Subjective Geometry

[sargentlard]

Xenu i grasp what you are saying....i would like to ask though...do you feel language was primarily creted for what you describe??? Though it could be but i think language itself is a very complex part of human nature, it's the only tool i can think of at present moment that is used to pass down the schemas of one's culture from generation to generation.

As for emotion; well that is truly perplexing in it's own right. How does it come about from firing of chemical reactions which is all or none event.....it's ironic that such a subjective thing (emotion) comes from such a objective process (neuron firing - all or none event)
So i ask you a question (bare with me here even i am confused by this question) Could emotions be subjective reports created by the mind to serve the mind??? Like status reports made by a company on the enviromental quality around it to better it's survival chances??? Emotions let us know the world around us in a very different manner than stimuli....more like a read between the lines sort of step so is it a feature of the mind that takes over where the stimulis stops???

Forgive the horrible phrased questions.

 

[Xenu]

Sarge, I will answer your questions, but I'm going to make a new thread. I don't want to hijack Wes's thread. However, I'm not going to do it tonight, because I have to do a lot of explaining to do and I'm poopy tired. I define and organize thinking and emotions differently from most people.

 

[wesmorris]

So I wake up this morning and my daughter is asking for some white chocolate that she knew was in the fridge. She's asking for daddy. Maybe somewhat simply it occurs to me "I'm a key to a token". The token is the white-chocolate. It is representative of a percieved need (in her mind, placed there by an emotional reaction to white chocalate). I am the key since I bought it yesterday and told her she could have some tomorrow.

Then it seemed that really all "action thought" (as in thought that motivates to action) is founded in this rudimentary relationship of the key and token. Then it seemed that really ALL thought is the same shit but stacked up on top of itself and in the same vein of interaction that I desribed previously in this thread.

Just an idea. I'll have to consider it some more. Anyone with relevant input?

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Mephura
I can dig it man...

I like what you've got going so far, but I would say that alot of that isn't really subconscious. Its kinda a quazi area between conscious and subconscious. Also could this also tie into train of thought/creative/intuitive leaps in the thought process. Say like round peg goes to octogon hole and hexagon hole. doesn't fit either, but almost does. So the mind then links those differnent ideas and form a strange connection between say the galaxies and kaleidoscopes or something. This goes through the same process over and over untill we have a match or a idea about something. Kind of like mapping an intuitive leap using circular thought.

(what the hell am I saying? Does this make sense at all???)

Man, pardon. I was just re-reading the thread and found it hard to believe I didn't respond. My apologies.

Yes I think you are right on it. You're digging for sure. That's exactly how I'm thinking about it.

I'm somewhat distracted at the moment by trying to figure out how the actual thinking goes down. It's like focus moved from language to feel to picture to sound blah blah. Moving from one concept or "ring" of concepts at a time to another, attempting to marry them (just under the conscious surface) and merge aspects of the comparisons into construct of the comparisons themselves. Maybe even several layers of all that happening at the same time, all some how at the "focal point" of your "lense" of consciousness.

Too weird?

 

[thefountainhed]

Wesmorris:

The brain is a neural net. It "learns" and then categorizes each new stimulus through 'classifiers' or paths it must take. In order words, You can take a brain and then train it to react to certain stimuli. With the brain thus trained, you can predict future outputs. How does this all relate? I have a couple of question about your idea:

1. About the notion of the 'mind' and how it sifts through all these patterns-- as you call them and then creates a response. If the brain is in essence a machine, then what is the control of the brain? Is the brain "dead' before one emereges from the womb? No. So what is this machine that you call the mind that somehow differentaiates what lies between the subconscious and the conscious?

2. How do altered states of consciounesses play to this?

3. On time: The brain recognizes time and thinks of concepts such as the past and the future. Does recognizing these play into how the mind computes? If I have an idea, I can delay the exploration of this idea. How does the mind handle conscious delays? It cannot be pushed to the subconcious. There must be multiple layers.

