Re: Friam Digest, Vol 61, Issue 16

[Nick Thompson]

Glen,

Here I am, going on vacation, and you serve me up this marvelous
opportunity to spurn my packing and go on a behaviorist rant.  OUCH!
Unfair tactic.  

Instead, let me just try to connect this discussion to the tussle Robert
and I are having.  I would say that the following passage contains a
category error.

  ==>But there is a consensus reality argument that our conception
> of self (and hence our whole behavioral repertoire) is a function of our
> inner selves.  <==

Now to get square with Robert, I have to demonstrate that this usage of
"self" is fundamentally at odds with [implicit] understandings elsewhere
agreed to in your understanding of mind.  

So, if you think of self as an immaterial something or other,
AND you think of "in" as referring to location within a container.

To speak of a self as being IN something is logically incoherent.  As
robert insists, you can DO it; but as I insist, until you relax one of
these premises, doing it is absurd.  

So, either the self is material,

Or, "in" is understood in some way other than that it occupies a container.


Ok.  Now I am going away.  You and Robert can have your way with me.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])

>
> Message: 22
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:11:05 -0700
> From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
>  > >>Glen<<
>  >
> > 1) >>But, one has to realize that the latter me is just as
> > "real" as the former me.<<
>  >
> > Probably, from a point of view of an
> > authentic self, a degree of such "real-ness" is not very significant
> > - zero probability - and may be ignored almost completely. I think it
> > is "real" because this authentic self exists behind it.
>
> Perhaps.  But there is a consensus reality argument that our conception
> of self (and hence our whole behavioral repertoire) is a function of our
> inner selves.  The argument basically relies on the idea that our inner
> self co-emerges ontogenically right along with our physical self.  And
> to change either one at any stage in ontogenesis is to change the other
> in deep and fundamental ways.
>
> There's also an extension of that argument that says a person's identity
> is as much a function of their peers as it is of their self.
>
> I'm not saying that these are rock solid arguments.  But, to claim that
> the inner self's "real-ness" is insignificant is a denial of those
> arguments and, to defend the claim properly, you'd have to find some
> important fault with those arguments.
>
> > 2) >>But I
> > have to punctuate this argument again with the fact that the
> > constructed reality, those thoughts inside someone's brain, are just
> > as real as the a priori reality<< Yes, but it's very limited and low
> > reality. We try to think about something, but our Selves know it as
> > it is. This difference is what matters.
>
> I agree that the difference is what matters.  But I disagree that our
> constructed inner self is "very limited".  In fact, I'd say that the
> plasticity of our inner self is much greater in some ways than that of
> our physical selves precisely because it sits on a (perhaps imperfect)
> logical layer of abstraction above the physical self.
>
> In other words, our inner self can contemplate obviously fictitious
> things like unicorns and human-traversable wormholes without immediately
> being shot down by reality.  Our physical selves are "trapped" within
> the tight, immediate constraints of physical reality.
>
> But to go back to the main point, those obviously fictitious
> constructions we imagine are still _real_ in that they have a
> perceptible (sometimes immense) impact on the physical world.  (Just
> take a look at all the glittery unicorns on pastel colored notebooks in
> the school supplies section of your local box store. ;-)
>
> > 3)
> >>> Those things like G?del's result and Lie groups are just as real
> >>> as apples, chairs, and the grand canyon.<< apples,... are a
> > result of our perception (interpretation) of reality. They are
> > symbols, constructs like Lie groups. But constructs may be also
> > phantoms (illusions) - without a correlation (a kind of an
> > "isomorphism") with something in reality (or bigger reality) and
> > don't "work" in our practical life. They eventually will disappear.
>
> I agree with the gist of what you're saying.  The fictitious constructs
> of no use to the physical self will die off.  However, we can't be too
> draconian about the word "use".  For example glittery, rainbow-colored
> unicorns serve no apparent purpose (except to young people and wind-bags
> trying to build straw-men ;-), yet they continue unabated.  The reverse
> logic is that all these constructs, fictitious or not, that currently
> exist _must_ be serving some purpose to the physical selves of those who
> hold them.
>
> > 4)  >>Feynman said better: What I cannot create, I do not
> > understand.<< In his Nobel lesson, Feynman said that nobody
> > understands quantum mechanic :-) The key word here is "create" and
> > people mostly misuse it. I think that this phrase should sound like
> > this: what I cannot make, I do not understand (algorithmical
> > understanding). Yes, I agree that the inverse phrase is correct as
> > well... The ability to *make* is an attribute of our rational mind.
> > If one person can make something like a chair, than another one can
> > steal his plan (algorithm, understanding), copy it and sell on the
> > market with a price of *commodity*. But a rational mind cannot
> > *create*. Such ability is an attribute of our Genius. We read poetry
> > for only two reasons: to get a glimpse of its original author - this
> > authentic self, and to enjoy his *creation* - art. We cannot sell to
> > a museum our makes but arts. And the Boston Symphony Orchestra will
> > not perform even a technically sophisticated make... Creation of a
> > genius is mysterious for a rational mind of the "author" as for
> > others. It's why "authors" usually withdraw their interpretations and
> > comments or make (invent) them after all. --Mikhail
>
> Hmmm.  [grin]  You _almost_ convince me!  But, I don't hold this
> Cartesian Partition so strongly.  I believe the activity in the brain is
> real activity and can create (by itself) just as mysteriously as the
> interplay between hands and brain can create.  In fact, it's not clear
> to me that the brain, by itself, can _make_ anything in your sense.  It
> is not regular enough.  Perhaps the more autonomic parts of the brain
> can act so regular.  But, the higher functions seem more artistic than
> methodological.
>
> Whether or not such brain activity is "rational" or not is, I think, a
> red herring.  Rationality is probably a convenient fiction.
>
> Going back to the original point, I maintain that both the act of
> creation and the act of making occur within what I call sensory-motor
> interactions, not somehow "beyond" or behind them.
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 61, Issue 16
> *************************************

