• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Compatibilism: What's that About?

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
...
You can't have "either", either. You can only have one: the outcome where they are not known absolutely, and are rightly identified as merely assumed due to statistical trends.

Unless the hard determinist wishes to claim that they are God...

In which case I would have a sword to show to them.

You can have as many different perspectives as you can imagine. You can't even have a conversation, if you can't imagine what is in the mind of the person you are talking to. So you have your perspective and at least that imaginary one. Similarly, you can have a godlike omniscient perspective on the universe, where you know both its future and its past--sort of like the author of a novel knowing the past and future of the characters in the novel. Readers of the novel can only imagine what the future of the characters will be until they reach the end of the novel. Then it is all history. So there is a sense in which the imaginary characters have free will. Until they no longer do. And, since the novel is fiction, you know that they don't really have free will. That is an illusion.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,496
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
...
You can't have "either", either. You can only have one: the outcome where they are not known absolutely, and are rightly identified as merely assumed due to statistical trends.

Unless the hard determinist wishes to claim that they are God...

In which case I would have a sword to show to them.

You can have as many different perspectives as you can imagine. You can't even have a conversation, if you can't imagine what is in the mind of the person you are talking to. So you have your perspective and at least that imaginary one. Similarly, you can have a godlike omniscient perspective on the universe, where you know both its future and its past--sort of like the author of a novel knowing the past and future of the characters in the novel. Readers of the novel can only imagine what the future of the characters will be until they reach the end of the novel. Then it is all history. So there is a sense in which the imaginary characters have free will. Until they no longer do. And, since the novel is fiction, you know that they don't really have free will. That is an illusion.
Except that we have this assumption of objective reality being "out there" somewhere being observed. If you wish to take a gods eye view of it that way, you have to acknowledge the material geometries that exist objectively. Those objects, which have a real property of locality that determines the shape they scribe through time in a predictable way, describe trends in the data of that history.

Even if it's all a crystalline block, that crystalline block contains these geometric results from the system that projects it intersected with the data it was "created" with.

You can easily, even as a god, point to some segment of the thing and say "that will is constraining this will from this point to this point, objectively".

The issue is that a book contains a fiction, a mere image and soul without a body that could ever exist in reality.

As soon as a non-contradictory system exists in which this thing that is described is described by, it contains real, objective decisions even from a gods eye view.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Except that we have this assumption of objective reality being "out there" somewhere being observed. If you wish to take a gods eye view of it that way, you have to acknowledge the material geometries that exist objectively. Those objects, which have a real property of locality that determines the shape they scribe through time in a predictable way, describe trends in the data of that history...

My point is that there can be no "objective reality" for us in the end, because we can only interact with our subjective experience of it. Note that you said--"out there" somewhere being observed. You can try to imagine yourself being an omniscient observer of reality, but that makes you a subjective observer, since omniscience gets you into a paradoxical situation where you have to ask whether this godlike perspective can see its own future and therefore be unable to change itself in any way (i.e. have volition). Not a good position for an allegedly omnipotent being to be in. :) That's the point at which true believers in God start mumbling and gibbering things about the ineffability of God.

Anyway, objects only mean anything in terms of how you interact with them, whether passively or actively. A house is a physical object in a location, but only in the minds of beings that can make holistic sense of it. Otherwise, it is just a collection of things that the being actually is able to make sense of. The problem you have is that objects don't exist except in terms of how you interact with them. If you can't interact with them in any way, then they don't exist from your perspective. Our minds construct reality purely out of sensory experience.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,496
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Except that we have this assumption of objective reality being "out there" somewhere being observed. If you wish to take a gods eye view of it that way, you have to acknowledge the material geometries that exist objectively. Those objects, which have a real property of locality that determines the shape they scribe through time in a predictable way, describe trends in the data of that history...

My point is that there can be no "objective reality" for us in the end, because we can only interact with our subjective experience of it. You can try to imagine yourself being an omniscient observer of reality, but that makes you a subjective observer, since omniscience gets you into a paradoxical situation where you have to ask whether this godlike perspective can see its own future and therefore be unable to change itself in any way (i.e. have volition). Not a good position for an allegedly omnipotent being to be in. :) That's the point at which true believers in God start mumbling and gibbering things about the ineffability of God.

Anyway, objects only mean anything in terms of how you interact with them, whether passively or actively. A house is a physical object in a location, but only in the minds of beings that can make holistic sense of it. Otherwise, it is a collection of things that the being actually is able to make sense of. The problem you have is that objects don't exist except in terms of how you interact with them. If you can't interact with them in any way, then they don't exist from your perspective. Our minds construct reality purely out of sensory experience.
So, this is where we part ways, then. One of my axioms, in fact one of THE axioms that we all tacitly assume despite claiming otherwise is that there is a universe, objectively, out there somewhere and that we observe it.

This further implies, whether someone wants to admit it or not, that our "subjective" experience has an "objective" nature which drives it.

This is not up for discussion for me really.

If you can provide a better axiom than to accept the universe outside myself and in it's material composing this self and existing as a basis, it's wants and needs reflections of real geometries even if the things they draw force towards are insufficient to maintain the existence, in general of those forces... Then I will happily evaluate and accept it.

Those forces which "I" am subject to are caused by objective reality, even when I do not entirely understand "how".
 
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
489
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Technically, everything is an illusion, since our models of reality are all interpretations of sense data.

The term "model" is correct. The brain organizes sensory data into a model of reality consisting of objects and events. When the model is accurate enough to be useful, as when we navigate our bodies through a doorway, then we call that "reality", because the model is our only access to reality. It is only when the model is inaccurate enough to cause a problem, as when we walk into a glass door thinking it is open, that the word "illusion" is appropriate.

The notions of "reality" and "illusion" are used to make that important distinction.

... Anything that can be made to disappear from an imagined perspective becomes nonexistent from that perspective.

That which is ignored is not nonexistent. This is also an important distinction.

There is no "free choice" from that perspective.

That would be an illusion. But I do not think the illusion is that time disappears. The illusion is that causal necessity has some sort of agency, which it does not.

If one takes the position of a soft determinist or compatibilist, then one can also shift perspective to one where consequences are unknown. From that perspective the future does not exist, only alternative versions of what it is likely to become.

And we have all experienced that uncertainty and humans have evolved specific language and logic to deal with it. When we do not know what "will" happen, we imagine what "can" happen, to prepare for what "does" happen.

Hard determinists simply refuse to acknowledge that reality can be perceived differently--experienced from different angles. They cling to the delusion that there can be only one possible way to experience of reality. So you have to choose between the reality where all future outcomes are known and the one where they are not known. You can't have both.

But the ordinary "man on the street" has no problem using the correct logic in the correct situation. He speaks and acts with certainty in matters of certainty, like when he is hammering a nail. He speaks and acts with uncertainty, referring to things that he "can" do (like hammering a nail) even when he is not hammering a nail. He imagines building a dog house for his pet, and knows instinctively that his dog cannot sleep in the "possibility" of a dog house but only in an "actual" dog house.

So, ordinary language provides the hard determinist with all the tools he needs to keep things straight in his head. And it is only when he confuses himself with abstractions and draws false inferences from his concepts that he ends up creating paradoxes that are too complex for him to climb out of.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
So, this is where we part ways, then. One of my axioms, in fact one of THE axioms that we all tacitly assume despite claiming otherwise is that there is a universe, objectively, out there somewhere and that we observe it.
We do not part ways on this, since that is exactly my position. The difference I see between us is that you don't want to think of an illusion as an observation, even though illusions are perceptual phenomena by definition. The real problem that most people have with my use of "illusion" is that I don't always use it to mean a kind of deceptive or misleading observation. Illusions are grounded in sensory experiences, and so are our models of what is real. So illusions are real in that sense, even though they may sometimes lead to flawed assumptions about what you refer to as "objective reality". Illusion is a design feature of human perception, not a bug.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Technically, everything is an illusion, since our models of reality are all interpretations of sense data.

The term "model" is correct. The brain organizes sensory data into a model of reality consisting of objects and events. When the model is accurate enough to be useful, as when we navigate our bodies through a doorway, then we call that "reality", because the model is our only access to reality. It is only when the model is inaccurate enough to cause a problem, as when we walk into a glass door thinking it is open, that the word "illusion" is appropriate.

The notions of "reality" and "illusion" are used to make that important distinction.

That depends on how we use the words. Normally, we use "illusion" to refer to a perceptual experience that causes us to misconstrue reality, such as when we walk into a glass door because of the visual illusion caused by the transparency of glass. Glass is solid. However, it is also liquid, because it flows like a liquid over time. And water is not so solid, because we can move our bodies through it. Unless, of course, your body is moving very fast when it comes into contact with the water. That's why water landings can be very dangerous for airplanes. If the airplane speed isn't slowed down enough, the airplane will break apart. So my point is that the solidity of an object can be taken as an accurate reflection of reality or illusion, depending on how we perceive an interaction with it.

... Anything that can be made to disappear from an imagined perspective becomes nonexistent from that perspective.

That which is ignored is not nonexistent. This is also an important distinction.

True, but that's not what I said. You have to perceive something in order to ignore it, but perception always depends on the perspective of the observer. Background perceptions that the mind filters out are still bona fide perceptions of reality.

There is no "free choice" from that perspective.

That would be an illusion. But I do not think the illusion is that time disappears. The illusion is that causal necessity has some sort of agency, which it does not.

Well, we can quibble over what we mean by "disappear". Perhaps "becomes irrelevant to the observer" would be a better characterization of shifting perspective to an observer that is not part of the timeline. That's why I like to bring up the example of reading a novel. Intellectually, we know that the characters in it are not real, but we don't enjoy the illusion of the story unless we can "suspend reality". That is, we shift perspectives in order to enjoy the experience of reading the novel.

