Hmm, I do not really express certainty but more like a very high
likelihood. Philosohers gave up on certainty a long time ago.

The argument I presented runs counter to the anthropomorphic fallacy
that there is something special about us. No there isn't we are by
every scientific observation just ordinary lumps of matter. What is
the probability that those measurements were all false?

So the physicalist does not need to argue for this default scientific
worldview. The burden of proof Iies on the person who claims something
strange. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The
'immaterialists' or in other words superstitious people need to show
evidence for the claim that mental stuff is extra physical or shut up.

Their stupid 'arguments' (Descartes, chalmers, davidson, godel) are no
such evidence. I disregard them as I disregard religion and other
mythology.

There is a movie titled star wars. Is that evidence enough? No.

Best,


On Oct 2, 2009, at 6:15 PM, "timothyekennelly" <timothyekennelly@...
  > wrote:

>
>
> --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <erayo@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 6:00 PM, timothyekennelly
>> <timothyekennelly@...> wrote:
>>> How exactly would you know that there is nothing extra-physical in
>>> consciousness? Certainly you can reasonably give an opinion to
>>> that effect and a number of reasons - very good reassons - why you
>>> hold the opinion, but how would you know such a thing?
>>
>> For the same reason, I do not expect extra-physical stuff to exist
>> anywhere.
>>
>> Why should some meat brains be excluded from the laws of physics> If
>> something truly weird is going on I expect to find it near a
>> singularity (like a black hole), not in a meat information processor.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> --
>> Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.
>
>
> An expectation of an outcome is not the same thing as knowledge of
> an outcome. I will not argue with the expressed opinion that
> consciousness is not extr-physical, but the claim that this opinion
> is certain goes too far.
>
> Timothy E. Kennelly
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Consciousness as understood by religious/superstitious people, as some magical,
extra-physical something, surely does not exist" sounded pretty certain, but if
you are now saying this is just an opinion supported by evidence, then there is
nothing to argue about (at least not on this point).

Humans are very special, whether consciousness is extra-physical or not.

Timothy E. Kennelly

--- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <erayo@...> wrote:
>
> Hmm, I do not really express certainty but more like a very high
> likelihood. Philosohers gave up on certainty a long time ago.
>
> The argument I presented runs counter to the anthropomorphic fallacy
> that there is something special about us. No there isn't we are by
> every scientific observation just ordinary lumps of matter. What is
> the probability that those measurements were all false?
>
> So the physicalist does not need to argue for this default scientific
> worldview. The burden of proof Iies on the person who claims something
> strange. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The
> 'immaterialists' or in other words superstitious people need to show
> evidence for the claim that mental stuff is extra physical or shut up.
>
> Their stupid 'arguments' (Descartes, chalmers, davidson, godel) are no
> such evidence. I disregard them as I disregard religion and other
> mythology.
>
> There is a movie titled star wars. Is that evidence enough? No.
>
> Best,
>
>
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 6:15 PM, "timothyekennelly" <timothyekennelly@...
>  > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <erayo@> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 6:00 PM, timothyekennelly
> >> <timothyekennelly@> wrote:
> >>> How exactly would you know that there is nothing extra-physical in
> >>> consciousness? Certainly you can reasonably give an opinion to
> >>> that effect and a number of reasons - very good reassons - why you
> >>> hold the opinion, but how would you know such a thing?
> >>
> >> For the same reason, I do not expect extra-physical stuff to exist
> >> anywhere.
> >>
> >> Why should some meat brains be excluded from the laws of physics> If
> >> something truly weird is going on I expect to find it near a
> >> singularity (like a black hole), not in a meat information processor.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.
> >
> >
> > An expectation of an outcome is not the same thing as knowledge of
> > an outcome. I will not argue with the expressed opinion that
> > consciousness is not extr-physical, but the claim that this opinion
> > is certain goes too far.
> >
> > Timothy E. Kennelly
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:09 PM, timothyekennelly
<timothyekennelly@...> wrote:
> "Consciousness as understood by religious/superstitious people, as some
magical, extra-physical something, surely does not exist" sounded pretty
certain, but if you are now saying this is just an opinion supported by
evidence, then there is nothing to argue about (at least not on this point).
>
> Humans are very special, whether consciousness is extra-physical or not.

