An Objective View

@fresco,

...again you fail at your own theory...you are debating where they are, a matter of exact knowledge, but again remember yourself that "mind" and "world" are themselves conceptual paraphernalia...oh man, this is getting fun by now ! Mr. Green

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Who mentioned "place" ? Certainly not the concept called "me".
What appears to be happening is that when I or anybody else tries to pin you down on coherence you retreat into a whirlpool displacement jargon making you even less coherent
The central issue is simply this. The OP claims "objectivity of viewpoint" and produces a "system" of what are claimed to be "functional parts". The psychological and philosophical literature has been sceptical of both "objectivity" and "sum of parts coherence", especially with respect to "world views", and I have reported the bases of some of the scepticism. You then arrive with your own "algorithmic" world view and naturally object to collateral damage.
The problem with "world-views" is that they are psychologically attractive, but tend to be detrimental to intellectual freedom. Religion and and totalitarianism are extreme social examples of that.

1 Reply

@fresco,

...if you imply a difference between what mind sees and what the world might be you are ascribing a place to what we experience and that place is mind but then again "mind" and "world" are themselves conceptual paraphernalia and obviously you fall on contradiction...you seem incapable of transcending certain dichotomies that much I reason...that you are not intelligent enough to see it is not my problem anyway...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

So according to you "reality" is algorithmic data soup is it ? And the vantage point from which "you" make this pronouncement is "where"....."in the soup" ?
Do you not suspect that this leans towards meaninglessness, like a vacuous statement such as "everything doubles its size every second"? Do you not see that nebulous structures make "data" meaningless, just as doubling measuring devices make "doubling" meaningless?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Meaning = Function, systems within systems..if you are asking why things work the way they work I have no answer to you...I really just wonder why do you mystically believe human beings have the particular extraordinary capability of prescribing meaning while everything else can´t ? Perhaps you believe there is something beyond its own systemic algorithmic organization and its systemic interaction with other systems, the world...maybe you believe in spirits ghosts or fairy's...I honestly don´t know...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

And I wonder from what position you conclude that the words "meaning" and "function" have any significance other than to "intelligent humans"! (ref Maturana).

2 Replies

@fresco,

I will be as simple an straightforward as I can in my reply...I just don´t see human beings with any special (magic) ability other then computing machines...it does n´t matter what you are computing...either emotions or the functioning of a leg or your interaction with another person or with an object or with a concept...it all comes down to the assembly of information responses according to systemic sets of rules, the algorithms, the machinery, you are specialized to operate with...you are trying to make human being almost a magical special case that surpasses all these mathematical systems of rules which bind everything together...I don´t see any good reason for that besides an extreme naivety and presumption...more complexity does not mean a different basic structure...so be it a rock a larvae a monkey a human or the working of a language the very same rules on how systems are organized apply ! Can you get what I mean in there ? I honestly hope so !

1 Reply

@fresco,

...meaning as I see it, is a goal, and goals sort to speak are the specialized functions any organized system can perform and acknowledge...it does n´t even as to be a living thing fresco...the acknowledgement can be reduced to functioning, operativeness...and not necessarily conscience of performance... which is just the same thing one level up in complexity...bottom line it all boils down to maths...much like the behaviour in fractals...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

when someone asks to someone what it means regarding something else, what bottom line is asked in there, is what it can do from you standing point...and if you can inform somehow what it can do, how it does relate to you...what working pragmatical algorithm is build in between the thing and yourself...be it a concept an object a person...it all boils down to systems of information with certain operative functions that work in certain background shaping conditions, that is, other yet bigger systems of organized info...the holistic effect that you spoke off earlier...
but of course I think it can be decoded... it can be "mathematized" away preventing you understand the code the "language" it is encoded...my best "proof" that such thing is possible , the proof that I use to myself to picture it, is the imagining for instance of the transcription of a painting and its mathematical geometric accountable relations into another system say music...or the opposite...I sometimes try to imagine how would the requiem of Mozart look in a painting...applying the same geometry rhythms and notes to graphical form....

...decoding language is not something only a human can do...a computer which possesses the code base is perfectly capable of processing such information basically because a machine or a brain work very much the same way and under the same basic rules...in fact if we stretch it to the limit, we end up picturing, that either in a more or less complex manner, everything somehow is processing, revising everything else it relates with...
...an atom for instance acknowledges my "weight", my momentum and direction, if gravitating close by...my info is transcribed into that simple language of gravity itself...I come to believe its all there...even my thoughts probably the distribution they have in my neural network must have some kind of weighting shape that can be detected in an unconscious way by a particle...its sounds mad but I often push myself to see in the limits of reason...that´s how I like to work !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

As expected your thesis relies the hope of a universal applicability of "computational models". You MUST be aware of the philosophical,cybernetic and neuroscientific objections to this. e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Computers_Can't_Do
I have further nothing to add to the comments of those MIT guys working in the field who have already abandoned such a thesis.

