How does the abstract emerge from the physical?

[John Page]

How does the abstract emerge from the physical?

What I'm very interested in is you folks point of view on the mechanics of this (as opposed to theory).

For example, is an image, such as a photograph, an abstract as well as being a physical thing? What, then, makes something an image? Does it need an observer - i.e. Is the image upon the physical photographic paper meaningless without an observer that understands it is a picture?

If you have view on photographic images, does the same view apply to the information contained in the human brain?

etc. :)

[Simen]

"Picture" can refer to the physical picture stored on some medium (hard disk, paper, etc.) or it can refer simply to the information, and not the physical medium on which it is stored.

[premjan]

The active, interpretive brain / mind is definitely required.

[John Page]

"Picture" can refer to the physical picture stored on some medium (hard disk, paper, etc.) or it can refer simply to the information, and not the physical medium on which it is stored.
Simen:

Good point. For the purposes of this thread can we adopt the convention that the term "picture" refers to a physical object with the image superimposed on it? The term "image" then, can be used to refer to the information content alone.

[Bobinius]

How does the software emerge from the hardware?

The abstract is by definition, opposed (in some sense) to concrete, and the concrete is physical. I don't think that you can say something about the abstract without referring to the mental. So I guess the discussion is going to the mental-physical dichotmy again.

[LGM]

How does the abstract emerge from the physical?


Via a variety of neural processes.


What I'm very interested in is you folks point of view on the mechanics of this (as opposed to theory).


The 'mechanics' are based on the functioning of neurotransmitters that are used to relay, amplify and modulate electrical signals between a neuron and another cell.

[John Page]

The abstract is by definition, opposed (in some sense) to concrete, and the concrete is physical.
Bobinus - What definition of abstract would you like to use and how would you describe the "opposition"?

[Rilx]

What, then, makes something an image? Does it need an observer - i.e. Is the image upon the physical photographic paper meaningless without an observer that understands it is a picture?


I think it needs an observer and not any observer but someone who has the same "domain of experiencing". A cat don't understand its own picture in a mirror, so it is meaningless.

[pmurray]

What, then, makes something an image? Does it need an observer - i.e. Is the image upon the physical photographic paper meaningless without an observer that understands it is a picture?

If we take a photo, its definitely a picture.

But what if, by some freak circumstance in prehistory there was a crack in a cave wall, which threw an image of the outside onto a wall, which oxidised, forming light and dark patches corresponding to the skyline. Would that be an image?

[Laurentius]

The abstract is related to the manner in which human beings assimilate and form information. They learn (about) objects by placing them into categories. Classes are instituted through repetition. A baby will wake up every morning and in time (a year or longer) s/he will manage to understand what morning is as opposed to evening. S/he will be able to realize that the characters in a picture book go to bed because it is evening and get out of bed because it is morning. As a matter of fact, the baby will not be able to learn to speak without getting the concepts behind every word. The mental mechanism of abstraction is inborn (which is why I think Chomsky believes the language software is partly genetically transmitted) and it is refined through language. Abstraction presuposes sameness (repetition) and extraction of essential elements (in terms of either structure, or function, or belonging etc.). Abstraction starts from basic oppositions (cold/hot; dark/brigh; slow/fast), upon which more complex abstractions are built up to such level that physical elements can be completely overlooked, such as tables of numbers or pictures with symbols.

[Witt]

How does the abstract emerge from the physical?

What I'm very interested in is you folks point of view on the mechanics of this (as opposed to theory).

For example, is an image, such as a photograph, an abstract as well as being a physical thing? What, then, makes something an image? Does it need an observer - i.e. Is the image upon the physical photographic paper meaningless without an observer that understands it is a picture?

If you have view on photographic images, does the same view apply to the information contained in the human brain?

etc. :)

"i.e. Is the image upon the physical photographic paper meaningless without an observer that understands it is a picture?"

Most definitely.

The interpretation of: photos, movies, books, etc. require an understanding mind in order to make sense of them, otherwise they are simply meaningless marks.