Well I suppose we are fine and dandy biological products of evolution
but I don't think to the point of defying physical law. Last time I
checked I complied with gravity as does everything else. I suspect
that my mind, whatever it is, is also affected by gravity.

Best,


--
Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.  Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
Researcher, Erendiz Superbilgisayar Ltd.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy
http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct

--- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <erayo@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:09 PM, timothyekennelly
> <timothyekennelly@...> wrote:
> > "Consciousness as understood by religious/superstitious people, as some
magical, extra-physical something, surely does not exist" sounded pretty
certain, but if you are now saying this is just an opinion supported by
evidence, then there is nothing to argue about (at least not on this point).
> >
> > Humans are very special, whether consciousness is extra-physical or not.
>
> Well I suppose we are fine and dandy biological products of evolution
> but I don't think to the point of defying physical law. Last time I
> checked I complied with gravity as does everything else. I suspect
> that my mind, whatever it is, is also affected by gravity.
>
> Best,
>
>
> --
> Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.


An earthworm is a "fine and dandy biological products of evolution," humans are
worthy of a more generous description, although your description is true enough;
it is like calling one's wife "that woman who lives in my house."

Timothy E. Kennelly

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:59 PM, timothyekennelly
<timothyekennelly@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <erayo@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:09 PM, timothyekennelly
>> <timothyekennelly@...> wrote:
>> > "Consciousness as understood by religious/superstitious people, as some
magical, extra-physical something, surely does not exist" sounded pretty
certain, but if you are now saying this is just an opinion supported by
evidence, then there is nothing to argue about (at least not on this point).
>> >
>> > Humans are very special, whether consciousness is extra-physical or not.
>>
>> Well I suppose we are fine and dandy biological products of evolution
>> but I don't think to the point of defying physical law. Last time I
>> checked I complied with gravity as does everything else. I suspect
>> that my mind, whatever it is, is also affected by gravity.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.
>
>
> An earthworm is a "fine and dandy biological products of evolution," humans
are worthy of a more generous description, although your description is true
enough; it is like calling one's wife "that woman who lives in my house."

From an alien perspective both would be amazing products. Both are
extremely evolved and well adapted life forms after all.

Have you seen the story about the new homo species discovered? They
say that the chimpanzee must be *more* evolved than the humans
compared to our common ancestor.

The problem is not with those evaluations. The problem is with
creationists, dualists, and all sorts of ignorant people who reject
science and want to base *our* lives on falsehood.

Best,


--
Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.  Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
Researcher, Erendiz Superbilgisayar Ltd.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy
http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct

--- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <erayo@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:59 PM, timothyekennelly
> <timothyekennelly@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <erayo@> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:09 PM, timothyekennelly
> >> <timothyekennelly@> wrote:
> >> > "Consciousness as understood by religious/superstitious people, as some
magical, extra-physical something, surely does not exist" sounded pretty
certain, but if you are now saying this is just an opinion supported by
evidence, then there is nothing to argue about (at least not on this point).
> >> >
> >> > Humans are very special, whether consciousness is extra-physical or not.
> >>
> >> Well I suppose we are fine and dandy biological products of evolution
> >> but I don't think to the point of defying physical law. Last time I
> >> checked I complied with gravity as does everything else. I suspect
> >> that my mind, whatever it is, is also affected by gravity.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.
> >
> >
> > An earthworm is a "fine and dandy biological products of evolution," humans
are worthy of a more generous description, although your description is true
enough; it is like calling one's wife "that woman who lives in my house."
>
> From an alien perspective both would be amazing products. Both are
> extremely evolved and well adapted life forms after all.
>
> Have you seen the story about the new homo species discovered? They
> say that the chimpanzee must be *more* evolved than the humans
> compared to our common ancestor.
>
> The problem is not with those evaluations. The problem is with
> creationists, dualists, and all sorts of ignorant people who reject
> science and want to base *our* lives on falsehood.
>
> Best,
>
>
> --
> Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.


