[MD] On Time?

[Scott Roberts]

Case,

Scott said:
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 said]
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.

Scott:
Yes, representations can be of any dimension. But I am not talking about 
representations in my objection. I am talking about when a representation 
represents. A book on a shelf contains representations. But there is no 
consciousness of those representations unless and until the book is opened 
and read. A photograph contains a two-dimensional representation of a 
three-dimensional scene. But it is not seen unless and until it is looked 
at. It is that act (of reading, or looking) which I say cannot be explained 
in terms of strictly spatiotemporal activity.

-----------------------------------------------
[Case said]
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 said:
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:
And as I said, there is no reason that the representations could not be 
created, but there is a reason that they cannot be perceived. A computer, of 
course, does not just store these representations. It also processes them, 
creating other representations. But in a computer (I'm assuming one built 
out of Boolean logic gates), that processing is done one bit at a time 
(serial or parallel, doesn't matter, since in parallel processing, each 
processed bit is separate in space from all others), so there is no 
possibility of awareness of anything larger than a bit (and, or course, not 
even that, since each 'bit' requires several transistors to process).

-----------------------------------------
Scott said:
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:
What sort of red herring is this? Chance, as far as I know, just means not 
knowing outcomes. Some outcomes we know, and some we don't. What does that 
have to do with anything we are discussing? Unless you are referring to 
quantum probability waves, about which see below.

-------------------------------

[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.

Scott:
No, it is only when a representation represents that we have consciousness. 
Again, it is the difference between a book on a shelf, and a book that is 
being read.

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 said:
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.

Scott:
Yes, what? Are you assuming that the operations that produce consciousness 
are spatiotemporal, or not? I will assume yes, since you think a computer 
can be conscious, and its operations are spatiotemporal. And therefore, my 
objection stands: How is that we see colored shapes and not a succession of 
millions of synapses doing their thing?

Case:
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.

Scott:
But we already know that the quantum world cannot fit into 4 dimensions. So 
why even consider the possibility that a computer can be conscious -- a 
computer that works with Boolean gates, at least. It is designed so quantum 
effects can be ruled out.

Case said:
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.

Scott:
I'm not sure what you are asking, in that asking what consciousness does 
seems to be like asking what life does. Consciousness *is* thinking, 
feeling, and perceiving. But maybe the following answers your question, at 
least for perception. (For more details, see Samuel Avery's "The Dimensional 
Structure of Consciousness: A Physical Basis for Immaterialism"). Roughly, 
it says that each sense produces one or more dimensions from the quantum 
world of probability waves or whatever. Touch produces the mass dimension 
(and time, if there is memory of touches), while sight produces the 4 
spacetime dimensions (the other senses produce one or two spatial dimensions 
plus time). We call something physically real if it can be sensed with more 
than one sense, for example, a seen object that can potentially or actually 
be touched and/or heard, etc. So what perception *does* is turn the 
non-spatiotemporal quantum world into the spatiotemporal world.

- Scott