But that is an empty endeavor. Human brains interpret their experience in three spatial dimensions. We use spatial references because that's how we're designed (whether or not it's accurate is a different issue). Great! We already know this. We already know that our symbols are embedded in the spatial scaffolding of our experience.

Are you suggesting that we cannot think abstractly, that we are incapable of conceiving without spatial reference? If so, argue that. Otherwise, recognize the difference between the necessarily spatial aspect of our communication and the abstract ideas contained therein, and get over the "braces have spatial dimensionality" schtick.


Mapping is one modality of learning. But is it a fundamental aspect of the universe or just a peculiarity of certain biological organisms on Earth? This is why I dislike the human-centric approach, it is far too easy to think "this is the way we do it, therefore it must the only way it can be done".


Information is not a geometric object. We apply geometric concepts to physical space to help us reason about physical space. The geometry of space is a model of space, it is not space itself.

From your perspective it isn’t. “Newton would disagree!“ Sorry, had to (ducks).

We don’t know what information is until we make associations with physical space and objects as a child.

We must start there: literally 3 y/o playing with physical space blocks.

Yes, we are incapable of conceiving without spatial reference!

 

Find them, for real! Even our learned friend here has a problem with the word “Know”... thats why he responded with “ummm.” “Know” is difficult to ascribe to telegraph poles on a timer, an augmented Light Bright or an iPhone. Straight up.

I don’t think you’re in any position to “know” why I responded as I did. I “know” that you don’t “know”.

 

From your perspective it isn’t. “Newton would disagree!“ Sorry, had to (ducks).

We don’t know what information is until we make associations with physical space and objects as a child.

We must start there: literally 3 y/o playing with physical space blocks.

Yes, we are incapable of conceiving without spatial reference!

I bet that artists, psychiatrists, authors, poets, religious, philosophers, and many others would be surprised to learn that they are incapable of conceiving.

 

We are FORCED to use a degree of anthro-centricism as our reference, because we are the only ones using words, meaning, “know,” “feel” etc. and these mechanisms and differentiations are in the human mind only that we can tell(!)

But if humans are the only things that "feel", then there is something different happening in humans than there is in other things, such as dogs and computers. And isn't the point of this to understand that difference, if it really exists?

From a purely statistical perspective, it's incredibly strange that one species out of billions uniquely has this peculiar and striking capability. Most biological organisms share capabilities in varying degrees -- most have eyes, ears, hearts, etc. Why should humans be so very special?

If I consider the matter from the perspective of complexity, there is a strong case to be made that "feeling" is a function of complexity. For one thing, it answers the statistical conundrum: Why humans? Because "feel" requires some minimum level of complexity, and human brains are sufficiently complex.

This line of thought leads to many interesting questions. If "feel" is an issue of complexity, what is the minimum complexity of "feel"? Humans can make very complex things; can humans make a thing that "feels"? How would we know if we did?

The point of all this is that simply stating "humans feel" does nothing except end any lines of discourse. Yes, humans feel. I'm trying to figure out what that actually means. I'm pretty sure a compiler doesn't feel, but what exactly -- if anything -- prevents it from feeling?

There is a “degree” of the term “know” you can colloquially use to describe a compiler... but I have the same linguistic rigidity as you with this. It is not happening for me. “Match” and “compute” are better term for me. “Know” evokes consciousness, meaning, feeling, etc. Category error or me :--)

What's the difference between you "knowing" that 2 + 3 = 5 and a computer "knowing" the same thing?

When I invoke names of the past, I do so only to reduce the “crazy lady” element you think I project. Newton would be all over this, and somehow I think no one would think he’s crazy for insisting “computers don’t know” or mind-brain duality exists, or even approaches to infinity, sets, pi, or other assertions. So I defend my stance in that way, because I am not a lone ranger in these assertions.

But that's just it, it only strengthens the "crazy lady" element. I'm pretty sure you have no idea how Newton would feel about any of this. Listing "great thinkers" as if they had all personally vouched for you, is uh not a good look.

 

Yes, I “know” what you’re saying here, but “know” as I said does not work for me, because it oozes feeling, conscious, meaning, morals, reason, choice... this is why I GUARANTEE you most would not want to use the term. It’s generally a reserved keyword for “the living.”

Then a compiler does not know anything. But if a compiler does not know a language, then how does it manage to translate information from one language to another? Remember, a compiler is not a dictionary -- it's not just pattern matching words in one language and writing them back in another. A compiler reads arbitrary programs and translates their complex information into an entirely different language. How is that possible with knowing the languages involved?

 

So then the immeasurable concept of infinity is not?

Nope, infinity was never an axiom of my system.

 

I have studied Newton, I am WELL aware of his take. You would think he is crazier than I am. Tesla is the same. Newton studied Daniel and extra-dimensionally-influenced chronology more than physics!

Pythagoras was very similar. These men were mystics. He would have students fast to become more spiritually prepped to understand the material; he was enthralled by the number 1 as the divine source, and rightly so, because it’s the basis of quite literally everything quantifiable. I quote them because they were first metaphysical thinkers, as I am.

Your entire starting and ending place is naturalistic, and so is there room for a metaphysical explanation? You bend toward feeling as a function of measurable state complexity. I see no complexity as having any impact on the core non-material mechanism. This does literally nothing for me. What if it is the ghost in the machine?

 

Then a compiler does not know anything. But if a compiler does not know a language, then how does it manage to translate information from one language to another? Remember, a compiler is not a dictionary -- it's not just pattern matching words in one language and writing them back in another. A compiler reads arbitrary programs and translates their complex information into an entirely different language. How is that possible with knowing the languages involved?

