Who are you? What makes you "you"?

[Wesrock]

As soon as you present an entity, which is NOT physical, but is physically active, I will take it into consideration. I am very flexible. If something is not physically active, it cannot interact with our senses, and as such we cannot know about it. After all the principle of “nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit is sensu” is very well established.

Now, is that not what we’re engaged in here? Though I’m not speaking of an “entity” exactly, simply an operation you and I perform. Anyway, to say “My starting premise is that there is only the physical” is one thing, to say “Until you can justify non-material operations I do not believe they exist” is another.

The biggest question precisely at issue is how “information” from observation becomes present to you?

This is premature, until we establish what is knowledge? In the axiomatic systems the information comes from the axioms and the rules of transformation - both are abstract entities. In the physical reality we rely on our senses. Knowledge is nothing but a model of reality.

Just for a moment, let’s consider the arctic summer, when millions of birds have millions of nests with millions of offsprings waiting for their daily food. The tundra is a very busy place during the summer. The parents find their own nests and their own kids among millions. That is very serious knowledge, don’t you agree?

Knowledge refers to any act of knowing, as in, you know or understand a concept, such as what it is to know perhaps at its most basic.

That is, the knower has not in his knowledge the object known but something that resembles or represents the object known.

Correct. It is called a model.

You’re swapping terms and writing as if you’ve answered my questions. So “information that is congruent with an external object” is a model. You kind of shoot yourself in the foot with this next section because Descartes would have also considered concepts to be models, and we only know the model and not the thing in itself. But either way introducing a new word for the same thing doesn’t actually address what it means for a person to have a model of knowledge. What and where is it? How does an external object act on a person and how does that convert into a model or “information that is congruent with the external object”? How do we get to knowing?

 

[Wesrock]

Descartes opened up the skepticism problem with this, because, trapped in our minds as we are, we’ve no way to step outside out minds and see if these representations are in any way actually congruent with the object we believe they represent.

He was wrong. We constantly interact with our environment, and if our model is incorrect, the environment will “punish” us. As long as we survive, our model was sufficiently accurate. Because no matter how wonderfully active our imagination can be, we cannot imagine that we are still alive, when we are dead.

I don’t have anything new to add to this paragraph that wasn’t said in my last paragraph.

Are our thoughts models of external objects, making the objects of our thoughts the models and not the external objects? How do external objects act on us such that we have a model congruent with the external object?

 

[PetraG]

This is what makes Alzheimer’s and other sicknesses involving loss of or distortion of memories so painful. You slowly lose your loved ones. I am experiencing this with my dad right now who has liver failure. It is effecting his mind and he is slowly becoming a shell of who he used to be because his memories are either fading or getting twisted into something else.

When no one recognizes you, do you stop being yourself? I remember when my mother went through dementia and my dad has his stroke. There was grieving over the capacity they had lost, but they grieved, too. They were each still there to grieve what they once could do but could no longer do.

If every day is a bad Monday and you feel like you’re in one of those dreams where you have the hardest time just making everything you experience fit into a coherent story, are you no longer yourself? I don’t think so. I think when I look back at one of those experiences in retrospect, I was still myself. I was kind dopey and a pain to be around, but that was still me. When someone does something to me while I’m sleeping or otherwise unaware of it, I count that as done to me while I am at my most vulnerable, that’s all. When my capacities diminish, I’m still there, all the same.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Though I’m not speaking of an “entity” exactly, simply an operation you and I perform.

An operation performed on WHAT? operations presuppose operands. I call them “entities” or “concepts”. If you don’t like it, suggest a better word. I am game.

Anyway, to say “My starting premise is that there is only the physical” is one thing, to say “Until you can justify non-material operations I do not believe they exist” is another.

You simply lost me here. We all know about the physical reality via our senses. Some hard-solipsists might deny it, but they do not matter. We all know about abstractions. We all know about imaginary objects which come from pure fantasy. What else is there?

Knowledge refers to any act of knowing, as in, you know or understand a concept, such as what it is to know perhaps at its most basic.

Let’s be careful and avoid tautology. Knowledge is internalized information. Or, if you prefer, an internalized model of something. They are the same. There is a branch of mathematics, called information theory.

But either way introducing a new word for the same thing doesn’t actually address what it means for a person to have a model of knowledge. What and where is it?