If one takes the position of a soft determinist or compatibilist, then one can also shift perspective to one where consequences are unknown. From that perspective the future does not exist, only alternative versions of what it is likely to become.

And we have all experienced that uncertainty and humans have evolved specific language and logic to deal with it. When we do not know what "will" happen, we imagine what "can" happen, to prepare for what "does" happen.

Exactly right. In fact, all animals experience uncertainty and build predictive models of the future. We program robots to do that, as well. Humans have just evolved a means of communicating thoughts through a complex auditory signal. So all languages have tense and aspect expressions to communicate thoughts about when events happen and how long the events last.

Hard determinists simply refuse to acknowledge that reality can be perceived differently--experienced from different angles. They cling to the delusion that there can be only one possible way to experience of reality. So you have to choose between the reality where all future outcomes are known and the one where they are not known. You can't have both.

But the ordinary "man on the street" has no problem using the correct logic in the correct situation. He speaks and acts with certainty in matters of certainty, like when he is hammering a nail. He speaks and acts with uncertainty, referring to things that he "can" do (like hammering a nail) even when he is not hammering a nail. He imagines building a dog house for his pet, and knows instinctively that his dog cannot sleep in the "possibility" of a dog house but only in an "actual" dog house.

So, ordinary language provides the hard determinist with all the tools he needs to keep things straight in his head. And it is only when he confuses himself with abstractions and draws false inferences from his concepts that he ends up creating paradoxes that are too complex for him to climb out of.

This has been the position of so-called  Ordinary Language Philosophy. A word of caution on the Wikipedia article, however. It associates OLP with  Logical Positivism, which partly came out of Wittgenstein's early work with Bertrand Russell. OLP was actually inspired by Wittgenstein's later work, which rejected the verificationism that Logical Positivism is associated with.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,496
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, this is where we part ways, then. One of my axioms, in fact one of THE axioms that we all tacitly assume despite claiming otherwise is that there is a universe, objectively, out there somewhere and that we observe it.
We do not part ways on this, since that is exactly my position. The difference I see between us is that you don't want to think of an illusion as an observation, even though illusions are perceptual phenomena by definition. The real problem that most people have with my use of "illusion" is that I don't always use it to mean a kind of deceptive or misleading observation. Illusions are grounded in sensory experiences, and so are our models of what is real. So illusions are real in that sense, even though they may sometimes lead to flawed assumptions about what you refer to as "objective reality". Illusion is a design feature of human perception, not a bug.
I think if there is a shared idea here it is between your "illusion" and my "image".

There are things which image other things, and perhaps inaccurately. But the image is still a property of the object perhaps in relation to a mechanism in that selfsame object. They are both objects with an objective relationship between them.
 
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
489
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Technically, everything is an illusion, since our models of reality are all interpretations of sense data.

The term "model" is correct. The brain organizes sensory data into a model of reality consisting of objects and events. When the model is accurate enough to be useful, as when we navigate our bodies through a doorway, then we call that "reality", because the model is our only access to reality. It is only when the model is inaccurate enough to cause a problem, as when we walk into a glass door thinking it is open, that the word "illusion" is appropriate.

The notions of "reality" and "illusion" are used to make that important distinction.

That depends on how we use the words. Normally, we use "illusion" to refer to a perceptual experience that causes us to misconstrue reality, such as when we walk into a glass door because of the visual illusion caused by the transparency of glass. Glass is solid. However, it is also liquid, because it flows like a liquid over time. And water is not so solid, because we can move our bodies through it. Unless, of course, your body is moving very fast when it comes into contact with the water. That's why water landings can be very dangerous for airplanes. If the airplane speed isn't slowed down enough, the airplane will break apart. So my point is that the solidity of an object can be taken as an accurate reflection of reality or illusion, depending on how we perceive an interaction with it.

... Anything that can be made to disappear from an imagined perspective becomes nonexistent from that perspective.

That which is ignored is not nonexistent. This is also an important distinction.

True, but that's not what I said. You have to perceive something in order to ignore it, but perception always depends on the perspective of the observer. Background perceptions that the mind filters out are still bona fide perceptions of reality.

There is no "free choice" from that perspective.

That would be an illusion. But I do not think the illusion is that time disappears. The illusion is that causal necessity has some sort of agency, which it does not.

Well, we can quibble over what we mean by "disappear". Perhaps "becomes irrelevant to the observer" would be a better characterization of shifting perspective to an observer that is not part of the timeline. That's why I like to bring up the example of reading a novel. Intellectually, we know that the characters in it are not real, but we don't enjoy the illusion of the story unless we can "suspend reality". That is, we shift perspectives in order to enjoy the experience of reading the novel.

If one takes the position of a soft determinist or compatibilist, then one can also shift perspective to one where consequences are unknown. From that perspective the future does not exist, only alternative versions of what it is likely to become.

And we have all experienced that uncertainty and humans have evolved specific language and logic to deal with it. When we do not know what "will" happen, we imagine what "can" happen, to prepare for what "does" happen.

Exactly right. In fact, all animals experience uncertainty and build predictive models of the future. We program robots to do that, as well. Humans have just evolved a means of communicating thoughts through a complex auditory signal. So all languages have tense and aspect expressions to communicate thoughts about when events happen and how long the events last.

Hard determinists simply refuse to acknowledge that reality can be perceived differently--experienced from different angles. They cling to the delusion that there can be only one possible way to experience of reality. So you have to choose between the reality where all future outcomes are known and the one where they are not known. You can't have both.

But the ordinary "man on the street" has no problem using the correct logic in the correct situation. He speaks and acts with certainty in matters of certainty, like when he is hammering a nail. He speaks and acts with uncertainty, referring to things that he "can" do (like hammering a nail) even when he is not hammering a nail. He imagines building a dog house for his pet, and knows instinctively that his dog cannot sleep in the "possibility" of a dog house but only in an "actual" dog house.

So, ordinary language provides the hard determinist with all the tools he needs to keep things straight in his head. And it is only when he confuses himself with abstractions and draws false inferences from his concepts that he ends up creating paradoxes that are too complex for him to climb out of.

This has been the position of so-called  Ordinary Language Philosophy. A word of caution on the Wikipedia article, however. It associates OLP with  Logical Positivism, which partly came out of Wittgenstein's early work with Bertrand Russell. OLP was actually inspired by Wittgenstein's later work, which rejected the verificationism that Logical Positivism is associated with.

Ah! Logical Positivism would be what A. J. Ayers was discussing in "Language, Truth, and Logic". He was saying something to the effect that a "meaningful statement" was one which could be theoretically verified by some observation, even if we could not practically do so. (A statement about something on the dark side of the moon is verifiable now, but it was only theoretically verifiable prior to the space age).

I think I'm a fan of both ordinary language and positivism. But then again, I don't read much philosophy these days.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist

... our models of reality are all interpretations of sense data.
Really? My major contributions to the world are my measurement and determination of sensory experience of signal, it's interruptions, and threshold.

No. I don't think our models of reality rely on sense data.

It's more about signal information.

As far as I got was human auditory processing is fundamentally dependent on source/receiver motion - Bear growling/charging as it approached through woods ...., doppler effect.

That's a damn sight away from sense data. It has more to do with signal generator and receiver attributes.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Ah! Logical Positivism would be what A. J. Ayers was discussing in "Language, Truth, and Logic". He was saying something to the effect that a "meaningful statement" was one which could be theoretically verified by some observation, even if we could not practically do so. (A statement about something on the dark side of the moon is verifiable now, but it was only theoretically verifiable prior to the space age).

I think I'm a fan of both ordinary language and positivism. But then again, I don't read much philosophy these days.
Logical positivism failed for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that meaning had nothing to do with verification. That much should have been obvious to Ayer, since speech acts other than statements are also meaningful. Ordinary Language Philosophy ultimately gave rise to some really interesting approaches to the meaning involving all sorts of different speech acts. The author of the Wikipedia page was not alone in being confused about Wittgenstein, whose ideas helped give rise to two very different approaches to the role of language and reasoning-- Ordinary Language Philosophy and  Ideal Language Philosophy.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
No. I don't think our models of reality rely on sense data.

It's more about signal information.

As long as you don't in any way use your senses to detect signals, you may be making sense, but I'm not quite sure how you manage that. :)
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
No. I don't think our models of reality rely on sense data.

It's more about signal information.

As long as you don't in any way use your senses to detect signals, you may be making sense, but I'm not quite sure how you manage that. :)
It would help if you read what I wrote.

Sense depends on being genetically driven by signals which produce sensory attributes in receivers, uh sensors that lead to sense. It turns out we have very near optimum sensors over the range of maximum sensitivity in several domains such as for frequency and frequency change rate in the hearing sense.

A sense is much more than a general modality transducer. There can't be perception unless there are all the underlying dimensions for such available to one for use in resolving the importance of the sensory input.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
It would help if you read what I wrote.

Sense depends on being genetically driven by signals which produce sensory attributes in receivers, uh sensors that lead to sense. It turns out we have very near optimum sensors over the range of maximum sensitivity in several domains such as for frequency and frequency change rate in the hearing sense.

A sense is much more than a general modality transducer. There can't be perception unless there are all the underlying dimensions for such available to one for use in resolving the importance of the sensory input.

Nope. It doesn't help when I read what you wrote. Perhaps we are signaling each other on different wavelengths. What you wrote above appears to bear no relation to anything I wrote.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,496
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It would help if you read what I wrote.

Sense depends on being genetically driven by signals which produce sensory attributes in receivers, uh sensors that lead to sense. It turns out we have very near optimum sensors over the range of maximum sensitivity in several domains such as for frequency and frequency change rate in the hearing sense.

A sense is much more than a general modality transducer. There can't be perception unless there are all the underlying dimensions for such available to one for use in resolving the importance of the sensory input.

