Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
Reflection & Resonance
Philip Benjamin
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 15:00 UTC
Suppose the mirror image of ‘me’ recognizes me, or is conscious!
Suppose? It does everything I do! Why reckon that it doesn’t think?
In a pan-psychic universe mirror images do think! If not, why not?
This reflection resonates ‘me’ warts, moles and all; incredulous?
More real is a bio dark-matter axion-like ‘Invisible Homo sapiens’
Of three different spin-axions akin to the ordinary fermions
With differential taxonomic distributions in plants, animals, humans
Dark Chemistries and differential taxonomic emission of bio-photons
Philip Benjamin
medinuclear@hotmail.com
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Philip Benjamin,
When you supose that the mirror image does everything you do:
you wrote:
“Suppose? It does everything I do! Why reckon that it doesn’t think?
In a pan-psychic universe mirror images do think! If not, why not?
"I have some points and questions to you.
Some physical properties like sound production, temperature and heat production, etc, are not available to you mirror image in my avaliation.
So these physical behavior limitations or your mirror image does not configures that your image DOES NOT DO EVERYTHING YOU DO, contradicting your hypothesys?
At my point of view according to the theoretical model I’m proposing,
Pattern Recognition Principle for a Theory of Mind
http://network.nature.com/groups/bpcc/forum/topics/5139you have physical structure and mechanisms of pattern recognition and pattern processing in your brain that consists a biological and physical basis for your mental activity
while your image physical structure is only reflected light rays focused simetrically to you from the mirror, which clearly is physically distinct from you (real you).
Gilberto
-
[Graeme Smith]
So at heart you really ARE a dualist, believing the atman/brahmin spirit/soul and just trying to present it using biophotons and dark matter. AHA!
No this is not the Australian Identity Theory per se.
I don’t need an infinite set of options for individuality, what I need is the ability to switch between parallel modules or processes and progress data through a tree of possible processing steps, to arrive at the best processing solution for a specific situation, and in my case the model is self-correcting because it is expected that it will make mistakes, and it is actually the self-correction mechanisms that most require the presence of consciousness.
Consciousness? I do not know what you mean by it? Do you?
[Philip Benjamin]
As I always admit, I have the least clue on what is called “consciousness” other than as an antonym of the English word “unconsciouness”. I have indicated Willaim James credited to be the Father of modern American Psychology would not and could not have recognized it in any other way. Moreover, so far I have not come across one single, meanigful, factual, rational, scientific definition of “consciousness” other than as an atonym of unconsciousness. For all intents and purposes, it seems to be a ruse for the Sanskrit atman/brhaman or the Hebrew/Greek spirit/soul (wind, breath),or the Latin/ Greek Psyche (breath, life). If so I was simply wondering why simply sate it so? The only definition then acceptable for Sanskrit, Hebrew, ancient Greek, Latin and modern English will be “BREATH”, because Atman in Sanskrit also can mean ‘breath’. And BREATH means LIFE.
Now, breath in these ancient languages connote “life”. So, in effect all these languages [meaning those ‘simple’ folks compared to the modern complicated ‘scoundrels’], were simply referring to “life” or “sentience”. In that respect and only in that context I can identify or even, say, define what you dearly and “unknowingly” call “consciousness” as simply “sentience”. That is one super-quality (supra-quale, if you will) that a robot does not and cannot have!
As regards labelling people, I have a little common sense left not to do that for myself or any one else. I look upon anything which effectively operates in the physical realm, say, brain or human or animal or plant bodies,or a robot, as ‘physical’, not metaphysical or mystic. Only physical can be and should be dealt with by science which is wholly and soley PHYSICAL.
Biophoton emission is a “sentience” (BIO) phenomenon. The taxonomic differences in the ‘emission rates’ also is a strictly physical phenomena. An understanding of this on the basis of physical data and concepts will hopefull yield (or reveal ina physical sense) some “unknown” details of SENTIENCE.
I do not beat about invisible bushes! Invisible matter is alright, though teasing enough. To be more precise a Dark Matter Chemistry (akin to the SUSY chemistry of Louis Clavelli)especially the various types of possible bonds (similar to Covalent/Co0ordinate)between EM non-EM particles shows some promise. At least, it explains to be the probable cause of different sentient (bio)emission rates. Also, it shows some explanatroy powers for induced and
‘natural’ paranormal phenomena. -
[Glberto Paiva] wrote:
When you supose that the mirror image does everything you do:
you wrote:
“Suppose? It does everything I do! Why reckon that it doesn’t think?
