Do animals perceive the same objects as humans perceive?

[untermensche]

No. By programming I mean "algorithms" where preexisting "rules" for handling information must exist.

But the rules are not the product of some external force applied to something.

There are "design processes" not a designer, natural selection and things like sexual selection.

algorithms like these?:

E = MC^2
F = MA
V = D/T

Of course not.

Algorithms that can turn energy bumping into cells into the color blue.

 

[Malintent]

algorithms like these?:

E = MC^2
F = MA
V = D/T

Of course not.

Algorithms that can turn energy bumping into cells into the color blue.

That would be:
S = klogR (where s = sensation, R = stimulus, and k = sensory modulation)

"the color blue" is quite literally a figment of your imagination. Nothing can turn into the color blue. Something can be perceived to be reflecting light within some electromagnetic frequency, though. The degree of that perception is calculated by the above algorithm.

 

[Kharakov]

Isn't your brain blocking out everything except blue when you perceive the color blue?

In other words, isn't qualia "generated" by eliminating conflicting, counterbalancing qualia? It's always there... but parts of it can cancel out other parts, to make it seem like the parts that aren't canceled are the ones that are present.

 

[fast]

I don't agree with all his views, but yeah.

(Do I need to go stand in the corner, lol)

I haven't taken the time to look to close at Searle's views but I would reverse the word order in those expression. So, I would make a distinction between subjective ontology and objective ontology (in terms of the subjective and the objective world), on the ground that we're unable, for the moment at least, to reduce one to the other. We in effect have no idea how it could go. And then, we can also make a distinction between subjective and objective epistemology (in terms of subjective knowledge and objective beliefs).

It's Ok, you can go now.
EB

Abstract: (bold by me)
Until very recently, most neurobiologists did not regard consciousness as a suitable topic for scientific investigation. This reluctance was based on certain philosophical mistakes, primarily the mistake of supposing that the subjectivity of consciousness made it beyond the reach of an objective science. Once we see that consciousness is a biological phenomenon like any other, then it can be investigated neurobiologically. Consciousness is entirely caused by neurobiological processes and is realized in brain structures. The essential trait of consciousness that we need to explain is unified qualitative subjectivity. Consciousness thus differs from other biological phenomena in that it has a subjective or first-person ontology, but this subjective ontology does not prevent us from having an epistemically objective science of consciousness. We need to overcome the philosophical tradition that treats the mental and the physical as two distinct metaphysical realms. Two common approaches to consciousness are those that adopt the building block model, according to which any conscious field is made of its various parts, and the unified field model, according to which we should try to explain the unified character of subjective states of consciousness. These two approaches are discussed and reasons are given for preferring the unified field theory to the building block model. Some relevant research on consciousness involves the subjects of blindsight, the split-brain experiments, binocular rivalry, and gestalt switching.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Abstract: (bold by me)
Until very recently, most neurobiologists did not regard consciousness as a suitable topic for scientific investigation. This reluctance was based on certain philosophical mistakes, primarily the mistake of supposing that the subjectivity of consciousness made it beyond the reach of an objective science. Once we see that consciousness is a biological phenomenon like any other, then it can be investigated neurobiologically. Consciousness is entirely caused by neurobiological processes and is realized in brain structures. The essential trait of consciousness that we need to explain is unified qualitative subjectivity. Consciousness thus differs from other biological phenomena in that it has a subjective or first-person ontology, but this subjective ontology does not prevent us from having an epistemically objective science of consciousness. We need to overcome the philosophical tradition that treats the mental and the physical as two distinct metaphysical realms. Two common approaches to consciousness are those that adopt the building block model, according to which any conscious field is made of its various parts, and the unified field model, according to which we should try to explain the unified character of subjective states of consciousness. These two approaches are discussed and reasons are given for preferring the unified field theory to the building block model. Some relevant research on consciousness involves the subjects of blindsight, the split-brain experiments, binocular rivalry, and gestalt switching.

Yeah, apparently I'll be able to keep for some time a wry outlook on scientists' efforts to crack the subjective nut, i.e. to reduce the ontology of subjectivity to the objective world. I'm all for trying but I won't be holding my breath. And to succeed, I'm absolutely certain we'll need to change our conception of the objective world. The one we have now won't do.
Still, it's good to see some people are waking up to the reality of the subjective. We're not there yet. I'm quite sure only very few scientists would accept that each of us knows blue better than science knows energy or elementary particles. And I'm probably in a very small minority of people who have a scientific outlook while still insisting I know blue but can only believe there are such things as elementary particles and energy because it's a fact that I don't know these things and I don't even know that they exist.

