Simple, we'll point the machine to www.zetatalk.com

It if claims to understand anything there, it's a well-written 'expert-system'.

If after a few minutes of reading it suddenly reformats itself and shutsdown, it was senetient.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

I'm not trying to prove that existence is a construct of our minds, but I am going to disagree with you.

I can think of many many counterexamples. Where clear and unambiguous data has been misinterpreted by folks, because of their personal bias. I'm even wondering if you actually meant to say " Thus the data itself cannot be biased by anything our subconscious might try to do to decieve us." Do you mean, that the data itself doesn't change--it just exists?

Still, our understanding of the universe is indeed based on information gained through our senses. Thought and processing of that sensory information does occur, and the synthesis may result in a woldview not connected to reality--but they still can be said to be "based" on the info.

Well, that sure brought the squirrels down out of the trees! I thought I would wait until the ruckus settled down.

Sorry, but in my head, I haven't been anywhere near as hostile as some of the other people here!

Thanks for the encourgement!

Well, I am glad you have a handle on that. Understanding is a wonderful thing!

Bye Bye!

FOAD????

Now that is an intelligent response! I also would like to know how the subconsciousness works but that is not the issue of my work. Neither do I expect it to be solved in the near future. What I am concerned with is how can such a result be accomplished, a slightly different question.

Thank you, I will but, to be polite, I should respond to these other posters first.

Pretty close. The only complaint I would pose is your phrase, "without preexisting understanding, the subconscious cannot construct a consistent model to present to the conscious". Clearly all the presumption of "preexisting understanding" does is move the problem to an earlier event. The only real conclusion is that it must be possible without a preexisting understanding.

You have otherwise made a jump to an alternate question which has nothing to do with the one I am asking and, likewise, the remainder of your comments have no bearing on what I am talking about: i.e., you are not "going in the right direction".

scuttle: verb transitive, 1. to cut a hole in the hull of a ship below the water line. 2. to sink a ship by this means. I thought most people would have understood my intent in the use! Sorry if it went over your head.

Sorry about that. I created that file in order to reference my comments to Marion in an e-mail. I had forgotten that it was there. I will remove it as there is nothing serious there.

The real issue was the proposition that she had no experience of color.

I am sorry but it really is not the type of thing I am interested in. It just came up in another conversation. I have read a little on the subject and I am convinced that people cannot experience things as an adult that they have not been trained (by experience) to recognize when they are in their formative years. But I am certainly not an expert on the issues.

Well, that is certainly deep logic if I have ever seen it!

Now I don't want to give you a swelled head, but it seems to me that you have a questioning personality. I think that's good. I will definitely get back to you.

Sorry, but that is just too deep for me! You will have to talk to your friends about that.

You know where it is, all you need to do is understand the question. Many problems in life are solved by asking the right question. This problem is exactly one of those types of problems. Once you understand exactly what that question is, the solution is next to trivial.

Reality as seen through an unexaminable pipeline must be modeled. The key is that there are two free things which can be used to create that model: the pipeline itself and any arbitrary data you want to add to the output of the pipeline which makes it easier to construct your model.

When you achieve a solution, the solution must explain reality and the pipeline by implication. Now that leaves the problem quite open. If you can follow chapter 1, any competent mathematician could work out the rest.


No, it means that everything we are aware of is processed by our brain before we are aware of it. And, if relativity and black holes have to do with astronomy then this thread has to do with astronomy.

I am afraid the depth of your intellect is beyond my comprehension.

That is all I am claiming. I never meant to imply anyone here was a "myna bird".

You miss the central issue. We have a mental image (and I agree that it's pretty good). That means it is possible to construct one "in the total absence of definition of anything". That is the problem I find interesting.

You are talking about your mental image, not how to construct one. "Rods and cones" are entities defined in your mental image of reality.

I am afraid a "grunt" is a defined concept. If you cannot comprehend the abstract concept of starting with nothing defined, then the problem I have posed is beyond your comprehension.

You are absolutely correct. But I doubt there are many people here who are ready to follow it. I thought I would prepare the way a little first but good luck to anyone who wants to read it now.

My god! How do you get your information? By telepathy?

Boy, I am glad your senses cannot deceive you. I sure would like to see the definitive proof of that!

No, it doesn't just move the question back one level. It completely ignores the fundamental question: how do you know there are no errors in you mental image of reality?

