First Seminar on Piet Hut paper "Turning the hard problem upside down and sideway"

[Gilles Kuhn]

I invite you to continue the debate we started in SL here as well.

[Gilles Kuhn]

Here is the log of our first seminar (it is too availble as a word
file).

First Philosophical Seminar (21/01/09) Chat log
Second Life virtual world. Kira Café 21/01/09 22h to 23h GMT.

Gilles Kuhn: so i propose to those who want to introduce themselves
briefly like i
have done
Sage Hartmann: rezzing
Andrej Babenco: Andrej, Italian, 46 YO, i think SL is an extension of
RL, founder of
Synchroexperienced SL group
Alfred Kelberry: hana, check out the spot at the fire :)
Gilles Kuhn: tk andrej
Zen Arado: Zen. do we have to give our age :)
Scathach Rhiadra: :)
Andrej Babenco: yes !!
Gilles Kuhn: don’t give any info you don’t want
Andrej Babenco: ah ah ah
arabella Ella smiles
Zen Arado: I'm Irish and I used to study philosophy
Nick Cassavetes: Kristof, 33 yo, studied philosophy, especially
language-related
issues
Alfred Kelberry: andrej, you don't look like 46 at all :)
Gilles Kuhn: you can say anonymous obviously
Zen Arado: but I'm more interested in zen now
Andrej Babenco: in RL too........
Nick Cassavetes: and I also see SL as an extensions os SL :)
Antonia Braveheart: hello ^^
Nick Cassavetes: extension of
Gaya Ethaniel waves
Gilles Kuhn: ok other peoples ?
Andrej Babenco: great
Alfred Kelberry: hey
Pema Pera: Piet Hut, from Holland originally, now working at the
Institute for
Advanced Study in Princeton, dividing my time over astrophysics and
broadly
interdisciplinary collaboraties
arabella Ella: my background is philosophy, i really enjoy phiolosophy
discussions on
SL
Sage Hartmann: hehe nice foot warmer
arabella Ella: Hiya Sage
Nick Cassavetes: Piet, you might know my promoter from way back, Jaap
Van Brakel?
Gilles Kuhn: ok so we have a lot of philosophers indeed other
background are here as
well i hope ?
Pila Mulligan is retired but still meditating :)
Mickorod Renard: Mickorod renard :hi, i am involved in education in
RL, but design and
technology. I have been interested in philo for many years but only
recently followed
it in depth this last year on sl. I am a uk person.
sophia Placebo: sophia , sudi , studiying medicine , it is my first
attempt for
serouse philosophy discussion
Sage Hartmann: hi all =) for any who don't know me, my background was
in physics, but
i've been studying a lot of philosophy these last couple years, and
running occasional
discussions here in SL.
Andrej Babenco: i am a buyer, tech equipment....
Andrej Babenco: but i have also a brain...working !!
Fefonz Quan - Physicist, now a visitor at Pema's department,
background in image
processing, algorithm, and also buddhism and guitars :)
Andrej Babenco: forget...bass player
Zen Arado: I'm more into political phil
Samuel Okelly: 39yo male from england, former teacher, new to
philosphy with a an
interest in ethics, ontology & theology
Gilles Kuhn: ok nice welcome to all as you hopefully know we will
focuse tonight and
in the next seminar at least to the paper that you can found here :
http://www.ids.ias.edu/~piet/publ/turning/tuc2.html
Zen Arado: seems mor analytic stuff in SL
Antonia Braveheart: wow so many ppl
Sage Hartmann: zen, there's a pretty strong continental influence here
too =)
Tenk Kidd: I'm a formner Physics and Maths teacher, now working in
Spacecraft
Engineering, not clever enough for philosophy, into Neolithic
Archeoastronomy
Zen Arado: Good!
Gilles Kuhn: The paper Turning the hard problem upside down and
sideway and one of the
author make us the honor to attend so i will invite pema to introduce
very briefly
his argument (if someone still want to introduce himself just do so)
Andrej Babenco: (mmmm....it's seem i am the most ignorant......)
Yichard Muni: hello everybody
Antonia Braveheart: hello !