Sometimes a new word can help with understanding. It is an abstraction. But it is not physically active. It is encoded in the neural network, or in a book. The knowledge of a city’s roads may be encoded in a physical paper map, or in the electronic GPS map in your smart phone / computer, or you could have memorized the map. The information is the same, the method of encoding is different. When push comes to shove, all kinds of knowledge are information.

How do we get to knowing?

Observation, hypothesis forming, experimentation, and comparing the result of the experiment to the predicted value of the hypothesis. Or it can come by manipulating the axioms. Two realms, two epistemological methods. The other realms, the worlds of fantasy have no epistemology.

It looks like that we have a problem with even communicating the concept of “knowledge”. Ain’t it scary? How shall we be able to step forward?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

How do we get to knowing?

Observation, hypothesis forming, experimentation, and comparing the result of the experiment to the predicted value of the hypothesis. Or it can come by manipulating the axioms. Two realms, two epistemological methods. The other realms, the worlds of fantasy have no epistemology.

This isn’t what I’m asking. It’s part of the issue, but we still haven’t nailed how a knower has knowledge to begin with, how the knower is conformed to the known, how the information or concept becomes congruent with the object known.

Let’s be careful and avoid tautology. Knowledge is internalized information. Or, if you prefer, an internalized model of something. They are the same. There is a branch of mathematics, called information theory.

And the issue is the internalization.

Sometimes a new word can help with understanding. It is an abstraction. But it is not physically active. It is encoded in the neural network, or in a book. The knowledge of a city’s roads may be encoded in a physical paper map, or in the electronic GPS map in your smart phone / computer, or you could have memorized the map. The information is the same, the method of encoding is different. When push comes to shove, all kinds of knowledge are information.

This is the response I’ve been anticipating. You state that knowledge to information in a book, in a map, and in a computer (such as a GPS or phone). This comparison does not demonstrate what you believe it does. All of these things are man made, designed by knowers. They can only be considered to have information relative to the knowers. In themselves apart from any minds they are not about anything. One could put a trillion monkeys on a trillion keyboards over a trillion years. In all that time one might produce an exact copy of Hamlet in English. That could occur even if humans had never existed. But they haven’t actually written Hamlet as information. It’s just a meaningless configuration of ink on paper. There is the same disjunction with a map, which a human mind uses as a symbol of landmasses and landmarks but again, is devoid of any informational content in itself. There are no concepts inbued in ink on a page or symbols on a map. Minds just use these symbols as common reference points to concepts. It’s only in reference to a mind that these mean anything. A computer, likewise, is similar, whether a calculator or a phone. Electrical connection there, none there, it’s all just an accidental arrangement. Whatever intentionality is in it is extrinsically imposed by people with minds and only makes sense in reference to people with minds. I could scribble nonsense symbols in the sand. That’s not information. Then again, that arrangement of scribbles might be the same symbols used by aliens to represent the concept of pizza.

 

[Wesrock]

Information is intentional. Ink on paper, ons and offs in current across copper wire, “encoding” these are just accidental arrangements that we use as pointers to concepts and which are meaningless in themselves. They are not in themselves congruent with the objects they point to concepts of. They only are considered as information or intentional in relation to the minds which use them.

Which brings us to the electrochemical reactions in the brain. Certainly we have a capacity for knowing, and certainly those chemcial reactions have much to do with our capacity for knowing (given that we do have that capacity), but we run into the same impasse: electrochemical impulses alone are not concepts. They are just accidental arrangements of material. This would be fine for p-zombies with no internal experience of self and thinking and knowing, yet we have just those things.

We agreed earlier that knowing means that the knower has information that is congruent to the object known. But you’ve yet to bridge how sequences of electrochemical reactions are congruent to any external object. Caused by, yes. Congruent to? No. You called our concepts models of external realities, but where is the model? Materially there’s no model of any external-to-the-brain reality in an electrochemical reaction. It’s just a chemical reaction. Nor could there be in any material. In no way does the object known materially enter the knower. That sounds silly to consider at first, perhaps because it’s such an obvious but overlooked point. Please help me understand how the sequences of electrochemical reactions are congruent to the object known in your view.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

I am not sure what your question is. So let’s try with a concrete case. Every newborn is a “tabula rasa”, an empty slate as far as understanding and information processing goes. (There is some inborn facility, the affinity to learn languages.) Lower level animals (bugs) do not have a cerebral cortex, they are born with the necessary information already implanted into their nervous system. They know what they need to know, and have no ability to learn.