[John Page]

But what if, by some freak circumstance in prehistory there was a crack in a cave wall, which threw an image of the outside onto a wall, which oxidised, forming light and dark patches corresponding to the skyline. Would that be an image?
Yes, but not an intentional one. (I think this view is consistent with the comments of other that an image has no meaning without an observer. However, does that mean everything is an image waiting to be observed..... :confused: )

[Ierrellus]

"It is impossible to think without a mental picture."--Aristotle (On Memory and Recollection). I would add that it's impossible to produce a mental picture that has no antecedents in physiological processes. I see nothing in the natural world that could be called abstract; and I consider the content of brain-made minds to be part of the natural world.

[Bobinius]

Bobinus - What definition of abstract would you like to use and how would you describe the "opposition"?

(Bobin -i- us) Abstract,etimologically, comes from "to take away from". It takes aways some quality from an object or a set of objects, and considers that quality in isolation. It is therefore opposed to concrete because it is not instantiated as an observable object, even if sometimes, it presupposes such an object. It is based on a mental operation, and it's therefore subjective and internal in character.

[John Page]

(Bobin -i- us)
Sorry, tyop.
Abstract,etimologically, comes from "to take away from". It takes aways some quality from an object or a set of objects, and considers that quality in isolation. It is therefore opposed to concrete because it is not instantiated as an observable object, even if sometimes, it presupposes such an object. It is based on a mental operation, and it's therefore subjective and internal in character.
Do you agree that abstraction is a mental operation in the brain (or at least central nervous system)?

[comiezapr]

How does the abstract emerge from the physical?

What I'm very interested in is you folks point of view on the mechanics of this (as opposed to theory).

For example, is an image, such as a photograph, an abstract as well as being a physical thing? What, then, makes something an image? Does it need an observer - i.e. Is the image upon the physical photographic paper meaningless without an observer that understands it is a picture?

If you have view on photographic images, does the same view apply to the information contained in the human brain?

etc. :)


I dont think that i fully understand the question. What type of items am i to count as abstract and what type of items am i to count as physical? What could "emerge" possibly mean here? Am i supposed to use my own definitions for abstract, physical and emerge?

[Chuck Rightmire]

I think it is easier to understand the process, which John seems to be looking for, by considering how we attempt to reach the abstract. In the first part of an examination of a thing (meaning any item that we might want to discuss) we will have to examine the physical properties of it. A photograph for instance is a series of colored or black and white images printed on special paper and treated with a series of chemicals to bring out the images which may be of a variety of subjects. The concrete or first level discussion would be exactly that--a discussion of the physical qualities of the photograph, what it is printed on, how it was printed, the colors, the image, etc. The second level would be discussions of more abstract things such as the use of light, the composition of the photograph, which is subject to much debate, and the accuracy of the choice of paper used. The third level and above may continue to get into the concept of composition having to do with the qualities of composition, the beauty of the photograph and other more typical abstractions. The next level might get into the questions of whether composition, in itself, is valuable; whether the photograph is beautiful; what is beauty; what is the texture of the work; what makes the lighting of a photograph valuable, etc. From there we can continue into discussions of what makes the picture more beautiful than others, what are the different forms of beauty, etc. In other words, we develop abstraction as we move away from the actual physical facts of the photograph into speculation on its place in the world of art or on its place in the history of the family.

[Bobinius]

Sorry, tyop.

Do you agree that abstraction is a mental operation in the brain (or at least central nervous system)?

Yes. Go on.

[John Page]

Yes. Go on.
Phew! Seriously, Chuck has just posted a very useful schema which alludes to levels/layers of abstraction within our minds.

I'm interested in people's ideas as to exactly how this happens so I may better understand what is actually going on during predicate logic. Russell's theory of types suggest some kind of natural order based on categories. I think the facts of the matter are that the natural order is level/layer of abstraction.

I argue, for example, that one cannot discuss family history without first having a notion of family. Perhaps a better example is the dependency of the notion multiplication on the notion of addition.

You observations and comments are welcome.

[John Page]

Useful link summarizing the topic... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/

[Laurentius]

Evolutionarily speaking, human beings' propensity for abstraction stems from previous species employing symbols for communication. Human culture is highly symbolistic, which I think has a lot to do with all aspects of abstraction.

[Bobinius]

Phew! Seriously, Chuck has just posted a very useful schema which alludes to levels/layers of abstraction within our minds.

I'm interested in people's ideas as to exactly how this happens so I may better understand what is actually going on during predicate logic. Russell's theory of types suggest some kind of natural order based on categories. I think the facts of the matter are that the natural order is level/layer of abstraction.