The compiler at its core is discrete logic states being made to ferry other logic states around. Zero spatiality to the state configurations (other than bare mechanical switches on and off) until placed on a 2D screen where a human interprets it as spatial form, and thus “meaning.“ The compiler “knows” entirely jacksquat. There is no “compiler” without a spatial reference to loads of human-created discrete states that have no “meaning” or “knowledge” to any one “thing.” See how I’m using it?

 

Nope, infinity was never an axiom of my system.

But we can conceive of the notion of “the immeasurable”... is that not information?

 

From your perspective it isn’t. “Newton would disagree!“ Sorry, had to (ducks).

We don’t know what information is until we make associations with physical space and objects as a child.

We must start there: literally 3 y/o playing with physical space blocks.

Yes, we are incapable of conceiving without spatial reference!

Thought experiment: Suppose humans cannot ascribe meaning to information without spatial reference. Suppose, however, that in another galaxy there is a species of intelligent creatures that have no analog to our visual/auditory/tactile senses. We'd describe these creatures as being made of electromagnetism.

Is there some fundamental reason why these creatures could only derive meaning through spatial reference? Or can you acknowledge that it is possible that such a being could find meaning without spatiality?

 

I don’t think you’re in any position to “know” why I responded as I did. I “know” that you don’t “know”.

I “know” you weren’t really answering it. And then said you had nothing to add. So I “know” whatever it is, you think it ain’t shareable or concrete or both. :—)

 

Thought experiment: Suppose humans cannot ascribe meaning to information without spatial reference. Suppose, however, that in another galaxy there is a species of intelligent creatures that have no analog to our visual/auditory/tactile senses. We'd describe these creatures as being made of electromagnetism.

Is there some fundamental reason why these creatures could only derive meaning through spatial reference? Or can you acknowledge that it is possible that such a being could find meaning without spatiality?

Perhaps they could “feel” their surroundings experientially, and it was “meaningful“ as simply a unary registration of “good” vs. “bad” sense. Non-componental. Just 1 spatial indivisible thing experiencing some spatial “thing” else, without knowledge of spatiality.

Meaning, therefore has an “experiential” component as well (I believe it is the core of it, however small). Information can augment or impact that mechanism. When something registers as “meaningful” to a human, generally it can be used in tandem with the word “good.” A QED “feels right,” “sits right,” has a very baseline experiential registration.

A mosquito can find “meaning” in sucking blood. It does so for the experience. It is not spatially aware outside of its software to accomplish it.

 

Consider a pet dog that is friendly generally, but then suddenly it bit your hand.

Does it “know” it did that? No. It does not “know” what it did. Did it derive “meaning” from it? Perhaps!

 

I “know” you weren’t really answering it. And then said you had nothing to add. So I “know” whatever it is, you think it ain’t shareable or concrete or both. :—)

Wrong

 

Wrong

Ok? So I am wrong... at least it was a rational inference?

 

Ok? So I am wrong... at least it was a rational inference?

Yes, it was.

 

I have studied Newton, I am WELL aware of his take. You would think he is crazier than I am.

But the reason we still remember Newton, Pythagoras, Tesla, and the rest of the loonies is because of their scientific contributions. You're leveraging their scientific credibility to bolster your own metaphysical views, but that's an intellectual bait and switch. I don't personally care what Newton believed in.

Your entire starting and ending place is naturalistic, and so is there room for a metaphysical explanation?

I'm not even sure what "naturalistic" implies, and I'm not interested in looking it up to see if it aligns with my views. I'm trying to see if I can better understand consciousness by approaching it from a formalistic, scientific perspective.

If by "metaphysical" you mean something like "extra-physical", then it is a meaningless term to me. If you mean it in the sense of an ontological/epistemological exploration, then that's exactly what I'm doing.

You bend toward feeling as a function of measurable state complexity. I see no complexity as having any impact on the core non-material mechanism. This does literally nothing for me. What if it is the ghost in the machine?

If complexity is not the mechanism by which consciousness emerges, then offer an alternative mechanism. There is something in humans different from non-conscious beings. What is that difference? Explore what the difference could be. We check whether our ideas hold up to scrutiny; otherwise, we're just zealots.

 

The compiler at its core is discrete logic states being made to ferry other logic states around. Zero spatiality to the state configurations (other than bare mechanical switches on and off) until placed on a 2D screen where a human interprets it as spatial form, and thus “meaning.“ The compiler “knows” entirely jacksquat. There is no “compiler” without a spatial reference to loads of human-created discrete states that have no “meaning” or “knowledge” to any one “thing.” See how I’m using it?

You didn't answer the question. I write a program in C to control the fuel injector in a car. The compiler translates that program into a set of CPU instructions that actually control the fuel injector in the car. How did the compiler do that without knowing the languages involved?

 

But we can conceive of the notion of “the immeasurable”... is that not information?

Of course. So what?

 

Perhaps they could “feel” their surroundings experientially, and it was “meaningful“ as simply a unary registration of “good” vs. “bad” sense. Non-componental. Just 1 spatial indivisible thing experiencing some spatial “thing” else, without knowledge of spatiality.

So you acknowledge that spatiality is not a necessary condition of meaning?

Meaning, therefore has an “experiential” component as well (I believe it is the core of it, however small). Information can augment or impact that mechanism.

What does "experential" mean precisely? Maybe an easier way to approach it is: What is the minimum criteria for us to say that a thing is experiencing?

When something registers as “meaningful” to a human, generally it can be used in tandem with the word “good.” A QED “feels right,” “sits right,” has a very baseline experiential registration.

Old Pythagoras had a very bad feeling when he first understood the meaning of the length of a square's diagonal.