4. Epiphanies.

5. Expand on the notion of subjective time in the present a bit.

6. Will the machine that is the brain only work if given a stimulus?
More later.


More later...

 

[wesmorris]

/The brain is a neural net. It "learns" and then categorizes each new stimulus through 'classifiers' or paths it must take. In order words, You can take a brain and then train it to react to certain stimuli. With the brain thus trained, you can predict future outputs. How does this all relate?

The brain is THE nueral net, not "a nueral net". The main point in the differentiation being that it isn't just some programmable device because of it's internal feedback. You can program it for something and eventually it just does it's own thing despite your programming. What I'm getting at is basically what you've said, but kind of uhm.. well, more involved in the sense that I'm looking at it from an organizational/functional/subjective stance. I'm trying to dissect it from the inside out on a conceptual level. I'm hoping this could yeild insight as to the bio-mechanical processes in terms of large-scale interactions (not the function of an nueron, but how they function together).

Further re-iterated, I'm really attemping is to see how the brain uses it's input and feedback cycle to create a mind rather than just a lifeless nueral net. I'm brazen enough to think I might actually have some real insight.

/I have a couple of question about your idea:

/1. About the notion of the 'mind' and how it sifts through all these patterns-- as you call them and then creates a response.

Well, I was just saying that to YOU they are patterns (and to me). Your exprience is abstracted into concepts via your input and your "lense" which I suppose is the "poise" of your mind as it processes input. It's really that you've shaped your conceptual inter-relationships over time. As input is experienced, this inter-relationship is the reference point for abstraction.

/If the brain is in essence a machine, then what is the control of the brain?

From my perspective the brain can be seen as (oh this sounds whack) "an organ that bridges from space-time to the abstract". Hmm. Now that I think about it, "that which is abstract" really only makes sense subjectively - so a mind is in essence nature's way of embodiment of this principle, accessed through random mutation of species. Possibility is explored as time progresses. Abstraction is/was possible, and now simply IS (in a tao kind of way) since nature jacked around for billions of years and happened upon it via it's creation of minds.

/Is the brain "dead' before one emereges from the womb? No. So what is this machine that you call the mind that somehow differentaiates what lies between the subconscious and the conscious?

It is the culmination of the subjective experience. While babies just from the womb do have brains, their "minds" are only potential at that point. A sense of self (realization that they are separate from their environment) follows in the first six months. It's amazing (and tiresome) to watch. You can percieve if you're equipped and paying attention. Something in the eyes.

/2. How do altered states of consciounesses play to this?

Heh, I told you about that before with pot, did you forget? Fucking stoner.

/3. On time: The brain recognizes time and thinks of concepts such as the past and the future. Does recognizing these play into how the mind computes?

Uhm.... yes. It's a subjective deal though. It effects you (on a conscious level) in the way you've become accustomed to being affected by it. I'm not sure that's what you were asking.

The more sub-conscious aspects of it are more mechanistic I'd think. I think of it as a two-fold time-code (like on video tape except biological). There is the whole internal clock deal and the "circadian time" doo-hicky. The brain is intimately in tune with both.

/If I have an idea, I can delay the exploration of this idea. How does the mind handle conscious delays?

Internal markers or 'chits' or however you like to think of it. Basically like writing yourself a note. You stash it in short term memory and hope it regurgitates when you want it to... or you find and interest which creates a divot between two concepts, then as you're scanning over those concepts in your mind again you remember the divot you put there from the thing that struck your interest. Different people do it different ways.

/It cannot be pushed to the subconcious. There must be multiple layers.

Yeah, I don't think "subconscious" is a good term a lot of the time. I do believe consciousness has a lot of layers. We'll have to discuss that. Seems to me that there is a continuum from your direct focus to the unconscious.

/4. Epiphanies.