I argue, for example, that one cannot discuss family history without first having a notion of family. Perhaps a better example is the dependency of the notion multiplication on the notion of addition.

You observations and comments are welcome.

How this happens is through derivation. The starting point is the concrete object, from which you isolate some aspect. This aspect then becomes an object about which you predicate something and so on. The further you go, the more abstract things become. And the further you depart from the concrete and the empirical.

The problem I would say is ontological: in what sense does the abstract exist? Does it exist independently of the mind? If it exists dependently on mind, can it be identified with some physical aspect (concrete) of it?

[John Page]

Thanks - my current position FYI
The problem I would say is ontological: in what sense does the abstract exist?
As information supervenient upon some physical medium.
Does it exist independently of the mind?
Kind of. Information written on paper exists but requires a mind to interpret it. It is not intrinsically meaningful.
If it exists dependently on mind, can it be identified with some physical aspect (concrete) of it?
Yes. Thanks to neuroscience there is increasing evidence to show that thoughts are abstracts of brain activity. One huge obstacle, I believe, is that each brain contains its own life experience so reading a brain's thought would seem to require the ability to interpret 'live' brain activity in that context.

[Bobinius]

Thanks - my current position FYI

As information supervenient upon some physical medium.

Kind of. Information written on paper exists but requires a mind to interpret it. It is not intrinsically meaningful.

Yes. Thanks to neuroscience there is increasing evidence to show that thoughts are abstracts of brain activity. One huge obstacle, I believe, is that each brain contains its own life experience so reading a brain's thought would seem to require the ability to interpret 'live' brain activity in that context.

So it's courage supervenient on something? Or addition?

How about numbers? Does the number two exist independently? Some people would say it does.

[John Page]

So it's courage supervenient on something? Or addition?
Yes, a property of that something (that has meaning to some other thing).
Does the number two exist independently?
I assume you mean indepedent of any physical medium (as opposed to what it is supervenient upon). In this case a number two does not exist independently, there is no great the number two in the sky. :)
Some people would say it does.
Yes, I know. Its like the Parmenides/Socrates Third Man debate. I believe that when a group of people refer to "the number two" it is a concept they intersubjectively share and (presumably) agree on. This gives the appearance that there is some external, objective, the number two when in fact "it" resides in the brain of each participant.

This ontology explains why people can disagree about abstract concepts - even the truth. :D

Is this explanation understandable?

[untermensche]

What, then, makes something an image?
An image will have properties that do not exist elsewhere, like color. Color does not exist on the physical object. The object simply has areas that absorb light differently. It requires a brain to create color, even to create a distinction between black and white.
Is the image upon the physical photographic paper meaningless without an observer that understands it is a picture?
It is not meaningless. It is something that has a surface that absorbs light differently. But the surface is not an image.

[John Page]

An image will have properties that do not exist elsewhere, like color. Color does not exist on the physical object. The object simply has areas that absorb light differently. It requires a brain to create color, even to create a distinction between black and white.
I agree color is extrinsic and an image has properties which are interpreted as color. However, this doesn't seem to differentiate the image from the object it is an image (informational copy) of.
It is not meaningless. It is something that has a surface that absorbs light differently. But the surface is not an image.
OK. I guess I'm asking where the meaning comes from and suggesting it is within the observer. Only the observer can say A2 is an image of A1.

I guess what I'm struggling with is representations that exist outside the brain. Inside the brain I can see we are relating representations, mental images if you will to each other, to create meaning.

[Chuck Rightmire]

From my understanding of mathematics (which is not highly developed), I believe i was taught that number are abstractions to the nth degree and do not have a physical existence. A line, a dot, etc., have no physical reality either when they are being used in pure mathematics but represent abstract points on a scale that is seen only in the mind. Color in a photograph is not color in the sense that the icons we use in these posts seem to have color. Color is only in the brain and is created because we have cones in our retinas that absorb the different wave lengths of light and mix them up in our brain to create color. We believe for instance that there are only three basic colors: red, blue and yellow that combine in our brains so that we see all the other colors. Some people can see green as a fourth primary color and a magazine (I forget which one (one of my wife's, I remember) claims women can see a wider range of color than most men. And after arguing about mauve and taupe, etc., most men might agree. But I believe the point is that all sensations we feel and everything we see are nothing but reactions that our body has to its surroundings. If we get no waves in the right spectrum, the world will be dark. As I understand it, cats have eyes adapted to the dark and therefore do not see colors quite as we do. All abstraction occurs in the brain and all consciousness and thought is also a process of brain interactions which we are not totally in tune with yet. I believe in the future we will have a much better handle on the brain processes and will discover the "soul" to be a super brain wave.