In a pan-psychic universe mirror images do think! If not, why not?
"I have some points and questions to you.
Some physical properties like sound production, temperature and heat production, etc, are not available to you mirror image in my avaliation.
So these physical behavior limitations or your mirror image does not configures that your image DOES NOT DO EVERYTHING YOU DO, contradicting your hypothesys?
[Philip Benjamin]
That was a skeptical poetic expression on PANPSYCHISM which cannot be empirically verified. I was only rehetorically asking why the “PAN” does not cover the “optical image” field also?
[Glberto Paiva]
At my point of view according to the theoretical model I’m proposing,
Pattern Recognition Principle for a Theory of Mind
http://network.nature.com/groups/bpcc/forum/topics/5139you have physical structure and mechanisms of pattern recognition and pattern processing in your brain that consists a biological and physical basis for your mental activity
[Philip Benjamin]
Do these “structures” exist ONLY in humans? Suppose, animals also have the same structures (which obviously they do if they are basic neuro-chemical or neuro-physiological structures), then animals should have the same “consciousness” or “psychic” pwers as humans. Perhaps there may be analogous structures in plants also, yielding plant consciousness. So panpsychism is inievitable with all “ordinary” materialistic views. But there is no empirical proof for that.
[Glberto Paiva]
while your image physical structure is only reflected light rays focused simetrically to you from the mirror, which clearly is physically distinct from you (real you).[Philip Benjamin]
As I have indicated already, that was a rhetorical question made poetically.
-
AH finally Benjamin said (speaking about sentience) “That is one Super Quale your artificial consciousness can’t have!”
And THAT is what this is all about. Somehow sentience is placed on a pedestal that Artificial Consciousness cant reach. The question I always have to ask, when someone makes an assumption like this is WHY, WHY are you so sure that a machine can’t have Artificial Consciousness? What are you basing this assumption on? What proof do you have that this assumption is correct? How would you falsify this assumption so that you could prove it wrong? And if you think about that last answer, you know that the best way to falsify it, is to continue to fail to create artificial sentience. Over a long enough period, once every avenue of research has been exhausted, and maybe a little before, people will quit looking for a way to achieve it and admit that it is too difficult to achieve.
But to give up without trying… Ah that is just being a quitter, I don’t need to do that. Especially when I am sure that I am getting somewhere with my model, no matter how many naysayers say nay.
-
[Graeme Smith]
“AH finally Benjamin said (speaking about sentience) “That is one Super Quale your artificial consciousness can’t have!”
And THAT is what this is all about. Somehow sentience is placed on a pedestal that Artificial Consciousness cant reach. The question I always have to ask, when someone makes an assumption like this is WHY, WHY are you so sure that a machine can’t have Artificial Consciousness?
[Philip Benjamin]
I really do not get it. Or I failed to make myself clear in my postings.
Some folks (hiding somewhere here, it seems!!) asked me to look at this forum. Eventually when I did, it is mostly, if not all, about “consciousness”.
Since I really had no clue on what “consciousness” means (other than the antonym of unconsciousness), I gave up. Because to adapt the old proverb about “philosophy”, ‘consciousness’ was ’ a dark cat in a dark box in a dark room where there is no cat".I looked for Psychologist/Philosopher William James (the oft quoted ‘Patron Saint’ of Western Consciousness Movement and the Harvard Physician). He had no use of this term, not even ‘sentience’, apparently. He was into mental phenomena and processes. Then I noticed that most of his major works appeared before the ‘advent’ of Swami Vivekanada on the American Psychology scene.
So, when anyone uses the term artificial “consciouseness”, all that is unambiguous there is “artificial”. How can any one use a ‘mystic’ term that is ‘unknown’ or ‘unknowable’ and defies definition for any universal acceptance in science or philosophy or psychology or literature?.
I tried to explain that Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greek & Latin ( and I understand all animists’ expressions)all indicate that what is translated as “consciousness” in English have a common word that links the metaphysical with the physical. That word has the meaning of “breath” which
in effect means “life” or “sentience”, in the East, West, ancient and modern.
