An intelligent system is a multi facited system. It must have some
implicate pupose such as self replication. But there are lots of self
replicating plants out there that most of us would not classify as
intelligent in the sense we normally use the word.
A thermoustat and a heater in a room can also act to keep the
temperature at a constant. But most of us would not classify this
system as intelligent. Yet both these systems are self referencing.
They act on their own to reach some intrinsic goal.
So I suppose it may depend on how we define intelligence. Because an
argument could be made that both that plant next to you and the
thermostat that is regulating the temperature of the room you are in may
have some degree of intelligence.
> ***
> >From part 20:
> >
> First, we see how our thoughts may self-organize into the virtual world
> we
> create in our minds. From there, we ask what experiences like sweetness
> are. Is the experience of sweetness in our minds, our taste buds or the
> sugar?
> >
>
> The concept of "sweetness" can be different for different people. What
> we call "sugar" is part of the largely unknowable environment. Or taste
> buds receive chemical substances from this environment and send
> electrical impulses to the brain. The brain build up its concept of
> sweetness from that. Thats the way it looks to me.
One way to look at the experience of sweetness is as a model of a
qualitativly complex system. That system includes all of the components
you mention and perhaps a lot more. Still, how would you describe
sweetness to a computer? Since the computer has no comparable
experience, how can it fully appreciate the quality of sweetness? I'm
just trying to suggest that sweetness is one of those qualities that
help make a biological system one that fits Don's definition of a
complex systems.
> >
> It's clear that all brains help solve problems. From the gene's point of
> view, brains are a gene's solution to problems that a gene vehicle may
> face. Brains are a part of a creature's solution to the problem of
> staying
> alive.
> >
>
> A gene is not an intelligent system and so has no point of view, no
> problems.
If a gene is selfish and is a part of a self replicating system, then
from the gene's point of view, it has a purpose. Its purpose is to help
the self replicating system replicate. If we define intelligence as
something akin to the intelligence we looked at in the plant and the
theremostat systems, then it is plain that our gene is processing data
in somewhat the same way. Of course, this is not the meaning of
intelligence we usually think about when we hear the word spoken.
But it seems to me that it is not too much of a stretch to say that our
selfish gene that wants to make copies of itself does have a problem.
The problem is how does it accomplish its self replicating goal.
Again, here is another model of why a gene might find it worth while to
make a gene vehicle that had brains. Brains might help the genes to
replicate. We know that brains aren't essential to the self replicating
process because there are lots of organic systems that do just fine
without any brains at all.
But this is not much different from the fact that animals can move from
place to place to solve some of their self replicating problems. Life
forms don't need to move in order to replicate. But some time way back
when, some life forms must have found it advantageous to be able to move
in order to achieve their purpose of self replication.
> >
> It's safe to say that brains solve problems by processing data. A brain
> is
> thus an organ that solves data problems. So it should be no surprise
> that
> all brains are set up to pick out and solve data problems. All brains
> use
> this two track problem and solution system.
> >
>
> That is not the way I see it. A brain is an organ for determining what
> action is convenient, at a given time, to reach the objectives of the
> creature. Solving problems is a small part of that.
We apparently just think of problems on a different scale. This relates
to the previous discussion. Determining what action is convenient at a
given time to reach the creature's objective is what I think of as
problem solving.
> >
> Yet the way our brain rebuilds the world our senses take in is much
> richer
> than most others. This world our brain makes is also more complex. We
> weave together many dimensions in both time and space.
> >
>
> Not "rebuilds"; as you correctly stated elsewhere, the brain builds our
> world.
OK, I'll buy that.
> >
> The data then goes through our hard wired neural networks. These vast
> webs account for perception. As it goes through these channels, we test,
> screen and refine it.
> >
> No, not hard wired. The modern view is that the dendrites connect to
> other neurons during the learning process. Thus the pattern of
> interconnection of neurons changes.
My understanding is that both these structures and processes are
involved in how the brain works.
> >
> The brain gives us a wide range of choices. These choices can be about
> any concept, plan or action. We then sort through the choices. Finally,
> we
> choose the concepts, plans or actions that seem best. The choice phase
> can then break through our boundary with the outside world.
> >
>
> gives us?, you mean my brain is not part of me?
> We then sort through the choices? No I don't, my brain does. For me "I"
> is everything under my skin, including the brain.
To me they are both the same and different at the same time. Again,
Don's comlex system.
> >
> The wealth of our senses, views, skills and understanding helps us
> master
> some parts of our lives. Still, the whole universe, as we know it, is a
> world
> that we create within. We log on to the virtual world so easily and well
> we
> rarely give any thought to it.
> >
> YES very true and few people realize this. "virtual world" is our
> representation of the largely unknowable environment. It has little or
> no resemblance to the environmnt but is useful for choosing actions.