I am sure aliens will be communicating with earthworms when they land.

Timothy E. Kennelly

--- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Michael Olea <oleaj@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:59 AM, timothyekennelly wrote:
>
> > An earthworm is a "fine and dandy biological products of
> > evolution," humans are worthy of a more generous description,
> > although your description is true enough; it is like calling one's
> > wife "that woman who lives in my house."
>
> In the collection of Evolution's Greatest Hits it's bacteria that
> have done all the heavy lifting. The rest is just minor variations on
> a narrow theme.
>

Humans are the greatest hit of evolution as we know more about ourselves and the
world than any other species.

Timothy E. Kennelly

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:37 PM, timothyekennelly
<timothyekennelly@...> wrote:
>
> I am sure aliens will be communicating with earthworms when they land.

Probably no, but I think they will still find them fascinating. Unless
of course worms are very common where they come from. :P

I was mentioning that the obsession that there must be something "not
physical" about human "soul" (and not in other animals) ought to arise
from the same anthropocentric tendency that made people think earth is
the center of the universe.

Well, it didn't come out that way, did it?

So, unless the "spiritualists" can show me a worm with a nonphysical
soul that they can demonstrate with a scientific experiment, I see no
need to take anything, I mean, absolutely anything that they say,
seriously. I will place my bets on neuroscientists to explain
phenomenal consciousness, not religious people.

Best,


--
Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.  Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
Researcher, Erendiz Superbilgisayar Ltd.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy
http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct

--- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Eray Ozkural <erayo@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:37 PM, timothyekennelly
> <timothyekennelly@...> wrote:
> >
> > I am sure aliens will be communicating with earthworms when they land.
>
> Probably no, but I think they will still find them fascinating. Unless
> of course worms are very common where they come from. :P
>
> I was mentioning that the obsession that there must be something "not
> physical" about human "soul" (and not in other animals) ought to arise
> from the same anthropocentric tendency that made people think earth is
> the center of the universe.
>
> Well, it didn't come out that way, did it?
>
> So, unless the "spiritualists" can show me a worm with a nonphysical
> soul that they can demonstrate with a scientific experiment, I see no
> need to take anything, I mean, absolutely anything that they say,
> seriously. I will place my bets on neuroscientists to explain
> phenomenal consciousness, not religious people.
>
> Best,
>
>
> --
> Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.  Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
> Researcher, Erendiz Superbilgisayar Ltd.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy
> http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct
>


Place your bets where you will, but do realize that no source of information is
without error. You might disregard the opinion of a given thinker or group on a
given
subject, but disrgarding a thinker or group altogether for a morally innocuous
opinion, which might or might not be correct, hardly seems prudent.

Timothy E. Kennelly

On Oct 2, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Eray Ozkural wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:21 PM, Michael Olea <oleaj@...>
> wrote:
>
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:59 AM, timothyekennelly wrote:
>
>> An earthworm is a "fine and dandy biological products of
>> evolution," humans are worthy of a more generous description,
>> although your description is true enough; it is like calling one'
>> s wife "that woman who lives in my house."
>
> In the collection of Evolution's Greatest Hits it's bacteria that
> have done all the heavy lifting. The rest is just minor variations
> on a narrow theme.
>
> Some of our distant bacterial cousins thrive on radioactive heavy
> metals. Even "process" those metals I've heard. That's something,
> and very heavy metal as well. I know you can crank the guitar, but
> how about that?

Purple phage all in my brain
Lately things just don't seem the same ...

I read recently that of the kajillion cells of a human body only
about one in ten is actually a human cell, most of the rest being
bacteria. And yet, to me, "what is this quintessence of lust"?

OK, I'm getting a bit burned out on writing thousands of lines of
mind numbingly tedious interface code (glue) about now -- almost
could automate it, but not quite. About another 2,000 lines to go. So
I downloaded the Solomonoff papers you recommended (and a couple of
Schmidhuber ones too) but could be another week before I have time to
read them.

Cheers,

Michael Matrix-Regurgitated Olea

It might be helpful to distinguish two separate realities

1. The virtual reality supported by your personal brain that
you experience as 'reality' by representing by such as qualia.
This is a form of the 'deceit', I mention, and it works!