Nope. It doesn't help when I read what you wrote. Perhaps we are signaling each other on different wavelengths. What you wrote above appears to bear no relation to anything I wrote.
Not to mention that sense doesn't depend on genetic anything.

You need A dimension of variance on A stimulus to have a sense. It doesn't even have to be indiscrete.

I could have an electronic mind with a single external sense that is whether or not the button is down on its chassis.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
It would help if you read what I wrote.

Sense depends on being genetically driven by signals which produce sensory attributes in receivers, uh sensors that lead to sense. It turns out we have very near optimum sensors over the range of maximum sensitivity in several domains such as for frequency and frequency change rate in the hearing sense.

A sense is much more than a general modality transducer. There can't be perception unless there are all the underlying dimensions for such available to one for use in resolving the importance of the sensory input.

Nope. It doesn't help when I read what you wrote. Perhaps we are signaling each other on different wavelengths. What you wrote above appears to bear no relation to anything I wrote.
Not to mention that sense doesn't depend on genetic anything.

You need A dimension of variance on A stimulus to have a sense. It doesn't even have to be indiscrete.

I could have an electronic mind with a single external sense that is whether or not the button is down on its chassis.
All right. Organ, sense organ.
picky picky picky.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
It would help if you read what I wrote.

Sense depends on being genetically driven by signals which produce sensory attributes in receivers, uh sensors that lead to sense. It turns out we have very near optimum sensors over the range of maximum sensitivity in several domains such as for frequency and frequency change rate in the hearing sense.

A sense is much more than a general modality transducer. There can't be perception unless there are all the underlying dimensions for such available to one for use in resolving the importance of the sensory input.

Nope. It doesn't help when I read what you wrote. Perhaps we are signaling each other on different wavelengths. What you wrote above appears to bear no relation to anything I wrote.
...which brings me to why you wrote a response to what I wrote. I just amplified what I wrote in response to your response so maybe it's you who is not communicating.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
It would help if you read what I wrote.

Sense depends on being genetically driven by signals which produce sensory attributes in receivers, uh sensors that lead to sense. It turns out we have very near optimum sensors over the range of maximum sensitivity in several domains such as for frequency and frequency change rate in the hearing sense.

A sense is much more than a general modality transducer. There can't be perception unless there are all the underlying dimensions for such available to one for use in resolving the importance of the sensory input.

Nope. It doesn't help when I read what you wrote. Perhaps we are signaling each other on different wavelengths. What you wrote above appears to bear no relation to anything I wrote.
...which brings me to why you wrote a response to what I wrote. I just amplified what I wrote in response to your response so maybe it's you who is not communicating.
Look, you started the chain by commenting on my claim "... our models of reality are all interpretations of sense data." I didn't find your comment relevant or sensible, so I commented back. Your subsequent attempts to "amplify" your remarks have not helped to clarify your response to me, and I think that I have been communicating that fact to you.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Look, you started the chain by commenting on my claim "... our models of reality are all interpretations of sense data." I didn't find your comment relevant or sensible, so I commented back. Your subsequent attempts to "amplify" your remarks have not helped to clarify your response to me, and I think that I have been communicating that fact to you.
I was pretty clear. Sense data humans receive depends on sense organs detecting and transmitting evolutionarily important data we are calling sense data in this sequence.. We do so because sense organs are genetically determined by the development of receptor organs adapted to specific sense data from which humans are exposed and benefit. They are sending data via evolved sense organs we call evolutionarily important sense data.

The organs evolved. They detect, transduce into neural language, and transmit specific energy information up the nervous system scientists call evolutionarily important sense-data.

What's your problem. Is it you don't understand that human sense data comes from biologically significant energy available in the environment?
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
What's your problem. Is it you don't understand that human sense data comes from biologically significant energy available in the environment?
How do you get anything like that from my use of the term "sense-data"? Maybe I should have said "qualia" instead of "sense data", although I have a problem with the way philosophers use that term. What I really don't understand is what point you are trying to make with all of your wordy replies about evolved organs and "neural language". They don't seem to connect with anything I said.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
What's your problem. Is it you don't understand that human sense data comes from biologically significant energy available in the environment?
How do you get anything like that from my use of the term "sense-data"? Maybe I should have said "qualia" instead of "sense data", although I have a problem with the way philosophers use that term. What I really don't understand is what point you are trying to make with all of your wordy replies about evolved organs and "neural language". They don't seem to connect with anything I said.


1. any of the faculties, as sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch, by which humans and animals perceive stimuli originating from outside or inside the body:My sense of smell tells me that dinner is ready.

2. these faculties collectively.

3. their operation or function; sensation.

4. a feeling or perception produced through the organs of touch, taste, etc., or resulting from a particular condition of some part of the body:

 Sense

Contents​


A sense is a biological system used by an organism for sensation, the process of gathering information about the world and responding to stimuli. (For example, in the human body, the brain receives signals from the senses, which continuously receive information from the environment, interprets these signals, and causes the body to respond, either chemically or physically.) Although traditionally around five human senses were known (namely sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing), it is now recognized that there are many more.[1] Senses used by other non-human organisms are even greater in variety and number. During sensation, sense organs collect various stimuli (such as a sound or smell) for transduction, meaning transformation into a form that can be understood by the brain. Sensation and perception are fundamental to nearly every aspect of an organism's cognition, behavior and thought.

I use lots of words for sense because I'm a retired Psychophysicst and I react badly to the misuse of sense data. I get especially steamed when one pronounces models of the world depend on sense-data as if sense-data could in any way be the basis for a representation of reality. Those who do fail to understand from whence sense derives is from a system of getting along drivers. Our reality bears little relation to reality.

Our reality, if it is as you suggest, is strictly limited to human perceptions which, as is I said before, are driven by need-to-live among humans and other threat engines and not in touch with the world as it is at time t=0. Hell even Plato discerned that.
 
Last edited:

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Thanks for letting me know something about your background. I would not have thought that you had expertise in the area of psychophysics. My problem was, and still is, trying to figure out what your point was and how it related to what I was talking about. Much of what you write above, especially all the definitions and descriptions of neural processing don't seem to contradict or correct anything that I have posted here. Maybe you could get to the point more quickly if you weren't referring me to dictionary definitions and textbook descriptions of signal processing.

I use lots of words for sense because I'm a retired Psychophysicst and I react badly to the misuse of sense data. I get especially steamed when one pronounces models of the world depend on sense-data as if sense-data could in any way be the basis for a representation of reality. Those who do fail to understand from whence sense derives is from a system of getting along drivers. Our reality bears little relation to reality.

If you are a specialist, then it is possible that you have a more technical usage for the term "sense-data" than I do. Maybe we should be talking about qualia, since those relate to a theory of mind, as opposed to a theory of neurophysics. If you think that past experience of sensations is not the basis for a representation of reality, then please explain your alternative. And do so in a way that is clear and direct, not full of references to dictionaries and source materials.

Let me put it this way. As an English speaker, you know the difference between a noise and a sound, right? A noise is an auditory sensation. A sound is an interpretation of that sensation. Do you agree? A mental model of reality encompasses both, does it not? Is it really wrong to say that the mental model is built up out of sense-data? Do you think they play no role at all?

Our reality, if it is as you suggest, is strictly limited to human perceptions which, as is I said before, are driven by need-to-live among humans and other threat engines and not in touch with the world as it is at time t=0. Hell even Plato discerned that.

Whoa there! Did I ever say that our reality is "strictly limited to human perceptions". There is a lot more to a mental model of reality than just the sensations that are used to build, extend, and support it. The brain does something more than just collect sensations, but sensations are the building blocks of all human cognition. You can build all sorts of different structures with a rather limited set of building materials. Apparently, the sense-data from my posts have inspired you to build up a mental model of what I believe that is wildly different from reality. :)
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Thanks for letting me know something about your background. I would not have thought that you had expertise in the area of psychophysics. My problem was, and still is, trying to figure out what your point was and how it related to what I was talking about. Much of what you write above, especially all the definitions and descriptions of neural processing don't seem to contradict or correct anything that I have posted here. Maybe you could get to the point more quickly if you weren't referring me to dictionary definitions and textbook descriptions of signal processing.

I use lots of words for sense because I'm a retired Psychophysicst and I react badly to the misuse of sense data. I get especially steamed when one pronounces models of the world depend on sense-data as if sense-data could in any way be the basis for a representation of reality. Those who do fail to understand from whence sense derives is from a system of getting along drivers. Our reality bears little relation to reality.

If you are a specialist, then it is possible that you have a more technical usage for the term "sense-data" than I do. Maybe we should be talking about qualia, since those relate to a theory of mind, as opposed to a theory of neurophysics. If you think that past experience of sensations is not the basis for a representation of reality, then please explain your alternative. And do so in a way that is clear and direct, not full of references to dictionaries and source materials.

Let me put it this way. As an English speaker, you know the difference between a noise and a sound, right? A noise is an auditory sensation. A sound is an interpretation of that sensation. Do you agree?* A mental model of reality encompasses both, does it not? Is it really wrong to say that the mental model is built up out of sense-data? Do you think they play no role at all?

*All acoustic input not correlated and articulated is noise. Even unlearned potentially meaningful sound is noise until it is learned and systematized. Even then it is noise unless communicated.
Our reality, if it is as you suggest, is strictly limited to human perceptions which, as is I said before, are driven by need-to-live among humans and other threat engines and not in touch with the world as it is at time t=0. Hell even Plato discerned that.

Whoa there! Did I ever say that our reality is "strictly limited to human perceptions". There is a lot more to a mental model of reality than just the sensations that are used to build, extend, and support it. The brain does something more than just collect sensations, but sensations are the building blocks of all human cognition. You can build all sorts of different structures with a rather limited set of building materials. Apparently, the sense-data from my posts have inspired you to build up a mental model of what I believe that is wildly different from reality. :)
Repeating:

Our reality, if it is as you suggest, is strictly limited to human perceptions (can refer to the entire spectrum of conscious sensing) which, as is I said before, are driven by need-to-live among humans (evolution) and other threat engines (environment driven evolution) and not in touch with the world (which is a lot greater than the whole of human cognition, experience, and support systems) as it is at time t=0.