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen ep ropella]

Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> So, either the self is material,
>
> Or, "in" is understood in some way other than that it occupies a
> container.

Yes, by "inner self", I was talking about Mikhail's latter "me".

Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
> [second me] is the product of thinking of the first one (me as I
> think about me)

So, I do not intend "inner" to mean "inside a container".  I mean
"inner" in the sense of the mental constructs we build when thinking
about our selves. A model of our selves as viewed from within.

Both "me"s are part of the self, which is exactly the point I was trying
to argue with Mikhail, neither the physical self nor this endo-self are
less real than the other.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Günther Greindl]

I you are interested in models of the self, this could
be for you:

Metzinger, T. Being No One. The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. MIT
Press, 2003

Cheers,
Günther


--
Günther Greindl
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
[hidden email]

Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Mikhail Gorelkin]

Glen, from my 4th part, where I was talking about Feynman's saying and a difference between *our makes* and *creations of our Geniuses*, I thought that it was clear that two "me" are actually: me and my invisible Genius (or esoterically - ye, I know that you hate such stuff :-) But how about "The Matrix"? - speaking "Higher Self"). Sorry, it was some fuzzy-ness in my definitions but I think that it is an essential stuff in moving toward a clarification... --Mikhail

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:30 PM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 61, Issue 16

Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> So, either the self is material,
>
> Or, "in" is understood in some way other than that it occupies a
> container.

Yes, by "inner self", I was talking about Mikhail's latter "me".

Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
> [second me] is the product of thinking of the first one (me as I
> think about me)

So, I do not intend "inner" to mean "inside a container".  I mean
"inner" in the sense of the mental constructs we build when thinking
about our selves. A model of our selves as viewed from within.

Both "me"s are part of the self, which is exactly the point I was trying
to argue with Mikhail, neither the physical self nor this endo-self are
less real than the other.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen ep ropella]

Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
> Glen, from my 4th part, where I was talking about Feynman's saying
> and a difference between *our makes* and *creations of our Geniuses*,
>  I thought that it was clear that two "me" are actually: me and my
> invisible Genius (or esoterically - ye, I know that you hate such
> stuff :-) But how about "The Matrix"? - speaking "Higher Self").
> Sorry, it was some fuzzy-ness in my definitions but I think that it
> is an essential stuff in moving toward a clarification... --Mikhail

How is "my invisible Genius" different from what I described, namely,
"the constructs we infer from observing ourselves"?

I'm not that fond of "The Matrix" either. [grin]  Sorry.  It's a nice
idea; but I don't believe the logical abstraction layer between mind and
body is complete.  Our minds are just as real, just as physical, as are
our bodies.  So, something that happens to me in the matrix is happening
in reality, as well.  Of course, the external _impact_ of something that
happens in the matrix (in our heads) will be either less overall, or the
impact will be convoluted (intertwined).  But it's definitely not
insignificant.

Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:

>> Or are you simply saying that a metaphysical/supernatural
>> hypothesis like your "creation is beyond language" is a belief that
>>  cannot be debated? One either accepts it or one doesn't and no
>> argument is powerful enough to change one's position?
>
> Yes, I meant something like this, but I prefer to use another, more
> appropriate, terminology (it seems that Chaitin mean the same):
> *reality as it is* ("outside" of our perception). I think that
> perceived image of reality that we claim as "our reality" is not
> complete and not very accurate as any interpretation.

But, languages and other sensory-motor interactions _are_ "reality as it
is" ("outside" of our perception).  Perhaps I haven't been clear.  I'm
not talking about _my_ solipsist, private perception.  I'm talking about
real stuff, sound waves going from one to another through the air, light
waves going from one to another through space, languages as represented
in the dictionary and grammar texts, math as its written on paper or
implemented in computer programs, etc.

This is distinct, however, from the unobservable, non-SMI reality
referred to by physics and biology, which is occult and can only be
gotten at through co-constructed things like language.

Languages are real and independent of any one yahoo's _perception_ of
them.  Not only that, they are _more_ real than those a priori things
that we haven't co-constructed.

> And our
> evolution (as our consciousness grows from our current level toward
> our Higher Selves) is also about extension and clarification of this
> perception of reality. Or we can say: our "reality" is extending
> (it's an isomorphic expression). It seems that theologians, mystics,
> philosophers were first to recognize / experience bigger reality
> behind our "regular" perception of it, and now we need to extend our
> languages (references) and models to "work" with the same things. I
> got from Chaitin's lesson that he tries mathematically to articulate
> something like that... without using a word "divine" :-)

Right.  And that is definitely metaphysical and we have little hope of
ever handling such stuff methodically.  What we _can_ do is collectively
construct synthetic devices like language and make attempts to capture
our subjective perceptions inside that objective language.  Doing so
makes the perception more real than it was before it was made explicit,
which is why I say that things in the SMI set are real but the things
beyond it (e.g. actual electrons, atoms, black holes, etc.) are not.

English is real, atoms are a convenient fiction.  But an English _story_
about atoms is real.  The instructions, training, and usage of an
electron microscope is real, but the actual electron microscope is a
convenient fiction that facilitates our real interactions.

Sorry for not being clear.  Perhaps the above will help. 8-)

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Mikhail Gorelkin]

Glen, 1) >>I'm talking about real stuff, sound waves going from one to another through the air<< Yes, sound waves are real, but their real-ness is *meaningless*. Sound waves are not words. They become words only in a realm of our subjectivity. Not my subjectivity, but also yours,... our *shared* subjectivity. We call it *objective subjectivity*, and it has only a "glimpse" of reality, not full real-ness because it doesn't exist outside all of us. >>light waves going from one to another through space << it's the same. >>But an English _story_ about atoms is real. The instructions, training, and usage of an electron microscope is real<< Any written word is just a meaningless symbol, hieroglyph as well as their sequence. Actually, recognition of the difference between a symbol and a sequence of symbols belongs to the same realm of objective subjectivity. And it is in this realm such a sequence becomes a text written in English (if we don't know Chinese, all their written wisdom is meaningless hieroglyphs for us). It means only the presence of a subject transforms some real-ness into an English text... 2) What is an English word? For example, "beautiful"? Is beauty-ness real like a sound wave? A particular beautiful woman belongs to the realm of objective subjectivity, but beauty-ness is a common (and quite fuzzy) attribute of a beautiful woman, a beautiful picture, a beautiful weather,... It's a categorization. And there is some arbitrary-ness here. For example, if I run ART1 algorithm to classify some things and after all name each result (cluster) as "A", "B", "C",... , than running the same algorithm with the same things but in a different order gives me another classification and another "A"-ness! It means that "A"-ness doesn't exist by itself, it's just a label to separate it from others and this label is not very clear because different sets may "define" it (differently). And the label "A" is just a reference to "A"-cluster, which, probably, is the same kind of real-ness as the cluster itself. In this example, a "meaning" of a word (a label) "A" is arbitrary... 3) What is a language? It seems it's construction of references (in the realm of objective subjectivity, which means we should know how to "interpret" them, how to "connect" them with other constructs in the same realm), and linguistics deals with "correct" construction *rules* and this *correct-ness*... --Mikhail P.S. >>How is "my invisible Genius" different from what I described, namely, "the constructs we infer from observing ourselves"? In some sense, he (my invisible Genius) is observing us :-) We are that construct, and we exist because of his presence behind us. But there is also our low (instinctive, animal) self, and some African artists represent a man with three faces: his low-, rational-, and higher selves. --Mikhail

 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:56 PM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music

Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
> Glen, from my 4th part, where I was talking about Feynman's saying
> and a difference between *our makes* and *creations of our Geniuses*,
>  I thought that it was clear that two "me" are actually: me and my
> invisible Genius (or esoterically - ye, I know that you hate such
> stuff :-) But how about "The Matrix"? - speaking "Higher Self").
> Sorry, it was some fuzzy-ness in my definitions but I think that it
> is an essential stuff in moving toward a clarification... --Mikhail

How is "my invisible Genius" different from what I described, namely,
"the constructs we infer from observing ourselves"?