2. A mysterious 'real' reality 'out there' that seems to produce
sensory stimulus, but remains mysterious. And doesn't seem to care,
so 'we' confabulate and practice a lot of 'caring stories'.

Two nuclei are referred to by acronym:

TRN – Thalamic Reticular Nucleus. A nucleus that surrounds the thalamus. It
takes input (en passant) from all thalamo-cortical and from all cortico-thalamic
axons. Also from the reticular formation.

MPG – Motor Program Generator. Neural circuitry that produces all the axonal
impulses needed to execute a motor act. Constructed by the genome. Not learnede.
I say motor program rather than  central pattern to emphasize the orders of
magnitude difference in complexity.

The fundamental equation of science is: "There is no God in the Machine". Or, as
we should say today, "There is no Soul (Mind) in the Brain". How can we
reconcile this rule of science with our personal knowledge of our soul (mind)?
We can do it by affirming the non-causal nature of the soul (mind). The soul
(mind) is our inspiration for studying the brain, but it is no part of the
explanation.

Descartes would have a soul with causal powers; the Princess Elizabeth would
not. We stand with the Princess.

The fundamental brain exists in the Motor Program Generators. This neural
circuitry, established by the genome, directs the organism to navigate through
the world. All motor acts originate in the motor program generators. There is no
other source. Without the activation of MPG's, the human is a lump of clay. The
genome establishes the machinery, and we appear brain driven. We do not learn to
walk. The neural circuitry matures, and we walk. Walk, even as a newt.

The motor program generators lie along the spine and the hindbrain, but we speak
here of centers. We believe that the genome has set up specific circuitry that
once having been initiated continues until the motor act is accomplished, but
the exact circuitry has not been demonstrated in vetebrates. In invertebrates,
there is a different story; some central pattern generators have been laid out
in exquisite detail. The motor program generator is more than just a center. The
MPG also includes the sensory neurons and the motor neurons. The MPG is an
entire nervous entity, including all the neurons that flow into the center and
all the neurons that flow out to the muscles. The genome wires them all as a
unit.

The life of the organism is a succession  of motor acts each being the firing of
a motor program generator.

A complication comes with the thalamic reticular nucleus. This nucleus surrounds
the thalamus like a blanket. As each motor program proceed through the thalamus,
it comes under the controlling influence of the thalamic reticular nucleus. If
the TRN is excited in inhibits the relay neurons and the motor program is not
executed.

The TRN contains a history in the form of strengthened synapses of all the bad
outcomes that the organism has suffered in the past. If the present proposed
motor act, together with the present milieu had caused trouble in the past,
energy flows through the strengthened excites the nucleons, and the motor act is
not consummated. A rejected motor program leads to another. Sooner or later
there is an acceptable program, and the organism proceeds. If not, the patience
of the reticular formation is exhausted. It fires and inhibits the TRN. The
motor act proceeds even if the results are disastrous.

The TRNl can stop all, or a selection, of sensory information as it enters the
thalamus. The neocortex (and downstream structures) is relieved of the onrush of
sensory input, and is free to associate. It is very difficult to speak
scientifically of this condition. We must refer to the soul (mind) for
inspiration. This is the condition that accompanies dreaming, reverie, and
thinking.

Of particular interest are the MPG's that create phonemes, but that is another
story.

Ray

--- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Martin" <mmcneill@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It might be helpful to distinguish two separate realities
>
> 1. The virtual reality supported by your personal brain that
> you experience as 'reality' by representing by such as qualia.
> This is a form of the 'deceit', I mention, and it works!
>
> 2. A mysterious 'real' reality 'out there' that seems to produce
> sensory stimulus, but remains mysterious. And doesn't seem to care,
> so 'we' confabulate and practice a lot of 'caring stories'.
>
The brain supports a virtual reality :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality
which through evolved inherited insanity is
considered as reality.
The support is through various neural structures that
amount to a Blackboard system :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_system

The personal virtual reality includes such as 'self',
'experiencing', 'qualia', and 'context', etc.
The personal Blackboard system may draw upon
such as 'memory', 'senses', 'instincts', and 'cultures',
etc., for expertise.
--

Mr. Martin,

If human consciousness creates a virtual reality which is "a form of the
'deceit'" how does one ever move from it to the supposed "mysterious 'real'
reality 'out there,'" or on what ground does one claim that the "real reality"
exist if knowledge of the "real reality" comes through the "false virtual
reality"?