Epiphanies are basically when you have a ton of open ended concepts that are all answered by the same realization. Let's think of it as a traffic scenario. You have built 100 partial roads. The all have traffic but the traffic has nowhere to go. Your epiphany allows all the traffic to move smoothly all of the sudden. Bad analogy. We can delve deeper if you'd like.

/5. Expand on the notion of subjective time in the present a bit.

In what context? I'm sorry but all my shit is relative to all the other shit I put near it. Quote me and I'll be able to explain much easier.

/6. Will the machine that is the brain only work if given a stimulus?

Hehe, uhm yes, but with no stimulous you'll never develop your mind.

 

[thefountainhed]

Wes,

The brain is a neural net. It "learns" and then categorizes each new stimulus through 'classifiers' or paths it must take. In order words, You can take a brain and then train it to react to certain stimuli. With the brain thus trained, you can predict future outputs. How does this all relate?

The brain is THE nueral net, not "a nueral net". The main point in the differentiation being that it isn't just some programmable device because of it's internal feedback. You can program it for something and eventually it just does it's own thing despite your programming. What I'm getting at is basically what you've said, but kind of uhm.. well, more involved in the sense that I'm looking at it from an organizational/functional/subjective stance. I'm trying to dissect it from the inside out on a conceptual level. I'm hoping this could yeild insight as to the bio-mechanical processes in terms of large-scale interactions (not the function of an nueron, but how they function together).

I don't really think this differentiation is needed; artificially created neural nets can also learn.

Further re-iterated, I'm really attemping is to see how the brain uses it's input and feedback cycle to create a mind rather than just a lifeless nueral net. I'm brazen enough to think I might actually have some real insight.

To create a mind?...

1. About the notion of the 'mind' and how it sifts through all these patterns-- as you call them and then creates a response.

Well, I was just saying that to YOU they are patterns (and to me). Your exprience is abstracted into concepts via your input and your "lense" which I suppose is the "poise" of your mind as it processes input. It's really that you've shaped your conceptual inter-relationships over time. As input is experienced, this inter-relationship is the reference point for abstraction.

OK

If the brain is in essence a machine, then what is the control of the brain?

From my perspective the brain can be seen as (oh this sounds whack) "an organ that bridges from space-time to the abstract". Hmm. Now that I think about it, "that which is abstract" really only makes sense subjectively - so a mind is in essence nature's way of embodiment of this principle, accessed through random mutation of species. Possibility is explored as time progresses. Abstraction is/was possible, and now simply IS (in a tao kind of way) since nature jacked around for billions of years and happened upon it via it's creation of minds.

I still don't think you have adressed my question. You seperate the brain and the mind. There must be a control, so what is it?

It is the culmination of the subjective experience. While babies just from the womb do have brains, their "minds" are only potential at that point. A sense of self (realization that they are separate from their environment) follows in the first six months. It's amazing (and tiresome) to watch. You can percieve if you're equipped and paying attention. Something in the eyes.

So a baby has no mind for it has yet to experience? Well without a mind at birth, how then does the experience mean anything?

Heh, I told you about that before with pot, did you forget? Fucking stoner.

I think the reasons why I ask the question then are different from why I ask it now. How does an altered consciounesses factor into this geometry?

3. On time: The brain recognizes time and thinks of concepts such as the past and the future. Does recognizing these play into how the mind computes?

Uhm.... yes. It's a subjective deal though. It effects you (on a conscious level) in the way you've become accustomed to being affected by it. I'm not sure that's what you were asking.

I will rephrase: How does the brain recognizing that the present is a moment in what is a series of moments factor into its operation? Feedbacks, etc..

If I have an idea, I can delay the exploration of this idea. How does the mind handle conscious delays?

Internal markers or 'chits' or however you like to think of it. Basically like writing yourself a note. You stash it in short term memory and hope it regurgitates when you want it to... or you find and interest which creates a divot between two concepts, then as you're scanning over those concepts in your mind again you remember the divot you put there from the thing that struck your interest. Different people do it different ways.