[untermensche]

I agree color is extrinsic and an image has properties which are interpreted as color. However, this doesn't seem to differentiate the image from the object it is an image (informational copy) of.
As I said, only an image has color. No object has color. This is one thing that seperates a thing from the image of a thing.

[John Page]

As I said, only an image has color. No object has color. This is one thing that seperates a thing from the image of a thing.
OK, seems we are tripping over whether we are talking about an image in the brain or an actual photograph. I had assumed the latter (pmurray and his image on the cave wall, Witt responding re an image on photgraphic paper. Seems we are in agreement.

[Ierrellus]

I would recommend the book "The Astonishing Hypothesis", subtitled "The Scientific Search for the Soul" by Francis Crick (1994). I read it when it first came out and, seredipitously rediscovered it, marvelling at how much of it I had forgotten over the years.
The book received kudos from Oliver Sachs and Carl Sagan. It actually contains humor! Its introduction summarily refutes most philosophic objections to seeing "mental" events as derived from "physical" events. It tells of V.S, Ramachandran's "utilitarian theory of perception", Bernard J. Baars' "global workspace in the brain" and Benjamin Libet's brain-style conceptions of time and free will.
The "astonishing hypothesis" is that all we consider to be "mind", "soul" or any other such abstraction can actually be accounted for in interactions of neurons. Happy reading!

[untermensche]

OK, seems we are tripping over whether we are talking about an image in the brain or an actual photograph. I had assumed the latter (pmurray and his image on the cave wall, Witt responding re an image on photgraphic paper. Seems we are in agreement.
The only images are the images created by the brain. Otherwise you have no image, all you have are differing light absorptions on some objects surface.

[John Page]

The only images are the images created by the brain. Otherwise you have no image, all you have are differing light absorptions on some objects surface.
OK, but how would you describe the information in/on a photograph? I've been thinking its an image external to the brain. Example: photographic paper unexposed vs. same after picture is taken and developed.

[untermensche]

OK, but how would you describe the information in/on a photograph? I've been thinking its an image external to the brain. Example: photographic paper unexposed vs. same after picture is taken and developed.
How is paper an image?

It has no color. It has texture and shape, but no shade or color.

The shade and color are created by a brain. They do not exist on the paper.

[John Page]

How is paper an image?

It has no color. It has texture and shape, but no shade or color.

The shade and color are created by a brain. They do not exist on the paper.
Texture and shape are inferred also.

Please give your own description of the difference between these two examples: photographic paper unexposed vs. same after picture is taken and developed.

[untermensche]

Texture and shape are inferred also.

Please give your own description of the difference between these two examples: photographic paper unexposed vs. same after picture is taken and developed.
Texture is a physical property like shape. Neither are created whole like color or shade by a brain.

The difference on the surface of the paper is that it has areas which absorb light differently after developement. The paper changes, but it does not contain an image. It contains areas that absorb light differently.

[John Page]

The difference on the surface of the paper is that it has areas which absorb light differently after developement. The paper changes, but it does not contain an image. It contains areas that absorb light differently.
I agree. I'm still wondering, then, how we additionally describe the releationship between the observer to whom these altered areas have special meaning. What do you think about "Information is superimposed on the paper"?

[Ierrellus]

In 1886 T. A. Edison patented the phonograph. How was sound "captured" on that cylander, retained and eventually retrieved? In reading Crick's book, cited above, I find that neuronal activity amounts to transduction. Electrical energy excites (becomes?) chemical energy, which in turn excites (becomes?) electrical energy. This process enables a flow and modification of informational data. Does transduction account for the "meaning" and "value" of perceptional information as it relates to an organisms' growth and development, maintenance and survival potential?

[untermensche]

I agree. I'm still wondering, then, how we additionally describe the releationship between the observer to whom these altered areas have special meaning. What do you think about "Information is superimposed on the paper"?
Information was on the paper before it was developed. There is just different information afterward. Different information that a human brain can turn into a different image.

