Hi Xodorap,

Still having a hard time understanding much of this.  I see DLS is a “dynamic logic structure”.  Is the CNS the Central Nervous System?  When you say: “They effect their immediate environment” are you talking about neighboring neurons, or things out in the world we use our muscles to effect?

Let me ask you this.  It seems to me you could have a dynamic updating model of self, in the world, based on an abstract architecture.  You could have data structures represent the self, data structure model the world, and dynamic logic systems that make it intelligent.  It seems to me this is exactly wat a Tesla is. A tesla couldn't do anything without a dynamic updating model of itself in the world.

I don’t see anything in what you are saying that distinguishes such a certainly nonconscious abstract system from a phenomenally conscious system running directly on intrinsic physical properties like redness and greenness.  Does anything in your model distinguish between these 3 robots?

Ooops, my system was so slow in updating/responding I hit the submit button twice. [I'll be happy if someone can remove the duplicate response ???]

By <coherent nexus of analogue representations> I mean the kind of virtual machine process that Daniel Dennett refers to.

DLS are activities, that is to say behaviours of and within the brain, and I say they truly exist while they are occurring because they affect their immediate environment - the rest of the CNS and any other DLS active at the time - in ways which cause their own continuation or development. Depending on what they are and therefore what they represent or do they can be parts of amalgamations of several DLS. 

Hello Brent, 

my apologies for not noticing your questions much, much, sooner! I let my email inbox get right out of hand. :-( 

By analogue I mean that the brain does not store information in the form of digital numbers as serial processing computers do. As I understand it our brains store information as discrete patterns of interaction amongst widespread patterns of interaction amongst relevant groups of neurons. The informational content is embodied primarily in the relative locations of the smallest neuronal groups [the mini columns] and the part each plays in the pattern of interaction while it is occurring. 

The qualitative nature of such information is derived, originally, from its connection to/association with the cortical arrays which receive inputs directly from the sense organs [sensory cells, wherever they may be].  

The information content/qualitative nature of abstract ideas arises from our ability to associate observed features of our environment with unique patterns of behaviour which we call words. 

IMO the key linking concept in all this is that of dynamic logical structures [DLS]. These are the patterns of neuronal group interactions which constitute mental objects. I guess pretty much all of them can be part of what we call phenomenal experience. My assertion of the importance of 1/, 2/, and 3/ as prerequisite components of the model of self in the world is how I explain *conscious* experience, which in these contexts I specify as rememberable awareness. 

I understand you to be asserting that rememberable awareness [as such] could not ever be founded upon an information processing system based on binary digits [or trinary, whatever ... am I right?]. IMO there is nothing in modern scientific theory or accepted knowledge which can support that assertion. I agree completely that no digital processing systems on Earth at the moment are viable candidates for acceptance as conscious entities but this is because I don't believe there is any system currently existing with the requisite architecture, processing speed, and autonomy. IMO a condidte entity will need to have massively parallel processing architecture capable of sustaining an updating model of self in the world which updates fast enough in real time to be able to make all predictions and actions necessary to autonomously look after itself. 

In other words it will need to be able to adapt itself and/or make changes to the world around it sufficient to ensure its own survival in whatever constantly changing environment it finds itself.

Hello Brent, 

my apologies for not noticing your questions much, much, sooner! I let my email inbox get right out of hand. :-( 

By analogue I mean that the brain does not store information in the form of digital numbers as serial processing computers do. As I understand it our brains store information as discrete patterns of interaction amongst widespread patterns of interaction amongst relevant groups of neurons. The informational content is embodied primarily in the relative locations of the smallest neuronal groups [the mini columns] and the part each plays in the pattern of interaction while it is occurring. 

The qualitative nature of such information is derived, originally, from its connection to/association with the cortical arrays which receive inputs directly from the sense organs [sensory cells, wherever they may be].  

The information content/qualitative nature of abstract ideas arises from our ability to associate observed features of our environment with unique patterns of behaviour which we call words. 

IMO the key linking concept in all this is that of dynamic logical structures [DLS]. These are the patterns of neuronal group interactions which constitute mental objects. I guess pretty much all of them can be part of what we call phenomenal experience. My assertion of the importance of 1/, 2/, and 3/ as prerequisite components of the model of self in the world is how I explain *conscious* experience, which in these contexts I specify as rememberable awareness. 

I understand you to be asserting that rememberable awareness [as such] could not ever be founded upon an information processing system based on binary digits [or trinary, whatever ... am I right?]. IMO there is nothing in modern scientific theory or accepted knowledge which can support that assertion. I agree completely that no digital processing systems on Earth at the moment are viable candidates for acceptance as conscious entities but this is because I don't believe there is any system currently existing with the requisite architecture, processing speed, and autonomy. IMO a condidte entity will need to have massively parallel processing architecture capable of sustaining an updating model of self in the world which updates fast enough in real time to be able to make all predictions and actions necessary to autonomously look after itself. 

In other words it will need to be able to adapt itself and/or make changes to the world around it sufficient to ensure its own survival in whatever constantly changing environment it finds itself.

Hi Xodorap,

I’m having troubles understanding your terminology.

To me saying “analogue versis digital” is talking about specific examples of phenomenal intrinsic qualities vs abstract words like ‘red’.  Saying it your way doesn’t fully communicate what needs to be communicated, and sounds like you might be talking about something different.

I don’t know what “coherent nexus of analogue representations of” means.

By “analogue” do you mean phenomenal?  If not, what?

For me, both your /1 and /2 can be represented with phenomenal qualities, the /3 is the computational/meaningful binding between the two.  /1 and /2 can either be represented abstractly, (digital is a specific example of abstract, and analogue could also be abstract) or directly on intrinsic qualities.  Either way, the “computational binding” is doing the same thing, both in the conscious and digital/abstract version.

Sounds good.  Perhaps you could propose a modification, or new version, to see if everyone agrees?

The camp statement contains the following paragraph:

"This camp posits that all of the functionality of homo sapiens can be achieved artificially with both abstract and phenomenal programming mechanisms. If the functionality is achieved, abstractly, based on 1s (ones) and 0s (zeros), it is not considered conscious. It is only considered conscious if it is running directly on intrinsic qualities."

I agree with that. I just think it is worth pointing out that the last sentence can also be put in terms of analogue versus digital. IE there will be something it is like to be the experience where there is an analogue representation of sufficient of the component elements of the experience. Of course my particular bias is expressed in the acronym UMSITW [updating model of self in the world]. So here I take the translation to be "considered conscious if there is a coherent nexus of analogue representations of
1/ current important features of world,
2/ current important features of self, and
3/ currently important relationships between 1 & 2."

In particular it is the updating, the registration of novelty - particularly that which was not predicted,  which features as consciousness or rememberable awareness. I feel impelled to point out that 3/ is a vital component/function within the process and it includes the on-going 1st order [survival/life goal] emotional assessments.