Zen Arado: Hello
Gilles Kuhn: (first thing o know is to learn his own ignorance as said
Socrates ;) )
Pema Pera: Thank you Gilles! It was fun yesterday to reread that
paper, after writing
it 13 years ago with Roger Shepard, a good friend of mine, and one of
the leading
cognitive psychologists, then still at Stanford, just before his
retirement
Pema Pera: His way of thinking was very much like that of a physicist
Pema Pera: always tried to picture things in spatial terms
Pema Pera: our basic goal was to break through a polarised thinking
Pema Pera: like materialistic versus idealistic
Pema Pera: matter first vs. mind first
Antonia Braveheart listens carefully
Pema Pera: but obviously it will be hard to summarize the whole paper
here in text
chat, so perhaps we should start with questions/comments
Yichard Muni: just an abstract of the paper, then, please
Pema Pera: and next week we will continue with this paper, so you'll
have time to read
it during the coming week, too
Zen Arado: it's still dualistic?
Gilles Kuhn: you can find an abstract here
http://www.ids.ias.edu/~piet/publ/turning/tuc2.html
Zen Arado: two things
Gilles Kuhn: the second page is the abstract
Pema Pera: well, we try to give more than two perspectives; including
a choice between
1st, 2nd, and 3rd person
Pema Pera: Gilles, shall I echo the whole abstract here? or is that
too much spam?
Not everybody can handle a browser while also in SL
arabella Ella: yes please Pema
Gilles Kuhn: well pema first to introduce the discussion i must say
that you attack
the mind body problem in a epistemological way i.e. in a
methodological fundamental way
Gilles Kuhn: yes please do so pema i cannot not on my pc
Pema Pera: Instead of speaking of conscious experience as arising in a
brain we
prefer to speak of a brain as arising in conscious experience. From
an
epistemological standpoint starting from direct experiences strikes us
as
more justified As a first option we reconsider the hard problem of
the relation between conscious experience and the physical world by
thus
turning that problem upside down
We also consider a second option turning the hard problem sideways
Rather than starting with the third person approach used in physics
or
the first person approach of starting with individual conscious
experience
we consider starting from an I and you basis centered around the
second
person
Finally we present a candidate for what could be considered to
underlie
conscious experience sense. We consider this to be a shot in the dark
but at least a shot in the right direction somewhere between upside
down
Alfred Kelberry: eek
Pema Pera: and sideways🰌
Our notion of sense can be seen as an alternative to panpsychism. To
give an analogy using the notions of space and time is more
convenient
than trying to analyze the phenomenon of motion in terms of a space
based pandynamism. Similarly when approaching the phenomenon of
consciousness. We prefer the triad of space time and sense over a
space
time based form of panpsychism.
Alfred Kelberry: it looks better in the browser :)
Andrej Babenco: hey.in this way don't work
Andrej Babenco: too much words 4 a chat
Pema Pera: yes, Gilles, it is a kind of "physics" approach, I'd say,
enumerating
possibilities first
Calyps0 Janus: 1. relationship between the physical world and
conscious experience of
such physical world.
Gilles Kuhn: yes and posing a lot of traditional approach as uniquely
biased toward a
single classical materialist paradigm pema isnt it so ?
Yichard Muni: okie, I read the definition of the hard problem
Pema Pera: yes, Gilles
Calyps0 Janus: 2. Experiencing the physical world not from the
singular first person
approach but from the second person? YOU..or I & YOU?
Gilles Kuhn: (i have made a notecard of what pema said as abstract
just ask for one
copy) (duck for cover;))
Calyps0 Janus: 3. Underlying all of this..both physical world and
experience..the
SENSING of it all?
Nick Cassavetes: maybe this take answers to an extend the old issue if
we have or are
a body?
Sage Hartmann: (is still relading the last few pages)
Yichard Muni: reading 1.2.5
Pema Pera: yes, Calyps0
Andrej Babenco: now we have/are an avatar
Pema Pera: and if you have or are a mind, too, Nick
Nick Cassavetes: yes
Andrej Babenco: more complicated
Sage Hartmann: Pema, haven't finished the paper, but was it your hope
to reach
scientific/disprovable claims from this line of thought, or to do pure
epistemology,
if i might inquire?
Yichard Muni: seems rather a problem of definition than with the
facts :-)
Yichard Muni: oops too late
Calyps0 Janus: Can we have an example to relate this all to?
