I had the this thought as I was falling asleep:

The subjective experience solves problems via interlocking geometry of thoughts... a consciousness learns the "shape" of its thoughts and thinking is an act of geometric shifting of concepts themselves and how they relate to one another. It sees it in the way that the pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place for itself and then examines if the new thought or input or whatever fits somewhere in that schema.. however disorganized or illogical.

It's kind of a subjective geometry in the sense that it is developed in only that instance and is representative of the relationships of the concepts to one another for that instance of consciousness. The thoughts are all somehow connected via 'consciousness' in kind of a nueral net fashion in real time. The shape of the nueral net gets changed over time as the geometry must change to allow new conceptual relationships.

I'll try to clarify later.. I realize this is kind crap, I just wanted to get it up here and I'll see if it makes sense tomorrow. Maybe it's just a fancy way of saying what is completely obvious. *shrug*

pardon.

"Want to live with common people like you"

Your subconsciousness introduces images,shapes, sounds, smells, feelings, pain, joy and generally talks shit.. It seam that your consciousness is the filter that defines the reality of crap running around in the subconscious brain.

"I think there for I am" is an accident of subconscious bullshit that made sense to the conscious mind and was then put in writing.

If it smells right it must be right..

Very true, both of you!

Freud wrote about consciousness is the way you are both describing. He said what is now subconscious, was once in the fore of our mine, i.e. conscious. It is only over time that a ego develops, and this is the reason we all develop.

You may not wish to hear this psychological 'crap' but it is so true!

The ego filters out many of the id's urges, so we are not even aware of them in everyday life, but the ego grows, it is not there from birth. It grows as a filters of the id.

Freud (and his followers) beleive it is only when the ego is 'switched off', during sleep, that the true conscious can then be brought to the fore again. It is here the id displays it's real demands, in the forms of shapes and symbols in dreams.

wesmorris,
I think I might be thinking about the same thing you are, not to sure. I was just finishing smoking a blunt, and I started thinking about how we categorized our information. And I started thinking, are shapes and geometry at the basis of our memories? Do some people categorize ideas and knowledge according to the shape they most closely resemble? This would all be done without us ever realizing and ever knowing of course.

Originally posted by Philosopher
wesmorris,
I think I might be thinking about the same thing you are, not to sure. I was just finishing smoking a blunt, and I started thinking about how we categorized our information. And I started thinking, are shapes and geometry at the basis of our memories? Do some people categorize ideas and knowledge according to the shape they most closely resemble? This would all be done without us ever realizing and ever knowing of course.

Something like that yeah.. I'm actually thinking of it in terms of hmm.. how to explain.

Say you have a shitload of dimensions accessable in your head. You have 283438743 degrees of freedom regarding the interpretation of your info. Now, your mind flits across each of these dimensions with ease since really it IS them. Your consciousness starts to note patterns in the dimensions over time. To you and only you in YOUR mind, you see shapes to these patterns.... as you progress in your understanding, the shapes become more pronounced. As you acquire new input, it's like like puzzle pieces. As you're contemplating junk.. You take puzzle pieces and try to jam them into the shapes you already have established...

know what I mean?

no. geometry as in triangles and squares and whatnot? eyeballing clouds/stars and naming em after animals? perhaps a connect the dots thingy? perhaps this? (http://www.zayra.de/soulcom/collapse/)

http://www.iknow.net/images/subjectivecircles.gif
or this?

HMM interesting....

Ok Wes so what do you think about the shifting of thoughts during dreams? If they are in the same defined, unknown, geometrical shape as they are in the concious time it must be a rather complicated shape. It also is ineteresting to note how your thought applies to the subconcious since during sleep the thoughts wander about on their own without our effort. In conciousness the thought process is done by us...some to such a degree that we almost don't even realize it but during sleep the pons takes over so does the pons jumble around these thoughts or does it put them together in a complex geometric shapes through planned and complicated nueron firing patterns???? and maybe they just seem jumbled to us because the frontal lobe is paralyzed during sleep so it fails to piece them together??? If your ideas pan out in any way that could represent a flaw in our desgn or a ingenius function to keep our sanity.

or maybe i am BSing to the max

What do you think???