For Chrissake even Plato discerned that. Reality is beyond the reach of the human mind of mankind over all of the time that man has and will exist. All we have access to is a reality the world of/for mankind which is mightily skewed from reality. We are a dim awareness in a limited part of a remote piece of what we believe is the universe.

Finally, sense data and whatever else we consider such as chemical exchange and flow contributing to our building of models are more accurately described as signals and information rather than sense whatever.

Are we done here?
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,496
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
driven by need-to-live

:ROFLMAO:

No. My decisions are not in fact driven by need to live.

Swing and a miss.

My decisions are driven by my goals, the goals created by the physical configuration of my neurons.

Nothing else.

They are the choices of my model, as driven by my goals, through the mechanics of my model, as defined by the organization of my neurons.

That will or will not contain "need to live" as is defined exactly by the goal in question.

As it stands, I've made the very conscious decision to die at a fixed point in my future!

It is not near to now, in fact is quite far off! My free will in this decision may be robbed of me if I die before that.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
...

Let me put it this way. As an English speaker, you know the difference between a noise and a sound, right? A noise is an auditory sensation. A sound is an interpretation of that sensation. Do you agree?* A mental model of reality encompasses both, does it not? Is it really wrong to say that the mental model is built up out of sense-data? Do you think they play no role at all?

*All acoustic input not correlated and articulated is noise. Even unlearned potentially meaningful sound is noise until it is learned and systematized. Even then it is noise unless communicated.

This is completely nonresponsive. Do you understand the difference between a noise and a sound? I told you what I thought it was, but you did not agree or disagree. Instead you talked about something else. Are not both part of our mental model of reality? Unless you want to engage me on the difference between a noise and a sound, I don't see the point in continuing.

Our reality, if it is as you suggest, is strictly limited to human perceptions which, as is I said before, are driven by need-to-live among humans and other threat engines and not in touch with the world as it is at time t=0. Hell even Plato discerned that.

Whoa there! Did I ever say that our reality is "strictly limited to human perceptions". There is a lot more to a mental model of reality than just the sensations that are used to build, extend, and support it. The brain does something more than just collect sensations, but sensations are the building blocks of all human cognition. You can build all sorts of different structures with a rather limited set of building materials. Apparently, the sense-data from my posts have inspired you to build up a mental model of what I believe that is wildly different from reality. :)
Repeating:

Our reality, if it is as you suggest, is strictly limited to human perceptions (can refer to the entire spectrum of conscious sensing) which, as is I said before, are driven by need-to-live among humans (evolution) and other threat engines (environment driven evolution) and not in touch with the world (which is a lot greater than the whole of human cognition, experience, and support systems) as it is at time t=0.

For Chrissake even Plato discerned that. Reality is beyond the reach of the human mind of mankind over all of the time that man has and will exist. All we have access to is a reality the world of/for mankind which is mightily skewed from reality. We are a dim awareness in a limited part of a remote piece of what we believe is the universe.

Finally, sense data and whatever else we consider such as chemical exchange and flow contributing to our building of models are more accurately described as signals and information rather than sense whatever.

Are we done here?

Since you are just repeating yourself without addressing what I wrote, I think that we are. It's obvious that we aren't communicating. Thanks for making the effort, anyway.
 
Last edited:

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
driven by need-to-live

:ROFLMAO:

No. My decisions are not in fact driven by need to live.

Swing and a miss.

My decisions are driven by my goals, the goals created by the physical configuration of my neurons.

Nothing else.

They are the choices of my model, as driven by my goals, through the mechanics of my model, as defined by the organization of my neurons.

That will or will not contain "need to live" as is defined exactly by the goal in question.

As it stands, I've made the very conscious decision to die at a fixed point in my future!

It is not near to now, in fact is quite far off! My free will in this decision may be robbed of me if I die before that.
Need to live refers to evolutionary demands/constraints on all things in every human. It has no effect on what you can choose, decide, whatever beyond the fact those are based on very limited and partial knowledge of reality.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
...

Let me put it this way. As an English speaker, you know the difference between a noise and a sound, right? A noise is an auditory sensation. A sound is an interpretation of that sensation. Do you agree?* A mental model of reality encompasses both, does it not? Is it really wrong to say that the mental model is built up out of sense-data? Do you think they play no role at all?

*All acoustic input not correlated and articulated is noise. Even unlearned potentially meaningful sound is noise until it is learned and systematized. Even then it is noise unless communicated.

This is completely nonresponsive. Do you understand the difference between a noise and a sound? I told you what I thought it was, but you did not agree or disagree. Instead you talked about something else. Are not both part of our mental model of reality? Unless you want to engage me on the difference between a noise and a sound, I don't see the point in continuing.

Our reality, if it is as you suggest, is strictly limited to human perceptions which, as is I said before, are driven by need-to-live among humans and other threat engines and not in touch with the world as it is at time t=0. Hell even Plato discerned that.

Whoa there! Did I ever say that our reality is "strictly limited to human perceptions". There is a lot more to a mental model of reality than just the sensations that are used to build, extend, and support it. The brain does something more than just collect sensations, but sensations are the building blocks of all human cognition. You can build all sorts of different structures with a rather limited set of building materials. Apparently, the sense-data from my posts have inspired you to build up a mental model of what I believe that is wildly different from reality. :)
Repeating:

Our reality, if it is as you suggest, is strictly limited to human perceptions (can refer to the entire spectrum of conscious sensing) which, as is I said before, are driven by need-to-live among humans (evolution) and other threat engines (environment driven evolution) and not in touch with the world (which is a lot greater than the whole of human cognition, experience, and support systems) as it is at time t=0.

For Chrissake even Plato discerned that. Reality is beyond the reach of the human mind of mankind over all of the time that man has and will exist. All we have access to is a reality the world of/for mankind which is mightily skewed from reality. We are a dim awareness in a limited part of a remote piece of what we believe is the universe.

Finally, sense data and whatever else we consider such as chemical exchange and flow contributing to our building of models are more accurately described as signals and information rather than sense whatever.

Are we done here?

Since you are just repeating yourself without addressing what I wrote, I think that we are. It's obvious that we aren't communicating. Thanks for making the effort, anyway.
Really. You need to understand what noise and sound are, not what you consider polite discussion between chatty drinkers at the club.

OSH Answers Fact Sheets​

 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Really. You need to understand what noise and sound are, not what you consider polite discussion between chatty drinkers at the club.
If you don't want to address what I posted about the difference, posting random materials that you find on the internet is not going to help advance the discussion. I was interested in how you might address the problem of building a mental model of reality, but I suspect that you have nothing of interest to say on the subject. Let's just let it rest.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Really. You need to understand what noise and sound are, not what you consider polite discussion between chatty drinkers at the club.
If you don't want to address what I posted about the difference, posting random materials that you find on the internet is not going to help advance the discussion. I was interested in how you might address the problem of building a mental model of reality, but I suspect that you have nothing of interest to say on the subject. Let's just let it rest.
Its pretty evident from my responses that we can't build a mental model of reality.

What we are left with is an explanation of how what we do is achieved by our nervous system. You don't seem interested in that since it, at best, we can only be model a relative reality in accordance with our privative equipment. Again this is something you don't seem interested in doing.

But ...

If you want to begin, It is obvious we believe we have control and we believe it is proper we believe we are in control. I see this as the result of humans having established a pretty thoroughly integrated nervous system - nervous system integration is something ongoing rapidly in most mammals. . Also we subvocalize as a means of rehearsal. I think this was driven by the evolution of our fairly advanced tool-making capabilities which I believe lead to post Homo Erectus evolution.

I justify this view with the above claims by findings humans have demonstrated an interest in representing the external world in drawings. In addition, the beginnings of creating token items reflecting emotive experiences and the beliefs in both the supernatural and external presence occurred over the past 120 thousand years.

However Neanderthal did bury their dead so consciousness may go back about 700 million years. Note: It is difficult to justify a continuum from this because of the selective pressure on group size brought on by the ice ages over the past million or so years.

Prior to this evidence protohumans and ancient humans began to run in groups of more than ten members. This change probably was facilitated with an ability to articulate vocally which may go back to the rise of Homo Erectus 1.5 million years ago.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
489
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist

A really good book on the subject of consciousness is Michael Graziano's "Consciousness and the Social Brain". One of the things he points out is that an early survival requirement was reading clues from predators faces as to what they were thinking. Were they about to attack? etc. But the key info was that awareness is a data schema that tracks the attention mechanism.

Subvocalization was a topic in early psychic research, when having the subject guess what card symbol the experimenter was looking at. It was feared that the subject was picking up on the experimenter's subvocalization, so they had to change the set up in some way. I don't recall any more than that.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Really. You need to understand what noise and sound are, not what you consider polite discussion between chatty drinkers at the club.
If you don't want to address what I posted about the difference, posting random materials that you find on the internet is not going to help advance the discussion. I was interested in how you might address the problem of building a mental model of reality, but I suspect that you have nothing of interest to say on the subject. Let's just let it rest.
Its pretty evident from my responses that we can't build a mental model of reality.

What we are left with is an explanation of how what we do is achieved by our nervous system. You don't seem interested in that since it, at best, we can only be model a relative reality in accordance with our privative equipment. Again this is something you don't seem interested in doing.

It is not at all evident from your posts that we cannot build models of reality. You might as well deny the existence of air and then go on to discuss how it is our bodies manage to inflate our lungs. You can refuse to use the term "air", but you still need to explain breathing. So you play a linguistic game by adopting different terms to describe the same concept that was perfectly well described by the term "air".