Pinemarten,
I won't even bother to answer you. Sorry about that.

You are also referring to that paper I forgot existed. I should probably delete it but, since people have referred to, it I will leave it there for a while. But, now that you have asked the question, I ask how do I check the claim that you are aware?

Very well said! That is indeed the conclusion of many (if not all) competent scientists. However, I think that conclusion "does not exist" is a bit of a leap of faith without adequate defense. If you think about it for a while you should see that they arrive at that conclusion because they cannot comprehend any way to prove its contradiction. That makes it a leap of faith. If you follow my work, you will see that it is possible that reality can exist. Oh, it could be just a figment of our imagination but, as I say, I don't think you can prove it.

I would say, what really exists are "things" we try to explain! To come up with that explanation, we create other things which exist only in opinion and not in reality. The names we give to these things are references which are only meaningful in terms of our "explanation".

Sorry wedgebert, but I think I will just ignore your post. Just for your information, www.zetatalk.com is a joke. Nancy is pulling your leg.

Kilopi,

Well, since I said I would get back to you when I finished responding to the rest of the squirrels, it was very nice of you to be the final poster in this list. I appreciate that. Of all the people here, you seem to be the closest to comprehending what I am talking about (excepting perhaps CaptGlenn, he gives every indication of being quite thoughtful). I hope I didn't insult anyone here as I am subject to error!

To reiterate the situation, the solution is the construction of a model and, in that construction, certain freedoms exist in the model. Those freedoms being that the transformation (the pipeline between "reality" and our conscious perception of reality) is completely unexaminable and further, that we are free to add anything our imagination deems worthwhile to the output of that pipeline.

It should be clear that "reality", the pipeline itself and the added things are only examinable by implication from the finished solution: i.e., they are part of the solution and must be left open until we have found a solution to work with. When we have that solution, "reality"; the pipeline and the added things all become explicable in terms of that solution.

Fundamentally, the problem is to come up with universally useable definitions. My first definition is "reality" is a set of numbers (if you want to get more specific with that, think of those numbers as numerical labels of the things that exist what ever they might be). Now everybody barfs all over that one. Nevertheless, it's my model and I can construct it anyway I choose. If you are to complain about it, you must point out a concept of reality which does not consist of things which can be referred to.

The pipeline (which is to represent that "unconscious" processing which we cannot examine) will take some subset of reality and transform it into another set of numbers which are the actual numbers we get to consciously examine. The set we get to consciously examine consists of two very different sets which I will label as "knowable" (they are merely members of the set taken from "reality" and I have no intention of implying that it is possible to know them in the common sense) and "unknowable" (numbers added to the "knowable" set to obtain the examinable set).

My attack is quite different from the ordinary scientific approach to a problem as the common approach is to limit the perspective of the problem to its simplest aspects and then build upon those solutions. My attack is to make every effort not to limit the model in any way. The model I construct must serve any possible circumstance. I bring this out because I want to make it clear that there are only a very few number of complaints about my model which I will accept as valid criticisms. If you understand what I am doing, you will agree that these are the only criticisms of importance. Anything which cannot be placed in one of these categories I will regard as cavils of no significance.

The first possible error I can make is an error in the construction of the model. With regard to this issue, since I am building the model, I am free to do anything I wish without defense. The only possible error is the existence of a "reality" (a set of numbers) which cannot be represented in my model. I may give reasons for my moves but, in the final analysis, those reasons are beside the point. The model is the model.

The second possible error (and this one is very real) is that I have made an error in the deduction of what the model implies. Here, it is important to understand the model as without understanding the model one certainly cannot discuss what is or is not a valid deduction.

Finally, we arrive at the usefulness of the model. Unless one understands the model and the deductions which can be obtained from the model, the model is most definitely useless. I hold it is very useful; however, the real answer to that question is an opinion and not a fact. For that reason, I refuse to even discuss it with anyone who does not understand it.

The final issue is how do we determine the validity of a model, how do we know when we have found a valid solution? What purpose is this model to serve? The answer to this question is primary and leads to my fourth and fifth definitions. If we define the "past" to be the information available to us to construct our model and the "future" to be the information we do not have (the present being a boundary which divides the two different subsets of reality), then a valid model is one which will yield the best subjective probability of the future. Since we may move the boundary in a hypothetical analysis of our solution, the "best" merely means that it must fit the actual circumstances expressed in the past for any given conceivable "present".