BTW this is what you think of while falling asleep..man i gotta hit the:m:

Originally posted by Philosopher
.... and I started thinking about how we categorized our information. And I started thinking, are shapes and geometry at the basis of our memories? Do some people categorize ideas and knowledge according to the shape they most closely resemble?

worth exploring. perhaps dumping the "subjective" part of the topic might make a discussion less complex. it does seem strange to base thought on geometry rather than logic but perhaps the two are complementary or one is an extension of the other?

Originally posted by sargentlard
HMM interesting....
Ok Wes so what do you think about the shifting of thoughts during dreams?


I'm writing this part here after only having read that sentence, so as not to corrupt what I might say with your thoughts. My theory?: Dreams are the sorting out all the input from your day.. the big move from short term to long term storage.. at least a lot of house cleaning for all that. So your dreams are really just your mind sorting through your head and finding out where loose ends are and how to classify new shit. Note that if something doesn't jive with your particular configuration you may have recurring dreams or a lot of angst filled dreams about it.


Originally posted by sargentlard

If they are in the same defined, unknown, geometrical shape as they are in the concious time it must be a rather complicated shape.


First, they aren't "unknown". You know them, it's just that they are particular to you. Regarding complexity: Driving is a very complicated task really, but once you've done it for a long time you don't even have to think about it. I can get from work to home without ever realizing I'm not paying attention. Kind of scary, but I'm just saying.. complexity can be dealt with as an aggregate.

Originally posted by sargentlard

It also is ineteresting to note how your thought applies to the subconcious since during sleep the thoughts wander about on their own without our effort. In conciousness the thought process is done by us...some to such a degree that we almost don't even realize it but during sleep the pons takes over so does the pons jumble around these thoughts or does it put them together in a complex geometric shapes through planned and complicated nueron firing patterns???? and maybe they just seem jumbled to us because the frontal lobe is paralyzed during sleep so it fails to piece them together???


Exactly, there is no need to "reason" (especially in the social context offered by the frontal lobe) when the brain is just shuffling junk around, trying to figure out where to stash it such that it jives with the perspective (structure of thought/memory, etc) you've adapted over your life.

Originally posted by sargentlard

If your ideas pan out in any way that could represent a flaw in our desgn or a ingenius function to keep our sanity.


Flaw? Hmm.. that implies purpose. I think each and every person or thing is absolutely perfect in that the function exactly how the universe allows them to by definition. Imperfection is only a reflection of human dissappointment, which is only a reflection of irrational or incorrect expectation.

Originally posted by sargentlard

or maybe i am BSing to the max

What do you think???


Hehe, I think I'm just as full of shit as you are.. but honestly I think there is merit to it or I wouldn't keep talking about it. I've enjoyed your comments.

Oh, but honestly I have no idea if I'm just a pathetic crackhead or a badass craniac. I prefer the latter. :D (thought I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in between eh?)

Originally posted by sargentlard

BTW this is what you think of while falling asleep..man i gotta hit the:m:

Hehe, yeah. My brain is a total freakshow and I've got a lifetime pass!

Originally posted by spookz
worth exploring. perhaps dumping the "subjective" part of the topic might make a discussion less complex. it does seem strange to base thought on geometry rather than logic but perhaps the two are complementary or one is an extension of the other?

Hmmm.. I'd say that one is a tool that leads to the other.. so.. yeah I suppose so. I only say "geometry" because that's how it seems to me. It's like a personal style geometry that everyone crafts for themselves... a whole multi-dimensional internal structure that can be partially encompassed in real time. Pieces come in shaped by your perception.. as such they "fit" somewhere in your schema of shit you've set up. When you "think" you are throwing this geometry around. It's like an erector set of dynamic concepts inside yoru noggin.

Eh, I'm spent and going circular! I'll try back later!

(to answer your question: geometry as in SHAPES.. and the way they fit together.. the way concepts relate to each other)

It sounds good to me. But could you elaborate on how a thought process during sleep might occur, and what shape a thought might be. How we percieve these geometric shapes in ideas. I understand that the shapes might not be classic shapes such as a square, but a combination of different shapes. Is that correct?

