On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:26:15 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > 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. >
If computation isn't already an experience though, I don't see it as plausible that it would need to construct something like that. > > >> >>> 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. > Why isn't that a raw stuff? (Metaphorically) > >> 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.