Nick Cassavetes: it's an interesting division, having and being, only
typical for
indo-european countries I've been told
Nick Cassavetes: languages*
Pema Pera: more to broaden the stage, Sage
Pema Pera: to increase the number of degrees of freedom
Gilles Kuhn: actually pema your approach strke me as fundamental in a
cartesian way
you seems to try to begin from a tabula rasa in order to pinpoint the
decompose the
so call hard problem
Pema Pera: more options and angles, and then to investigate those
critically
arabella Ella: so Pema could you please tell us how SENSE bridges the
mind body
dualism as you described it?
Yichard Muni: 1.3.3 is an interesting question. If this exists, it
must be observable
elsewhere than in the brain, and thus more easy to observe
Pema Pera: space and time are totally mysterious -- were it not for
the fact that we
have gotten used to them -- so we posit that there may be a third
equally totally
mysterious something, "sense" or "X" or whatever, underlying the mind-
body problem
Sage Hartmann: Well I like it. If I understand it right, it might
mirror my own
thoughts, with different labels. Have you tried applying these ideas
to the notion of
causality?
Yichard Muni: sense is something which is dreated by the mind, isn't
it?
Yichard Muni: ah, yes, in the common sense.
Nick Cassavetes: isn't sense an interrelation basically?
Pema Pera: causality is fascinating, yes, open question how that
relates with "sense";
sense has to underlie it, I think
arabella Ella: is it sense as in sensing or as in sense data?
Yichard Muni: if I understand well, "sense" in this article is the
interaction mind
/matter
Pema Pera: my example was "time is more than just a bunch of motions
-- it is the
condition of possibility for motion"
Pema Pera: so "sense is the condition of possibility for awareness"
Sage Hartmann: Have you considered parallels in your triad with the
possible/necessary/actual divisions in kant's categories, or the three
kinds of
temporality of heidegger?
Pema Pera: time is more than pan-dynamism; and sense is more than pan-
psychism
Sage Hartmann: *triad
Gilles Kuhn: but this X pema it is not a little had hoc ? I mean to
define sense
awareness as a primitive as space and time because space and time we
can use to make
models or following kant we must use to think...
Pema Pera: Heidegger's notion of Being I find helpful, I'm not
familiar with the other
categories you mentioned, Sage
arabella Ella: I am sorry i did not read the paper Pema but I guess
you provide
justification for postulating Sense ?
Yichard Muni: Gilles, electricity can no more be explained in terms of
mechanics, but
it is still accepted by scientists as a fundamental thing, even if we
don't know what
it is. So why not consciousness?
Pema Pera: ah hoc . . . well, after a few thousand years of not
finding a good
solution, perhaps we should investigate where the way of posing the
problem has been
too shallow -- whether there is not something missing in the
foundation Calyps0 Janus:
=) My example is breathing and the difficulty of mind/body separation
over one's
control of such sustainable effort!
Sage Hartmann: Well I feel there is a recurring theme of various kinds
of
"retention/protention/experience" triads in many attempts at forming a
foundation for
phenomenology, was all i meant
Pema Pera: ah, I see, Sage; interesting question
Gilles Kuhn: yes to pinpoint sage example in your paper pema you
seems very
influenced by husserl ( which is not a surprise for who know you :) )
Andrej Babenco: we must speak with a paraplegic person
Pema Pera: Arabella, the main justification is this: if you really
can't solve a
conundrum, like how does the brain produce a mind, perhaps the
question is put
wrongly, and perhaps both brain and mind arise out of something else,
call it X or a
bit more conveniently something like "sense"
Andrej Babenco: interesting point of view
Yichard Muni: so the brain would not just result from a forward going
darwinian
evolution, its evolution would be driven by something?
Pema Pera: I came across Husserl only after more than twenty years of
reading and
thinking about these questions, Gilles, and yes, I felt a lot of
resonance. In fact, I
started off at age 17 with Spinoza, amongst others; he was a big
influence; and so was
Seneca
Sage Hartmann: Arabella, I think Pema is esentially just postulating
an extra 'degree
of freedom' in the physics-sense, and giving it a name that seems to
reflect its
phenomeological role
arabella Ella: ok thanks Pema but ... how useful is it in philosophy
to continue to
postulate entities which could end up being totally superflous ... not
sure if i am
explaining myself well here
Pema Pera: oh, the only reason to postulate is than to do
experimentation/exploration
with it, Arabella
Nick Cassavetes: I only had time to read a bit of the article, but I
noticed the term
'emergence', is Sense emerging from interaction of complex systems, or
do you take it
as a given force in the cosmos?