Thank You Wes.

So Cognitive schemas can be practised and mastered geometric assembly of thoughts and learned experiences that your concious doesn't even need to waste time with...it just calls on your Subconcious to take care of that...(much like your driving home without even thinking about it)....????.....Well my reason for bringing up dreams was why does the brain put together thoughts that make no sense but they do make sense in way that when we intake the stimulus from them they seem to be presented in a fictious relam within our mind......they are not presented like a slide show but rather in a unique way......what i was originally getting at was that could dreams be a geometric shaped assembly of firing activity but for some reason we evolved to block that activites significance out for the most part????? am i making sense..possibly no...but thank you for reading them.

It's funny really we are debating on a completely far out idea that may very well be significant or the exact opposite...HMMM...*wonders what would have happened if Einstein had hit the ganjha*....:eek:

INTERESTING!

I have this idea that the thinking process itself ties back to the very first time a hominid looked at the world around him and saw things in them some 2-300,000 years ago. Something like saying this human knack for being 'incursive' is what led to language and thinking anway.

ok, maybe that sounding crappy, better say it this way:
the whole process of tool making involved seeing things in things- from arrowheads in stone to ax handles in tree trunks. Is not language built that way? Isn't grammar a geometry of phonemes within phonemes? word as noun, noun in sentence, sentence in paragraph, paragraph in novel? arrowhead in stone?


And I started thinking, are shapes and geometry at the basis of our memories? Do some people categorize ideas and knowledge according to the shape they most closely resemble? This would all be done without us ever realizing and ever knowing of course.

granted, my idea may be wacky but since there supposedly is a totality to everything, I'm beginning to think that the mind's basic building blocks ARE geometrical. They have to be, or if not at least mathematically beautiful. How else could we be shedding brain cells by the second and still keep memories coherent so damn..........magically?

the round peg fits in the round hole. this is because of the relationship of their shapes is complementary.

You have place (existing shape) that is representative of your experience:

imagine shape x933439 in your mind that 'feels' like 'a bucket of chicken with butter on it in 1972'. You can kind of smell it and taste it. You can visualize the funky buttery gunk on the crispy chicken and it makes you want to hurl a little. This is a shape. Say it's a round hole.

Now you have an input:

eat some fried chicken and reach for the butter on the next table to butter your rolls. you hear a few bars from jefferson airplane. Let's call that a round peg.

Now you think about what happens when this input comes across your consciousness:

The round peg fits in the round hole and a synergy of sorts ensues. Maybe just an integration of sorts. You might get a feeling of deja vu (depending on if the butter gets on the chicken (gross!)). I'm not sure but your history and your present mind merge for a moment. In a sense you exist in two points in time at the same time, if you stop and notice.. a strange feeling comes along with this realization.

Really though, you only are now. There is only now as the past and future are abstract, yet you FEEL the past and you FEEL the future. It's an interesting phenomena - consciousness is, a simulated juxtaposition of ever progressing experience with all kinds of feedback goodness. Awe yeah.

:D

I can dig it man...:eek:

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???)

So I thought I was all like, smart and stuff with my example thingy, but uhm... hey... no input? Did the example make it worse? More stupid? Whassup peeps, don't leave me hangin. ;)

In essence, I think humans think in abstracted time. The basic conscious organization of historic input being filed into conceptual relationships which all 'feel like time' because in essence they are a reorganized regurgitation of it. They are the impression in the 'inner clay' (so to speak), the resultant of to experienced time being broken down and categorized it into the inner network of concepts (inherently unique to the individual). All of this such that we might survive the constant changes in the physical world due to the 'passage of time' (which I have a sort of problem with in some ways because there is no actual time (the past and future are only abstracts) other than "the present" (Okay, I realize that technically other times exist given other inertial reference frames but I don't think they are relavent to the point, or maybe they are on a fundamental level in that this phenomenon contributes to the fact that the condition of consciousness can exist in the first place)).

for instance, say you have five sheets of rubber stretched out. as time passes, each of five senses plus a combinatory feedback loop makes an impression into the rubber sheet that corresponds to the appropriate sense... the feedback loop makes an impression which is integrated as the appropriate weight applies to each sheet. if each sheet were digitally overlapped there would be places where all five existed in the same space. That would for its own shape, or 'solution set' might be considered the 'sum of consciousness' at any time p (the present). the rubber sheet stretches and stretches, changing over a whole life. The solution set is merely the resultant of these changes with the integrated feedback loop.