Higher animals (like humans) are more like un-specialized machines. Very little information at birth, and a huge capacity to learn. Every interaction with the outside world is through the senses. Every piece of information modifies the neural system in the brain. Looking at the parents, hearing the “sounds” like “mama” and “papa” many times… and slowly there will be a neural connection between the synapses. We learn. We start to recognize our parents. And then the rest of our surroundings. A slow process, lasting many years.

Just look at Pavlov’s dog. A whistle is blown and food is offered. Soon there will be a connection in the brain and when the whistle is blown, the saliva is produced. This is internalized information - or knowledge. The dog learns to associate the whistle with the food. Nothing magical about it.

This is how we humans start our learning, too. Later, as the neural network grows, and many new connections are made, our knowledge keeps expanding. So I don’t understand your question or concern. The knowledge is stored in the neural network, the information is in the synapses, the electro-chemical interactions are the thoughts and the intents. Most of it happens in the white cells, in the subconcsious.

If you “mess” with the brain using electrical impulses or chemicals, you “mess” with the mind. If you sever the connection between the frontal lobe and the rest of the brain, you will get a “zombie”, not a p-zombie, but someone without any thoughts, desires. Just like in the movie “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest”.

Let me add something. In a real computer, there are all one’s and zero’s, nothing else. But what they MEAN is contingent upon the whole process. The same zero’s and one’s may describe (mean) a spreadsheet or a word processing document or a complicated on-line computer game. Some of the one’s and zero’s describe an imaginary landscape, some others are the players’ avatars. Of course even the largest the computer is far too small to create a full virtual reality, which is able to “play itself”, where the system generated characters interact with each other. But this is a mere technicality. The method of storing and manipulating the information is of secondary importance.

In another thread titled “Mymosh the self begotten”, I started a conversation with @Gorgias, but he seemed to abandon the question. That is fine. We deal with the same type of question here.

continued below…

 

[Thinker_Doer]

continued from above…

Do you see any problem with he pleasure / pain center of the brain? A very specialized information processing sub-center. Other processes, like face recognition is a much more widely distributed information processing activity. We don’t really “know” how can we recognize the face of our parents in a very blurry photograph - meaning that we don’t know the exact electro-chemical processes. But that is - again - mere technicality.

If you have any more questions, just ask. I am here.

If you are interested we can analyze the process of learning a new language. What role does the word “meaning” play in the process.

 

[Gorgias]

In another thread titled “Mymosh the self begotten”, I started a conversation with @Gorgias, but he seemed to abandon the question.

I found the source material to be somewhat more trivial that you did, apparently…

Every newborn is a “tabula rasa”, an empty slate as far as understanding and information processing goes. (There is some inborn facility, the affinity to learn languages.)

That’s not quite true. If he were a “tabula rasa”, without the ‘code’ to operate, he’d simply be a databank. But, he’s a living human, with more than “the affinity to learn languages”.

What role does the word “meaning” play in the process.

It seems that you studied the same kinds of things I did as an undergrad, with respect to the philosophy of the mind. Is the “Chinese box” experiment the next thing on the agenda to talk about?

 

[Thinker_Doer]

I found the source material to be somewhat more trivial that you did, apparently…

Maybe you did not study the problem in depth. But that is fine.

That’s not quite true. If he were a “tabula rasa”, without the ‘code’ to operate, he’d simply be a databank. But, he’s a living human, with more than “the affinity to learn languages”.

Sure. There is a lot of code to control the body, regulate the breathing, the digestion, etc. To start to interpret the signals from our senses. That is the beauty of having a non-specialized information processing system. There is nothing fundamentally different in humans, which would not be available in some other animals. Not to the same degree, of course. However, there is no evidence for being able conceptualize, to understand abstractions - in a newborn. And, of course, there is no moral code imprinted upon the brain either. All that is learned behavior.

It seems that you studied the same kinds of things I did as an undergrad, with respect to the philosophy of the mind. Is the “Chinese box” experiment the next thing on the agenda to talk about?

No. Not really. If you hang around, you might see.

 

[Wozza]

And, of course, there is no moral code imprinted upon the brain either. All that is learned behavior.

We have to be careful here. The moral code is just what we determine to be good. And what is good happens to be what works. We therefore call it good. And what works is built into our genetic code. What didn’t work was filtered out.

So a child is born within a group that has ‘good’ genes already. It was the ‘good’ genes that helped form that group. So the child will generally have the ‘good’ genes as well.