I have to think whether or not this was the question as I originally intended

/It cannot be pushed to the subconcious. There must be multiple layers.

Yeah, I don't think "subconscious" is a good term a lot of the time. I do believe consciousness has a lot of layers. We'll have to discuss that. Seems to me that there is a continuum from your direct focus to the unconscious.

I think this question refreshes my memory. What I am asking is what do you consider memory to be within the scope of the net/pattern?

4. Epiphanies.

Epiphanies are basically when you have a ton of open ended concepts that are all answered by the same realization. Let's think of it as a traffic scenario. You have built 100 partial roads. The all have traffic but the traffic has nowhere to go. Your epiphany allows all the traffic to move smoothly all of the sudden. Bad analogy. We can delve deeper if you'd like.

So if there is an unended path, it is allowed to linger?

/5. Expand on the notion of subjective time in the present a bit.

In what context? I'm sorry but all my shit is relative to all the other shit I put near it. Quote me and I'll be able to explain much easier.

We'll get to it.

/6. Will the machine that is the brain only work if given a stimulus?

Hehe, uhm yes, but with no stimulous you'll never develop your mind.

So if a new born baby is fed intravenously, within a darkened room, with a constant (thereby essentially nulling it), air, etc temperature, how will that affect the development/creation or working of the mind? What of an adult who has had experiences?

 

[Cris]

Fountainhed,

The brain and the mind can be perceived as the same thing.

As a new human brain begins to grow in the womb it first begins with the growth of neurons. Neural networks are formed, and hence the mind begins to form, as neurons reach out to make connections with other neurons. Sensory feedback causes positive or negative reinforcement of synaptic connections. Until neural networks are formed the child has no mind, the brain could perhaps be considered essentially a blank slate, however, there really isn’t a point where neurons are not seeking each other.

Examination of a new born child (note that many neural nets will be present at this stage) shows no abilities to communicate in any intelligible sense, no control of limbs, and no self-awareness, etc. All these abilities must grow as sensory input leads to a largely random thrashing of neurons in the brain seeking connections and the formation of permanent and semi-permanent neural nets.

Neural nets continue to form throughout life and the randomness component leads to new nets or extensions that promote new ideas and epiphanies.

If the brain is in essence a machine, then what is the control of the brain?

Why does the brain need to be controlled? I can build a simple wheeled robot that has the ability to avoid obstacles. Its objective is simply to keep going. Once turned on it will indeed continue to move avoiding obstacles en-route and will only stop when its batteries are exhausted. Why is a human any different?

 

[thefountainhed]

Cris,

The brain and the mind can be perceived as the same thing.

I believe wesmorris is separating the two.

As a new human brain begins to grow in the womb it first begins with the growth of neurons. Neural networks are formed, and hence the mind begins to form, as neurons reach out to make connections with other neurons. Sensory feedback causes positive or negative reinforcement of synaptic connections. Until neural networks are formed the child has no mind, the brain could perhaps be considered essentially a blank slate, however, there really isn’t a point where neurons are not seeking each other.

I believe wesmorris is saying that the baby first emerges from the womb with a brain. The mind forms when it experiences (sensory innputs) and that a patterns or paths are created to reflect the responses to said inputs.

Examination of a new born child (note that many neural nets will be present at this stage) shows no abilities to communicate in any intelligible sense, no control of limbs, and no self-awareness, etc. All these abilities must grow as sensory input leads to a largely random thrashing of neurons in the brain seeking connections and the formation of permanent and semi-permanent neural nets.

I do not disagree

Neural nets continue to form throughout life and the randomness component leads to new nets or extensions that promote new ideas and epiphanies.

I do disagree with the above, as it sensory input that leads to new "nets or extensions." 'Ideas and epiphanies" however need not require the formation of new nets. At times, a path previously untaken in the net can reach a child that corresponds to a previously unexamined "conclusion".