I realize "time" is a weird thing to say that we think in, but by it I mean something like "a chronilogical oriented abstracted subjective experience" .

lets try rational thought:
thinking is logical, mathematical in form, it is universal. if mental abstractions are represented visually, then we should all have the same pictures floating around in our heads.

or how about simple mental association:
object is named. subsequent naming will produce associated image in mind

*i cant help but think that something very basic to human cognition is being needlessly complicated. however i cannot put my finger on it so........

Originally posted by spookz
lets try rational thought:
thinking is logical, mathematical in form, it is universal. if mental abstractions are represented visually, then we should all have the same pictures floating around in our heads.


Okay, well flip that thought around. I earnestly think that logic is embedded in that which is abstract. The reason it is universal is because it can be deduced from the objective aspect of existence, and moreso.. logic/reason exists as potential before actualized by thought. So really, we address this potential subjectively. A few simple observations (1+1=2), once made, lead to emergant properties. The only manner in which this universal thought can be realized it through subjective exploration right? So while yes the reasoning is universal (once assumptions are established like 1=1 and such) the instance thereof is always subjective. Hell man the fundies become automated 2+2=4 in my head by memory. If I reason it out and envision it, you can about garauntee that the way I do it won't be the exact same way that anyone else does it.

Originally posted by spookz

or how about simple mental association:
object is named. subsequent naming will produce associated image in mind


certainly, but if I talk about a pink sweater, is it the same one you think about? certainly if I talk about the number 1 it's the same eh? I doubt it. I'm sure it's similar, but I'd guess that every individual's mental picture of '1' and the associated concepts related to it are slightly different by definition of the subjective experience.

Originally posted by spookz

*i cant help but think that something very basic to human cognition is being needlessly complicated. however i cannot put my finger on it so........

Agreed.. I think I've got my finger on it actually, but when I move my damn finger it dissappears. Stupid finger. ;)

Wes, I have a theory that is similar to yours, but deals with emotions instead of geometry. I noticed you used the word "FEEL" in capital letters, this makes me think that we are even more likely talking about the same thing. Well here's the gist of it...

From our senses we get all kinds of data. Also throughout our body we get all kinds of input as to what's going on. Neurologically all this stuff meets up in the brain. No "brainer" so far, yes I know.

Now think of the brain as a huge system of complex switches (neurons). All of this data flips these different switches in different ways. The neuron switches are individual but as groups, certain functions emerge (gestalts). These groups are parts to larger wholes, and more and more functions emerge.

The brain as a whole produces a continuously changing (as a result of all of the changing data that comes in) gestalt. This giant configuration of everything active in our brains is our emotion. It's a general "feel" about what's going on in our lives. It's a schema in constant flux.

Humans also have developed language, a way of simplifying emotion, and convey it to others. We take our feelings, and abstract symbols for them. "This isn't what I mean, but it's the closest word I can think of." Think of why thesaurases are so popular.

The combination of emotion and language makes what we call consciousness.

I hope this is clear. It makes sense in my head, but language doesn't convey it to well. I have a different picture of emotion than most people. Please ask questions if you need clarification. I may need to start a new thread though...

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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...

/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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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"...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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

yes but they are not aware they are doing so. I think of them as flat, with consciousness adding another layer of depth. i'm not saying that it is impossible for a nueral net to become conscious, i just don't think current comprehension can lead to it.

/To create a mind?...

To understand mind. I suppose you might be able to create one after you understood it.. but that's a whole other ethical connundrum. To risk potential extermination as a species by creating beings superior to ourselves is a pretty squishy subject to me.

/I still don't think you have adressed my question.

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

A straight answer: The same parameters that control your computer or the growth of fungus in dirt - the parameters of existence (physics).

/You seperate the brain and the mind.