[John Page]

Information was on the paper before it was developed. There is just different information afterward. Different information that a human brain can turn into a different image.
OK, let's talk about the information content of the paper before and after it is exposed using a camera. It might be information that only has meaning for a human brain (e.g. a photo of the Declaration of Independence) but is not in a human brain.

[John Page]

In 1886 T. A. Edison patented the phonograph. How was sound "captured" on that cylander, retained and eventually retrieved? In reading Crick's book, cited above, I find that neuronal activity amounts to transduction. Electrical energy excites (becomes?) chemical energy, which in turn excites (becomes?) electrical energy. This process enables a flow and modification of informational data. Does transduction account for the "meaning" and "value" of perceptional information as it relates to an organisms' growth and development, maintenance and survival potential?
Transduction. Hmmmmmm. Interesting.

I haven't been able to get beyond a simple notion of 'external memory'. But that is neither noumena nor phenomena alone. I guess the difference between human noumena and external memory is that the former is held within our brains (which can process them).

External static memory such as a photgraph or typed documents is easy to classify. However, if the external memory is an somewhat sophisticated computer (let's say an image analysis machine that sharpens up visual images) then we have non-human noumena to categiorize. Then we have interpreters with access to data we don't e.g. tracker dogs.... Any ideas on a simple classification approach?

I'm also still puzzled about how to categorize reflections. They are not necessarily man-made but they are superimpositions of original information from elsewhere.

Thanks for posting. John

[untermensche]

OK, let's talk about the information content of the paper before and after it is exposed using a camera. It might be information that only has meaning for a human brain (e.g. a photo of the Declaration of Independence) but is not in a human brain.
In the brain? Who knows where. But the image is not on the paper. Images are the what brains make out of light hitting the eye.

[John Page]

In the brain? Who knows where. But the image is not on the paper. Images are the what brains make out of light hitting the eye.
Hi unter:

I don't feel I'm getting through. Piece of paper 1 is unexposed photoraphic paper, Piece of paper 2 is exposed and developed photographic paper. What are you calling the difference between the two pieces of paper.

Common parlance is to say the second one has an image on it. I agree this is uninterpreted until it hits one's mind.

Here's a thought. How about calling the image in the mind an n-image (Noumenal image) and the one on the paper a p-image (Phenomenal image)?

[Ierrellus]

J.P.,
One major problem in discussions such as these is that those of a philosophical bent tend to see any comparison between physical information and mental information as a categorical error. The human brain doesn't really see it that way in its operational functions. Fortunately, neither did Daguere or Edison.

[Ierrellus]

Transduction simply means that input energy information and output energy information do not have to be identical. I can see an image of Mars from sounds translated into dots of various shading intensities.

[untermensche]

Hi unter:

I don't feel I'm getting through. Piece of paper 1 is unexposed photoraphic paper, Piece of paper 2 is exposed and developed photographic paper. What are you calling the difference between the two pieces of paper.

Common parlance is to say the second one has an image on it. I agree this is uninterpreted until it hits one's mind.

Here's a thought. How about calling the image in the mind an n-image (Noumenal image) and the one on the paper a p-image (Phenomenal image)?
We would say that an image has differences in shade, at least. Differences in black and white areas.

But this does not exist on the paper. There is no shade on the paper. No color at all. No black. No white.

There are only places on the surface which absorb light differently. Color is not a property of objects. It is not a property of light. It is a property of images that brains create.

If there is no shade or color on the paper, how can there be an image on it?

Remember, when you say you see the paper, you are not seeing the paper, you are seeing the image of the paper that your brain creates.

[John Page]

We would say that an image has differences in shade, at least. Differences in black and white areas.

But this does not exist on the paper. There is no shade on the paper. No color at all. No black. No white.

There are only places on the surface which absorb light differently. Color is not a property of objects. It is not a property of light. It is a property of images that brains create.

If there is no shade or color on the paper, how can there be an image on it?

Remember, when you say you see the paper, you are not seeing the paper, you are seeing the image of the paper that your brain creates.
I understand and agree. However, there is information in the paper that is meaningful to me. If nobody ever sees the photograph we say the information is lost.

When we see the photograph the information is abstracted (by detecting surface variations through the medium of light).

So, while I agree with your analysis, I'm still looking for a generic way to describe intentional encoding (which would include writing) of information onto media that are not minds. Disabstraction? Reverse Abstraction? External Memorialization?