I did not even remotely suggest to include “artificial consciousness”.Human Sentience can have sense, intelligence, consiousness, unconsciousness, conscience, emotions, Existential and situational guilt, dreams etc. Animals are also known to possess some of these faculties. Plants are known to have “sensitivities”. Human sentience seems to be a composite level or a triunity of plant,animal and anthropic sentience.
My comprehension and faculty thereof are too limited to go beyond this very physical realm of understnading.
-
Well Benjamin It is true sentience contains all that, but what I don’t get is this assumption that somehow a list of elements that are each possible to model separately will somehow be impossible to model successfully when they are combined.
This discussion on Consciousness and Cognition, wouldn’t really exist, if some of us didn’t believe that we could achieve a sentient machine. Half the people here are convinced that it will never happen, and are quite willing to explain often in great detail why. The other half are half convinced at least that it will happen, and all want their own theory to be the theory that makes it happen.
You however have been posting in a manner that is neither fish nor fowl, half the time you seem willing to allow for an extraordinary version of consciousness, and half the time you post as if you didn’t believe it would be possible to build a sentient machine.
Even when you seem to think that an extraordinary version of science will give us a form of consciousness, you couch it in terms of those who claim that consciousness will never be possible for a machine. In short, you just don’t get the physicalist arguments even when you are trying to make them yourself.
My guess is that you really don’t think that a sentient machine is possible and you are posting here in order to have a controversy.
-
Philip Benjamin wrote:
“That was a skeptical poetic expression on PANPSYCHISM which cannot be empirically verified. I was only rehetorically asking why the “PAN” does not cover the “optical image” field also?”Gilberto answer:
Sorry, I missunderstand you.Philip Benjamin wrote:
“Do these “structures” exist ONLY in humans? Suppose, animals also have the same structures (which obviously they do if they are basic neuro-chemical or neuro-physiological structures), then animals should have the same “consciousness” or “psychic” pwers as humans. Perhaps there may be analogous structures in plants also, yielding plant consciousness. So panpsychism is inievitable with all “ordinary” materialistic views. But there is no empirical proof for that.”Pattern Recognition mechanisms exists in most (if not all) animals with neural systems. Even plants with “tactical sensorial like” capabilities have mechanisms to recognize pressure patterns and exibit movements patterns in response. Artificial pattern recognition mechanisms are been projected and for sure is a major field of research in computer science related areas, some exemples: face pattern recognition mechanisms, sound pattern recognition mechanism, ortografical pattern recognition mechanisms, sintatic pattern recognition mechanisms, and an almost infinite possibility of it.
As a physiological phenomena, pattern recognition manifestation is a very well observed funcionality. Pavlov experiments shows clearly the existence of pattern recognition mechanism when dogs learns to recognize sound patterns and exibits salivation physiological response patterns. Modern experiments at neurology frequently studies the mechanisms of visual pattern recognition mechanisms, affective pattern recognition mechanisms, language patter recognition mechanisms, and so it goes far and very far away.
Also, theoretically the pattern concept is a very well founded concept at all level. Geometric patterns can be described with preciselly mathematical formulations, physical phenomena patterns also, language sintatical structure also. And the theoretical models for pattern recognition mechanisms can be developed with neural networks models, standard computation models, also standard mathematical models, all with very clear and precise formulations.
So pattern recognition is a very well stabilished concept, no contest. What I’m proposing is that it can be a fundamental concept to build a comprehensive theory of the mind funcioning. In my article I showed that with such a principle we can derive a descriptive model of the mind (like Darwing did with his theory).
Thinking deeper phylosophycally, I realized that any human concept is a set of patterns that characterizes the concept, or if you wish, the properties or characteristics with define the concept (sinomim of pattern).
I can define the human existence and its relation to the universe existence, as the patterns of the universe that the human mind pattern recognition mechanism can recognize and process (in my article I discuss some proposed processing features as memorization of reconized patterns, activation and association of these patterns, which I call mental patterns).
If I’m correct, It will be not an absurd at all if I say that it is possible to describe all the human cultural knowledge, including all scientific knowledge … I know it is very ambiciouss … but if I’m not becoming crazy … I got it :) !!!