So let's talk about the fact that perception in human beings is known to be active and not passive. That is easy to prove with scientific methods, and any introduction to psychology will explain how to prove it. So let's start with a definition of  Active Perception. The one in Wikipedia will suffice:

"...a study of Modeling and Control strategies for perception. By modeling we mean models of sensors, processing modules and their interaction. We distinguish local models from global models by their extent of application in space and time. The local models represent procedures and parameters such as optical distortions of the lens, focal lens, spatial resolution, band-pass filter, etc. The global models on the other hand characterize the overall performance and make predictions on how the individual modules interact. The control strategies are formulated as a search of such sequence of steps that would minimize a loss function while one is seeking the most information. Examples are shown as the existence proof of the proposed theory on obtaining range from focus and sterolvergence on 2-0 segmentation of an image and 3-0 shape parametrization".

I have put the words with "model" in boldface so that they will be easy for you to see. So go ahead. Explain how we do this modeling with the nervous system. And please don't bring Neanderthals into the discussion. Let's try to stay focused.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist

A really good book on the subject of consciousness is Michael Graziano's "Consciousness and the Social Brain". One of the things he points out is that an early survival requirement was reading clues from predators faces as to what they were thinking. Were they about to attack? etc. But the key info was that awareness is a data schema that tracks the attention mechanism.

Subvocalization was a topic in early psychic research, when having the subject guess what card symbol the experimenter was looking at. It was feared that the subject was picking up on the experimenter's subvocalization, so they had to change the set up in some way. I don't recall any more than that.
Your notions of consciousness require too much of growth in capabilities in a single species, and are supported by too little evidence.

... and how do we express their awareness? We consciously recite it. We can't avoid expressing our conscious thoughts in our native language. How's that happen unless something goes through our language processing apparatus? Try to express your consciousness of what you see in visual form, or our smells and tastes. Sure you can be conscious of what you are seeing but when it comes to expressing what you are seeing? Oops. Gotta use that language processor again. So why not take advantage of the vocalization apparatus outputs to make it seem like it is you speaking.

Eyup, Homo Erectus and Neanderthals made pretty complex tools too and they were in the hominid line. So if being a hominid was, with complex tools, the point at where speech became important why not they also be able to keep thoughts and stories alive via speech and perhaps the beginning of consciousness.

Actually, I still give Crick some credit for identifying the minimum neural structures necessary for consciousness. So it's possible that birds and mammals all potentially have some form of consciousness. That would be especially true for those species that have advanced social communication capabilities.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Really. You need to understand what noise and sound are, not what you consider polite discussion between chatty drinkers at the club.
If you don't want to address what I posted about the difference, posting random materials that you find on the internet is not going to help advance the discussion. I was interested in how you might address the problem of building a mental model of reality, but I suspect that you have nothing of interest to say on the subject. Let's just let it rest.
Its pretty evident from my responses that we can't build a mental model of reality.

What we are left with is an explanation of how what we do is achieved by our nervous system. You don't seem interested in that since it, at best, we can only be model a relative reality in accordance with our privative equipment. Again this is something you don't seem interested in doing.

It is not at all evident from your posts that we cannot build models of reality. You might as well deny the existence of air and then go on to discuss how it is our bodies manage to inflate our lungs. You can refuse to use the term "air", but you still need to explain breathing. So you play a linguistic game by adopting different terms to describe the same concept that was perfectly well described by the term "air".

So let's talk about the fact that perception in human beings is known to be active and not passive. That is easy to prove with scientific methods, and any introduction to psychology will explain how to prove it. So let's start with a definition of  Active Perception. The one in Wikipedia will suffice:

"...a study of Modeling and Control strategies for perception. By modeling we mean models of sensors, processing modules and their interaction. We distinguish local models from global models by their extent of application in space and time. The local models represent procedures and parameters such as optical distortions of the lens, focal lens, spatial resolution, band-pass filter, etc. The global models on the other hand characterize the overall performance and make predictions on how the individual modules interact. The control strategies are formulated as a search of such sequence of steps that would minimize a loss function while one is seeking the most information. Examples are shown as the existence proof of the proposed theory on obtaining range from focus and sterolvergence on 2-0 segmentation of an image and 3-0 shape parametrization".

I have put the words with "model" in boldface so that they will be easy for you to see. So go ahead. Explain how we do this modeling with the nervous system. And please don't bring Neanderthals into the discussion. Let's try to stay focused.
There's a world of difference between computer models and neural models. So here's one article about computer modeling of neural activity that agrees with visual system neural design. There are hundreds of these in the literature.

Oh, wait. This is science and not philosophy. Sorry.

Even a novice to perception would know this. Read on only if you want to learn.

Convolutional Neural Networks as a Model of the Visual System: Past, Present, and Future: https://iidb.org/threads/compatibilism-whats-that-about.24773/page-12#post-973020
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were inspired by early findings in the study of biological vision. They have since become successful tools in computer vision and state-of-the-art models of both neural activity and behavior on visual tasks. This review highlights what, in the context of CNNs, it means to be a good model in computational neuroscience and the various ways models can provide insight. Specifically, it covers the origins of CNNs and the methods by which we validate them as models of biological vision. It then goes on to elaborate on what we can learn about biological vision by understanding and experimenting on CNNs and discusses emerging opportunities for the use of CNNS in vision research beyond basic object recognition.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Really. You need to understand what noise and sound are, not what you consider polite discussion between chatty drinkers at the club.
If you don't want to address what I posted about the difference, posting random materials that you find on the internet is not going to help advance the discussion. I was interested in how you might address the problem of building a mental model of reality, but I suspect that you have nothing of interest to say on the subject. Let's just let it rest.
Its pretty evident from my responses that we can't build a mental model of reality.

What we are left with is an explanation of how what we do is achieved by our nervous system. You don't seem interested in that since it, at best, we can only be model a relative reality in accordance with our privative equipment. Again this is something you don't seem interested in doing.

It is not at all evident from your posts that we cannot build models of reality. You might as well deny the existence of air and then go on to discuss how it is our bodies manage to inflate our lungs. You can refuse to use the term "air", but you still need to explain breathing. So you play a linguistic game by adopting different terms to describe the same concept that was perfectly well described by the term "air".

So let's talk about the fact that perception in human beings is known to be active and not passive. That is easy to prove with scientific methods, and any introduction to psychology will explain how to prove it. So let's start with a definition of  Active Perception. The one in Wikipedia will suffice:

"...a study of Modeling and Control strategies for perception. By modeling we mean models of sensors, processing modules and their interaction. We distinguish local models from global models by their extent of application in space and time. The local models represent procedures and parameters such as optical distortions of the lens, focal lens, spatial resolution, band-pass filter, etc. The global models on the other hand characterize the overall performance and make predictions on how the individual modules interact. The control strategies are formulated as a search of such sequence of steps that would minimize a loss function while one is seeking the most information. Examples are shown as the existence proof of the proposed theory on obtaining range from focus and sterolvergence on 2-0 segmentation of an image and 3-0 shape parametrization".

I have put the words with "model" in boldface so that they will be easy for you to see. So go ahead. Explain how we do this modeling with the nervous system. And please don't bring Neanderthals into the discussion. Let's try to stay focused.
There's a world of difference between computer models and neural models. So here's one article about computer modeling of neural activity that agrees with visual system neural design. There are hundreds of these in the literature.

Oh, wait. This is science and not philosophy. Sorry.

Even a novice to perception would know this. Read on only if you want to learn.

Convolutional Neural Networks as a Model of the Visual System: Past, Present, and Future: https://iidb.org/threads/compatibilism-whats-that-about.24773/page-12#post-973020
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were inspired by early findings in the study of biological vision. They have since become successful tools in computer vision and state-of-the-art models of both neural activity and behavior on visual tasks. This review highlights what, in the context of CNNs, it means to be a good model in computational neuroscience and the various ways models can provide insight. Specifically, it covers the origins of CNNs and the methods by which we validate them as models of biological vision. It then goes on to elaborate on what we can learn about biological vision by understanding and experimenting on CNNs and discusses emerging opportunities for the use of CNNS in vision research beyond basic object recognition.
What? Where did that come from? I start talking about  Active Perception--basically, Psychology 101--and you branch off into an unrelated topic--CNNs--which represent a computational approach to perception (usually, visual perception, which is just one sensor modality). You start out by mentioning a "world of difference between computer models and neural models" before actually ignoring that difference. IOW, you are incapable of saying how the brain actually recognizes patterns, so you change the subject to a computational model that only tries to mimic in a very limited way what a brain does. Deep Learning is a fascinating new approach to object recognition in AI modeling, but there are still lots of problems with them. They are useful for what is called "Big Data" problems, but they don't do much for "Small Data" granularity. That is, they don't begin to explain how active perception works in human beings, who are able to infer patterns from relatively impoverished perceptual data. AI systems, to the extent that they can be said to build models of reality grounded in sensor signals, don't begin to build abstract models of reality in the way that biological brains do, especially human brains.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Really. You need to understand what noise and sound are, not what you consider polite discussion between chatty drinkers at the club.
If you don't want to address what I posted about the difference, posting random materials that you find on the internet is not going to help advance the discussion. I was interested in how you might address the problem of building a mental model of reality, but I suspect that you have nothing of interest to say on the subject. Let's just let it rest.
It's pretty evident from my responses that we can't build a mental model of reality.

What we are left with is an explanation of how what we do is achieved by our nervous system. You don't seem interested in that since it, at best, we can only be model a relative reality by our private equipment. Again this is something you don't seem interested in doing.

It is not at all evident from your posts that we cannot build models of reality. You might as well deny the existence of air and then go on to discuss how it is our bodies manage to inflate our lungs. You can refuse to use the term "air", but you still need to explain breathing. So you play a linguistic game by adopting different terms to describe the same concept that was perfectly well described by the term "air".