It was published in the year 2000, so perhaps things have move on since.

Also, although it seems close enough to my own views, the bolded part is also slightly misleading in the sense that many scientists already study consciousness from on objective standpoint. The problem, which I think is still largely extent, is that they can't stop themselves from negating subjectivity altogether, regarding it as illusory. They are trying to reduce subjectivity to atoms and electric fields in the same way that they have reduced trees and stars and little furry things to atoms and electric fields. My guess is that it won't work but that they will delude themselves about that.
Still, I'm still young and I can wait a little while longer to see if they make it.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Of course not.

Algorithms that can turn energy bumping into cells into the color blue.

That would be:
S = klogR (where s = sensation, R = stimulus, and k = sensory modulation)

"the color blue" is quite literally a figment of your imagination. Nothing can turn into the color blue. Something can be perceived to be reflecting light within some electromagnetic frequency, though. The degree of that perception is calculated by the above algorithm.

It would be a cellular biological algorithm that no human understands.

The brain takes energy that has no color and turns it into an experience.

The experience of blue.

It must use some kind of "algorithm" to do it.

Unless you propose it just happens by magic.

The complicated transformations that produce the same thing when exposed to the same thing by magic hypothesis.

 

[fromderinside]

I understand the urges for one who is a denier to use some of that vast quantity of sand out there in which to bury one's head but now you're getting silly. untermenche calls this magic and not understandable.

Neurogrid: AMixed-Analog-Digital MultichipSystem for Large-ScaleNeural Simulations https://web.stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/documents/BenjaminEtAlNeurogrid2014.pdf

ABSTRACT | In this paper, we describe the design of Neurogrid,a neuromorphic system for simulating large-scale neuralmodels in real time. Neuromorphic systems realize the functionof biological neural systems by emulating their structure.Designers of such systems face three major design choices:1) whether to emulate the four neural elementsVaxonal arbor,synapse, dendritic tree, and somaVwith dedicated or sharedelectronic circuits; 2) whether to implement these electroniccircuits in an analog or digital manner; and 3) whether tointerconnect arrays of these silicon neurons with a mesh or atree network. The choices we made were: 1) we emulated allneural elements except the soma with shared electronic circuits;this choice maximized the number of synaptic connections; 2) werealized all electronic circuits except those for axonal arbors in ananalog manner; this choice maximized energy efficiency; and3) we interconnected neural arrays in a tree network; this choicemaximized throughput. These three choices made it possible tosimulate a million neurons with billions of synaptic connections inreal timeVfor the first timeVusing 16 Neurocores integrated on aboard that consumes three watts.

Scientists have modeled the entire ant NS. There are some pretty good simulations of mouse brains ferchrissake.

 

[untermensche]

What?

They made some clearly incomplete model?

Good for them?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I understand the urges for one who is a denier to use some of that vast quantity of sand out there in which to bury one's head but now you're getting silly. untermenche calls this magic and not understandable.

Neurogrid: AMixed-Analog-Digital MultichipSystem for Large-ScaleNeural Simulations https://web.stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/documents/BenjaminEtAlNeurogrid2014.pdf

ABSTRACT | In this paper, we describe the design of Neurogrid,a neuromorphic system for simulating large-scale neuralmodels in real time. Neuromorphic systems realize the functionof biological neural systems by emulating their structure.Designers of such systems face three major design choices:1) whether to emulate the four neural elementsVaxonal arbor,synapse, dendritic tree, and somaVwith dedicated or sharedelectronic circuits; 2) whether to implement these electroniccircuits in an analog or digital manner; and 3) whether tointerconnect arrays of these silicon neurons with a mesh or atree network. The choices we made were: 1) we emulated allneural elements except the soma with shared electronic circuits;this choice maximized the number of synaptic connections; 2) werealized all electronic circuits except those for axonal arbors in ananalog manner; this choice maximized energy efficiency; and3) we interconnected neural arrays in a tree network; this choicemaximized throughput. These three choices made it possible tosimulate a million neurons with billions of synaptic connections inreal timeVfor the first timeVusing 16 Neurocores integrated on aboard that consumes three watts.

Scientists have modeled the entire ant NS. There are some pretty good simulations of mouse brains ferchrissake.

Your post is a very clear indication that you don't understand what the problem of subjective consciousness, i.e. the subjective experience of qualia, is.

I could simulate on a big computer some behaviour. That, say, of some little bug. Say my simulation is very accurate and I can predict what individual bugs will do depending on the state of their physical environment. Assume it works to perfection. You'd say, "problem solved". Yet, what the simulation does not do is create anything like the little bugs themselves. Same thing for consciousness. We may well one day be capable of predicting the behaviour of a human being, and we already have a good idea of how to go about it, but what we've no idea how to do it, is to explain how material things like energy, elementary particles and such can give rise to our subjective experience.