Timothy E. Kennelly


--- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Martin" <mmcneill@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Martin" <mmcneill@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It might be helpful to distinguish two separate realities
> >
> > 1. The virtual reality supported by your personal brain that
> > you experience as 'reality' by representing by such as qualia.
> > This is a form of the 'deceit', I mention, and it works!
> >
> > 2. A mysterious 'real' reality 'out there' that seems to produce
> > sensory stimulus, but remains mysterious. And doesn't seem to care,
> > so 'we' confabulate and practice a lot of 'caring stories'.
> >
> The brain supports a virtual reality :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality
> which through evolved inherited insanity is
> considered as reality.
> The support is through various neural structures that
> amount to a Blackboard system :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackboard_system
>
> The personal virtual reality includes such as 'self',
> 'experiencing', 'qualia', and 'context', etc.
> The personal Blackboard system may draw upon
> such as 'memory', 'senses', 'instincts', and 'cultures',
> etc., for expertise.
> --
>

--- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "timothyekennelly" <timothyekennelly@...>
wrote:
>
> Mr. Martin,
>
> If human consciousness creates a virtual reality which is "a form of the
'deceit'" how does one ever move from it to the supposed "mysterious 'real'
reality 'out there,'" or on what ground does one claim that the "real reality"
exist if knowledge of the "real reality" comes through the "false virtual
reality"?
>
>
>
> Timothy E. Kennelly
>

Deceit works, even self deceit. In computer science
it may be called 'indirection' or 'pointers'. Lower level,
(subconscious)neural structures, 'point', as needed, to
support the representations and motor functions. No folk
talk magic hand waving needed.

--- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Martin" <mmcneill@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In ai-philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "timothyekennelly" <timothyekennelly@>
wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Martin,
> >
> > If human consciousness creates a virtual reality which is "a form of the
'deceit'" how does one ever move from it to the supposed "mysterious 'real'
reality 'out there,'" or on what ground does one claim that the "real reality"
exist if knowledge of the "real reality" comes through the "false virtual
reality"?
> >
> >
> >
> > Timothy E. Kennelly
> >
>
> Deceit works, even self deceit. In computer science
> it may be called 'indirection' or 'pointers'. Lower level,
> (subconscious)neural structures, 'point', as needed, to
> support the representations and motor functions. No folk
> talk magic hand waving needed.
>


Mr. Martin,

Your claim seems to be that the conscious mind (or brain) constructs a reality
which is false. If this is true, on what ground would we know it is true? The
supposed 'truth' in the argument, whether it is the external world, or a
program, or formal logic, etc., is known by the same conscious mind, is it not?
And, if it is, then how do we know it is simply true while so much of the
remainder of what is conscious and known is a lie.
Your comment about 'pointers' does not make your position clear to me. It seems
that you are suggesting that subconscious processes support the conscious
understanding or observation of the self and the world (which is what I am
guessing you mean by "repersentations") and actions (or "motor function"). That
is all very well, but how do you know this. And, how would you know that your
suggested conception of the world and its two realities is not itself yet
another self deception.

Regards,

Timothy E. Kennelly

I think what the Knowledge Argument really tells us is that phenomenal
representations have to exist, and subjective experience cannot be
epiphenomenal.

To know that I am experiencing a particular kind of red quale is a
piece of information.

I can act upon this information, for instance, I can say something or
kick the chair.

However, if there were no way that a decoding of this message was
possible, and furthermore, transfiguration of it into specific
impulses that drove the said actions, then it follows that
*absolutely* no part of the phenomenal representation can stay outside
the *causal picture*. And indeed, it shall always have to engage not
in a unidirectional but bidirectional manner with any such low-level
neural circuits as the effectors in our muscles.