So let's talk about the fact that perception in human beings is known to be active and not passive. That is easy to prove with scientific methods, and an introduction to psychology will explain how to prove it. So let's start with a definition of  Active Perception. The one in Wikipedia will suffice:

"...a study of Modeling and Control strategies for perception. By modeling, we mean models of sensors, processing modules, and their interaction. We distinguish local models from global models by their extent of application in space and time. The local models represent procedures and parameters such as optical distortions of the lens, focal lens, spatial resolution, band-pass filter, etc. The global models on the other hand characterize the overall performance and make predictions on how the individual modules interact. The control strategies are formulated as a search of such a sequence of steps that would minimize a loss function while one is seeking the most information. Examples are shown as the existence proof of the proposed theory on obtaining range from focus and stereo vergence on 2-0 segmentation of an image and 3-0 shape parametrization".

I have put the words with "model" in boldface so that they will be easy for you to see. So go ahead. Explain how we do this modeling with the nervous system. And please don't bring Neanderthals into the discussion. Let's try to stay focused.
There's a world of difference between computer models and neural models. So here's one article about computer modeling of neural activity that agrees with visual system neural design. There are hundreds of these in the literature.

Oh, wait. This is science and not philosophy. Sorry.

Even a novice to perception would know this. Read on only if you want to learn.

Convolutional Neural Networks as a Model of the Visual System: Past, Present, and Future: https://iidb.org/threads/compatibilism-whats-that-about.24773/page-12#post-973020
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were inspired by early findings in the study of biological vision. They have since become successful tools in computer vision and state-of-the-art models of both neural activity and behavior on visual tasks. This review highlights what, in the context of CNNs, it means to be a good model in computational neuroscience and the various ways models can provide insight. Specifically, it covers the origins of CNNs and the methods by which we validate them as models of biological vision. It then goes on to elaborate on what we can learn about biological vision by understanding and experimenting with CNNs and discusses emerging opportunities for the use of CNNS in vision research beyond basic object recognition.
What? Where did that come from? I start talking about  Active Perception--basically, Psychology 101--and you branch off into an unrelated topic--CNNs--which represent a computational approach to perception (usually, visual perception, which is just one sensor modality). You start by mentioning a "world of difference between computer models and neural models" before actually ignoring that difference. IOW, you are incapable of saying how the brain recognizes patterns, so you change the subject to a computational model that only tries to mimic in a very limited way what a brain does. Deep Learning is a fascinating new approach to object recognition in AI modeling, but there are still lots of problems with them. They are useful for what is called "Big Data" problems, but they don't do much for "Small Data" granularity. That is, they don't begin to explain how active perception works in human beings, who can infer patterns from relatively impoverished perceptual data. AI systems, to the extent that they can be said to build models of reality grounded in sensor signals, don't begin to build abstract models of reality in the way that biological brains do, especially human brains.
From your defining article comes the next paragraph.
A related but narrower definition of active perception represents perception and action within the brain as the same thing. It states that when a person sees an action, it internally translates into, and is understood within the context of, a possible action. This supports the capability in people and animals of learning what to do based on what they see others doing.

So I took the narrower definition, found where scientists applied nervous system attributes in their computer models, and successfully modeled observed behavior. In fact, the primary references to your definition come out of J. J. Gibson's work out of the fifties, sixties, and seventies. That ensemble of behavior are cognitively processed together has never really been an issue. That's predicted in the actual design of the central nervous system.

One can take attributes of the NS and model them as computer modules or one can take psychological complexes and model them by computer. What one needs to ask is whether the presumption of the psychological ensemble is verifiable. It's easier to verify if one model found nervous designs as computer routines then verify the module act as it appears the nervous system acts.
 
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
489
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Your notions of consciousness require too much of growth in capabilities in a single species, and are supported by too little evidence.

... and how do we express their awareness? We consciously recite it. We can't avoid expressing our conscious thoughts in our native language. How's that happen unless something goes through our language processing apparatus? Try to express your consciousness of what you see in visual form, or our smells and tastes. Sure you can be conscious of what you are seeing but when it comes to expressing what you are seeing? Oops. Gotta use that language processor again. So why not take advantage of the vocalization apparatus outputs to make it seem like it is you speaking.

Eyup, Homo Erectus and Neanderthals made pretty complex tools too and they were in the hominid line. So if being a hominid was, with complex tools, the point at where speech became important why not they also be able to keep thoughts and stories alive via speech and perhaps the beginning of consciousness.

Actually, I still give Crick some credit for identifying the minimum neural structures necessary for consciousness. So it's possible that birds and mammals all potentially have some form of consciousness. That would be especially true for those species that have advanced social communication capabilities.

So, Francis Crick is the DNA guy. I haven't read anything by Crick. But I've read books by Michael Graziano, Michael Gazzaniga, and David Eagleman who are all neuroscientists.

My impression is that we can be aware of things without describing them, but we cannot describe them without being aware of them. The semi-spatial neglect syndrome that Graziano describes is an unawareness of objects on one side of the room. Not only is the patient unaware of that side of the room, but he is also unaware that anything is missing. Toss a beach ball at the patient's head from the missing side, and he will reflexively swat it away, but he cannot explain his actions. This demonstrates that the problem is not in the visual mechanism, but actually in the mechanism of awareness.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,496
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, let's take a look at something else then, if this pathway of pointing the hard determinist at a real choice is not going to work.

I sit down at a table with my friends. This night we are playing D&D. We are not making choices based on lights, not making choices based on menus. We are looking at a group of nerds spewing varying sounds at each other and drawing absurd marks on paper.

Nothing here has anything to do with survival.

It's barely doing anything at all.

Yet more choice lives around this table than in most restaurants.

Lets look at it...

The rulebook described all the various things one may do. It describes the entire Freedom of Action, in a general way, and even that isn't necessarily "hard and fast".

Most notably, the rulebook offers MANY things.

Despite the fact that the player MAY play one of many classes, they MUST choose at least one*.

Similarly for "race".

At the end of this process over the course, of many offered classes, one is chosen.

It is not chosen by the DM. It is not chosen by the particles on the barest edge of the universe reflecting still older particles back.

There is no cosmic wave from Sirrus B of origin:first cause that may penetrate the walls of this bedroom such that the nerd will choose differently either.

You could, in fact, mostly excise the house these nerds are living in, put in an oxygen feed, and teleport the whole house to the surface of a roughly earth shaped mass with the nerds none the wiser, and they will make all the same decisions they would have had you left them on earth, for the most part.

You might get some divergence just from quantum foam dependent probabilistic outcome differences.

But in the moment, the moment force of THIS stuff no other stuff anywhere, is the stuff that causes the interactions we are concerned about, the flapping around of the meat that causes such patterns as "I slay the dwarf with my crossbow" and "no you didn't unless that's a 20 on your die" and "oh you know it!" And "HUZAAH!"

Nobody asks, in our world of compatibilist determinism, whether we can decide to be both a Wizard and a Rogue at level 1. Unless, of course, the DM reveals in the next moment "oh, forgot to mention Gestalt rules" and then the player says "oh, then I'll be a rogue as well, that was my second choice".

And then the DM may ask "why didn't you choose it" and then the player says "because last week you chose Rogue and I didn't want to seem as though I was following on."

Note that they didn't say "because at the big bang there was a quark at this here position instead of a gluon".

What is missing, even in discussion of "could it have been", which is itself imaginary, is the discussion of momentary state.

In the moment, it is not "all particles everywhere" determining whether a collection of particles on average in some place is in 'high' or 'low' energy state. It is exactly the particles in the neighboring neurons. 'This' collection is agent to 'that' decision, and when a collection of stuff is agent to the decision of events in the moment, this is what the compatibilist calls "choice".

This is not something you cannot claim is non-existent. Localities, collections of stuff, in the moment, act as the decider of events within moments.

If you are not speaking to the reality or lack thereof of collections of stuff acting as agent to the decision of events, then you are not speaking or even debating with the compatibilist but rather just spouting religious preaching.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
From your defining article comes the next paragraph.
A related but narrower definition of active perception represents perception and action within the brain as the same thing. It states that when a person sees an action, it internally translates into, and is understood within the context of, a possible action. This supports the capability in people and animals of learning what to do based on what they see others doing.
So I took the narrower definition, found where scientists applied nervous system attributes in their computer models, and successfully modeled observed behavior. In fact, the primary references to your definition come out of J. J. Gibson's work out of the fifties, sixties, and seventies. That ensemble of behavior are cognitively processed together has never really been an issue. That's predicted in the actual design of the central nervous system.

One can take attributes of the NS and model them as computer modules or one can take psychological complexes and model them by computer. What one needs to ask is whether the presumption of the psychological ensemble is verifiable. It's easier to verify if one model found nervous designs as computer routines then verify the module act as it appears the nervous system acts.

Fair enough. That Wikipedia article is a bit confusing anyway, since it doesn't really address the history of the concept of  Active perception, which originated in  Gestalt psychology. The reason I brought it up is that people tend to think of perception as passive in nature. That is, it is just a raw report of incoming data. What Gestalt psychologists discovered in the early 20th century--well before digital computers--was that humans tended to perceive patterns in nature. That is, the mind supplies information to fill in elements of patterns, even when the raw report from the peripheral nervous system is missing those elements of the pattern. It is easy to prove this phenomenon experimentally, which is why it normally figures into introductory courses on psychology. The narrower sensorimotor concept of "active perception" is not germane to my point. To reiterate, my point is that the mind does not just perceive what the peripheral senses tell us. It matches that against pattern templates, and it can be shown to interpolate elements of a pattern that don't actually exist in the sense data. That is the point I was trying to make to you earlier about the difference between a sound and a noise. A sound is an interpreted noise.

