OK, thanks, Gregg,
Now I understand, nice blog post. But to me you are not quite drawing the
line between the objective, and the subjective ways of gaining knowledge,
quite in the right place.
Objective perception is always done from afar, where subjective is direct
awareness of intrinsic physical qualities, computationally bound into
conscious awareness.
Objectively obtained information is necessarily substrate independent, as
the information is represented by many different physical links in the
chain, each one of which requires correct interpretation to gain the
information.
Whereas subjective redness, for example, just is – no interpretation, since
we directly apprehend it.
Let’s assume, for a minute, that science will demonstrate that it is
glutamate, reacting in a synapse, that has a redness quality. (If it is
something else, substitute glutamate with whatever it is, in our brain,
that has the redness quality we can directly apprehend.)
Given that, objective observation (Mind 1) results in a description of how
glutamate behaves, and the same glutamate behavior, directly subjectively
apprehended (Mind 2) is redness.
So far, so good,
Mind 1, or the brain, objectively observed from afar, results in only
abstract descriptions of behavior of intrinsic properties.
Mind 2: the same stuff, subjectively directly apprehension of it’s
intrinsic qualities.
But when you say the Mind 3 domain includes both of these, your “domain”
doesn’t match up with the subjective/objective domains I think of at all.
If anything is “intersubjective”, there must be knowledge of one’s self,
AND knowledge of others, all in one brain, computationally bound into any
kind of intersubjective conscious awareness.
[image: image.png]
So, to me, your “Overt actions” drawing where the “public self” of each
brain extends outside the brain and connects “out there” is leaving out a
critically important part. If you want to accurately represent physical
reality, not just the way we think about it, there should be two copies of
each of these, an inversion of each in each brain. In other words, the
knowledge of another person, is in the brain, and only updated via
information that comes through our senses.
But, anyway, I understand why one may want to optimize, and only draw this
picture as if it is one person’s knowledge, because what I’m talking about
is focusing on a different domain than what you are talking about? So, in
your domain, it is simpler and communicates more effectively to draw it as
a single image. But if you want to understand real consciousness (i.e., if
you know something, there must be something in the brain that is that
knowledge in the brain.) Your domain is leaving out a critically important
part.
Objectively obtained information and subjectively directly apprehended
qualitative information about reality are never intermixed in any kind of a
mind 3, except to think of them as being the same thing. Mind 1 being
observing the physics of consciousness from afar, and Mind 2 being
subjectively directly apprehending the same physics.
I'm having a feeling of deja-vu. We've already had this conversation,
before, right?
Brent
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:41 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Brent,
>
> For a quick summary of my meanings of Mind1, 2, and 3, see this blog
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202006_what-2Dare-2Dmental-2Dprocesses&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=c62XhfIz7-uny_NPdp5h3y67YLAQpsRYPu6K8PHCNLk&s=udXS7vphlltfXs4J4bj7z6BfxDvpC874b5SkTEwyTD8&e= >.
> Hopefully that will clarify how I define the terms. If not, I am happy to
> explicate it further.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
> *Sent:* Monday, August 24, 2020 9:58 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Interview with a Robot about Consciousness
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> Very interesting piece, thanks for sharing.
>
> I think I understand and agree with what you are saying with: "it would
> have not screwed up the answer, but would have clearly differentiated
> self-conscious (Mind3) from sentience/phenomenology (Mind2)."
>
> To me, you can get closer to this idea by simply asking: "What is redness
> like for you?" which could result in 3 general different answers.
>
> 1: My redness is like your redness. (Mine is the same as yours)
>
> 2: My redness is like your greenness. (Mine is phenomenal, like yours,
> but qualitatively different)
>
> 3. My knowledge is abstracted, represented with words like 'red'. (My
> knowledge is abstracted away from physical qualities, so can be represented
> by anything, as long as you have a dictionary to tell me which physics is a
> 1, and which is a 0...)
>
>
>
> But help me better understand what (Mind3) vs (Mind2) are and how this
> fits into the ToK, as it seems you may be missing something, but I am
> probably just not fully understanding.
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 3:11 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi TOK Folks,
>
>
>
> Here is a blog to make you think
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_science-2Dand-2Dphilosophy_202008_what-2Ddoes-2Dartificial-2Dintelligence-2Dthink-2Dabout-2Dconsciousness&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=JR9_ulpAwtUTm49hlSl3aEnMIuV1l8XkYALv8rJqy50&s=aDP_NqNhaqz2sm-8Nfm3AtV1VrXUcGpdSTP46FbtuL0&e=>
> about mind, consciousness, and the future.
>
>
>
> From a ToK System perspective, the 21st Century sees the transition
> from the Cultural-Personal into the Digital-MetaCultural dimension, which
> will be massively shaped by Person-AI interface embedded in the digital
> landscape (which, of course, is embedded in other landscapes, although, as
> this blog reminds us, the digital is, in some ways, potentially less
> embedded in the sense that the mediums of information processing and
> communication are not based in the Life-Mind world directly).
>
>
>
> I believe that if we were to design an AI system based on the language
> game provided by the ToK System, it would have not screwed up the answer,
> but would have clearly differentiated self-conscious (Mind3) from
> sentience/phenomenology (Mind2). Indeed, it would have said that it was
> “weird” relative to natural consciousness, as it had many features of
> self-consciousness but lacked sentience.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Department of Graduate Psychology
> 216 Johnston Hall
> MSC 7401
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>
>
> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>
> Check out the Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.toksociety.org_home&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=c62XhfIz7-uny_NPdp5h3y67YLAQpsRYPu6K8PHCNLk&s=Ag-T3UU0uIEnTh9gPS2P-XLc4Bp4BUGqC0U1-hfg-kA&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.toksociety.org_home&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=wjF8cZoiFchamTuxBdDEmw&m=57e2I6uWglJ4JwStWjClCslCp37381OxvNIxockoINI&s=aRdOGoP0Bdt7IhOV8uIntjmwOR6o8wiDviSHJrpgpaM&e=>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
