Dear Craig, I was cheering and AMENing throughout the talk.
I especially liked the Category theoretic equation of interaction at http://youtu.be/dqDP34a-epI 22:04. Notice that the horizontal arrow point in opposite directions!!!! On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: > > > 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. > Right, it is more subtle. The 1p is the model of the experience, which is being computed (by the definition of computation that I use: any transformation of information), as it is updated such that the N -> N+1. What is happening is that the Agent is interacting with itself indirectly. Self-reference is this loop. Not a closed loop mind you, as N keeps chugging along defining subjective flow of time. If there is a duality such as I propose, it would be a duality between the Diagram at 22:04 and another where the direction of the arrows is reversed. > > >> >> >>> >>>> 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) > There must be, we need probability spaces after all. But they do not have inherent properties. We cannot measure a probability itself... > > >> >>> 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 a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/WQbd-zdasyg/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. > -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 [email protected] http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- 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.