A simulacra argument was furthered in a Turkish philosophy of mind
book I read (yes, there is such a thing!) : the computational
representations carry such information as whether a red quale is
present, but the phenomenal character is carried in
not-really-known-funky fashion. I find such an explanation dismissable
on the grounds of Occam's razor, but I think there is a better reason
than induction. Suppose that the computational representation carries
all the information, and the phenomenal representation is something
else, say, entangled quantum baboons. I can recursively apply my
information theory - phenomena connection theorem and claim that for
such an exact mirroring to occur, there would have to be specific
mechanisms that decode the computational representation and causally
connect it to the phenomenal representation by applying operators on
the phenomenal representation. While such an, unnecessarily complex
arrangement, remains epiphenomenal, the character of the phenomenal
representation is suspect. Whatever mechanics the phenomenal
representations obliges to, it shall have the ability to store the
information decoded from the computational representation. If this
medium were unable to store information, then there would be no need
for such a mirror mechanism, for the changes would not matter. At any
rate, it follows that the phenomenal representation itself is just as
computational, it has to be a substrate in which information can be
stored, and processed for that to work. Thus, even if it is
quantum-gizmo-x, it is also a quantum computer, which is a physical
device like anything else.

Thus, it follows from these considerations that there should always be
a way of measuring (decoding) the quale. Of course such measurement
does not necessarily result in *replication* of the quale, for that to
occur, exact physical processes may have to be replicated. (That is
the KA's claim converted to a sane proposition by yours truly)

Best,

--
Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.  Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
Researcher, Erendiz Superbilgisayar Ltd.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy
http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct

ART, IDENTITY & DIGITALISATION 2010
CfP (sorry for any cross-postings):

*Art, Identity and Digitalisation* – S6 - April 8, 9-12 AM / 2-5 PM
Symposium chairs: Colin Schmidt, PhD, Arts et Metiers ParisTech,
Colin.Schmidt@... <mailto:Colin.Schmidt@...>
Alain Lioret, PhD, Paris 8 Univ, alainlioret@...
<mailto:alainlioret@...>

The use of various and numerous real time technologies allows the
emergence of new types of artistic work and identities thus invading
painting, sculpture, architecture, dance, music, theatre, cinema, the
workplace, family life, etc.
Difference, Relation and Identity are three notions that are
fundamentals for the success of Virtual Reality technologies (VR and
AR). The aim of this symposium is to conceptualise the Identity of an
individual as a scientific concept whilst acknowledging the fact that
Identity cannot be studied without considering the other two notions.
With digitalisation, Identity can be an artistic creation. The pros and
cons of designing identities for or within VR become obvious upon
admitting that representing any Self will be interpreted through the set
values, opinions and experience in life of the beholder. Members of our
society that self-procure, attribute or redistribute Identity in the
Virtual World bring about psychological enquiries in relation to user
intentionality, specific uses of VR applications or modifications to our
ways of communicating emotions and doing Art. Usability issues
addressing the newer artistic problems of Identity have not yet been
integrated into long-term visions of society’s needs. The Chairs are
thus open to existential, ethical and epistemological issues having to
do with all aspects of Art and Identity in Virtual Communities.
This symposium is aimed at discovering what Virtual Reality brings about
in the world of Art, through the experience of new XXI th century
artists, as well as what it takes away from, or adds to, our human
identity. Furthermore, it aims to show the impact of Aesthetics and
human identity on Virtual Reality.

*Keywords*:
Human Identity, Cognition, Epistemology of Technology, Evolutionary Art,
Robotic Art, Performing Arts. Avatars, Suspended Beliefs,
Interpretation, Intentionality, On-line Personae, the Self



*CALL FOR PAPERS VRIC 2010*
12th Virtual Reality International Conference, April 7-9, 2010, Laval,
France http://www.laval-virtual.org
/
The most renowned international specialists and the principal users of
Virtual Reality technology share the very latest techniques from their
fields of expertise. VRIC 2010 - Virtual Reality International
Conference - will be held during the 12th edition of Laval Virtual,
first European event devoted to Virtual Reality, Realtime 3D and
Interactive Techniques.
Spread the word and submit your full papers for *January* *11, 2010 !*
Prof. Simon RICHIR, VRIC Conference Chair/