Why does the brain need to be controlled? I can build a simple wheeled robot that has the ability to avoid obstacles. Its objective is simply to keep going. Once turned on it will indeed continue to move avoiding obstacles en-route and will only stop when its batteries are exhausted. Why is a human any different?

What then is the purpose of the human? Also, your wheeled robot does not have the choice to actually hit the obstacles that get in its way-- this is the differentiation that wesnorris seems to be getting when the same is applied to humans. Even then, your robot has a control. That control is essentially the state machine that tells it to avoid obstacles. Either it will learn new obstacles and then avoid them on next encounter, or it has a reference of possible obstacles. Either way, it must have a control telling it to avoid.

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

I do disagree with the above, as it sensory input that leads to new "nets or extensions." 'Ideas and epiphanies" however need not require the formation of new nets. At times, a path previously untaken in the net can reach a child that corresponds to a previously unexamined "conclusion".

There can be no paths that have not been taken. Paths are generated and taken as the result of previous stimulants.

However, what I have read on neuroscience seems to indicate that many nets can interact that may have not done so in the past, if these are new or evolved nets then the new interaction may well result in something greater, e.g. an epiphany.

 

[thefountainhed]

There can be no paths that have not been taken. Paths are generated and taken as the result of previous stimulants.

You are born with a neural net intact. Also, most of your mental processes are 'subconcious"...

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

What then is the purpose of the human?

I’m not sure why this would be important to this discussion.

Also, your wheeled robot does not have the choice to actually hit the obstacles that get in its way-- this is the differentiation that wesnorris seems to be getting when the same is applied to humans. Even then, your robot has a control. That control is essentially the state machine that tells it to avoid obstacles. Either it will learn new obstacles and then avoid them on next encounter, or it has a reference of possible obstacles. Either way, it must have a control telling it to avoid.

So the machine is self-controlled because of its design. The brain appears to operate in the same manner. Take the baby example – it begins life with little to no mental or physical abilities except some hard-wired abilities to form neural nets based on sensory inputs that are initially acquired from random sampling of the environment, e.g. flailing limbs, sucking anything, sight, and hearing. Control appears to develop as a result of repeated sampling combined with positive feedback. Adults do exactly the same although in a more complex and more sophisticated manner.

 

[thefountainhed]

I’m not sure why this would be important to this discussion.

In the analogy that you povide, the purpose of the machine is dictates its behaviour. The same should apply to the human.

So the machine is self-controlled because of its design. The brain appears to operate in the same manner. Take the baby example – it begins life with little to no mental or physical abilities except some hard-wired abilities to form neural nets based on sensory inputs that are initially acquired from random sampling of the environment, e.g. flailing limbs, sucking anything, sight, and hearing. Control appears to develop as a result of repeated sampling combined with positive feedback. Adults do exactly the same although in a more complex and more sophisticated manner.

I think you are missing the subtle. The brain is essentailly dead until stimulated, no?

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

You are born with a neural net intact.

Which has been growing from the early moments the brain started to grow, but its scope at birth is primitive compared to an adult. Most neurons at birth have yet to form synaptic connections.

http://www.unt.edu/cpe/module1/blk1brn.htm

Also, most of your mental processes are 'subconcious"...

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

In the analogy that you povide, the purpose of the machine is dictates its behaviour. The same should apply to the human.

The purpose of the machine is dictated by us, but then it has no choice since it is not self-aware. We on the other hand do possess self-awareness and can choose for ourselves our purpose, which may be no purpose at all.

I think you are missing the subtle. The brain is essentailly dead until stimulated, no?

I don’t think the term ‘dead’ is an accurate description. In your sense a computer is dead all the time no one is typing at the keyboard, but it is simply actively waiting for input.

But I’m not sure there are any times when the brain is not active in some manner. I’m not sure where you are going with this.