[untermensche]

I understand and agree. However, there is information in the paper that is meaningful to me. If nobody ever sees the photograph we say the information is lost.
There is information that has meaning to you on every surface that reflects some visible light.
So, while I agree with your analysis, I'm still looking for a generic way to describe intentional encoding (which would include writing) of information onto media that are not minds. Disabstraction? Reverse Abstraction? External Memorialization?
A photograph is not much of an abstraction. It is as accurate a depiction of the light that hits the film as possible. Obviously in 2D so there has to be abstraction from the objects in the photograph, but not much abstraction from the light that hits the film.

It seems to me that photography is the opposite of abstraction. It is the process of trying to as accurately as possible depict the differences in light that hit the film as possible. To not abstract as much as possible.

[Ierrellus]

There is information that has meaning to you on every surface that reflects some visible light.

A photograph is not much of an abstraction. It is as accurate a depiction of the light that hits the film as possible. Obviously in 2D so there has to be abstraction from the objects in the photograph, but not much abstraction from the light that hits the film.

It seems to me that photography is the opposite of abstraction. It is the process of trying to as accurately as possible depict the differences in light that hit the film as possible. To not abstract as much as possible.
"To not abstract as much as possible"--isn't that what brains with a genetic mandate to maintain an organism, given genetic, somatic and sensory data for processing, are trying to do?

[untermensche]

"To not abstract as much as possible"--isn't that what brains with a genetic mandate to maintain an organism, given genetic, somatic and sensory data for processing, are trying to do?
To some extent, but with things like choosing the proper food an abstraction is added to the information, color.

[Ierrellus]

To some extent, but with things like choosing the proper food an abstraction is added to the information, color.
Nah, color would amount to enticement, the roots of esthetics!

[untermensche]

Nah, color would amount to enticement, the roots of esthetics!
Both actually. Enticement and warning.

[Ierrellus]

Both actually. Enticement and warning.
Absolutely! The color, odor and texture of my food is enticement and warning. Now, how do brains make such distinctions?

[John Page]

Absolutely! The color, odor and texture of my food is enticement and warning. Now, how do brains make such distinctions?
There are minuature Pavlov's dogs within the brain salivating when red meat is detected. ;)

[untermensche]

Absolutely! The color, odor and texture of my food is enticement and warning. Now, how do brains make such distinctions?
The brain simply deals with what it recieves and changes the light to the color it is "programmed" to change the light into.

But rareness and newness are really the only warnings when it comes to color.

And avoiding the new and the rare is a trait some use for survival.

[Ierrellus]

There are minuature Pavlov's dogs within the brain salivating when red meat is detected. ;)
Now, John, come on! I can't buy a homunculus or canine subsitute!:rolleyes:

[Ierrellus]

There are no abstractions. There are unknowns. Unknowns are not unknowables.

[xunzian]

Isn't this what semiotics is for?

[John Page]

There are no abstractions.
:) Then what does cognition operate on?
There are no abstractions. There are unknowns. Unknowns are not unknowables.
But they can be. We know things bats cannot. Bats know things we cannot. This is a deduction from the observation of different cognitive apparatus.

[Ierrellus]

Isn't this what semiotics is for?
So glad to see you here! It's a tough debate.

[Ierrellus]

:) Then what does cognition operate on?

But they can be. We know things bats cannot. Bats know things we cannot. This is a deduction from the observation of different cognitive apparatus.
Nagel is out to lunch!

There are no "pictures in the head" in the sense that extrnal phenomena exist in the brain as some sort of transform. There are no single nerons that reflect such phenomena. There is no "grandmother cell". There may not even be a "breaking down" of sense data in brain processing unless one notes that different but connected neural nets process different but connected aspects of incoming data.

Informational processing in brains involves a highly complex "symphony" of neuronal activities in which individual "instruments" (neuron nets processing some aspects of a percept) combine with others then "play" together in various places in the brain in order to achieve "fine tuning".

the fact that over ten billion neurons occupy a three pound, mushy processing space suggest that there must be room for growth and development. There must be room for adding neoon nets as a brain matures. This is necessitated by the need of a deloping organism to have an increasingly accurate awreness of what goes on in its environment.