I'm not that fond of "The Matrix" either. [grin]  Sorry.  It's a nice
idea; but I don't believe the logical abstraction layer between mind and
body is complete.  Our minds are just as real, just as physical, as are
our bodies.  So, something that happens to me in the matrix is happening
in reality, as well.  Of course, the external _impact_ of something that
happens in the matrix (in our heads) will be either less overall, or the
impact will be convoluted (intertwined).  But it's definitely not
insignificant.

Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:

>> Or are you simply saying that a metaphysical/supernatural
>> hypothesis like your "creation is beyond language" is a belief that
>>  cannot be debated? One either accepts it or one doesn't and no
>> argument is powerful enough to change one's position?
>
> Yes, I meant something like this, but I prefer to use another, more
> appropriate, terminology (it seems that Chaitin mean the same):
> *reality as it is* ("outside" of our perception). I think that
> perceived image of reality that we claim as "our reality" is not
> complete and not very accurate as any interpretation.

But, languages and other sensory-motor interactions _are_ "reality as it
is" ("outside" of our perception).  Perhaps I haven't been clear.  I'm
not talking about _my_ solipsist, private perception.  I'm talking about
real stuff, sound waves going from one to another through the air, light
waves going from one to another through space, languages as represented
in the dictionary and grammar texts, math as its written on paper or
implemented in computer programs, etc.

This is distinct, however, from the unobservable, non-SMI reality
referred to by physics and biology, which is occult and can only be
gotten at through co-constructed things like language.

Languages are real and independent of any one yahoo's _perception_ of
them.  Not only that, they are _more_ real than those a priori things
that we haven't co-constructed.

> And our
> evolution (as our consciousness grows from our current level toward
> our Higher Selves) is also about extension and clarification of this
> perception of reality. Or we can say: our "reality" is extending
> (it's an isomorphic expression). It seems that theologians, mystics,
> philosophers were first to recognize / experience bigger reality
> behind our "regular" perception of it, and now we need to extend our
> languages (references) and models to "work" with the same things. I
> got from Chaitin's lesson that he tries mathematically to articulate
> something like that... without using a word "divine" :-)

Right.  And that is definitely metaphysical and we have little hope of
ever handling such stuff methodically.  What we _can_ do is collectively
construct synthetic devices like language and make attempts to capture
our subjective perceptions inside that objective language.  Doing so
makes the perception more real than it was before it was made explicit,
which is why I say that things in the SMI set are real but the things
beyond it (e.g. actual electrons, atoms, black holes, etc.) are not.

English is real, atoms are a convenient fiction.  But an English _story_
about atoms is real.  The instructions, training, and usage of an
electron microscope is real, but the actual electron microscope is a
convenient fiction that facilitates our real interactions.

Sorry for not being clear.  Perhaps the above will help. 8-)

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Mikhail Gorelkin]

We can *refer* to mathematics as seeking (by God) the universal language and a set of the universal rules to express the essence of the world and write the universal program to get "correctly" the rest as its output (like in Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science). --Mikhail

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Mikhail Gorelkin]

Sorry, instead of "as its output", it should be "as it's running" --Mikhail

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 6:33 PM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music

We can *refer* to mathematics as seeking (by God) the universal language and a set of the universal rules to express the essence of the world and write the universal program to get "correctly" the rest as its output (like in Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science). --Mikhail

 

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Mikhail Gorelkin]

I *feel* we need to add here ~Kurzweil’s comments on Wolfram’s results (to cope with Godel :-)). --Mikhail

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:41 PM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music

Sorry, instead of "as its output", it should be "as it's running" --Mikhail

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 6:33 PM

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music

We can *refer* to mathematics as seeking (by God) the universal language and a set of the universal rules to express the essence of the world and write the universal program to get "correctly" the rest as its output (like in Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science). --Mikhail

 

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

---

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org