Best wishes,
Gilberto de Paiva -
Philip Benjamin,
to finish my answer to you,
I don’t believe in pan-psychism like theories because only biological neural systems structures to performs pattern recognition and processing. I do believe at cultural patterns transmition process, that seems obviouss.
I advocates for a standard physical theory of mind as the best candidate.
Gilberto
-
Dear Philip,
your last post showed possible signs of frustration. As far as I am concerned, your are difficult to follow. Beginning with your starting point, that a mirror image could think, which seems strange even in a pan-psychic universe, to your faculty, which you do not state. Why should it be too limited?
William James dealt with consciousness, his whole The Principles of Psychology is available online. Maybe you could also check out this article
I too find it frustrating at times that people focus on consciousness and not so much on the topics Alfredo has stated to introduce this forum, which are much broader and emphasise physiological aspects. We even changed it into a group, to have more possibilities to focus on topics that are in concordance with our host, which is “Nature”. And to enhance a mode of exchange that develops insights into a topic by means of cooperation.
Where would you like to get to, by posting here?
Yours friendly
Hans -
[Hans Ricke]
“Alfredo has stated to introduce this forum, which are much broader and emphasise physiological aspects. We even changed it into a group, to have more possibilities to focus on topics that are in concordance with our host, which is “Nature”. And to enhance a mode of exchange that develops insights into a topic by means of cooperation”.
[Philip Benjamin]
Yes, Alfredo indeed presents very interesting points for serious attention. That is refreshing and promising and ‘analisable’. Right now, I am working on some possible quantum chemical calculations involving monopoles etc….
As regards “consciousness” in James “Principles of Psychology” you have referred to, I understand he used the term in its ordinary sense. My doubts about using it in any metaphysical or mystic or uncanny/supernatural sense is based on the assumption that most if not all modern (rather post-modern) usage of “consciousness” is a substitution for “atman” or “soul” or “psyche” (which in Sanskrit, Greek, Hebrew and Latin can also mean “breath”].
This is what William James say on transcendent views on “soul”:
Psychology P.350. “My final conclusion, then, about the substantial Soul is that it explains NOTHING and guarantees NOTHING. Its successive thoughts are the only intelligible and verifiable things about it, and definitely to ascertain the correlations of these with brain-processes is as much as psychology can empirically do. From the metaphysical point of view, it is true that one may claim that the correlations have a rational ground; and if the word Soul could be taken to mean merely some such vague problematic ground, it would be unobjectionable. But the trouble is that it professes to give the ground in positive terms of a very dubiously credible sort. I therefore feel entirely free to discard the word Soul from the rest of this book. If I ever use it, it will be in the vaguest and most popular way. The reader who finds any comfort in the idea of the Soul, is, however, perfectly free to continue to believe in it; for our reasonings have not established the non-existence of the Soul; they have only proved its superfluity for SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES” [all emphasis, mine].
James has a negative view toward “soul” as it is in vogue conventionally- something metaphysical or mystic. However if it is taken in its very original sense as “breath” (in Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greek, Latin), it could simply mean the observable LIFE or SENTIENCE, and not the mystic “soul”.
James uses “consciousness’ very sparingly and that too only in the 10th chapter. He uses “unconsciousness” also in the same vein of thought. “Moment of thought”, “stream of thought”, “stream of consciousness” etc are used in the same context and interchangeably. Consciousness as a possible vehicle of knowing (as Ego) is mentioned once on p.364. It involves “a stream of thought”. Among the twenty-two ingredients that constitute the Empirical Life of the SELF (p.329), he completely omits “consciousness” (but conscientiousness is included).
In James’ usage, “consciousness” almost always precedes or follows a preposition usually, “of”. A preposition always introduces a noun or noun phrase in order to furnish more information about a preceding word or phrase (typically but not always a noun): for example, “Consciousness of SELF, of Ego, of PERSONAL IDENTITY, of this and that…etc emphasizes NOT consciousness, but the noun/noun phrase that follows- Self, Ego, Personal Identity etc.
There is a distinction to be drawn between ordinary use of the term “consciousness” (William James Use)and the post-modern use, but that is “unwritten” or taken for granted, but not explicitly stated.
Best regards
Philip Benjamin
Results
-
