# Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists

On 31 Mar, 16:35, leland.mcin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 27, 11:24 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 28 Mar, 01:30, leland.mcin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 27, 4:29 pm, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 27 Mar, 15:41, leland.mcin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mar 27, 9:48 am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 27 Mar, 12:05, leland.mcin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

<snip>

To have an FPP the nodes need to be linked because a set of neurons
does not a neural network make. Make a network and you have the
potential to have an FPP, and the FPP will be some part of that
network. Now, put a picture distributed across 100 nodes in that
network that is the FPP. Lo, they do no need to communicate anything
along any of those network connections to "assemble" the picture. The
picture is already in the FPP -- in the network. So yes, the nodes
have to be connected, but that's so you can actually have a neural
NETWORK and some hope of having a general FPP and sense of "I". Once
you have those connections the 100 nodes don't need to communicate
anything along any of those connections to "communicate the picture"
to the "I", since the "I" already has the picture.

Communication is necessary for the general FPP, the "I", to exist.
Communication is not necessary for that FPP to have an FPP of the
picture. So yes the nodes have to be connected, but no they don't have
to communicate along those connections. The reasons for connections
and (lack of) communication are different.

So in an ANN where the nodes are connected by electrical conductors,
could be generally communicating between the nodes, and have an FPP,
the "I" to exist. Though there could be a section of 100 nodes in the
network which had been fed a pixel each from a 10 x 10 picture. These
nodes wouldn't need to communicate the information they contained for
the "I" of the system to know the 10 x 10 picture, is that what you
are saying?

We're getting closer. Connect the nodes with whatever mechanism you
like, but there needs to be connections (otherwise it isn't much of a
network). The topology of those connections has a great deal to say
about the system, so having connections are important. It's also going
to matter that the system/network is connected in the sense of having
only one connected component in the graph theory sense. That is, for
any two nodes in the network, there is *some* path (potentially over
many different connections) between those nodes. Isolated components
are not "part of the network/system", but are a separate system.

Now, given a system in the sense above, and presuming that it has
whatever it takes in terms of complexity, topology of connections,
etc. to have an "I", can the "I" of that system "know" the picture if
it is scattered across 100 different nodes of the system with no
further communication? Yes, it can. It will need to be the right 100
nodes of course (according to the structure and topology of the
system), and to actually act on the picture some communication will
have to occur, but to "know" the picture takes no further effort. That
is, there is no need to "assemble" the picture into a representation
for the "I", since the 100 nodes each containing a pixel of the
picture *is* a representation of the picture, and it is already
contained in (and therefore part of and presented to) the "I" of the
system. Action based on the picture can occur without having to "bring
the picture together" because it is already "together" within the
portion of the system that is the "I". There is no more "presenting"
to be done.

You certainly sound like a bit of an expert on it. So there are
special topologies where the system will gain a first person
perspective, what it is to be like, the "I". That as long as it has
this "I" as long as the information regarding each pixel of the
picture is stored in the right place, there doesn't have to be any
communication from the node for the "I" of the system to see what the
picture is. Sorry if this seems like a repetition of what you said,
but I wanted to be sure I was understanding all the technical details.

I am woefully far from being an expert. This particular point
(expanding the concept of "I" to allow it to embrace the
representation of something) doesn't seem that hard. Otherwise, in
general, yes, your summary is reasonably accurate. Since I am not an
expert, there remains potential for my summaries of other peoples
ideas to have left out, or failed to fully specify points. If you
actually want details, rather than summaries of general understanding
from non-experts, then you could always try consulting some of the
many texts on this matter that you have been repeatedly pointed toward
by several different people here, including myself.

I am away this weekend, so I'm you won't be getting any responses from
me for a while. Given that others here seem to understand the idea I'm
trying to get across at least as well as I do, you can always look to
them.

Sure ok. Your version of the story does differ from theirs somewhat,
as you state that functionalism is false. Your states that if the
system where communications were done by a persistent physical
connection, and which had the 100 non communicating nodes scattered
throughout it, in the topologically suitable places, was reimplemented
such that the nodes were separated in space but the  communications
were done by laser (which doesn't require a permanent physical
connection), that the first person perspective would be different. Yet
the function of the systems would remain identical. Certainly with
functionalism, the first person perspective was supposed to just be an
identity of function. Your story has travelled away from that
suggestion. So given the potential for the uniqueness of your story it
seems I'll have to wait for you to get back, though can I just ask,
would you be suggesting that the system implemented with the
persistent physical connections would be able to report on what he
picture was?- Hide quoted text -

Oh dear, you seem to have misinterpreted (or, at least, introduced
unnecessary complications into) what I was trying to say. My story is
really little different from the others; the only points where it
differed were in inessential details which, for some reason, are
apparently the ones you are focussing on. My story would work just as
well with "laser connections" or what have you. All that is required
is that the connections all exist potentially; we need a neural
*network* and that involves connections. The connections, of course,
will have to have been "trained" for the network to be doing anything
useful, so we're talking about configured connections... but they
don't have to be "active" or "physically connected" at that exact
moment. The image exists within the network and is thus "presented".
It doesn't need to be "gathered", but instead can be parcelled off as
is for requisite actions to be taken.

Anyway, dicussion seems to have moved on, so I'm not that interested
in pressing this point unless you seriously continue to not understand
quite what I'm getting at.

I'm quite happy to continue to investigate your story, and about the
nodes only requiring potential laser connections. Are you going to
make up a frequency for the how often the communication from a
particular node has to take place for it to be regarded as having a
potential connection?

So we are back to the 100 nodes with a 10x10 picture in an ANN with
laser connections. Do they have to explicitly communicate the picture
to the rest of the system for the "I" of the system to have a FPP of
the picture, or is the potential for the system to be able to
communicate with them enough?

.

## Relevant Pages

• Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
... nodes only requiring potential laser connections. ... network to already be *configured in some particular way (it is the ... Do they have to explicitly communicate the picture ...
(talk.origins)
• Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
... does not a neural network make. ... they do no need to communicate anything ... along any of those network connections to "assemble" the picture. ...
(talk.origins)
• Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
... does not a neural network make. ... potential to have an FPP, and the FPP will be some part of that ... along any of those network connections to "assemble" the picture. ...
(talk.origins)
• Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
... does not a neural network make. ... potential to have an FPP, and the FPP will be some part of that ... along any of those network connections to "assemble" the picture. ...
(talk.origins)
• Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
...  You cannot build a neural network out ... 100 nodes *do* communicate the information about the second picture ... Similarly the system wouldn't have information about the firing rules, ...
(talk.origins)