Re: Computer being developed modeled after human brain

casey <jgkjcasey@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 25, 3:23=A0pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It's more like information provides the means
of a system controlling other systems and
controlling itself.

Ok, but the debate was about the physical nature
of an abstraction, such as "information". Curt
will point out that the abstraction exists in some
physical form in the brain and is thus physical.

Right. When we talk about an abstraction, we are in fact talking about the
behavior of a human brain. We don't normally bother to think of it in
those terms (and for every day use, we can totally ignore that fact), but
that is what we are actually talking about.

This is because in every day use, we regularly confuse the distinction
about what happens in the brain, and what happens outside of the brain. Is
red in the apple, or in the brain? When I go out to buy, and eat, red
apples, it makes no difference, if the people I talk to, understand the
difference. I can ask the grocer where to find the red apples, or how much
the red apple cost, even if he has no clue about what red is, and where it
exists.

This, for the most part, is true about the meaning of almost every word we
use. Words are used to label aspects of the universe, but the meaning of
the word, is defined by our brain hardware. Tghe light, or the things out
in the universe that create it, exist outside the brain. But the way the
brain classifies that physical event, and respond to it by producing the
word "red" is something that happens in the brain.

The classification of physical events as "things" and "actions" is likewise
something the brain does, not something that exists "out there".

It was also about what is a physical object.
Curt seems to be saying that an apple IS what an
apple DOES, presumably, what it does physically
in the brain that is doing "apple".

The apple is what it is (a continuous flow of physical events) whether
there's a brain to be effected by those events or not. When I talk about
applies, I normally am making a reference to the thing "out there" that
exists even when I'm not here. I think you (John) tend to do just the
opposite. You are more likely to making reference to what is happening "in
here".

If we build a robot with a camera and audio output, and make it produce the
words "I see a red apple" when a red apple is placed in its field of
vision, what is that robot "talking about"? Is it talking about the apple,
ort the light spectrum reflected from it? Or is it talking about the
internal behavior (signals) of the hardware inside its head that is the
indication that the machine has classified those physical events as a "red
apple" events even before it started to make the speaker vibrate to produce
the words?

In normal day to day communication, the distinction is not relevant. But
in these debates of mind and brain, the distinction becomes very important.
The only reason that robot knows it has seen a red apple (in it's mind) is
because there is internal hardware that represents the "red apple" event.
So when it says it sees a red apple, is it talking about seeing those
internal hardware events, or seeing the apple out there?

Does the red apple abstraction exist in the computer hardware, or in the
apple out there? Well, the definition of what a "red apple" is, is defined
in the robot hardware, not in the apple. But regardless of where the
meaning of the words are defined, the apple the robot is talking about
still exists both "out there" and "in here" as the signals which represent
the "red apple" for the robot. And when the robot is talking about red
apples, it's really talking about both unless it's gets specific about
which it's talking about - but that would require abstractions about the
perception of red apples which is a bit complex for most robots today. :)

To say everything is an action in a brain may
be true but it is not in my opinion very useful.

I have never said everything is an action in the brain. You are the one
that seems to like to think in those terms by choosing to believe when you
talk about an apple, or when you "see" an apple, you are only seeing your
own internal brain behavior (qualia), and not the apple "out there". I
tend to do just the opposite. I tend to think in terms of the apple out
there, and ignore the fact that is internal brain behavior happening that
allows me to know about the apple out there.

When I talk about red light, I'm not talking about my red brain qualia.
I'm talking about the the electromagnetic spectrum out there. It's just my
brain qualia which has classified the event out there as falling into the
"red light" classification.

"seeing red" is a brain event. "Seeing" a montior as a thing, instead of
an action" is a brain event. but the red apple, and the monitor, are
things "out there".

The abstraction is defined by how our hardware works, but it makes
reference to things "out there".

To say that a noun is a verb may make an English
class with teacher Curt at the blackboard an
easy lesson but it will not give you the rich
vocabulary required to really understand how it
all works in detail.

JC

Yes, the question isn't whether nouns and verbs are useful (they are). The
question is what are they? Are they attributes of the universe, or
creations of the brain? The answer is that the distinction between what is
a "thing" and what is an "action", is not something that happens "out
there", but instead, happens "in here". The distinction between thing and
action, is exactly like the distinction between red and blue. It's an
arbitrary (but useful) classification of sensory data performed by the
human brain.

Where does black turn into white? Or light turn into dark? Or quiet into
loud? The classification is something created by the brain, not by the
universe "out there". But it's a very useful classification because it
allows us to communicate to others a rough idea of the physical effects we
are talking about. Before it's useful, we have to condition everyone to use
approximately the same convention, but that happens as a normal part of
trying to communicate.

Just like a measurement system is totally arbitrary. To say a stick is 8
cm long is a very useful communication tool. We classify some physical
event into the group of 8 cm stick events, instead of classifying it into
the 9 cm group. There is nothing about the sticks, that makes the choose
to divide the two groups at the 9 cm length. It's an arbitrary (but
useful) convention created by the human brain. The classification of
sensory events into "things" vs "actions" is the same type of arbitrary,
but useful, classification. The dividing line between the two doesn't
exist "out there", it exists in how human brain hardware works (and in how
we have been conditioned - by evolved social language convention).

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Computer being developed modeled after human brain
    ... physical form in the brain and is thus physical. ... the red apple cost, even if he has no clue about what red is, and where it ... arbitrary classification of sensory data performed by the ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Computer being developed modeled after human brain
    ... of an abstraction, such as "information". ... about what happens in the brain, and what happens outside of the brain. ... red apples, it makes no difference, if the people I talk to, understand ... apple DOES, presumably, what it does physically ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Something more interesting, please!
    ... Neurons are not equivalent to phenomenal experiences. ... latch onto ideas like firing patterns in the network to explain it. ... self image the brain builds in an attempt to define itself. ... If you drop an apple on the ground, it produces a mark in the dirt. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Debunking simplistic physicalism
    ... but we haven't included the way the brain does it. ... brain would classify as being an apple. ... Strictly speaking, brains don't classify. ... don't grasp but it's a function to me because it takes as input some ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Violations of rights
    ... Show me anything that Apple Computer is doing to affect Apple Corps' ... The other day I saw a plumbing truck with a big red apple on ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
Loading