Dear Craig, On Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:54:19 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:59:50 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: >> >> Hey Craig! >> >> I watched the video... very cool! >> > > Hi Dan, glad you liked it. > > >> >> Questions: >> >> 1) Who is the user of the interface? What is "us"? >> > > I'm not sure what Hoffman's answer would be, but I think that the user is > experience itself. Questions about consciousness all involve correlating > different levels and categories of experience, but everyone seems to > overlook the levels and categories themselves. It is the discernment of > aesthetic particulars, rather than generic data which makes up > consciousness and the universe. The experience of users or us is part of > that, rather than the other way around. We are an experience of "us" having > experiences. >
I would say that the the user is the the model of self within the model of experience. Experience is a computational construct. > >> 2) What is the interface representing? Hoffman uses the analogy of the >> file and the trash bin icons on the desktop. In a computer, I know that the >> file ultimately represents binary values that are encoded on a physical >> portion of my hard disk. The values themselves are voltage potentials that >> are sustained in a persistent way thanks to the laws of quantum physics >> (aside: jeez, who would have thought such a "random" theory could provide >> such stability at the macroscopic level?) and are interpreted by a human >> user. What is the analogue of the voltage potentials in the interface >> theory? >> > > Again, I don't know what he would say, but to me, the interface is > representing the presence of experience on some distant level. The raw > stuff of the universe, in my view, is self-nesting sensory-motive > phenomena...represented by more of the same. > I would say that there is no "raw stuff" there is only nested levels of models of incontrovertible experiential content. > > Thanks, > Craig > > >> Cheers, >> >> Dan >> >> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:31:56 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of >>> Consciousness<http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dqDP34a-epI> >>> >>> A very good presentation with lot of overlap on my views. He proposes >>> similar ideas about a sensory-motive primitive and the nature of the world >>> as experience rather than “objective”. What is not factored in is the >>> relation between local and remote experiences and how that relation >>> actually defines the appearance of that relation. Instead of seeing agents >>> as isolated mechanisms, I think they should be seen as more like breaches >>> in the fabric of insensitivity. >>> >>> It is a little misleading to say (near the end) that a spoon is no more >>> public than a headache. In my view what makes a spoon different from a >>> headache is precisely that the metal is more public than the private >>> experience of a headache. If we make the mistake of assuming an Absolutely >>> public perspective*, then yes, the spoon is not in it, because the spoon is >>> different things depending on how small, large, fast, or slow you are. For >>> the same reason, however, nothing can be said to be in such a perspective. >>> There is no experience of the world which does not originate through the >>> relativity of experience itself. Of course the spoon is more public than a >>> headache, in our experience. To think otherwise as a literal truth would be >>> psychotic or solipsistic. In the Absolute sense, sure, the spoon is a >>> sensory phenomena and nothing else, it is not purely public (nothing is), >>> but locally, is certainly is ‘more’ public. >>> >>> Something that he mentioned in the presentation had to do with linear >>> algebra and using a matrix of columns which add up to be one. To really >>> jump off into a new level of understanding consciousness, I would think of >>> the totality of experience as something like a matrix of columns which add >>> up, not to 1, but to “=1″. Adding up to 1 is a good enough starting point, >>> as it allows us to think of agents as holes which feel separate on one side >>> and united on the other. Thinking of it as “=1″ instead makes it into a >>> portable unity that does something. Each hole recapitulates the totality as >>> well as its own relation to that recapitulation: ‘just like’ unity. From >>> there, the door is open to universal metaphor and local contrasts of degree >>> and kind. >>> >>> *mathematics invites to do this, because it inverts the naming function >>> of language. Instead of describing a phenomenon in our experience through a >>> common sense of language, math enumerates relationships between theories >>> about experience. The difference is that language can either project itself >>> publicly or integrate public-facing experiences privately, but math is a >>> language which can only face itself. Through math, reflections of >>> experience are fragmented and re-assembled into an ideal rationality – the >>> ideal rationality which reflects the very ideal of rationality that it >>> embodies. >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
