assert it - but if your only argument is "it's not possible", then nobody is going to take you seriously.
>> and just as bad, there is still the mystery of how the sense/force >> symmetry works, how it can have "bidirectional causality", and so on.
> Because you are privileging the what and how over the who and why.
There are accounts of who and why that come out of the what and the how. Again, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not possible.
> How do you change your mind? How do you pay attention to something? You > just do it.
Ah, the Nike theory of intention. Obviously we have a lot to learn about human psychology and things like attention and how we update our mental models. But our lack of understanding should not be confused with lack of mechanism.
To bring the level down a little bit (from human psychology). Are you familiar with autopoiesis? It's a description of a system formulated by Varela and Maturana that describes "organizationally closed systems" that continuously produces themselves out of the very processes they are comprised of, within some topological domain defined by those processes. They invented this description to try and characterize the autonomy exhibited by a single biological cell. The cell has a well defined boundary and produces itself completely within that boundary, maintaining its organization. More importantly, all actions taken by that cell operate inside that boundary as well. It is a nice definition of autonomy. Nothing is controlling it. But there's no magic, either. Autopoeitic systems don't have to be made of organic material. Some researchers have tried to characterize social systems like corporations as autopoeitic.
So once you have a system that has evolved to persist, you can see its behavior as goal-seeking in terms of maintaining its organization. The who and the why come out of the what and the how.
> It doesn't matter what mechanism lies on the other side of > your feeling of doing it, the reality is that in your natural > experience of yourself, in the part of the cosmos that is you and your > life, the rules are such that this is how you think and do things. You > generate a motive impulse out of your sense of what may fulfill > various sensorimotive agendas, or you suppress your inhibition of a > motive which is already present, and the result is that the motive is > felt to be realized as a motor effect of your body. You don't need to > exercise any mechanism to do this, the mechanism follows your lead, > because it is in fact you. The chunky side of you that lives in space, > as opposed to the sentient side that lives in time.
OK, but as a story of my will this is pretty unsatisfying. Especially because I am aware of the vast biases and heuristics literature that shows the laughable number of ways my will can be manipulated with simple tricks (for a gentle introduction see the blog http://youarenotsosmart.com). The biases and hueristics stuff is really only comprehensible in terms of mechanisms brought about by evolution, most likely around survival adaptations that speed up decision making at the cost of what you might call "accuracy of modeling".
...
On Thu, Feb 2, 10:49 pm, Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is an important difference though. You are using the
> > conventional notion of 'forces' like 'laws' which govern interaction
> > rather than what I am talking about which is sense and motive. There
> > are no forces floating around free, it's all layers of different kinds
> > of motive capacities of different molecules, cells, bodies, brains,
> > etc.
> But then it sounds like you're saying that by force of will we cause
> forces to take shape.
No, I'm saying that there are no 'forces', except figuratively. When
we change our mind or move our arm, we do just that. We are the arm
and the mind, they are only different levels and categories of
description.
>By your own admission this includes gravity and
> nuclear forces. So my will causes gravity? Why can't I fly?
You can fly, just not when you are stuck on a large dense object such
as this planet. I think it is possible to conceive of it like a
Kryptonite effect for motive. The greater the size and density of the
nearby object, the more your body's density counts toward the averaged
inertia of the total group (inertial frame) of objects and the less
effective your motive to separate yourself from that group will be.
The observation and calculation is the same, only interpretation is
different. Instead of seeing gravity as an invisible force that warps
space I see it a coordinated logic of physical dependency. We fall
because the scale of the Earth makes our body unable to resist it.
> What I
> really mean is, what is your explanation for why my "motive capacity"
> is so limited by these forces that are so reliably characterized as
> "laws" which govern interaction?
The interactions are the same, it's just that the they aren't
happening because of scripted computational laws that circumscribe
space, they are happening because of how matter makes sense of matter.
The sense it makes can be reliably characterized by our mental models
and computations because at some level, we too are matter, as well as
computers. In a sense, we 'remember' how to read matter as matter
reads itself.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting throwing out our 3p models of
gravity. I only suggest an alternative 1p interpretation for the
observations those models are based on to bring them into line with a
unified experiential cosmos.
> >> OK, but I will just add my voice to the chorus and ask: how do you
> >> know this?
> > I don't know it, I suggest that it seems true.
> You say that now.
I don't remember saying otherwise. I don't know why I would, I
certainly would not expect anyone to believe me.
> >> Just as Bruno says, you speak as if you know the truth of
> >> the matter, when at best all anyone has is a nice model that explains
> >> what is happening, and/or simulates such a model to make predictions.
> >> After all this time I still don't understand your model, and you
> >> haven't made any predictions in spite of your religious confidence in
> >> your theory.
> > My model predicts order, life, feeling, emotion, significance,
> > progress, civilization, as well as randomness, chaos, meaninglessness.
> > I don't understand what it is that you want it to predict? It's like a
> > general picture of a car, showing that the interior is a certain way
> > and the exterior is a certain way, and how the two relate, why they
> > relate and why the thing as a whole is a car. It's not a manual for
> > manufacturing or repairing cars.