1 Reply

@fresco,

(please re read my previous answer as it was edited)

I am so convinced of that being the case that I can only tell you that if they abandoned it they did n´t truly realised what they were working with in the first place...I would bet my neck heart and soul, if one exists, on it without a second thought that much is true !

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

when someone asks to someone what it means regarding something else, what bottom line is asked in there, is what it can do from you standing point...and if you can inform somehow what it can do, how it does relate to you...what working pragmatical algorithm is build in between the thing and yourself...be it a concept an object a person...it all boils down to systems of information with certain operative functions that work in certain background shaping conditions, that is, other yet bigger systems of organized info...the holistic effect that you spoke off earlier...
but of course I think it can be decoded... it can be "mathematized" away preventing you understand the code the "language" it is encoded...my best "proof" that such thing is possible , the proof that I use to myself to picture it, is the imagining for instance of the transcription of a painting and its mathematical geometric accountable relations into another system say music...or the opposite...I sometimes try to imagine how would the requiem of Mozart look in a painting...applying the same geometry rhythms and notes to graphical form....

...decoding language is not something only a human can do...a computer which possesses the code base is perfectly capable of processing such information basically because a machine or a brain work very much the same way and under the same basic rules...in fact if we stretch it to the limit, we end up picturing, that either in a more or less complex manner, everything somehow is processing, revising everything else it relates with...
...an atom for instance acknowledges my "weight", my momentum and direction, if gravitating close by...my info is transcribed into that simple language of gravity itself...I come to believe its all there...even my thoughts probably the distribution they have in my neural network must have some kind of weighting shape that can be detected in an unconscious way by a particle...its sounds mad but I often push myself to see in the limits of reason...that´s how I like to work !

You can't ignore consciousness. If your theories are about what a conscious being i.e. sentient being 'can do' and not what this being is... then fair enough. If that's all you are trying to explain then fine.... but if you're explaining how you think a sentient being 'works' then it fails miserably without an explanation of consciousness.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...more if you read me carefully this is not just a problem of representationalism, this is a problem of functioning at base level, on how things operate upon each other...or on how they process each other to work in the first place...why does a wheel spin instead of jumping ? why things work the way they work in certain conditions ? do you understand what I am at ? automate responses must be decoded further down into other more deep levels of language...

0 Replies

@igm,

...consciousness is just measurement Igm, and of course it requires shaping background ! nothing else in there...it obeys certain rules which are at base level present in maths and geometry in the entire structure of reality...there is no magical property in consciousness...how do you else explain fractal behaviour ? Do you not see the similarity between lungs the branches of a tree or the branches of a river ? the bloody same rules are everywhere...even though is organized in the very same way...language itself obeys this base code !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

No, I don't see it that way... consciousness needs to be conscious of fractal behavior it's what the fractal behavior or the computer screen etc... present to.

Light hits the retina (apparently), electrical impulses travel along the optic nerve, a picture is produced that represents those nerve impulses (not the light or the so-called outside world). If that picture is not experienced by a consciousness then that experience is useless... end of story. You and science cannot ignore consciousness and many scientists know that but choose to ignore it for now...

No consciousness... no recollection... no action. The PC needs a sentient being to create it, use it, and make conscious use of its output. It's not the same as input, processing, storage/memory, output because it finally requires consciousness to complete it.

Show me how consciousness is just measurement...?

Added later: The computer doesn't need consciousness because the user supplies that... so we can believe it's not needed and storage and memory is all that's required but the consciousness we supply completes the package and without it... it's all a pile of junk.

2 Replies

@igm,

...how else do you explain observation if nor by evaluation under certain parameters and rules ? You as a human being are a system with certain imbued ability´s certain encoded parameters that restrict your computation methods...mind for instance the base code which is a language the very DNA which composes who you are and determines how you react, how you observe phenomena under those "linguistic" restrictions...

Consciousness as you know it results from a language algorithm which is the human one thus processing information according with the entirety of its system and its imbued working rules...for instance you can see and hear certain wave lengths...thinking goes by the same base...what you think of something intrinsically relates on how you interact with it as a human being...the kind of information you as a human can extract from it in the very specific relation which pragmatically functions between you both being the remaining info irrelevant or considered noise...

1 Reply

@igm,

Fil, I added to my post... see above.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...how else do you explain observation if nor by evaluation under certain parameters and rules ? You as a human being are a system with certain imbued ability´s certain encoded parameters that restrict your computation methods...mind for instance the base code which is a language the very DNA which composes who you are and determines how you react, how you observe phenomena under those "linguistic" restrictions...

Observation needs to be conscious observation.. the PC via a web-cam can observe but consciousness is required to make that observation more than a dead process. Imagine the last living human sets his web-cam to capture his death. He dies... the web-cam continues but is useless...

1 Reply

@igm,

isn't to have an objective view , is the ability to question what is given , and to learn more about it ?

I think so

1 Reply

@igm,

you are confusing it...its a loop based on memory...what we call observing observation...nothing else...still is reducible to measurement...the measurement of that which is measuring according to a system "state", a system "present shape" or a system "present momentum" !

2 Replies

An Objective View

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know