Yeah, in the context of the brain, the mind is the part of it that has the ability to be brought into immediate focus. I would say the property of consciousness adds an aspect to "mind" that warrents classification as I have done.

/There must be a control, so what is it?

A control of mind? I would say "that which you consider you" is in control.

/So a baby has no mind for it has yet to experience?

A babie's "experience" begins in the womb. They are 'conscious' but do not yet have a 'sense of self'.

/Well without a mind at birth, how then does the experience mean anything?

A baby has a mind at birth but it is quite simple. Random and instinctive exporation of their surroundings lead to the further development of mind and eventually to a sense of self. From my experience with my children, I could see it in their eyes between 6 months to a year... they became aware of themselves in a very simplistic manner.

/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?

It temporarily changes the shape of the lense as I described before (which is itself comprised of the geometry of one's experience).

/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..

Well, it's always right now so I don't really understand your question.

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

Brother I know the feeling.

/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?

Very much so, yes.

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

Hmm.. think of it more as seeing a shape in the clouds or say you go around dropping different colored tiles all over the ground.. each of them has meaning in and of itself and may even relate to the others.. but when you go up to the 3rd story and look down on it, you notice you ended up painting a picture of Jerry Garcia... that is epiphany. It's like a bunch of nodes in a nueral network all fold together somehow, creating a circuit that did not previous exist that both integrates and strengthens the connections that comprise it... leading to an understanding that would not have been allowed if the previous nodes didn't exist.

/We'll get to it.

Allright then.

/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?

/without any other stimulous?

nominal mind (given that instance of course, each mind has its own 'nominality' so to speak). no stimulous = minimal development. nuerons with connect, but with no direction from stimulous, leading to a meaningless mind.

/What of an adult who has had experiences?

That is difficult to say. There is a general nuerophsyical commonality between most adults I'd think, but then the configuration of the individual could overcome who knows what? Yeah, you need to know the initial conditions to even hypothesize.

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

That is pointless cris. The definition of mind should likely somewhat differ from brain eh, as they are two different words meant to describe different but related things? I would think that via your perspective mind would be a subset of brain, since I'd think mind only inclusive of that which could be brought to focus (that that it WILL be, just that it COULD be). You can't really bring control of your electrochemical processes into your conscious control (typically anyway). Mind and brain might potentially be synonomous, but in almost all humans I think the distinction valid (via what I take as your perspective I mean). For instance wouldn't "mind" depend on those neural networks you were talking about? If an infant has a brain but no mind, how can mind and brain be considered the same?

Wes,

An analogy is house and home. While “house” might represent the structure the “home” is the result, but they are inseparably linked. If you damage the house or destroy it then the home is consequently damaged or destroyed.

In this sense “brain” and “mind” have the identical relationship.

Wes,


If an infant has a brain but no mind, how can mind and brain be considered the same?That’s because if an infant has a brain then he has a mind. Once the brain begins to form then mind begins at the same time. The are inseparably linked and are essentially the same thing.

Thefountainhed,


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.Think of 100 billion neurons all firing at 200 times per second and in parallel – that is an equivalent clocking frequency of some 20,000 GHz, or roughly 10,000 Intel Pentium 2GHz processors. This is an unimaginable processing power all crammed into such a small space.


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.Sounds good to me.

Originally posted by Cris
Wes,

An analogy is house and home. While “house” might represent the structure the “home” is the result, but they are inseparably linked. If you damage the house or destroy it then the home is consequently damaged or destroyed.

In this sense “brain” and “mind” have the identical relationship.

I buy that.. it just seemed that in the context you were saying that they "were the same" that the distiction was particularly relevant.

Think of 100 billion neurons all firing at 200 times per second and in parallel – that is an equivalent clocking frequency of some 20,000 GHz, or roughly 10,000 Intel Pentium 2GHz processors. This is an unimaginable processing power all crammed into such a small space


Yea, but it is entirely different; we have to be able to reproduce evolution to achieve consciousness in that manner. The architecture of a pentium chip is completely different to that of a net in the brain...

wow, on the dreams tip - i just had the thought that I wonder if dreams are at all related to the continual advance or alteration of nueoron interconnection in the brain as you sleep. That sorting out process I mentioned earlier, partially it has to be growing your brain to reflect the additions and subtractions to your existing nueron interconnections. *shrug* Hmm.

at least you realize that, keep up the good work, am not a greedy person

at least you realize that, keep up the good work, am not a greedy person


your on to something hot see if it burns you

Wow, haven't thought about this thread in a while. I like it though.