> You're not predicting any of that stuff, you start with it.
I'm making a map which features these things. All I'm doing is putting
them in the right places, and that's all I'm trying to do. Through
that, I predict that photons do not exist independently, which has a
lot of implications, I predict that morality can be described
effectively with a gravitational model, I predict that sanity and free
will can be described in terms of figurative association thresholds
and impulse control induction. These are just the early hints of
possibilities to explore. I'm only trying to get to step one, not
rewrite every equation in physical science to apply to awareness.
> What I
> want you to predict is something that the standard models don't.
The standard models predict nothing whatsoever about awareness, so
that's easy. My model predicts that mania and depression can lead to
delusion and catatonia. It predicts that Buddhist monks have more in
common with mathematicians than either of them have with salesmen. It
predicts reality TV and celebrity branding. It predicts the hard
problem of consciousness, the effectiveness of metaphor... for all
comp's complete dependence on symbol manipulation, does it have any
theory at all about how something can come to represent something
else? Can comp explain how something is actually named or numbered?
How a set of pixels become an image? My model does.
> If
> your theory is so revolutionary, then surely you can use the
> differences between your account and the standard account to find ways
> to imagine some future reality in a way the standard model can't. IOW
> find a significant point of divergence between your account and the
> standard account and use that to make a claim that the standard models
> disagree with. Then we can test your ideas. If we can't test your
> ideas it's just mental masturbation.
The standard model can only prove what falls into it's own mechanics.
It cannot prove that you or I exist at all, that we have lives or care
about anything. According to the standard model *you* are just
particle masturbation. The next scientific revolution is not going to
be like the last one. It's not going to be a matter of empirically
demonstrable facts displacing long held religious and philosophical
orthodoxy.
I and many other people sense that it is going to necessitate the
reclamation of subjective awareness as primary - a dis-disenchantment
of the self and the universe. We can no longer progress only by
folding are arms and saying "I'm from Missouri. Show Me.", we have to
look to our own experience without doubting that it is a part of the
universe on it's own terms as well as a consequence of other levels.
The future reality I imagine is one of profound leisure as people are
freed from the Feudal yoke of urban machines without fear or guilt.
> Failing that, at least try and explain something that the standard
> models can't explain. So far you haven't convinced me that there's
> anything that comp can't account for (including blindsight, etc).
Once you accept comp, comp can be used to convince you of anything.
It's the mirror image of religion, so that instead of 'God/Spirit/Fate
did it', it's 'Evolution/Arithmetic/Probability did it.'. Religion has
it's paradise and immortality, and mechanism has it's promise of
digital transubstantiation. Nothing can convince you that there is
anything that comp can't account for because you stipulate from the
start that it accounts for everything. I say comp can't account for
blue or pain, because it obviously can't, but all you can say is that
it's a non-comp consequence of some unknown form arising from comp.
That can be said about anything that comp can't explain. Energy,
matter, feelings, etc..
> But
> maybe you have an explanation for dark matter - that would be
> impressive.
I do. Dark matter doesn't exist. The universe isn't expanding, it's
diffracting. Case closed. ;)
> But it wouldn't even have to be a big mystery. Just
> explain a small mystery that the standard models currently can't.
Sense explains why photons seem like particles or waves. Sense
explains why we are justified in our feeling that we are actually in
the world and not inside of a skull. It explains how we are able to
look into a mirror instead of at it and why tilting the mirror doesn't
distort the image. It explains why the implications of quantum
mechanics don't make any sense on a macro level. These are just a few
things off the top of my head.
> Failing that, how's this. You seem like you have a good imagination
> and a gift for prose. How might you write a short story that somehow
> integrates the key ideas of your theory, yet clearly sets it apart
> from mainstream ways of describing the world? What form would that
> story take? If you wrote it, I would read it.
I've considered it. I'm not so great with stories and dialogue per se.
If I can think of some way of demonstrating the ideas beyond just
talking about them I would rather do that.
> > As for speaking as if I know the
> > truth, I don't know how else I'm supposed to speak. Obviously these
> > are my own ideas, I have only thought experiments to support them,
> > should I say 'maybe' in every sentence?
> I'm not going to tell you how to present your ideas, but having the
> humility that comes from the understanding that we do not have access
> to the truth would go a long way. All we have are conceptual models
> (conscious or otherwise) that somehow (amazingly) correspond to the
> way the world, as we experience it, works.
> > I'm really only interested in
> > the ideas, not the politics and persuasion. I'm happy to clarify
> > anything, answer questions, collaborate, debate, but I don't see the
> > relevance of my writing style or attitude. If I say something that
> > seems untrue, tell me why you think it's untrue, otherwise, why not
> > entertain the possibility that I might be right and see if makes sense
> > to you?
> You're communicating with humans, so style matters. And as above,
> asserting that you know the truth of deep matters is a pretty clear
> signal to those who know better that you don't know