A man, walking in a field, gets a whiff of lilac. Immediately his brain starts remembering grandma, whose favorite perfume reeked of lilac. The remembering does not entail digging fading pictures out of some mental archive. It entails reactivation of the neural net that first connected grandma with the scent of lilac.

The "symphonic" activity is the "picture".

[Ierrellus]

edit- "deloping" should be developing.

[John Page]

Nagel is out to lunch!
Yes, he is not a bat. They generally go for midnight snacks, generaly known is [emits inaudible high pitched squeak].
There are no "pictures in the head" in the sense that extrnal phenomena exist in the brain as some sort of transform.......The "symphonic" activity is the "picture".
Hmmm. I don't think I disagree with your post. Except for two things. If there is no picture a) what is it that I am looking at when I recall an image of my grandmother and b) why do I think there is a picture? Brain activity interpreting other brain activity as picture?

[Ierrellus]

J.P.,
I'll have to think a little harder to answer your questions. My gut, knee-jerk, immediate reaction is to note that the image of grandma is the active symphony of neural nets concerning grandma. But that's repetitive. I've not finished the Crick book yet. I'm interested in how he confronts this issue. So much of the book is, IMHO, wasted on the mechanics of sight processing, visual illusions, etc.
Any help from others here?

[Ierrellus]

"Although there are many different visual regions (in the brain), each of which analyzes visual input in different and complex ways, so far we can locate no single region in which the neural activity corresponds exactly to the vivid picture of the world we see in front of our eyes." (Crick, 1994), Parenthesis mine.
Ouch!!! But that was 1994. 13 years have elapsed since then. In arenas of expanding scientific research 13 years is the new half-century. Surely, someone has, by now, come up with something more reasonable than looking for a correspondence between "the picture in the head" and "the picture outside the head" in single brain processing regions.
Personally, I don't think Dennett did it. And it needs to be done if only to prove to the Cartesians that the human psche does not consist of magic pixie dust imprisoned in a meat machine.

[John Page]

....so far we can locate no single region in which the neural activity corresponds exactly to the vivid picture of the world we see in front of our eyes." (Crick, 1994), Parenthesis mine.
Heh! I wouldn't expect us to find one either! Two comments:

1. Crick's comment belies an expectation of an homunculus-type or Cartesian theater-type solution where the world is assembled to the delight of some internal observer. The mind's "I" if you will pardon the pun.

The information supervenient upon the light that hits our eyes undergoes sophisticated analysis. As I look out of my window and see the leaves on a tree that only happens because I have learned the concept or ideal of a leaf. (Before I learn about leaves I literally cannot see them). I suspect that each instance of a leaf that I see is merely a real time mapping of concepts onto my field of view. As kennethamy might say, there are no leaves in my head.

2. Field of View. I suspect the 'singularity' of experience is a synthetic one. Furthermore, I believe it is created by simultaneous activity to interpret the visual, audible stimuli etc. We focus on a particular activity through attentional mechanisms that highlight anomalies or "things of interest". In this way there is a parallel (unconscous) awareness of all stimuli and our brain's analysis of them. Hence the field of view.

Sorry if this is not very clear but I'm just hypothecating! Dennett (and others) seem to be on the right track with the radial? neurons that integrate the brain's analyses of stimuli.

My final point is that I would not expect to see a static picture in any event. The brain also holds dynamic information about activity occuring within the current field of view - the wind blowing through the trees etc, the song that is playing etc.

Cheers, John

[Ierrellus]

Heh! I wouldn't expect us to find one either! Two comments:

1. Crick's comment belies an expectation of an homunculus-type or Cartesian theater-type solution where the world is assembled to the delight of some internal observer. The mind's "I" if you will pardon the pun.

The information supervenient upon the light that hits our eyes undergoes sophisticated analysis. As I look out of my window and see the leaves on a tree that only happens because I have learned the concept or ideal of a leaf. (Before I learn about leaves I literally cannot see them). I suspect that each instance of a leaf that I see is merely a real time mapping of concepts onto my field of view. As kennethamy might say, there are no leaves in my head.

2. Field of View. I suspect the 'singularity' of experience is a synthetic one. Furthermore, I believe it is created by simultaneous activity to interpret the visual, audible stimuli etc. We focus on a particular activity through attentional mechanisms that highlight anomalies or "things of interest". In this way there is a parallel (unconscous) awareness of all stimuli and our brain's analysis of them. Hence the field of view.