So in that sense, a child would have genes that help the society prosper. Which results in characteristics that we deem good. Which then becomes our definition of morality.

It’s bottom up. Not passed down from on high.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

We have to be careful here. The moral code is just what we determine to be good.

And it is individual. A psychopath considers torturing others “good”.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

We have to be careful here. The moral code is just what we determine to be good.

And it is individual. A psychopath considers torturing others “good”.

Well, the psycopath’s moral code would be different. But can I use ‘moral code’ to be that which a society in general considers to be correct. If we all had the psycopaths code then we’d never get to the point where we had societies.

And yes, that will include violent societies (the Vikings and the Hun spring to mind) which is why I try to put ‘good’ in quotes each time. What is good for one group would be considered bad by another.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Well, the psycopath’s moral code would be different. But can I use ‘moral code’ to be that which a society in general considers to be correct. If we all had the psycopaths code then we’d never get to the point where we had societies.

And yes, that will include violent societies (the Vikings and the Hun spring to mind) which is why I try to put ‘good’ in quotes each time.

No problem. But its has nothing to do with genetics, and has everything to do with the learning process.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Well, the psycopath’s moral code would be different. But can I use ‘moral code’ to be that which a society in general considers to be correct. If we all had the psycopaths code then we’d never get to the point where we had societies.

And yes, that will include violent societies (the Vikings and the Hun spring to mind) which is why I try to put ‘good’ in quotes each time.

No problem. But its has nothing to do with genetics, and has everything to do with the learning process.

To some extent. But I would say that being a tight wad or generous or being a pacifist or being prone to violence is genetic. At least Man is able to ruminate on his own character and think ‘hey, maybe throwing my weight around is not the optimum course of action’. And that’s where education and societal expectations can enter the scene.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

To some extent. But I would say that being a tight wad or generous or being a pacifist or being prone to violence is genetic.

This is an age-old question, about the “nature” vs. “nurture”. The jury is still out. As an old adage goes: “you cannot raise a racehorse from a pig. But you can raise a very fast pig.”

 

[Gorgias]

Maybe you did not study the problem in depth.

No. I have, thank you, both in personal reading and in university coursework.

And, of course, there is no moral code imprinted upon the brain either. that is learned behavior.

How do you know that? I’m not asserting a contrary opinion at this point, mind you… just asking how you know that this is the case?

 

[Thinker_Doer]

No. I have, thank you, both in personal reading and in university coursework.

It would be impolite to doubt your word. So I will leave it at that.

How do you know that? I’m not asserting a contrary opinion at this point, mind you… just asking how you know that this is the case?

Learning from history and observing the present. The acceptable behavior of the people varies from time to time and from place to place. You know… the much maligned scientific method, which starts with OBSERVATION. Observe the millions of people who follow the moral code of their environment. Observe those who consider female genital mutilation “moral”. Those who learn from their childhood that people of different pigmentation are inferior? And then observe those who see nothing wrong with sex-for-pleasure… All those would come a common, genetically imprinted moral code? Maybe you think so… I don’t.

 

[Gorgias]

It would be impolite to doubt your word. So I will leave it at that.

Learning from history and observing the present. The acceptable behavior of the people varies from time to time and from place to place.

OK, but another conclusion that could be drawn from that observation might be “people do have a basic moral code, but they deviate from it based on experience.” In other words, the observation that you claim that demonstrates “no inherent moral code; morality is learned” also supports the conclusion “inherent moral code; deviations are learned.”

All those would come a common, genetically imprinted moral code?

Nope. I’d claim that they are deviations from an inherently present human moral code.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

OK, but another conclusion that could be drawn from that observation might be “people do have a basic moral code, but they deviate from it based on experience.” In other words, the observation that you claim that demonstrates “no inherent moral code; morality is learned” also supports the conclusion “inherent moral code; deviations are learned.”

Could be, but it would be to put the cart in front of the horse. Small children, who are not exposed to the peer-pressure type of behavior modification are uniformly cruel, jealous and prone to torture others and animals. They all behave according to their “ingrained” moral system. In every society! Across all the ages! It takes a lot of training to form good kids from the “little brutes”. Just like with animals, first they need training, and only later comes teaching.

Nope. I’d claim that they are deviations from an inherently present human moral code.

You can “claim” whatever you want. Do you have any evidence for that claim?