*More infos and on http://www.laval-virtual.org*

other sessions:

*Program & Themes: *

  > April 7, 9-12 AM / 2-5 PM

• *Virtual and Augmented Reality for Product Design*
• *VR for Medecine & Surgery*
• *High Performance and Low Latency VR/AR*

• VRIC 2010 Keynote Speaker:* Carolina Cruz Neira*, Head of LITE, USA,
"A decade of wonderful VR achievements"

  > April 8, 9-12 AM / 2-5 PM

• *Recent Advances in Haptic Interaction*
• *Recent advance en VR/AR & Emerging top showcases*
• *Art, Identity and Digitalisation*

I was reading an article criticizing Star Trek for its weak link to technology:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why_i_hate_star_trek.html

Perusing user comments, thinking, well, perhaps the author did not
notice that there are some transhumanist elements in Star Trek,
especially the federation and their views.

And I notice some "smart user" linking to a study that shows that the
federation is essentially a communist state.

It seems that, humans are not yet ready to accept the idea that their
current philosophy of life may be just what confines them to the
boundaries of human nature.

Cannot the "default" human mindset realize that, when the technology
has progressed to a level where resources have been made abundant for
all, it makes *even more* sense than present, to found a league of
humanity?

The equal treatment of humans and fair sharing of resources could be
fundamental values in such a society. It is only logical that
resources are distributed in a fair fashion, without regard to
genetics or locality, as long as the inhabitants of that domain
respect the league in its values. The transhuman need not care about
whatever history and bias encumbers resource allocation. The
transhuman, in my opinion, will quickly discard money, and all related
economical system, establishing a new system of resource sharing and
allocation.

To maintain the existence of human culture spread in interstellar
space, the culture and technology of humans must be preserved, and the
league must explore the space to pervade humanity, not to conquer or
enslave other planets.

So, as I see it, there are pretty good transhumanist ideas in Star
Trek, yet, people still compare it to communism, trivializing the
discourse of transhumanism.

When the human ascends himself, he shall also have to ascend his
cradle. A social state, or its equivalent, is only one of the things
that would make it possible to achieve such feats that obviously
require harmony (think Peace), or the effort would fail.

Best,

--
Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.  Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
Researcher, Erendiz Superbilgisayar Ltd.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy
http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct

The brain, and especially the human brain, is the only thinking machine that we
know of that works. Some say that Artificial Intelligence should base its
investigations on the brain, should attempt to emulate the brain. It seems
reasonable that we should at least look at the brain before we try to do so.

The brain is wholly a creature of the genome. The genome establishes a structure
that can accommodate itself to the impinging universe. The genome does this
because it survived. There is no other reason. The genome has lived since the
first cell.

The essential brain lies in the motor program generators. These are the neural
circuits established by the genome to feed and water the organism in an
expected, but not particularly friendly, universe. All motor acts above the
simplest reflex actions originate in the motor program generators. When we say
all, we mean ALL. Without a generator in action, the organism is nothing but a
lump of clay. It is common to speak of learning an activity, but this is a
mistaken view. Learning is actually modifying. The genome constructs the
circuitry that produces walking; the circuitry may be modified to dance. Without
the walking circuitry as a base, there is nothing.

The generators are centered in the spinal cord and the hindbrain. There are
centers for breathing, posture, locomotion, orienting, reaching, grasping,
manipulating, licking, chewing, swallowing, and vocalization. This circuitry is
highly conserved. It existed before the forebrain. The notion of a center is a
simplification. The circuitry that leads to the generator, and the circuitry
that leads from the generator to the motor neurons is also set up by the genome.
In humans, completion of the neural circuitry is delayed in some cases until it
is no longer obviously of genomic origin. This is particularly the case with
vocalization. The vocalization circuitry is first activated at about one year
when we hear the infant sounding individual phonemes. The pre-generator
circuitry is modified to produce words and sentences. The post-generator
circuitry is modified to produce an accent.