>
> >
> We can go from this red experience to being aware of it. Then we can
> jump to what we think about it. And we can do all three of these at the
> same time.
> >
> Well, all of this is just processing inputs. Some inputs from our
> senses, some from reading our memory.
I would only add that they are all experiences. Some are inner
experiences and some are sensory experiences.
> >
> My guess is that it's data that helps us span these gaps. Data may help
> us bridge the gaps between our red experience and what we are aware of
> and think. I also think that this data is at least partly and probably
> all non
> physical.
> >
>
> Can you give me a one paragraph explanation of your concept of data ? It
> surely is different from mine!
Lets look at the data we might compile about the differences between two
rocks. They weigh different amounts. They are different sizes and
shapes. They are different colors. They are made from different
chemicals, molecules and atoms. They have different histories. When
thrown, they both have different aerodynamic characteristics. One might
be a good rock to skip on a calm lake. The other might make a good
hammer to pound in tent stakes.
Now imagine that you are holding one of our rocks in each of your two
hands. The rocks are obviously different in many many ways. And each
rock is a solid physical object. But what or where are all those
differences? Can you locate the differences in the space/time between
the rocks? Is it in the light that bounces off each rock? Is it in the
force of gravity that tugs at them?
I'm not sure, but my conjecture is that these differences are non
physical. In some ways they are like the differences in the data we
measured and compiled about the differences in the rocks. Of course,
the data is of a different logical type from the rocks themselves. The
data on our measurements is just our way of measuring and recording the
differences between the rocks. It is an indirect way of comparing the
qualities of our two rocks.
Still, clearly the data we've written down is not the same as either the
rocks themselves or the differences between the rocks. So I think that
the rocks themselves are physical in the normal sense of the word. The
data we've written down, whether quantative or qualitative, is about the
differences between our physical rocks. Yet this data is clearly not
physical in the same sense that the rocks are physical. This data is
how we encode the differences between the rocks. It represents our
model of those differences.
I think this non physical notion for data holds no matter what the data
itself refers to. So the data can be the direct experience of holding
the two rocks in our hands. It can be the sense of touch, smell or
taste we experience when we test the rock. It can be the experience of
getting hit on the head with the rock. Or the experience can be
understanding the meaning of the data we've written on a piece of paper
as we compare various aspects of the rocks in question.
I think that experiencing all these differences and all the data are
both non physical phenomena. So experience, differences and data are
all non physical. Since the differences and the data are so close, I
often combine them and call them non physical data. Experience, even
though it too is non physical, seems like more of a process that
involves non physical data. That's the best I can do off the top of my
head. If I had time, I could probably compress these six paragraphs
down to one.
> >
> We might say that red data starts and ends its existence as a non
> physical red quality. First, the non physical red data hitches a ride on
> some light photons. Then it chugs through our physical senses and
> thought processes.
> >
>
> Do you have evidence for this?
Yes, surprisingly there is some evidence for this. I won't say it is
any where near conclusive, but think about the data that is now going
from your computer screen via light photons into your eye. If you are a
physicalist, you will insist that the meaning of these words is imbedded
in the photons. You might claim that the meaning is nothing more or
less than the light photons that carry that meaning.
But I will argue that the meaning is just riding the light photons. I
think it is a part of the non physical realm of thought and meaning.
You might try to construct a complex system that incorporates all the
physical components and parts and their interactions in the whole system
and say that the meaning can't be seperated from these physical parts
and events.
I will say that the meaning is the same as yet differs from the physical
components and events in the system you are describing. And here is
where I think Don's notion of complex systems comes in. All of these
physical components and events in the system are one model. The meaning
of these paragraphs are another model of the system. Both models are
views of the same complex system. Yet they are of different logical
types. One model cannot be derived from the other. They are the same
and yet they differ. This is a complex system.
> >
> A color blind person can see a flower that others see as red and never
> experience the red. So we might say that the red we experience is not
> the
> same as the object that we see. What's more, the red isn't in the light.
> The light photons just carry the red data.
> >
>
> For me the flower just emits electromagnetic waves in all directions.
> Some are caught by the eye and the eye emits electric impulses to the
> nerves.
That is a physical model of the red experience. Another model is the
non physical qualitative model of the red experience. They are the same
and yet they differ. We cannot derive one from the other. Must we use
"either/or" logic with these models? Must each model be either right
wrong? Perhaps we ought to test each model on it own terms.
> >
> But what happens when the brain gets conflicting reports from all these
> sensors? Or what happens if it gets too much data and it can't keep up
> with the flow? I've had this experience a few times. My brain starts to
> shut down and my stomach knots up. What's happening to me? I'm
> seasick.