You had said earlier that it should have been evident from your posts that we cannot build models of reality, but pattern templates matched against incoming data from the peripheral nervous system are hard to interpret as anything but building blocks for mental models. And all of this is well-established through observation and experimentation on human behavior. You can't even talk about illusions, let alone optical illusions, without in some way acknowledging that minds, which are created by physical brain activity, build, maintain, and modify models of reality.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Your notions of consciousness require too much of growth in capabilities in a single species, and are supported by too little evidence.

... and how do we express their awareness? We consciously recite it. We can't avoid expressing our conscious thoughts in our native language. How's that happen unless something goes through our language processing apparatus? Try to express your consciousness of what you see in visual form, or our smells and tastes. Sure you can be conscious of what you are seeing but when it comes to expressing what you are seeing? Oops. Gotta use that language processor again. So why not take advantage of the vocalization apparatus outputs to make it seem like it is you speaking.

Eyup, Homo Erectus and Neanderthals made pretty complex tools too and they were in the hominid line. So if being a hominid was, with complex tools, the point at where speech became important why not they also be able to keep thoughts and stories alive via speech and perhaps the beginning of consciousness.

Actually, I still give Crick some credit for identifying the minimum neural structures necessary for consciousness. So it's possible that birds and mammals all potentially have some form of consciousness. That would be especially true for those species that have advanced social communication capabilities.

So, Francis Crick is the DNA guy. I haven't read anything by Crick. But I've read books by Michael Graziano, Michael Gazzaniga, and David Eagleman who are all neuroscientists.

My impression is that we can be aware of things without describing them, but we cannot describe them without being aware of them. The semi-spatial neglect syndrome that Graziano describes is an unawareness of objects on one side of the room. Not only is the patient unaware of that side of the room, but he is also unaware that anything is missing. Toss a beach ball at the patient's head from the missing side, and he will reflexively swat it away, but he cannot explain his actions. This demonstrates that the problem is not in the visual mechanism, but actually in the mechanism of awareness.
 Francis Crick

  • Temporal Resolution of Tonal Pulses

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51, 644 (1972); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912888
Kendrick N. Williams and David R. Perrott

ABSTRACT
Temporal resolution, as defined by the minimum detectable gap between successive tonal pulses, was observed to decrease as a direct function of both the frequency disparity between successive pulses and the duration of the pulses. An interaction between frequency disparity and pulse duration was also observed.

Says awareness of actual input is dependent on duration and intensity of signal input.


Nuff sed.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
From your defining article comes the next paragraph.
A related but narrower definition of active perception represents perception and action within the brain as the same thing. It states that when a person sees an action, it internally translates into, and is understood within the context of, a possible action. This supports the capability in people and animals of learning what to do based on what they see others doing.
So I took the narrower definition, found where scientists applied nervous system attributes in their computer models, and successfully modeled observed behavior. In fact, the primary references to your definition come out of J. J. Gibson's work out of the fifties, sixties, and seventies. That ensemble of behavior are cognitively processed together has never really been an issue. That's predicted in the actual design of the central nervous system.

One can take attributes of the NS and model them as computer modules or one can take psychological complexes and model them by computer. What one needs to ask is whether the presumption of the psychological ensemble is verifiable. It's easier to verify if one model found nervous designs as computer routines then verify the module act as it appears the nervous system acts.

Fair enough. That Wikipedia article is a bit confusing anyway, since it doesn't really address the history of the concept of  Active perception, which originated in  Gestalt psychology. The reason I brought it up is that people tend to think of perception as passive in nature. That is, it is just a raw report of incoming data. What Gestalt psychologists discovered in the early 20th century--well before digital computers--was that humans tended to perceive patterns in nature. That is, the mind supplies information to fill in elements of patterns, even when the raw report from the peripheral nervous system is missing those elements of the pattern. It is easy to prove this phenomenon experimentally, which is why it normally figures into introductory courses on psychology. The narrower sensorimotor concept of "active perception" is not germane to my point. To reiterate, my point is that the mind does not just perceive what the peripheral senses tell us. It matches that against pattern templates, and it can be shown to interpolate elements of a pattern that don't actually exist in the sense data. That is the point I was trying to make to you earlier about the difference between a sound and a noise. A sound is an interpreted noise.

You had said earlier that it should have been evident from your posts that we cannot build models of reality, but pattern templates matched against incoming data from the peripheral nervous system are hard to interpret as anything but building blocks for mental models. And all of this is well-established through observation and experimentation on human behavior. You can't even talk about illusions, let alone optical illusions, without in some way acknowledging that minds, which are created by physical brain activity, build, maintain, and modify models of reality.
Why? It is obvious that no sensing system in humans captures the extent of stimuli available in the local sense world if our limited sensors are within range. We can't model or claim to model reality if we can't imagine or sense reality.

My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
...
You had said earlier that it should have been evident from your posts that we cannot build models of reality, but pattern templates matched against incoming data from the peripheral nervous system are hard to interpret as anything but building blocks for mental models. And all of this is well-established through observation and experimentation on human behavior. You can't even talk about illusions, let alone optical illusions, without in some way acknowledging that minds, which are created by physical brain activity, build, maintain, and modify models of reality.
Why? It is obvious that no sensing system in humans captures the extent of stimuli available in the local sense world if our limited sensors are within range. We can't model or claim to model reality if we can't imagine or sense reality.

But that's the point. We can imagine the reality that we can't sense. That is exactly what the Gestalt school discovered and proved beyond reasonable doubt with experimentation. You say that you are a retired psychophysicist, but you seem to be completely unaware of the fact that human perception is active, not passive. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I'm not confident at this point that you really understand the evidence. You can use a  tachistoscope to prove it experimentally.

My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
...
You had said earlier that it should have been evident from your posts that we cannot build models of reality, but pattern templates matched against incoming data from the peripheral nervous system are hard to interpret as anything but building blocks for mental models. And all of this is well-established through observation and experimentation on human behavior. You can't even talk about illusions, let alone optical illusions, without in some way acknowledging that minds, which are created by physical brain activity, build, maintain, and modify models of reality.
Why? It is obvious that no sensing system in humans captures the extent of stimuli available in the local sense world if our limited sensors are within range. We can't model or claim to model reality if we can't imagine or sense reality.

But that's the point. We can imagine the reality that we can't sense. That is exactly what the Gestalt school discovered and proved beyond reasonable doubt with experimentation. You say that you are a retired psychophysicist, but you seem to be completely unaware of the fact that human perception is active, not passive. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but I'm not confident at this point that you really understand the evidence. You can use a  tachistoscope to prove it experimentally.

My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
Active perception is clear observing innervation that descending/ascending nervous activity modulates input nervous activity in most human sensory and effector systems. That is irrelevant to my argument.

If one has no access to information one has no means for verifying other than existing information. One cannot model something which one can't experience. If you don't have a palette all you can do is fill in the blanks with the tools you have. That's not going to get you to reality.

It does not matter whether one has the ability to create a map as known by inserting data to complete existing models. Existing models always change as understanding increases.

An example today is dark energy and matter. They are proposed fillers to complete the current theory. But we already see there are elements outside our theoretical model. So completing the model without including the new data goes nowhere because the model has changed in unknown ways.

My problem is we have glimpsed knowledge of the amount of energy out there from our existing models but we will never have the capacity to exploit that knowledge/energy because harnessing such energy is beyond our reach forever. And darn it we don't even know whether energy is the tool we really need to exploit. We may be at the stage mankind was 60,000 years ago and we may not have another 60000 ears to find out.

Finally, imagine what we know versus what is the reality now is like what we knew 60000 years ago was to what we know now. Time problem.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 29, 2021
Messages
489
Location
Virginia
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
 Francis Crick

  • Temporal Resolution of Tonal Pulses

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51, 644 (1972); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1912888
Kendrick N. Williams and David R. Perrott

ABSTRACT
Temporal resolution, as defined by the minimum detectable gap between successive tonal pulses, was observed to decrease as a direct function of both the frequency disparity between successive pulses and the duration of the pulses. An interaction between frequency disparity and pulse duration was also observed.

Says awareness of actual input is dependent on duration and intensity of signal input.

Nuff sed.

Sure. There are limits to our sensory apparatus, whether sight, smell, sound, touch, taste, etc. And these vary from species to species. We can see more colors than dogs. Dogs can distinguish more things by smell. I assume the abstracted article is about hearing, and the thresholds of a tone's duration and frequency needed to detect the tone.

Through our curiosity and our imagination we have designed experiments to increase our knowledge of these sensory mechanisms.

Through our curiosity and our imagination we have also created many ways to extended our senses, building telescopes to better examine distant objects, building microscopes to better examine tiny objects.

Perhaps our curiosity and our imagination are, in themselves, mechanisms of sensing the world around us, and another means of making sense of it.

One of the things we have observed is the reliable operation of certain causal mechanisms, like the force of gravity upon the masses of two objects. Another thing we have observed is people encountering problems or issues that require them to make choices about what they will do next (for example, people in a restaurant deciding what they will have for dinner).

Two objective observations, like gravity and people making choices, cannot contradict each other. So, we must assume that the two notions cannot be incompatible. The fact of gravity cannot contradict the fact of choosing. Both are causal mechanisms. Gravity causes objects dropped from the leaning tower of Pisa to fall at a constant rate of acceleration until they hit the ground. Choosing causes the person in the restaurant to resolve the many options on the menu into a single "I will have this, please" or an "I will have that, please".

In the same way that we observe people making choices for themselves, we have also observed people forcing choices upon others. The bank robber points a gun at the cashier, and demands that she fill his bag with money.

The customer in the restaurant was free to decide for himself what he would have for dinner. The bank cashier was not free to decide for herself what to do with the banks money. This is the distinction, between a freely chosen will and a coerced will, is necessary when deciding who is responsible for what happened.

The waiter will bring the bill to the customer, holding the customer responsible for his deliberate act.
But the police will not hold the bank cashier responsible for her actions, because she was forced to act against her will. Instead, they will hold the robber with the gun responsible for her actions.