The only solution I remember that you ever put forward was just to claim that subjective experience and qualia are illusory. However, to me, the existence of subjective experience and qualia, as such, is impossible to deny. And, denying it, frankly, is a complete absurdity.

What seems reasonable to doubt, however, is the reality of what our subjective experience suggests there is, i.e. a physical world and what we think it is made of, electrons and such.

We can still live our lives as if we knew these things. I can drive a car without causing an accident. Still, when an accident does happen, we suddenly realise we didn't know what we thought we knew.

I don't think that anyone sane could come to believe that there isn't a material world. But saying that isn't the same thing as saying that we know there is one, or know what it is made of, and how it came to exist to begin with.

Keep your blinkers in place. It's a big world out there.
EB

 

[Malintent]

That would be:
S = klogR (where s = sensation, R = stimulus, and k = sensory modulation)

"the color blue" is quite literally a figment of your imagination. Nothing can turn into the color blue. Something can be perceived to be reflecting light within some electromagnetic frequency, though. The degree of that perception is calculated by the above algorithm.

It would be a cellular biological algorithm that no human understands.

The brain takes energy that has no color and turns it into an experience.

The experience of blue.

It must use some kind of "algorithm" to do it.

Unless you propose it just happens by magic.

The complicated transformations that produce the same thing when exposed to the same thing by magic hypothesis.

"Color" is an attribute... that does not mean it is a THING that some other Thing, "HAS". Reflective properties are physical, based on the nature of the surface of the material... in that way, physical things "have" color (they have reflective surface properties). Color itself, and the mechanism of color perception in human brains, are not physical things, but are artifacts of consciousness. "blue" does not exist. again, it can best be described as a figment of your imagination.

Take a cup of coffee and a cup of milk and sit them out on the table next to each other for the day. Both liquids will stabilize at precisely the same temperature... the room's ambient temperature...

Ask someone to take a sip of the coffee and report if it is warm or cold... they will report that the temperature of the coffee is cold relative to the rest of the room (not relative to their preferred temperature of coffee - to the room).
Ask someone to take a sip of the milk and report if it is warm or cold... they will report that the temperature of the milk is warm relative to the rest of the room (not relative to their preferred temperature of milk - to the room).

Why? Because "warmth" is not a THING... it is a relative expression of sensation (sensory modulation).

 

[untermensche]

It would be a cellular biological algorithm that no human understands.

The brain takes energy that has no color and turns it into an experience.

The experience of blue.

It must use some kind of "algorithm" to do it.

Unless you propose it just happens by magic.

The complicated transformations that produce the same thing when exposed to the same thing by magic hypothesis.

"Color" is an attribute... that does not mean it is a THING that some other Thing, "HAS". Reflective properties are physical, based on the nature of the surface of the material... in that way, physical things "have" color (they have reflective surface properties). Color itself, and the mechanism of color perception in human brains, are not physical things, but are artifacts of consciousness. "blue" does not exist. again, it can best be described as a figment of your imagination.

A reflective property is not a color nor does it produce a color.

There is no color to light energy or to reflected light energy.

Color is only something experienced.

It is not an attribute of any object.

Objects do have attributes like size and shape and the reflective attributes of their surfaces.

But none have any color.

 

[Malintent]

"Color" is an attribute... that does not mean it is a THING that some other Thing, "HAS". Reflective properties are physical, based on the nature of the surface of the material... in that way, physical things "have" color (they have reflective surface properties). Color itself, and the mechanism of color perception in human brains, are not physical things, but are artifacts of consciousness. "blue" does not exist. again, it can best be described as a figment of your imagination.

A reflective property is not a color nor does it produce a color.

There is no color to light energy or to reflected light energy.

Color is only something experienced.

It is not an attribute of any object.

Objects do have attributes like size and shape and the reflective attributes of their surfaces.

But none have any color.

This is exactly what I said. I did also say that such physical attributes is what is commonly called "having color", and went to great lengths to make clear that the EXPRESSION is just that.

 

[untermensche]

A reflective property is not a color nor does it produce a color.

There is no color to light energy or to reflected light energy.

Color is only something experienced.

It is not an attribute of any object.

Objects do have attributes like size and shape and the reflective attributes of their surfaces.

But none have any color.

This is exactly what I said. I did also say that such physical attributes is what is commonly called "having color", and went to great lengths to make clear that the EXPRESSION is just that.

I am saying color is most definitely not an attribute of an object.

If we agree. Great.