I'm somewhat confused by your comments however. Were you talking to yourself in that second post there?

Wow, haven't thought about this thread in a while. I like it though.

I'm somewhat confused by your comments however. Were you talking to yourself in that second post there?

hey dont worry about am just glad to know that there are creative mind appraoching a.i. with the open mindedness off a child

In essence, I think humans think in abstracted time. The basic conscious organization of historic input being filed into conceptual relationships which all 'feel like time' because in essence they are a reorganized regurgitation of it. They are the impression in the 'inner clay' (so to speak), the resultant of to experienced time being broken down and categorized it into the inner network of concepts (inherently unique to the individual). All of this such that we might survive the constant changes in the physical world due to the 'passage of time' (which I have a sort of problem with in some ways because there is no actual time (the past and future are only abstracts) other than "the present" (Okay, I realize that technically other times exist given other inertial reference frames but I don't think they are relavent to the point, or maybe they are on a fundamental level in that this phenomenon contributes to the fact that the condition of consciousness can exist in the first place)).

for instance, say you have five sheets of rubber stretched out. as time passes, each of five senses plus a combinatory feedback loop makes an impression into the rubber sheet that corresponds to the appropriate sense... the feedback loop makes an impression which is integrated as the appropriate weight applies to each sheet. if each sheet were digitally overlapped there would be places where all five existed in the same space. That would for its own shape, or 'solution set' might be considered the 'sum of consciousness' at any time p (the present). the rubber sheet stretches and stretches, changing over a whole life. The solution set is merely the resultant of these changes with the integrated feedback loop.


I realize "time" is a weird thing to say that we think in, but by it I mean something like "a chronilogical oriented abstracted subjective experience" .


thier is no objective time other than the time it takes matter to stop vibrating at that conclusion the realization will come to all subjects that time never existed and only our subjections will reamain (heat,life,energy,consciousness)exist as the infinity while matter will exist as the finity. hey who knows maybe ther would come a time that something along these line can be proved beyond the shadow of a douth what doesn't exist is probably the meaning to what does exist

matter never stops vibrating, but it does wink in and out of existence at the subatomic level - at least that's what science sez.

The brain as a whole produces a continuously changing (as a result of all of the changing data that comes in) gestalt. This giant configuration of everything active in our brains is our emotion. It's a general "feel" about what's going on in our lives. It's a schema in constant flux.

Humans also have developed language, a way of simplifying emotion, and convey it to others. We take our feelings and abstract symbols for them. "This isn't what I mean, but it's the closest word I can think of." Think of why thesauruses are so popular.

The combination of emotion and language makes what we call consciousness.
Well said. Which also makes logic suppressed or units of emotion? I agree with this because the brain’s main function is to keep us alive as long as possible. The brain is just an interface between the “I” and the environment. The brain itself is constructed of certain languages, and all protocol follows this incredible language. I think emotions are like the frequencies of our vibrations. Thus all calculated outputs are subject to these frequencies. I believe everything that happens in the brain happens outside it, after all the brain is still a product of the universe. All we really do is label things while some call it learning. All these being true as long as we did not write the program of the universe. However rationality and irrationality compliment each other. For example Mathematics, a language itself, or emotion, is organized by the rationality side of the mind to balance things and make them make sense. Let’s take a language like French; it’s a subset of emotion, each consonant and word further smaller subsets, and each letter even further subset. Due to these subsets it’s daunting to then say French as a whole is either an emotion or a rationale, though fundamentally a language. I think this is how the brain is, an expert linguist whose desk space is riddled with emotions and rationale. I think there is a universal language the brain is accustomed to; I think this language is so complex that it develops by itself thanks largely to its hardware. Make no mistake form follows function, and I am talking somewhere between the physical make up of the brain and the human body. Like they say anybody can learn anything “ its all about relation”