Pema Pera: as we do here in Play as Being and in the phenomenology
workshop
Pema Pera: the other way around, Nick
Yichard Muni: until now no physical explanation was found for
consciousness, so we
probably miss something, and if so it is legitimate to make hypothesis
Pema Pera: sense is the "field" that makes emergence psosible
Nick Cassavetes: I see
Pema Pera: like space makes location possible
Gilles Kuhn: well arabella its not only in phlosophy but in science as
well for all
the so call difference between both anyway but new concept if rich in
explanation and
possibilities are always welcome i think
Pema Pera: and time makes motion possible
Sage Hartmann: well arabella, i don't know that space/time/sense is
the best way of
thinking of it - i use different terms myself -- but i think you do
need 3.
Phenomeology requires at least 3 dimensions imo.
Nick Cassavetes: very interesting
Yichard Muni: "sense is the "field" that makes emergence possible"
"field" like in
physics?
Pema Pera: more general, Yichard
Yichard Muni: okie
Pema Pera: time is not really a field
Pema Pera: but sort-of, to give an idea
Yichard Muni: yes, go it
Yichard Muni: got it
Pema Pera: without the notion of time, it gets very clumsy to talk
about clocks, only
through their moving parts
Fefonz Quan: arrabela, tell that to string theorists ("continue to
postulate entities
which could end up being totally superfluous")
Pema Pera: without the notion of space, it is very clumsy to only
describe relative
distances between all objects in this room say
Sage Hartmann: lol feonz :p
Yichard Muni: this is a risk we can take, when we have no other means
Pema Pera: without the notion of sense, the mind-body problem may be
too clumsy to
talk about
Yichard Muni: interesting
Zen Arado: I thought it was pseudoproblem created by Descartes
Gilles Kuhn: and without the notion of sense so it would be difficult
to consider the
qualia pema ?
Nick Cassavetes: there is the take that space is only our way of
making sense of
relations between objects though
Sage Hartmann: this was written a while back?
Sage Hartmann: has there been much follow-up?
Pema Pera: space is non-material, yet allows ANY material phenomenon
to happen
Pema Pera: yes, Sage, 13 years ago :)
Calyps0 Janus: Yichard: agreed. Perhaps the brain---> mind----->
sensing is just a
brain's way of maintaining life in the host organism rather than
leading to gradual
insanity?
Yichard Muni: follow up?
Pema Pera: yes, Nick, but so much more economical, so hard to imagine
it is irrelevant
. . . .
Nick Cassavetes: I think it's wrong to think of space as a neutral
'compartment'
Pema Pera: agreed
Pema Pera: it seems to be more "active"
Nick Cassavetes: yes
Pema Pera: and modern physics echoes that
Pema Pera: the "vacuum" is very rich :-)
Yichard Muni: yes, as matter is able to fold it
Gilles Kuhn: perhaps let focuse for now in this notion of sense of X
has a concept
irreductible as space and time ?
Pema Pera: perhaps the "mind vacuum" is very rich too :-)
Yichard Muni: hehe, buddhist? :-)
Calyps0 Janus is experiencing current extremes of _mind vacuum_!
Fefonz Quan: a vaccum pump for this would be very helpful :)
Pema Pera: X is meant as equally irreducible as space and time, and
the three are then
three aspects of reality -- avoiding dualism by having a triad
Sage Hartmann: Well, I think the key is in the relation to causality.
imo there are 3
kinds of causality that compliment the 3 pairs of axes of
phenomenology.
Gaya Ethaniel giggles silently
Fefonz Quan: Trialism?
Alfred Kelberry: pema, star wars introduced the x long before you -
the force :)
quen Oh sneaks in quietly
Antonia Braveheart smiles
Yichard Muni: yes :-)
Pema Pera: yes, Sage?
Gilles Kuhn: yes Pema but three is it not worst than two ?