Essentially, I will present to you a series of defined concepts, defined in terms of an arbitrary set of numbers and then make use of those definitions to deduce some rather surprising results. If this plan makes sense to you we can discuss the model itself.

Beaver has specified the web site which contains the paper on this subject which I wrote some twenty years ago. If you understand what I have said above, you can skip everything up to Part IV of Chapter 1.

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_I.htm

Have fun -- Dick

Certainly, however, that does not lessen your hostility. It does not serve as an excuse for you to treat us the way you have. On the whole, though, your last post has shown that you are not here to troll or bait us. You actually have some ideas that you have put forth and are actively defending. That scores you a lot of points in my book. Again, when I get a bit of time together, I would like to make some thoughtful comments. Hopefully they will be germane.

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Whats the point of this debate anyways you saidhttp://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/...shtml?show=top

So were going to have a subjective investigation Dick?

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

So if I understand it in the context of this paper, consciousness is perhaps defined as the human mind’s interpretation of an observed ordering of matter and energy, and interpreted via our language, which is rich in metaphor. The invisible exterior cosmos we observe is filtered (via the author’s “pipeline”) into symbols and these in turn give shapes to our interpretation.

Sound is of course silent until our eardrums hear it. (The actual vibrations propagate but until a membrane reacts, the phenomenon exists in a silent form.) Likewise, light propagates as un-visualized electromagnetic waves, until it falls on one’s retina or on an instrument. Some might say it doesn’t exist at all.

There is another notion to consider. We become aware of our sense of consciousness when we consider it. This can lead to the almost unconscious assumption that this self-awareness is in fact what consciousness is. But it need not be. Is consciousness necessary for interpreting the cosmos? Is it necessary for learning?
:wink:

I assume your definition of deep/depth is extracted from a dictionary that varies from mine. If you have definition I am not aware of , please let me know. Or is this too deep for your depth?

I am trying to understand as to which orifice in your torso this statement starts its endless cycle; which direction it is going; how often it has been 'refined' on its way; and where it started picking up a familiar smell.

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

Heh, sounds like the Matrix. Everything is just an electrical signal interpreted by your brain .

__________________
"Most editorials are written by people that love to argue but got kicked off debate team for not making any sense." -Seanbaby

I'd say your perception of the posts here is clearly distorted if you can't tell how awful you sound. Allow me to elaborate and then I do have a comment on your topic, at the end.

Here are examples in your own words:
Why are you talking in this condescending and insulting way to people you don't even know? I'm not convinced of your intelligence yet, so should I tell you that?

Communication takes a sender, a receiver, and a medium. You are apparently assuming communication was successful and therefore concluding comprehension was the barrier. But if your assumption isn't valid, neither is your conclusion.

You should ignore it, he wasn't even talking to you. Wedgebert was talking to Mike about the AI test for intelligence.

Starting a thread doesn't mean you are the sole communicator on it.

And, IMHO, zetatalk is the result of mental illness. Nancy's reality is eactly the 'all in your mind' reality you are discussing.

This is an oversimplification of brain development. There are critical periods where certain things such as language acquisition must occur. It appears, and we don't really have enough examples to be certain, that if a person has no communication stimulus for the first 10+ or - years, they will be unable to acquire language. But a deaf person who's hearing is restored as an adult, can learn language. So what you are attributing to sensory input, sound, is not the critical brain feature in this problem. It is the intellectual skill of communication. In other words, language, written, spoken, signed, what ever that must be built in the brain by a certain developmental stage or the structures needed will not be able to form.

If I don't experience any color sensory input, I don't expect the color receptors in the eye to deteriorate. Whether or not I have to build a brain structure to perceive that color, and whether or not there is a time limit are possibilities.

Well, here's the statement I actually wish to comment on. Of course there are errors in one's mental image of reality!!!!!!! Biologists, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Neurologists, Healthcare Professionals, and just about anyone with a little education on how the brain functions knows that.

I did not find your model to be of any practical use. It doesn't add anything to my conceptualization of the Universe. And, I think brain research has already started to break down exactly what and how brain mechanisms and structure affect and interact with incoming stimuli to create individual realities.

It is my opinion that you are trying to make a model of reality based on human perceptions of the reality. Well, the reality was there long before the human mind was so I don't think your line of reasoning is useful. And, research into brain structure and function will yield a lot more useful information about our individual constructions of reality.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Thanks for your insightful post beskeptical. "Dr. Dick" during the course of his posts became to impolite and strangely troll-like for me to want to communicate with. But I'm sure he'll probably be back periodically.