 

[thefountainhed]

Which has been growing from the early moments the brain started to grow, but its scope at birth is primitive compared to an adult. Most neurons at birth have yet to form synaptic connections.

http://www.unt.edu/cpe/module1/blk1brn.htm

OK. And hence, my original assertion: I do disagree with the above, as it sensory input that leads to new "nets or extensions." 'Ideas and epiphanies" however need not require the formation of new nets. At times, a path previously untaken in the net can reach a child that corresponds to a previously unexamined "conclusion".

But I think we may be talking past each other. The brain is a neural net. The net gets bigger as the human grows. A path is merely a closed net within the neural net of your brain. Hence the notion that the majority of your brain is unused. These paths or neral nets are formed through stimuli.

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

That there are parts or nets that are formed without external stimuli. The baby can move its hands within the womb-- for instance.

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

I believe wesmorris is saying that the baby first emerges from the womb with a brain. The mind forms when it experiences (sensory innputs) and that a patterns or paths are created to reflect the responses to said inputs.

I don’t disagree, but I added that that process begins the moment that the brain can form nets and that is long before it is born. But certainly at birth the child has the same number of neurons as an adult but there are simply relative few synaptic connections between them, which is why the child can do very little.

 

[thefountainhed]

The purpose of the machine is dictated by us, but then it has no choice since it is not self-aware. We on the other hand do possess self-awareness and can choose for ourselves our purpose, which may be no purpose at all.

You equated the two in your analogy. But self awareness should not be an issue. We did not dictate our current form; and self awareness may simply be a part of this "purpose". Anyway, I asked the original question because I did not think the analogy was useful in illustrating your point.

I don’t think the term ‘dead’ is an accurate description. In your sense a computer is dead all the time no one is typing at the keyboard, but it is simply actively waiting for input.

But I’m not sure there are any times when the brain is not active in some manner. I’m not sure where you are going with this.

I think you miss the manner in which I use "dead". The control in the example of the machine would that which tells it what either in a library of sources it has is an "obstacle" or how to use the initial to dictate what a new obstacle would be. The emergent brain as is presented by wesmorris has no such "software" and yet is able to perfectly make sense of its environment....

 

[Cris]

Thefountainhed,

But I think we may be talking past each other. The brain is a neural net. The net gets bigger as the human grows. A path is merely a closed net within the neural net of your brain. Hence the notion that the majority of your brain is unused. These paths or neral nets are formed through stimuli.

Although as the article states a child at age 3 has far more connections than an adult, but many of these connections will be discontinued as the child grows.

But there seems to be another factor that says use it or lose it. The reference is for those that exercise their brain more than others. Such activities stimulate additional synaptic connections.

I believe neural nets/paths are formed not just from external stimuli but from non-interactive processing of already received data and memories. My action of thinking is itself generating and changing existing pathways without the need for external stimulus.

BTW the idea that humans only use a fraction of their brain is a myth. The human brain is fully used, although it could be better utilized by many.

 

[thefountainhed]

But there seems to be another factor that says use it or lose it. The reference is for those that exercise their brain more than others. Such activities stimulate additional synaptic connections.

I believe neural nets/paths are formed not just from external stimuli but from non-interactive processing of already received data and memories. My action of thinking is itself generating and changing existing pathways without the need for external stimulus.

I don't think I have asserted that paths can only be generated through external stimuli. But yes of course, thinking is stimulus.

BTW the idea that humans only use a fraction of their brain is a myth. The human brain is fully used, although it could be better utilized by many.

It is used in the sense that closed nets or paths are being utilized at one time.

Sidenote:
I am still bemused by how these paths can somehow generate consciousness. I mean even if you had closed nets for every possible experience that one can ever have, how can they all access the same memory and realize themselves at one time? Hmm. Perhaps if they all operated in parallel, then concsciusnesses would be possible.

HA.

I think the main difference between the human brain and its ability to be self aware is evolution. By our kind having experienced, our barins are aligned towards those experiences. The nd result is a net that can easily generate paths to handle these experiences when encountered. But do they all operate in parallel.

H,mm. I haveto develop this thought through. I think I have something there.