Lorenzop,Are you suggesting that 'nature' builds and evaluates models and searches for solutions?
Actually I should have just answered "yes"? That is what I am suggesting. It's called evolution.
Lorenzop,Are you suggesting that 'nature' builds and evaluates models and searches for solutions?
Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 5:13 pm Keys points:
- Brains must be doing some form of non-classical computing.
- The form the computing takes is a physical representative model.
- Consciousness is the model of reality, not a product or side effect of the model.
Some may enjoy the turbulence (eddy) analogy and a sort of limited solipsism.
https://broadspeculations.com/2022/07/1 ... ciousness/
Did you miss this sentence from the article?Lastly, what does the model do? What are the consequences of understanding consciousness in this way? Once you have packed the whole of personal experience and labeled the package “model”, what is the usefulness of this act?
Could the evolution of consciousness be a similar exceedingly practical solution to a complex problem – the problem of surviving and thriving in a complicated world?
I didn't - quite an eye-catching sentence, almost impossible to miss!Jim Cross wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 5:55 pmDid you miss this sentence from the article?Lastly, what does the model do? What are the consequences of understanding consciousness in this way? Once you have packed the whole of personal experience and labeled the package “model”, what is the usefulness of this act?
Could the evolution of consciousness be a similar exceedingly practical solution to a complex problem – the problem of surviving and thriving in a complicated world?
Building a model like a wind tunnel and a miniature airplane actually is bypassing theories and abstract constructs. The model isn't built on theories and abstractions. You apparently suffer from the illusion that there is a literal reading of reality.Federica wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:07 pmI didn't - quite an eye-catching sentence, almost impossible to miss!Jim Cross wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 5:55 pmDid you miss this sentence from the article?Lastly, what does the model do? What are the consequences of understanding consciousness in this way? Once you have packed the whole of personal experience and labeled the package “model”, what is the usefulness of this act?
Could the evolution of consciousness be a similar exceedingly practical solution to a complex problem – the problem of surviving and thriving in a complicated world?
I understand the intent in the parallel with the planes: What if bypassing theories and constructs is the solution? What if going directly to a literal reading of reality that reads itself is the solution to the complications of the "I"? Who said that we have to take responsibility for these plaguing complications? But beyond the statement of intent I don't see how the model even begins to fulfill the promise, how it can offer surviving and thriving to the discarded "I". The article doesn't say it.
There is a big misunderstanding here Jim. I do get that your model wants to bypass theories and constructs. What I wrote in my previous post is not my "what if" inquiries, it is what I understand as (some of) your motives and intents in presenting this model.Jim Cross wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:49 pmBuilding a model like a wind tunnel and a miniature airplane actually is bypassing theories and abstract constructs. The model isn't built on theories and abstractions. You apparently suffer from the illusion that there is a literal reading of reality.Federica wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:07 pmI didn't - quite an eye-catching sentence, almost impossible to miss!
I understand the intent in the parallel with the planes: What if bypassing theories and constructs is the solution? What if going directly to a literal reading of reality that reads itself is the solution to the complications of the "I"? Who said that we have to take responsibility for these plaguing complications? But beyond the statement of intent I don't see how the model even begins to fulfill the promise, how it can offer surviving and thriving to the discarded "I". The article doesn't say it.
I have no idea what questions 1 and 2 are?Federica wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:06 pmThere is a big misunderstanding here Jim. I do get that your model wants to bypass theories and constructs. What I wrote in my previous post is not my "what if" inquiries, it is what I understand as (some of) your motives and intents in presenting this model.Jim Cross wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:49 pmBuilding a model like a wind tunnel and a miniature airplane actually is bypassing theories and abstract constructs. The model isn't built on theories and abstractions. You apparently suffer from the illusion that there is a literal reading of reality.Federica wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:07 pm
I didn't - quite an eye-catching sentence, almost impossible to miss!
I understand the intent in the parallel with the planes: What if bypassing theories and constructs is the solution? What if going directly to a literal reading of reality that reads itself is the solution to the complications of the "I"? Who said that we have to take responsibility for these plaguing complications? But beyond the statement of intent I don't see how the model even begins to fulfill the promise, how it can offer surviving and thriving to the discarded "I". The article doesn't say it.
This being said, it would be appreciated if you could address the more substantial questions one and two. I suspect that would help clarify this question three as well.
Jim,Jim Cross wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:50 pmOf course, one of my points about calling this limited solipsism is that nobody can gawk at your model and, for the most part, you don't even realize you have a model. You think it is reality.Of course, if our interest only lies in having models for others to gawk at, rather than confronting the modeling activity itself, then all of the above will "make no sense", because we simply have no desire for it to make sense.