Sorry if this is not very clear but I'm just hypothecating! Dennett (and others) seem to be on the right track with the radial? neurons that integrate the brain's analyses of stimuli.

My final point is that I would not expect to see a static picture in any event. The brain also holds dynamic information about activity occuring within the current field of view - the wind blowing through the trees etc, the song that is playing etc.

Cheers, John
Yep. It looks as if Crick still wants to find the picture inside the t.v. set. Please tell me where to find your reference to Dennett. I just got bummed out by "Conciousness Explained". Maybe I was too quick to judge.

[Ierrellus]

What sort of images were there in Helen Keller's mind when she was taught to observe the woirld outside her head through touch?

[John Page]

I just got bummed out by "Conciousness Explained". Maybe I was too quick to judge.
Chapter 9, Architecture of the Human Mind. While Dennett is non-committal and talks a lot about the theories of others his main points are that we should abandon any serial von Neumann conception and also functional compartmentalization in favor or parallel overlaid processes.

I just skimmed it again and had forgotten his mention (in a later chapter) of an aid to the blind that allows them to see by using a camera to provide vision stimuli to nerves on the subject's back. The subject's mind adjusts automatically to place the source of the stimuli on the head (I guess it must triagulate head orientation with the change in visual information) and the subject knows without effort that a real itch is not part of the picture. I'm not sure how relevant this is but I found it fascinating.... :)

[Blueskyboris]

How does the software emerge from the hardware?

The abstract is by definition, opposed (in some sense) to concrete, and the concrete is physical. I don't think that you can say something about the abstract without referring to the mental. So I guess the discussion is going to the mental-physical dichotmy again. Only if you think the electrical synapses in the brain are not physical. It seems that the abstract is the result of the "concrete" after all. The mental-physical dichotomy is only prevalent because those argue this subject do not point out that the mental comes from the physical. We may not know exactly how synapses create self-consciousness, but we know that it come from those synapses. I'm sure no one on this forum would like me to use a knife to open up their skull and cut them.

[Blueskyboris]

Yep. It looks as if Crick still wants to find the picture inside the t.v. set. Please tell me where to find your reference to Dennett. I just got bummed out by "Conciousness Explained". Maybe I was too quick to judge. Er, the picture in the TV exists projected on its screen? If so, it is not a great leap to find a simliar phenomena in the brain.

The problem of this analysis is, of course, that if we were to find an image in a brain by looking at it in motion, that image would still not be the "I". The I is more than an image or series of images.

[Ierrellus]

Er, the picture in the TV exists projected on its screen? If so, it is not a great leap to find a simliar phenomena in the brain.
No, the picture inside the set being observed by an internal watcher.

The problem of this analysis is, of course, that if we were to find an image in a brain by looking at it in motion, that image would still not be the "I". The I is more than an image or series of images.
Let me clarify the "picture in the t.v. set". More accurately, as J.P. notes, Crick's remark calls for an "internal observor". This cannot be isolated. The so-called "I" needed to make that assumption cannot exist cut off from nature/nurture interactions.

[Ierrellus]

edit--"no, the picture. . ." etc. is my remark, not Bluesky's.
J. P.
I'll reread "consciousness Explained".

[Ierrellus]

Yes, he is not a bat. They generally go for midnight snacks, generaly known is [emits inaudible high pitched squeak].

Hmmm. I don't think I disagree with your post. Except for two things. If there is no picture a) what is it that I am looking at when I recall an image of my grandmother and b) why do I think there is a picture? Brain activity interpreting other brain activity as picture?
I once tried to domesticate a bat, read up on what it might eat., etc. It wouldn't eat in captivity. It would rather die than be a pet. So I had to let it go. Nagel is summarily refuted by Rorty, Wilson and Uexkull.
Cats have a history of domestication, which is why my cat tolerates me. He asserts his independece daily; but often he can be affectionate on a full stomach, which is more than I can say of most humans I know.

[xunzian]

If we accept the anthropocosmic notion of reality, then we are living in a hermeneutical reality where human perceptions become a part of being the universe.

In this system, our senses passively take in information and the physical matter of the brain takes this information and processes it. The act of processing then creates a pattern that is applied to reality.

The picture on the photograph is created in the same way that the thing that created its impression -- through the pattern recongition ability of the brain.