Yichard Muni: or the religiois thousands years ago: God :-)
Gilles Kuhn: ;)
Sage Hartmann: Fefonz, do you mean like the kind of trialism in the
octionions?
Nick Cassavetes: this X somehow makes me think of Hegels Geist
manifesting itself
trough the development of the 'material' world
Nick Cassavetes: if it is taken such fundamental
Pema Pera: well, often when we get stuck in black and white thinking,
we realize that
the reason for getting stuck was that we overlooked a third option --
doesn't *have*
to be that way, but often is
Fefonz Quan: Sage, the only onions i know are in my kitchen ;-)
arabella Ella: Pema your concept of Sense makes me see the mental as
utilizing 'sense'
to connect and interact with the physical
Sage Hartmann: lol sorry -- though you might have meant triality in
the mathematical
sense lol
Samuel Okelly: it seems perfectly justifiable to reconsider the notion
of sense in
relation to the mind/body problem given that existing polemic ideas
would appear to
have failed thus far?
Pema Pera: yes, Sam
Calyps0 Janus: Pema: please restate what the mind/body problem is.
Sage Hartmann: Pema: well -- this is just my opinion -- but i would
take each pair of
your axis to be a type of causality; environmental, motivational,
intentional.
Structurally they are all identical and orthogonal; which is which is
a matter of our
relation to them.
Yichard Muni: Sam, I come to the question 1.3.3 :if "sense" or "force"
or what else
exists, we should observe it influencing physical systems
Gilles Kuhn: Do your notion of sense to be consider as a fundamental
of a new
paradigm pema ?
Pema Pera: starting with either was is very puzzling -- so perhaps
both arise from
something more fundamental -> Calyps
Nick Cassavetes: what I was aiming at with my Hegel remark, do you
think Sense was
there before sentient beings arose Pema?
Yichard Muni: so there is a possible check
Pema Pera: yes, Sage, all orthogonal!!
Gilles Kuhn: Calyps the problem is basically how to explain sensation
in the materialist
paradigm of the world defined by science
Samuel Okelly: what is the temperature of a “Baked Alaska? (one object
yet two
discrete temps)
Pema Pera: Nick, yes, sense is also orthogonal to time, so neither
before nor after :)
Pema Pera: independent of time
Sage Hartmann: lol maybe you should put your triad in SU(2) then :p
Yichard Muni: lol Sage :-) maybe this is true in some way
Pema Pera: :)
Fefonz Quan: es 2, sage ? :)
Calyps0 Janus: So, if you dropped me from a helicopter into a burning
forest
fire...would sensing the temperature cause my body to instantiate my
mind so as I
could be enabled to take some preservationistic actions? ;-)
Gilles Kuhn: i find the relation with the problem of causality
proponed by sage
fascinating because the mind body problem is about explanation and
causality but i
want to introduce perhaps later the notion of technical usefullness
Pema Pera: let me add a practical application: if you are puzzled and
try to find a
problem to a solution, you look for inspiration. Trying very hard to
crack a conundrum
doesn't work, so you step back and try to take a more open stance.
Perhaps what you
are doing then is shifting from using a particular mind/brain approach
to falling back
more directly on sense itself, on other options given in the "field"
of sense, less
already-structured that our usual way of using awareness in mind-brain
ways
Gilles Kuhn: like a limited epoche pema or a radical reflexion in a
cartesian way
Pema Pera: all shifts have to be lived for a while, to be tasted,
seen, felt . . .
like really viewing the world as given in the mind for example
Pema Pera: yes, Gilles
Mickorod Renard: is that not using the subcons greater processing
power?
Sage Hartmann: i agree pema -- and most critically -- any foundation
for phenomenology
must have enough room to actually explain that very process of
stepping back! :)
Pema Pera: if you only think/speculate, it is like doing theory but
skipping the
experimental side
Pema Pera: yes, Sage
Pema Pera: Mick, perhaps -- but let's not jump to conclusions before
we do it!!
Pema Pera: perhaps not :-)
Pema Pera: perhaps the "subcons" is an emerging property from "sense"
Nick Cassavetes: this X seems to me to reificating interaction and
hence
intentionality and even entanglement in some way
Gilles Kuhn: but why not include it pema you mention in your article a
link possible
between material brain imagery tec and other kind of approach idea i
find most
interesting !