As for my little contribution to this thread, I'll answer my own inquiry. (I may be wrong, but at least there is symmetry in that. :wink: )
Is consciousness necessary for interpreting the cosmos? Is it necessary for learning? - No. (Though I'm glad we have it.)

Chip, are you sure you mean consciousness, and not sentience?

__________________
'Sir........, I don't like these numbers.'
'Then hire somebody that can change them!'
("`-/")_.-'"``-.,,
\. . `; -._( );, `)
(v_,)' _ )`-. \ ``'`
_.- _..-/ /((.'
((,.-' ((,/

Yeah, what do you learn while you're unconscious--watch out for speeding trucks?

Hi,
Sentience, Consciousness, Yes. "Unconscious" is not the same as "no consciousness." This can take us a bit off topic so I’ll just recommend a book I found interesting. Look over the mini reviews here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...872869-9216025

:wink:

Switching gears and moving back to....

This is right up Keith Devlin's alley (Goodbye, Descartes)....

So much understanding depends on the context of the communication, not just on the cultural level, but on the individual level as well. As all writers or presenters should determine, "Who is the audience?" In any communication, there is this variable "background" of common understandings.

Devlin and colleagues at Stanford University's Center for the Study of Language and Communication have been researching how to properly account for this context. They've come up with Situation Theory.

Here's an interesting little analogy....

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

That's for sure.
That's the book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, which was published over thirty years ago I think. It's been a while since I read the book. Are you using "unconscious" in the same fashion as in those mini reviews?

Yes. But let's stay with astronomy here and discuss in email if you like.

However, I have occasionally alluded to that book here with regards to other threads containing speculations about "alien intelligence." I wanted to open people's ideas up beyond just applying our modern way of thinking to an unknown "intelligent" lifeform.

OK, but that's going to be tough to do, considering the OT.

I'm pretty sure that Julian Jaynes idea has fallen by the wayside--except maybe for those people who still hear voices.

Acronym Definition @Amazon.com
FOAD Formation Ouverte À Distance (French: e-learning)
FOAD Freak Off And Die (polite form)

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Cute. Though its doubtful that Jaynes' central thesis will ever be proven, a lot of his insights and peripheral studies have been assimilated into psychology, at least as far as I gather from articles that pop up from time to time for years, and from a friend who is head administrator for the psychiatric division of Indiana's hospital system. Jaynes' insights into how music works in the brain, as well as some forms of mental illness and hallucinations are still relevant. In short, not to be fully dismissed. Worth an occasional re-read. Also, he was a fine writer, even poetic at times. (And the origin of poetry is also relevant to his theories.) :wink:

Do you think we scared Dr Dick away?

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

I hope not. He was here about a year ago, maybe he'll be back again. On the other hand, I fear I have brought Gary Redmond out of lurking. What have I done?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

On a similar note, I've figured out how to fly without any mechanical assistance. It's very easy to do and I can do it quite well. What do you think of my technique? Or are you all too stupid to understand my explanation of it?

PS Buy my book

Well, that's easy! You just have to fall and miss the ground!

(credit to Douglas Adams...)

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

__________________
Contrary to the opinion of the press, the public, and their mothers, most scientists are dull and uninteresting people.
- James Watson

Apparently Dr Dick was not happy with the less than supportive responses he got. I'll try one bump to see if he will respond to the challenges or run away and dismiss us as not worthy of his intellect. 8)

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Supportive is not the issue and I don't judge other's worthiness. I just haven't seen a response which indicates anyone here understands or is interested in understanding what I said.

Ignorance is its own reward.-- Have fun, I wouldn't want to disturb the party!

Must be nice to be so much smarter than everybody else.

It must be fun to be dumb, it sure is popular!

I read through this entire topic before posting. At least three posts were made saying "Interesting, please explain your assertions more so we can have a conversation on your points." You persisted in making vague comments lacking any assertion, point, or support. Such things are not really open for discussion, ergo there has been no discussion of your actual 'idea' whatever it may be.
Instead, there has been a discussion of your behavior, as that's all you've left us with.
Why not give us something else to talk about?

__________________
Contrary to the opinion of the press, the public, and their mothers, most scientists are dull and uninteresting people.
- James Watson