> >
>
> Yes, your explanation seems to be true. Seasickness is an overload of
> data, the brain tries to predict the movement and cannot.
You will find a detailed explanation of this as it realates to a theory
concerning how our brains coordinate sensory data in a central mapping
system. The URLs are http://204.94.86.93/26.html under the heading of
OUR NAV CENTER and http:204.94.86.93/31.html under the heading of THE
SEASICK SECRET.
> >
> Imagine how hard it would be to build a comparable set of sensors and
> robot parts. Yet this is what we must have to link our artificial brain
> to the
> rest of the world. So our model brain won't work unless it is hooked up
> to
> a whole set of movers and sensors.
> >
>
> Yes, a few other investigators and I agree to this.
>
> >
> So where is the flaw in this argument? Why can't we reduce what we call
> consciousness to physics and biology? Why can't science solve this
> problem? Why can't a synthetic brain be conscious?
> >
>
> Physics and biology are about other fields. Only a science of
> intelligent systems like cybernetics has a chance of explaining the
> processes in the brain.
>
> >
> This is the fatal flaw in our thought experiment. The flaw is not that
> the
> brain can't function and be aware. It just does not carry the ability to
> make more silicon model brains. Thus it can't evolve and adapt over
> time like our human brain can.
> >
>
> If you think that a modern chip can be constructed by hand, without the
> help of computers, the you are misinformed. True up to now, no computer
> has build a complete new computer. But simple mecanical gadgets have
> reproduced themselves in the fifties.
>
> *****
> >From part 21:
> >
> I think that the non physical realms exist. And I think they are a big
> part
> of our thought and understanding. If this is close to the mark, thought
> is
> more than just some field of physics. And there is no way to reduce
> thought to biology either.
> >
> Please see my post of today to PrinCyb for an answer.
>
> >
> Such a word would mean all of the things that make up an experience of
> thought. Yet the fact that we don't even have such a word should sound
> an alarm. It may warn us that we've gone way past any common
> agreement on how our minds work.
> >
>
> Not common agreement but only investigation can solve how our minds
> work.
>
> >
> Then what about consciousness? I think this word is like a witch's brew
> that can blow minds with a lethal mix of potions. Among other things, it
> mixes up notions of the self, experience, awareness, thought, feelings,
> dreams and illusions. It's no wonder no one has ever been able to nail
> down what this word means.
> >
>
> Every person has its own concept, the word consciousness means
> completely different thing to different people. That is why we have to
> define our concepts before we start any serios investigation.
I agree.
> >
> Our top priority must be to stop the slaughter. To do this, we need to
> learn more about the world we live in. We also need to learn more about
> each other. But to get to the heart of our problems, we must first learn
> a
> lot more about ourselves.
> >
>
> How true. See my comments on preventing war and on intelligent systems
> in http://www.anice.net.ar/intsyt/
>
> ***
>
> All the above does not mean that I deny the possibility of non physical
> events, see the quote from a page of mine "Miscelleneous observations on
> the human mind":
> QUOTE
> Parapsychology
> The theory developed in this chapter about concepts and response rules
> accounts for more (possibly much more) than 90% of the daily mental
> activities that we can observe in human beings. Nevertheless, there are
> some activities that the author can't explain. There seem to be
> well-documented cases, where one brain senses some mental processes that
> had occurred in another brain in the past, also those occurring in
> another at the present (telepathy) and even mental processes that will
> occur in another brain (or in itself) at a future time. This last could
> be the process underlying clairvoyance.
>
Clairvoyance and telepathy may be direct physical connections as opposed
to non physical phenomena. The notion of action at a distance is not
necessarily a non physical phenomenon. Still we probably will find ways
to model these phenomena in the near future. I understand that there
are as least six major labs located in several countries that are now
working on this very problem. If the person who told me this knows what
he is talking about, this work may not be made public for decades.
> "The brain senses" should be understood to be equivalent to saying, "the
> mental processes of the brain are changed by."
>
> Also there seem to be cases where one brain (without going through the
> senses) influences the mental processes occurring in another at the
> present time. This then influences mental processes occurring at a
> future time.
>
> Note: Telekinesis may not be something occurring in the environment, but
> instead may be an influence of one brain upon the mental processes of
> the observer affecting what he remembers. (This needs to be
> investigated.) How this sensing and influencing occurs, the author does
> not know. It definitely has not been observed so far in artificial ISs.
> In artificial ISs, it seems that it would only be possible if we include
> a radio link between the brains of the systems involved. In humans this
> "radio link" has not been localized.
>
> This whole field is fascinating and important, and needs much more
> serious, scientific, investigation.
> END OF QUOTE
>
> Well that's all for today, may it help you.
> Walt
Thanks Walt it is a great help. I hope these responses are helpful to
you.
Norm