The penultimate step of a motor program is to pass through the thalamus on its
way to the motor cortex. Here it comes under the scrutiny of the thalamic
reticular nucleus. The TRN is the repository of bad outcomes. Every time a motor
program is activated under particular conditions and there is a bad outcome,
that result is recorded in the synapses of the TRN. If the present motor program
and the present conditions match that record, the synapses are activated, the
TRN is turned on, and the motor program is halted. A halted motor program simply
disappears.

Sensory input can also be halted by the thalamic reticular nucleus. When the
neocortex is released from the tyranny of the rush of sensory input, it is
enabled to freely associate. This is dreaming, associating, reverie.

A succession of halted motor programs, followed by a motor program that is not
halted, is called thinking and deciding.

Ray

Timothy E. Kennelly

> Your claim seems to be that the conscious mind (or brain) constructs a reality
which is false.

You just realize that you are conscious after a volitional process,
after something that, out of necessity, may triggered the need to
receive and interpret internal and external input and then classify it
with the conclusion: I'm conscious.

But it's not an affirmation about the present, but a representation of
the past. Every time you mentally perceive and/or vocalize it
internally: 'I'm conscious', you are, in fact, saying that you are
still CONSCIOUS. It's not like "I'm right now". It's more like "I'm
still perceiving"

Our reality is so false as the reality that we imagine about what's is
like to be a bat. What's is like not to be perceiving? What's like not
existing? Not existing is like having no memory, ergo, no feelings
that you are perceiving.


> If this is true, on what ground would we know it is true?

If our reality is statistically fixed by rules, then it's a quite
real. Can you study physics in your dream world? Can you come up with
gravitational laws in the realm of existence inside your dream
experiences? Can the spiritualists study statictically fixed laws in
their ultra-conscious states? No. Everything is very random. So that
world, be it generated by a external mind or by an immaterial world,
seems to be extremely no useful. If most of our problems or theories
or descriptions seems to be incomplete, yet sufficiently precise in
this world, to solve many problems and create, predict many events,
then the need for an external immaterial world seems to be devoid of
necessity.

Neuroscience is evolving without the immaterial.

Is this sense, there's no self. The self is the information
represented by the whole brain dancing at the same pace/rhythm

Cheers,
Francisco Boni

The thalamic reticular nucleus is a thin nucleus that is wrapped about the
thalamus like a blanket. All the axons that pass from the thalamus to the
cortex, and from the cortex to the thalamus must pass through this nucleus. On
the way, they give off branches that innervate the TRN. The output of the
thalamic reticular nucleus is wholly inhibitory. It causes nothing to happen, it
can only stop things from happening.

Every time a bad outcome occurs, the present motor program, together with the
present sensory condition is recorded in the synapses of the thalamic reticular
nucleus. The TRN is the great repository of the failures in the life history of
the organism. When a motor program and the current condition of the world match
the recorded bad outcome, the motor program is halted and dissipates.

The life history of the organism is thus seen as a history of avoided bad
outcomes.

Motor programs from the basal ganglia and the cerebellum enter the thalamus
through the VA-VL complex (the ventral anterior and ventral lateral nuclei).
Sensory energy enters through the lateral geniculate body (visual-eye), the
medial geniculate body (auditory-ear), and the ventral posterolateral-ventral
posteromedial nuclei (somatic-body).

Even as motor programs can be intercepted by the thalamic reticular nucleus, so
can sensory energy be intercepted by the TRN. Sensory energy is periodically
interrupted for milliseconds to allow for extra neural activity in the neocortex
as the organism proceeds. In times of great danger, the TRN is inhibited and
sensory energy flows without pause. We experience this as, "time slows down".

Sensory energy can be halted for extended periods. If accompanied by sleep, this
is called dreaming. If the organism is awake, it is called day-dreaming.
reverie, even thinking.

Ray

When things sound too good to be true, you should take them with a
tablespoon of salt

http://spectrum.ieee.org/blog/semiconductors/devices/tech-talk/blue-brain-projec\
t-leader-angry-about-cat-brain


--
Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate.  Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, Ankara
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy
http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct