21.01.2009 - On "Turning 'The Hard Problem' Upside Down & Sideways" by Piet Hut and Roger N. Shepard

Gilles Kuhn: So I propose to those who want to introduce themselves briefly like I have done. Andrej Babenco: Andrej, Italian, 46 YO, I think SL is an extension of RL, founder of Synchroexperienced SL group. Gilles Kuhn: tk andrej Zen Arado: Zen. do we have to give our age :) Scathach Rhiadra: :) Andrej Babenco: yes !! Gilles Kuhn: Don’t give any info you don’t want. Andrej Babenco: ah ah ah arabella Ella smiles Zen Arado: I'm Irish and I used to study philosophy but I'm more interested in Zen now. Nick Cassavetes: Kristof, 33 yo, studied philosophy, especially language-related Issues Pema Pera: Piet Hut, from Holland originally, now working at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, dividing my time over astrophysics and broadly interdisciplinary collaboraties arabella Ella: My background is philosophy, I really enjoy philosophy discussions on SL. Gilles Kuhn: ok so we have a lot of philosophers indeed other background are here as well I hope ? Pila Mulligan is retired but still meditating :) Mickorod Renard: Hi, I am involved in education in RL, but design and technology. I have been interested in philosophy for many years but only recently followed it in depth this last year on SL. I am in UK. sophia Placebo: sophia, Saudi , studying medicine , it is my first attempt for serious philosophy discussion. Sage Hartmann: Hi all =) for any who don't know me, my background was in physics, but I’ve been studying a lot of philosophy these last couple years, and running occasional discussions here in SL. Fefonz Quan: Physicist, now a visitor at Pema's department, background in image processing, algorithm, and also Buddhism and guitars :) Zen Arado: I'm more into political philosophy. Samuel Okelly: 39yo male from England, former teacher, new to philosophy with an interest in ethics, ontology & theology. Gilles Kuhn: ok nice welcome to all as you hopefully know we will focus tonight and in the next seminar at least to the paper that you can found here: [|http://www.ids.ias.edu/~piet/publ/turning/tuc2.html] Zen Arado: seems more analytic stuff in SL Sage Hartmann: Zen, there's a pretty strong continental influence here too =) Tenk Kidd: I'm a former Physics and Math teacher, now working in Spacecraft Engineering, not clever enough for philosophy, into Neolithic Archeoastronomy Zen Arado: Good! Gilles Kuhn: The paper Turning the hard problem upside down and sideway and one of the authors make us the honor to attend so I will invite Pema to introduce very briefly his argument (if someone still want to introduce himself just do so) Andrej Babenco: (mmmm... it seems I am the most ignorant...) Gilles Kuhn: (first thing o know is to learn his own ignorance as said Socrates :) ) Pema Pera: Thank you Gilles! It was fun yesterday to reread that paper, after writing it 13 years ago with Roger Shepard, a good friend of mine, and one of the leading cognitive psychologists, then still at Stanford, just before his retirement Pema Pera: His way of thinking was very much like that of a physicist, always tried to picture things in spatial terms Pema Pera: our basic goal was to break through a polarised thinking like materialistic versus idealistic, matter first vs. mind first Pema Pera: But obviously it will be hard to summarize the whole paper here in text chat, so perhaps we should start with questions/comments Yichard Muni: just an abstract of the paper, then, please Pema Pera: And next week we will continue with this paper, so you'll have time to read it during the coming week, too Zen Arado: It's still dualistic? Gilles Kuhn: you can find an abstract here [http://www.ids.ias.edu/~piet/publ/turning/tuc2.html] the second page is the abstract Zen Arado: two things Pema Pera: well, we try to give more than two perspectives; including a choice between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person Pema Pera: Gilles, shall I echo the whole abstract here? Or is that too much spam? Not everybody can handle a browser while also in SL arabella Ella: yes please Pema Gilles Kuhn: Well Pema first to introduce the discussion I must say that you attack the mind body problem in a epistemological way i.e. in a methodological fundamental way Gilles Kuhn: Yes please do so Pema I cannot not on my pc Pema Pera: Instead of speaking of conscious experience as arising in a brain we prefer to speak of a brain as arising in conscious experience. From an epistemological standpoint starting from direct experiences strikes us as more justified As a first option we reconsider the hard problem of the relation between conscious experience and the physical world by thus turning that problem upside down. We also consider a second option turning the hard problem sideways Rather than starting with the third person approach used in physics or the first person approach of starting with individual conscious experience we consider starting from an I and you basis centered around the second person Finally we present a candidate for what could be considered to underlie conscious experience sense. We consider this to be a shot in the dark but at least a shot in the right direction somewhere between upside down and sideways Our notion of sense can be seen as an alternative to panpsychism. To give an analogy using the notions of space and time is more convenient than trying to analyze the phenomenon of motion in terms of a space based pandynamism. Similarly when approaching the phenomenon of consciousness. We prefer the triad of space time and sense over a space time based form of panpsychism. Pema Pera: Yes, Gilles, it is a kind of "physics" approach, I'd say, enumerating possibilities first Calyps0 Janus: 1. relationship between the physical world and conscious experience of such physical world. Gilles Kuhn: Yes and posing a lot of traditional approach as uniquely biased toward a single classical materialist paradigm Pema isn’t it so? Pema Pera: Yes, Gilles Calyps0 Janus: 2. Experiencing the physical world not from the singular first person approach but from the second person? YOU… or I & YOU? Calyps0 Janus: 3. Underlying all of this… both physical world and experience… the SENSING of it all? Nick Cassavetes: Maybe this take answers to an extend the old issue if we have or are a body? Pema Pera: yes, Calyps0 and if you have or are a mind, too, Nick Andrej Babenco: now we have/are an avatar, more complicated Nick Cassavetes: yes Sage Hartmann: Pema, haven't finished the paper, but was it your hope to reach scientific/disprovable claims from this line of thought, or to do pure epistemology, if I might inquire? Yichard Muni: seems rather a problem of definition than with the facts :-) Yichard Muni: oops too late Calyps0 Janus: Can we have an example to relate this all to? Nick Cassavetes: it's an interesting division, having and being, only typical for indo-european languages I've been told Pema Pera: more to broaden the stage, Sage to increase the number of degrees of freedom Gilles Kuhn: actually Pema your approach strike me as fundamental in a Cartesian way you seems to try to begin from a tabula rasa in order to pinpoint the decompose the so call hard problem Pema Pera: more options and angles, and then to investigate those critically arabella Ella: so Pema could you please tell us how SENSE bridges the mind body dualism as you described it? Yichard Muni: 1.3.3 is an interesting question. If this exists, it must be observable elsewhere than in the brain, and thus more easy to observe Pema Pera: space and time are totally mysterious -- were it not for the fact that we have gotten used to them -- so we posit that there may be a third equally totally mysterious something, "sense" or "X" or whatever, underlying the mind-body problem Sage Hartmann: Well I like it. If I understand it right, it might mirror my own thoughts, with different labels. Have you tried applying these ideas to the notion of causality? Yichard Muni: sense is something which is created by the mind, isn't it? Yichard Muni: ah, yes, in the common sense. Nick Cassavetes: isn't sense an interrelation basically? Pema Pera: causality is fascinating, yes, open question how that relates with "sense"; sense has to underlie it, I think arabella Ella: is it sense as in sensing or as in sense data? Yichard Muni: if I understand well, "sense" in this article is the interaction mind/matter Pema Pera: my example was "time is more than just a bunch of motions -- it is the condition of possibility for motion" so "sense is the condition of possibility for awareness" Sage Hartmann: Have you considered parallels in your triad with the possible/necessary/actual divisions in Kant's categories, or the three kinds of temporality of Heidegger? Pema Pera: time is more than pan-dynamism; and sense is more than pan-psychism Gilles Kuhn: but this X Pema it is not a little had hoc? I mean to define sense awareness as a primitive as space and time because space and time we can use to make models or following Kant we must use to think... Pema Pera: Heidegger's notion of Being I find helpful, I'm not familiar with the other categories you mentioned, Sage arabella Ella: I am sorry I did not read the paper Pema but I guess you provide justification for postulating Sense ? Yichard Muni: Gilles, electricity can no more be explained in terms of mechanics, but it is still accepted by scientists as a fundamental thing, even if we don't know what it is. So why not consciousness? Pema Pera: ah hoc. . . well, after a few thousand years of not finding a good solution, perhaps we should investigate where the way of posing the problem has been too shallow -- whether there is not something missing in the foundation Calyps0 Janus: =) My example is breathing and the difficulty of mind/body separation over one's control of such sustainable effort! Sage Hartmann: Well I feel there is a recurring theme of various kinds of "retention/protention/experience" triads in many attempts at forming a foundation for phenomenology, was all I meant Pema Pera: ah, I see, Sage; interesting question Gilles Kuhn: yes to pinpoint sage example in your paper Pema you seems very influenced by husserl ( which is not a surprise for who know you :) ) Andrej Babenco: we must speak with a paraplegic person Pema Pera: Arabella, the main justification is this: if you really can't solve a conundrum, like how does the brain produce a mind, perhaps the question is put wrongly, and perhaps both brain and mind arise out of something else, call it X or a bit more conveniently something like "sense" Andrej Babenco: interesting point of view Yichard Muni: so the brain would not just result from a forward going Darwinian evolution, its evolution would be driven by something? Pema Pera: I came across Husserl only after more than twenty years of reading and thinking about these questions, Gilles, and yes, I felt a lot of resonance. In fact, I started off at age 17 with Spinoza, amongst others; he was a big influence; and so was Seneca Sage Hartmann: Arabella, I think Pema is essentially just postulating an extra 'degree of freedom' in the physics-sense, and giving it a name that seems to reflect its phenomenological role arabella Ella: ok thanks Pema but ... how useful is it in philosophy to continue to postulate entities which could end up being totally superfluous ... not sure if I am explaining myself well here Pema Pera: oh, the only reason to postulate is than to do experimentation/exploration with it, Arabella Nick Cassavetes: I only had time to read a bit of the article, but I noticed the term 'emergence', is Sense emerging from interaction of complex systems, or do you take it as a given force in the cosmos? Pema Pera: as we do here in Play as Being and in the phenomenology workshop Pema Pera: the other way around, Nick Yichard Muni: until now no physical explanation was found for consciousness, so we probably miss something, and if so it is legitimate to make hypothesis Pema Pera: sense is the "field" that makes emergence possible Nick Cassavetes: I see Pema Pera: like space makes location possible Gilles Kuhn: well arabella it’s not only in phlosophy but in science as well for all the so call difference between both anyway but new concept if rich in explanation and possibilities are always welcome I think Pema Pera: and time makes motion possible Sage Hartmann: well arabella, I don't know that space/time/sense is the best way of thinking of it - I use different terms myself -- but I think you do need 3. Phenomeology requires at least 3 dimensions imo. Nick Cassavetes: very interesting Yichard Muni: "sense is the "field" that makes emergence possible" "field" like in physics? Pema Pera: more general, Yichard Yichard Muni: okie Pema Pera: time is not really a field but sort-of, to give an idea Yichard Muni: yes, got it Pema Pera: without the notion of time, it gets very clumsy to talk about clocks, only through their moving parts Fefonz Quan: arrabela, tell that to string theorists ("continue to postulate entities which could end up being totally superfluous") Pema Pera: without the notion of space, it is very clumsy to only describe relative distances between all objects in this room say Sage Hartmann: lol feonz :p Yichard Muni: this is a risk we can take, when we have no other means Pema Pera: without the notion of sense, the mind-body problem may be too clumsy to talk about Yichard Muni: interesting Zen Arado: I thought it was pseudo problem created by Descartes Gilles Kuhn: and without the notion of sense so it would be difficult to consider the qualia Pema? Nick Cassavetes: there is the take that space is only our way of making sense of relations between objects though Sage Hartmann: this was written a while back? has there been much follow-up? Pema Pera: space is non-material, yet allows ANY material phenomenon to happen Pema Pera: yes, Sage, 13 years ago :) Calyps0 Janus: Yichard: agreed. Perhaps the brain---&gt; mind-&gt; sensing is just a brain's way of maintaining life in the host organism rather than leading to gradual insanity? Yichard Muni: follow up? Pema Pera: yes, Nick, but so much more economical, so hard to imagine it is irrelevant . . . Nick Cassavetes: I think it's wrong to think of space as a neutral 'compartment' Pema Pera: agreed. It seems to be more "active" Nick Cassavetes: yes Pema Pera: And modern physics echoes that. The "vacuum" is very rich :-) Yichard Muni: yes, as matter is able to fold it Gilles Kuhn: perhaps let focus for now in this notion of sense of X has a concept irreducible as space and time ? Pema Pera: perhaps the "mind vacuum" is very rich too :-) Yichard Muni: hehe, Buddhist? :-) Calyps0 Janus is experiencing current extremes of _mind vacuum_! Fefonz Quan: a vacuum pump for this would be very helpful :) Pema Pera: X is meant as equally irreducible as space and time, and the three are then three aspects of reality -- avoiding dualism by having a triad Sage Hartmann: Well, I think the key is in the relation to causality. imo there are 3 kinds of causality that compliment the 3 pairs of axes of phenomenology. Gaya Ethaniel giggles silently. Fefonz Quan: Trialism? Alfred Kelberry: Pema, star wars introduced the x long before you - the force :) quen Oh sneaks in quietly. Antonia Braveheart smiles. Yichard Muni: yes :-) Pema Pera: yes, Sage? Gilles Kuhn: yes Pema but three is it not worst than two? Yichard Muni: or the religious thousands years ago: God :-) Gilles Kuhn: ;) Sage Hartmann: Fefonz, do you mean like the kind of trialism in the octionions? Nick Cassavetes: this X somehow makes me think of Hegels Geist manifesting itself Trough the development of the 'material' world if it is taken such fundamental Pema Pera: well, often when we get stuck in black and white thinking, we realize that the reason for getting stuck was that we overlooked a third option -- doesn't *have* to be that way, but often is Fefonz Quan: Sage, the only onions I know are in my kitchen ;-) arabella Ella: Pema your concept of Sense makes me see the mental as utilizing 'sense' to connect and interact with the physical Sage Hartmann: lol sorry -- though you might have meant triality in the mathematical sense lol Samuel Okelly: it seems perfectly justifiable to reconsider the notion of sense in relation to the mind/body problem given that existing polemic ideas would appear to have failed thus far? Pema Pera: yes, Sam Calyps0 Janus: Pema: please restate what the mind/body problem is. Sage Hartmann: Pema: well -- this is just my opinion -- but i would take each pair of your axis to be a type of causality; environmental, motivational, intentional. Structurally they are all identical and orthogonal; which is which is a matter of our relation to them. Yichard Muni: Sam, I come to the question 1.3.3 :if "sense" or "force" or what else exists, we should observe it influencing physical systems Gilles Kuhn: Do your notion of sense to be consider as a fundamental of a new paradigm Pema? Pema Pera: starting with either was is very puzzling -- so perhaps both arise from something more fundamental -&gt; Calyps Nick Cassavetes: what I was aiming at with my Hegel remark, do you think Sense was there before sentient beings arose Pema? Yichard Muni: so there is a possible check Pema Pera: yes, Sage, all orthogonal!! Gilles Kuhn: Calyps the problem is basically how to explain sensation in the materialist paradigm of the world defined by science Samuel Okelly: what is the temperature of a “Baked Alaska? (one object yet two discrete temps) Pema Pera: Nick, yes, sense is also orthogonal to time, so neither before nor after :) independent of time Sage Hartmann: lol maybe you should put your triad in SU(2) then :p Yichard Muni: lol Sage :-) maybe this is true in some way Pema Pera: :) Fefonz Quan: es 2, sage ? :) Calyps0 Janus: So, if you dropped me from a helicopter into a burning forest fire...would sensing the temperature cause my body to instantiate my mind so as I could be enabled to take some preservationistic actions? ;-) Gilles Kuhn: I find the relation with the problem of causality proponed by sage fascinating because the mind body problem is about explanation and causality but I want to introduce perhaps later the notion of technical usefulness Pema Pera: let me add a practical application: if you are puzzled and try to find a problem to a solution, you look for inspiration. Trying very hard to crack a conundrum doesn't work, so you step back and try to take a more open stance. Perhaps what you are doing then is shifting from using a particular mind/brain approach to falling back more directly on sense itself, on other options given in the "field" of sense, less already-structured that our usual way of using awareness in mind-brain ways Gilles Kuhn: like a limited epoche Pema or a radical reflex ion in a Cartesian way Pema