That is what free will is about, who is properly held responsible for their actions and who is not held responsible.

Determinism asserts that all actions are reliably caused by prior events. This includes the actions of the customer in the restaurant, the actions of the bank cashier, and the actions of the bank robber. And it even includes our own actions, as we decide who is responsible for what in each of these cases.

So, within a deterministic world, the determination of responsibility is reliably caused by the assessment of which parties acted of their own free will and which parties were forced to act against their will.

Thus, we find free will and the lack of free will to be meaningful concepts that are still significant within a fully deterministic world.

Determinism and free will appear to be compatible notions.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
Active perception is clear observing innervation that descending/ascending nervous activity modulates input nervous activity in most human sensory and effector systems. That is irrelevant to my argument.

Using technical jargon in a discussion group like this serves no purpose other than to obfuscate what you are trying to say, not that you are saying much with it here. Jargon of this sort turns out to be more of a barrier than a help in explaining your position. I get that you are a retired psychophysicist. Let's focus on the topic--some clear explanation of how you think the well-established gestalt phenomenon works.

If one has no access to information one has no means for verifying other than existing information. One cannot model something which one can't experience. If you don't have a palette all you can do is fill in the blanks with the tools you have. That's not going to get you to reality.

It does not matter whether one has the ability to create a map as known by inserting data to complete existing models. Existing models always change as understanding increases.

None of this is in dispute. Nobody is denying that there is access to existing information from the peripheral nervous system. The fact appears to be that the central nervous system matches them against pattern templates. Those templates or models have to come from somewhere, but I'm glad to see you clearly acknowledging the existence here. That, at least, is progress, in light of what seemed to be your earlier claim that people couldn't build models of reality.

An example today is dark energy and matter. They are proposed fillers to complete the current theory. But we already see there are elements outside our theoretical model. So completing the model without including the new data goes nowhere because the model has changed in unknown ways.

My problem is we have glimpsed knowledge of the amount of energy out there from our existing models but we will never have the capacity to exploit that knowledge/energy because harnessing such energy is beyond our reach forever. And darn it we don't even know whether energy is the tool we really need to exploit. We may be at the stage mankind was 60,000 years ago and we may not have another 60000 ears to find out.

Finally, imagine what we know versus what is the reality now is like what we knew 60000 years ago was to what we know now. Time problem.

Ok, now you are talking about dark energy and matter. Off you go on another gish gallop. I'm sure you'll have fun, but I'll pass on the opportunity to go with you. o_O
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,496
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
Active perception is clear observing innervation that descending/ascending nervous activity modulates input nervous activity in most human sensory and effector systems. That is irrelevant to my argument.

Using technical jargon in a discussion group like this serves no purpose other than to obfuscate what you are trying to say, not that you are saying much with it here. Jargon of this sort turns out to be more of a barrier than a help in explaining your position. I get that you are a retired psychophysicist. Let's focus on the topic--some clear explanation of how you think the well-established gestalt phenomenon works.

If one has no access to information one has no means for verifying other than existing information. One cannot model something which one can't experience. If you don't have a palette all you can do is fill in the blanks with the tools you have. That's not going to get you to reality.

It does not matter whether one has the ability to create a map as known by inserting data to complete existing models. Existing models always change as understanding increases.

None of this is in dispute. Nobody is denying that there is access to existing information from the peripheral nervous system. The fact appears to be that the central nervous system matches them against pattern templates. Those templates or models have to come from somewhere, but I'm glad to see you clearly acknowledging the existence here. That, at least, is progress, in light of what seemed to be your earlier claim that people couldn't build models of reality.

An example today is dark energy and matter. They are proposed fillers to complete the current theory. But we already see there are elements outside our theoretical model. So completing the model without including the new data goes nowhere because the model has changed in unknown ways.

My problem is we have glimpsed knowledge of the amount of energy out there from our existing models but we will never have the capacity to exploit that knowledge/energy because harnessing such energy is beyond our reach forever. And darn it we don't even know whether energy is the tool we really need to exploit. We may be at the stage mankind was 60,000 years ago and we may not have another 60000 ears to find out.

Finally, imagine what we know versus what is the reality now is like what we knew 60000 years ago was to what we know now. Time problem.

Ok, now you are talking about dark energy and matter. Off you go on another gish gallop. I'm sure you'll have fun, but I'll pass on the opportunity to go with you. o_O
I reject that one cannot model that which they can't experience. I do it all the time. I'm fairly certain that I can't experience, for example, a zombie apocalypse. Yet somehow I have models for it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

I admittedly don't know whether I can experience time travel or how "I" would experience it, but I habe some models for that too. Albeit incomplete models.

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
My analogy is we exist on a tiny far from the hotbed of reality and with the tools we have, we can only gather indirect information about what we can sense with senses. The world is the entire universe over its entire life. And we begin by sampling with inefficient and incomplete sensors. No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything. Here I'm gonna ripoff Jarhyn and say local solutions cannot become system solutions. We are still discovering stuff that changes how we view what we know. We've not even begun to tap the range of what is there. nor are we ever going to do so.
Then explain why it is so easy to prove that perception in humans (and other animals) is active, not passive. That is, we recognize patterns in what we sense, even if the sensory information does not fully support every element of the pattern.
Active perception is clear observing innervation that descending/ascending nervous activity modulates input nervous activity in most human sensory and effector systems. That is irrelevant to my argument.

Using technical jargon in a discussion group like this serves no purpose other than to obfuscate what you are trying to say, not that you are saying much with it here. Jargon of this sort turns out to be more of a barrier than a help in explaining your position. I get that you are a retired psychophysicist. Let's focus on the topic--some clear explanation of how you think the well-established gestalt phenomenon works.

If one has no access to information one has no means for verifying other than existing information. One cannot model something which one can't experience. If you don't have a palette all you can do is fill in the blanks with the tools you have. That's not going to get you to reality.

It does not matter whether one has the ability to create a map as known by inserting data to complete existing models. Existing models always change as understanding increases.

None of this is in dispute. Nobody is denying that there is access to existing information from the peripheral nervous system. The fact appears to be that the central nervous system matches them against pattern templates. Those templates or models have to come from somewhere, but I'm glad to see you clearly acknowledging the existence here. That, at least, is progress, in light of what seemed to be your earlier claim that people couldn't build models of reality.

An example today is dark energy and matter. They are proposed fillers to complete the current theory. But we already see there are elements outside our theoretical model. So completing the model without including the new data goes nowhere because the model has changed in unknown ways.

My problem is we have glimpsed knowledge of the amount of energy out there from our existing models but we will never have the capacity to exploit that knowledge/energy because harnessing such energy is beyond our reach forever. And darn it we don't even know whether energy is the tool we really need to exploit. We may be at the stage mankind was 60,000 years ago and we may not have another 60000 ears to find out.

Finally, imagine what we know versus what is the reality now is like what we knew 60000 years ago was to what we know now. Time problem.

Ok, now you are talking about dark energy and matter. Off you go on another gish gallop. I'm sure you'll have fun, but I'll pass on the opportunity to go with you. o_O
I reject that one cannot model that which they can't experience. I do it all the time. I'm fairly certain that I can't experience, for example, a zombie apocalypse. Yet somehow I have models for it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

I admittedly don't know whether I can experience time travel or how "I" would experience it, but I habe some models for that too. Albeit incomplete models.

I also reject this stink nugget:
"No way we can get from that microscopic sample to reality with whatever capabilities we have for combining what we know into knowledge of everything."

Seriously? Hard determinism... of the gaps?!?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
Science assumes that all observable phenomena have physical causes, not that free will is incompatible with determinism. That philosophical position is more widely known as "hard determinism", and it has nothing to do with science.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist

Using technical jargon in a discussion group like this serves no purpose other than to obfuscate what you are trying to say, not that you are saying much with it here. Jargon of this sort turns out to be more of a barrier than a help in explaining your position. I get that you are a retired psychophysicist. Let's focus on the topic--some clear explanation of how you think the well-established gestalt phenomenon works.


:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Is it, 'the well-established gestalt phenomenon' really more than the sum of its parts. Or is it more like generating a model that matches up with existing expectations (models) do for most illusions?
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,267
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
Science assumes that all observable phenomena have physical causes, not that free will is incompatible with determinism. That philosophical position is more widely known as "hard determinism", and it has nothing to do with science.
I see determinism differently from you. It is simply determinism and when applied observation and experiment one presumes a physical basis. One looks back to Descartes and sees he's self-referencing which is something modern scientists have learned to avoid like the plague.

If there is a mind it arises from brain and body information and consciousness seems to be primarily one talking to himself like he's rehearsing a procedure such as toolmaking.

I'm sure animals have been conscious of visual olfactory, somesthetic, motion, scenes for most of the existence of innervated organisms. What's different is that man, with speech, has taken it to subtext just prior to and just after, such as when justifying, execution.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,011
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Yet you argue what you do based on what we know because we develop science based on determinism.
Science assumes that all observable phenomena have physical causes, not that free will is incompatible with determinism. That philosophical position is more widely known as "hard determinism", and it has nothing to do with science.
I see determinism differently from you. It is simply determinism and when applied observation and experiment one presumes a physical basis. One looks back to Descartes and sees he's self-referencing which is something modern scientists have learned to avoid like the plague.

If there is a mind it arises from brain and body information and consciousness seems to be primarily one talking to himself like he's rehearsing a procedure such as toolmaking.

I'm sure animals have been conscious of visual olfactory, somesthetic, motion, scenes for most of the existence of innervated organisms. What's different is that man, with speech, has taken it to subtext just prior to execution.
We really aren't connecting with each other on this subject, so it is best to let it go. I know I've said that before, but you seemed to want to keep it going. I'm content to let it rest where it is.
 
Top Bottom