[MD] On Time?

[Case]

[Case}
I have said over and over that I do not think this world it limited to those
dimension either. I don't know how many dimensions there are but we have
access to more than space and time. All of my speculation on brain function
was to show how the brain might accomplish this. The brain is sufficiently
complex to overcome your one synapse at a time business. This is a
limitation you suppose out of nowhere.

Scott:
The limitation comes from referring to the *spatiotemporal activity* of the
brain. If you are appealing to higher dimensions, then all the neuroscience
and cognitive science is worthless in explaining consciousness, since that
only covers activity in 3 dimensions of space and one of time. Maybe someday
quantum physics will have something to say.

[Case]
Actually, even if you insist on sticking to the spacio-temporal, there is no
problem. After all we are only talking about representations. Three
dimensions can be represented on two dimensional surfaces. If sequences of
2D representations are flashed in sequence then 4 dimensions can even be
represented in 2. Two 2D representations can even be offset a bit and stereo
vision results. If these are flashed in sequence you get Jaws 3D. If the
brain is regarded as a three dimensional drawing pad (tabla rasa 3D) then it
should be possible to represent four or more dimensions in just three. 

Or as I stated on Nov. 11:

[Case]  
I would say that the brain is a tabla rasa except that unlike slate it's
texture is not always smooth or even flat. 
In places you have to use a special marker. 
If the light is not just right, in some places you can't read what's
written. 
Some places are self luminescent. 
It almost always, changes form when you stimulate it.  

But it starts out clean. 
-----------------------------------------------
[Case]
I am not now nor have I ever said that the world is fundamentally
spacio-temporal. I think that neither the external world nor our internal
representations are limited to the spacio-temporal and that any assumptions
based on this being the case are wrong. Despite my denials, you keep saying
it must be so limited and therefore... What I have been saying is that
brains are sufficiently complex to generate representations in some number
of dimensions greater than whatever number time is and that there is no
reason to postulate something unseen and undefined to account for this. I am
perfectly willing to call the brain a black box, stop speculating on how it
does it and just note that it does. Not only do these black boxes transcend
the spacio-temporal but the progressive development of this capacity is well
documented in the fossil record and in the variation of species living
today.

Scott:
Would you agree, then, that a computer (which is designed to operate in a
strictly spatio-temporal manner) could not be conscious?

[Case]
No, this is a question that will be answered in time, rather sooner than
later I imagine. But I don't see any reason in principle that non-organic
multidimensional representations that mimic organic functionality could not
be created.
-----------------------------------------
Scott:
Why can't an amoeba be operating -- consciously -- in those other dimensions
as well? How do you know that the progressive development is what leads to
the production of consciousness, and not its regulation?

[Case]
The amoeba's behavior is determined by the chemistry of its environment. If
you want to consider the configuration of the "Now" instants over time as
memory it may in fact have something like that. But I think calling this
consciousness reduces consciousness to chance. If you want to equate
consciousness with chance I am with you 100%. I would even agree that
consciousness/chance regulates the amoeba's environment.

If you do not agree that Consciousness = Chance, how do they differ? (Big
"C"s are intentional)
-------------------------------
Scott:
Note that everything you (and I) know about the brain, and amoebas, and the
fossil record and so on is based on the contents of these representations,
and while the representations may have an underlying reality of more than
spacetime dimensions, what they represent IS in spacetime dimensions. Now
you are using the *contents* of the representations to make a narrative
about "progressive development". Well, that is a good narrative about the
spacetime *product* of consciousness, but tells us nothing about
consciousness itself, which produces these representations in the first
place. Basically, what I am saying is since the only thing we know as
spacetime is the product of perception (the representations), then why
should we assume that perception emerged *in time*.

[Case]
If you equate consciousness with chance I agree, But, I will assume you
don't. I think I have shown above that it is possible to represent 4
dimensions in 3. This representation results from natural processes. It is
not an exact representation but it is all we have and it continuously adapts
itself to changes in the environment that supports it. I am not sure what
else needs to be said other than the characteristics of this representation
are what consciousness with a "c" is.

Case said:
But this business about there being no difference between the brain
(presumably a human brain but for these purposes any brain will do) and an
amoeba is just silliness based on fallacy.

Scott:
I didn't say there was no difference between a brain and an amoeba. I said
"there is no difference as far as *consciousness* is concerned between the
brain or any strictly spatio-temporal system, and the amoeba". (To which I
should add: 
the amoeba, considered in strictly spatiotemporal terms). You are saying
that the brain is not a strictly spatio-temporal system. But you still seem
to be assuming that it came to be a more than spatio-temporal system as a
consequence of strictly spatio-temporal operations. Or are you? You said you
weren't claiming that the external world was strictly spatio-temporal. Yet
you are implicitly assuming it is when you cite the evidence for
"progressive development" as evidence for the emergence of consciousness in
time. In short, by not assuming that the external world is strictly
spatio-temporal, the argument that consciousness emerged in time falls
apart.

[Case]
Since I think biological systems do emerge from the physical environment
individually and collectively: So, Yes. 

My doubts about the number of dimensions remains. If there are more that 4
they are here working their magic now. And if their relationships are
eventually specified, we will adjust our language to accommodate them. In
the mean time there is no reason to suppose that our internal
representations even require them. I believe amoebas are not sufficiently
complex to create and use multidimensional representations. While this might
be possible at the molecular level I don't think it is necessary or likely.

Consciousness is not required to sustain an amoeba. But as always it would
be helpful to know what you think consciousness does. Some metaphors, some
personal example, some account from a sage, anything at all would help.