Pera: all shifts have to be lived for a while, to be tasted, seen, felt . .. like really viewing the world as given in the mind for example Pema Pera: yes, Gilles Mickorod Renard: is that not using the subcons greater processing power? Sage Hartmann: I agree Pema -- and most critically -- any foundation for phenomenology must have enough room to actually explain that very process of stepping back! :) Pema Pera: if you only think/speculate, it is like doing theory but skipping the experimental side Pema Pera: yes, Sage Pema Pera: Mick, perhaps -- but let's not jump to conclusions before we do it!! Pema Pera: perhaps not :-) Pema Pera: perhaps the "subcons" is an emerging property from "sense" Nick Cassavetes: this X seems to me to reificating interaction and hence intentionality and even entanglement in some way Gilles Kuhn: but why not include it Pema you mention in your article a link possible between material brain imagery tec and other kind of approach idea i find most interesting! Pema Pera: yes, that was about fixed points in consciousness and math Pema Pera: in the pyramid math-&gt;physics-&gt;biology-&gt;mind Pema Pera: only the first and the last one are self-reflexive given in terms of themselves Andrej Babenco: see the same things with different eyes Gilles Kuhn: yes contestable one btw but interesting manner of seeing science Pema Pera: in contrast, physics uses math, biology uses physics Andrej Babenco: Seneca ?? Sage Hartmann: well, any ontology has to have something that's self-reflexive -- I personally like the heideggerian approach of just getting that out of the way at the outset, and including it as a definition of identity =) Pema Pera: yes, Gilles, very contestable! Just a first caricature, to start with Pema Pera: Seneca! :-) Pema Pera: Heidegger's Being crossed out was a great approach -- but very hard to talk about. . . Sage Hartmann: true that Pema Pera: Seneca is about stepping back, dropping what you have to see what you are Gilles Kuhn: shall we not conceive models in a more general manner as more primitive than math and the fact that model are reduction as a hint about why a full experimental sensation like qualia is difficult to modelise? Pema Pera: yes, Gilles, that too is an interesting stance Pema Pera: yes, sorry Pema Pera: two thousand years ago, read him at the end of high school Andrej Babenco: eh eh..don't see different things with the same eyes... Gilles Kuhn: Well Ladies and gent this formal meeting time is almost done and pema will have to go soon BUT Yichard Muni: - Gilles Kuhn: I will invite all of you to be member of the SL group philosophical seminar and from then to the Google group I organise Zen Arado: Can you summarize any conclusions? You lost me a while back Mickorod Renard: I would like a summary too if pos Alfred Kelberry: Pema, give us your definition of "sense" Gilles Kuhn: And we will continue this very interesting discussion next week in group chat and in Google group too Zen Arado: seems more about maths and physica than philosophy? Pema Pera: sense is to awareness like space is to location and time to motion Zen Arado: just my take Pema Pera: about life, too, Zen :) Calyps0 Janus: Haha! Pema Pera: "sense" was chosen with a purpose, uncommon sense perhaps . . . . Andrej Babenco: mind/body - have/be - mind/body/avatar - have/be/? Zen Arado: I haven’t the physics background Gilles Kuhn: evidently we can continue the chat here and now too only some cannot attend more Pema Pera: thank you all for coming, and thank you, especially, Gilles for organizing -- see y'all next week! Alfred Kelberry: em.. ok, bye, Pema genesis Zhangsun: Bye everyone Zen Arado: bye Nick Cassavetes: thx for your elaboration Pema, bye Antonia Braveheart: bye Pema! Samuel Okelly: many thanks Gilles, Pema... there’s so much to think about arabella Ella: bye Pema Pema Pera: I've very much enjoyed all the questions/comments/suggestions Andrej Babenco: bye all arabella Ella: bye gen Pema Pera: what a wonderful group! Yichard Muni: :-) Pema Pera: a testimony to the power of SL. . . . we would have never met this way in RL Andrej Babenco: yes !!! Gilles Kuhn: thank you all for coming hope to see you all soon! Andrej Babenco: great power... Antonia Braveheart: ^^ Pema Pera: bye for now Yichard Muni: :-) Andrej Babenco: bye Samuel Okelly: tc every1 :) Andrej Babenco: goodnight 4 me, donno 4 u ... Gaya Ethaniel: Thanks Gilles and all. arabella Ella: thanks Giles Mickorod Renard: thank you very much Yichard Muni: oh, a question: can someone tell me what the post "on air" means?? Hana Hendrassen: Thanks all Mickorod Renard: bye all Andrej Babenco: time shifting ;) Gilles Kuhn: if somebody need a group invite IM me I’m working on it.