Pema Pera: yes, that was about fixed points in consciousness and math
Pema Pera: in the pyramid math->physics->biology->mind
Pema Pera: only the first and the last one are self-reflexive
Pema Pera: given in terms of themselves
Andrej Babenco: see the same things with different eyes
Gilles Kuhn: yes contestable one btw but interesting manner of seeing
science
Pema Pera: in contrast, physics uses math, biology uses physics
Andrej Babenco: Seneca ??
Sage Hartmann: well, any ontology has to have something that's self-
reflexive -- i
personally like the heideggerian approach of just getting that out of
the way at the
outset, and including it as a definition of identity =)
Pema Pera: yes, Gilles, very contestable! Just a first caricature, to
start with
Pema Pera: Seneca! :-)
Pema Pera: Heidegger's Being crossed out was a great approach -- but
very hard to talk
about . . . .
Sage Hartmann: true that
Pema Pera: Seneca is about stepping back, dropping what you have to
see what you are
Gilles Kuhn: shall we not conceive models in a more general manner as
more primitive
than math and the fact that model are reduction as a hint about why a
full experimental
sensation like qualia is difficult to modelise ?
Pema Pera: yes, Gilles, that too is an interesting stance
Yichard Muni: -
Antonia Braveheart: An ancient latin author, as far as i remember :P
Pema Pera: yes, sorry
Antonia Braveheart: sorry wrong box :P
Pema Pera: two thousand years ago
Pema Pera: read him at the end of high school
Antonia Braveheart: thanks for adding me ^^
Andrej Babenco: eh eh..don't see different things with the same
eyes...
Gilles Kuhn: Well Ladies and gent this formal meeting time is almost
done and pema
will have to go soon BUT
Yichard Muni: -
Gilles Kuhn: I will invite all of you to be member of the sl group
philosophical
seminar and from then to the google group i organise
Zen Arado: can you summarize any conclusions?
Zen Arado: you lost me a while back
Mickorod Renard: i would like a summary too if pos
Alfred Kelberry: pema, give us your definition of "sense"
Gilles Kuhn: And we will continue this very interesting discussion
next week in group
chat and in google group too
Zen Arado: seems more about maths and physica than philosophy?
Pema Pera: sense is to awareness like space is to location and time to
motion
Zen Arado: ust my take
Pema Pera: about life, too, Zen :)
Calyps0 Janus: Haha!
Pema Pera: "sense" was chosen with a purpose
Pema Pera: uncommon sense perhaps . . . .
Andrej Babenco: mind/body - have/be - mind/body/avatar - have/be/?
Zen Arado: I haven’t the physics background
Gilles Kuhn: evidently we can continue the chat here and now too only
some cannot
attend more
Pema Pera: thank you all for coming, and thank you, especially, Gilles
for organizing
-- see y'all next week!
Alfred Kelberry: em.. ok, bye, pema
genesis Zhangsun: Bye everyone
Zen Arado: bye
Nick Cassavetes: thx for your elaboration Pema, bye
Antonia Braveheart: bye pema!
Samuel Okelly: many thanks giles, pema... theres so much to think
about
arabella Ella: bye pema
Pema Pera: I've very much enjoyed all the questions/comments/
suggestions
Andrej Babenco: bye all
arabella Ella: bye gen
Pema Pera: what a wonderful group!
Yichard Muni: :-)
Pema Pera: a testimony to the power of SL . . . .
Andrej Babenco: yes !!!
Pema Pera: we would have never met this way in RL
Gilles Kuhn: thank you all for coming hope to see you all soon !
[2009/01/21 15:04] Pema Pera: all in our own little compartments
Andrej Babenco: great power...
Antonia Braveheart: ^^
Pema Pera: bye for now
Yichard Muni: :-)
Andrej Babenco: bye
Samuel Okelly: tc every1 :)
Andrej Babenco: goodnight 4 me, donno 4 u ...
Gaya Ethaniel: Thanks Gilles and all
arabella Ella: thanks Giles
Mickorod Renard: thankyou very much
Yichard Muni: oh, a question: can someone tell me what the post "on
air" means??
Hana Hendrassen: Thanks all
Mickorod Renard: bye all
Andrej Babenco: time shifting ;)
Gilles Kuhn: if somebody need a group invite im me i m working on it