What Wind Tunnels Can Tell Us About Consciousness

[Jim Cross]

If nature\evolution selects for bigger brains, one could predict that ultimately the cosmos selects\models to become one giant brain.
There's no reason to suspect we're not already 'there' - the model is reality and we're right back to where we started.

The brains of evolution are biological. It's hard for me to imagine a biological cosmos. How would that work?

There may be other forms of natural evolution that are compatible with brains and consciousness that occur in nature. I don't rule that out.

[lorenzop]

A story, beginning with a Big Bang type event, and reality as entirely inert brutish physicality.
Reality builds and evaluates physical models (aka physical\biological evolution) - these physical models don't appear out of thin air, they are physical so come from reality, as a model airplane is made of the substance of reality.
So, reality is in the business of converting itself into models; bird wings, brains, galaxies, molecules, etc..
There's no reason to think this conversion into models would not be instantaneous, into basic elemental models. More complex models might take time . . . but 'time' may very well be a made up human concept.
My point being, when reality is converted to models, the notion of being a model (vs reality) loses any utility.
My second point is that there is nothing to prevent reality from converting itself to one brain - with your assumptions.

[Jim Cross]

A story, beginning with a Big Bang type event, and reality as entirely inert brutish physicality.
Reality builds and evaluates physical models (aka physical\biological evolution) - these physical models don't appear out of thin air, they are physical so come from reality, as a model airplane is made of the substance of reality.
So, reality is in the business of converting itself into models; bird wings, brains, galaxies, molecules, etc..
There's no reason to think this conversion into models would not be instantaneous, into basic elemental models. More complex models might take time . . . but 'time' may very well be a made up human concept.
My point being, when reality is converted to models, the notion of being a model (vs reality) loses any utility.
My second point is that there is nothing to prevent reality from converting itself to one brain - with your assumptions.

Of course, I am not arguing that everything is a model. I am talking about something very specific. A conscious organism creates a model of external and internal reality. It is a model of spacetime with the organism itself placed in the model. This is the most efficient way for an organism to deal with the complexities of its environment and enhance its survival. Consciousness itself, including what appears to us as the external reality, is the same as the model. In many ways, this is not different from Hoffman's Interface theory of perception if you substitute the word "interface" for "model". Where I differ is in explaining how and why the model arose. And I don't follow Hoffman down the road to full idealism (although he refuses to call it that).

[Cleric K]

Cleric,

Sorry, but the Cosmic Brain is completely off-base. A few comments on your analogy.

and that's basically what I was asking. I only tried to emphasize the seriousness of the problem by making analogy between neurons and, say, galaxies.

The whole point was to make us more conscious about the fact that the different parts of the physical brain can be considered as far apart parts of the Cosmos that slowly propagate their influences through spacetime.

Actually no. Did you read the part where I make a special point about neurons being packed together? Where I speculate that possibly the physical orientations and firing patterns might carry information. The EM fields, if that is involved, are weak. They don't travel far. They don't travel out of the skull. So spreading everything to galactic scales is in no way analogous to what I am talking about.

OK, Jim. You're a smart person so if you wanted to, you would have understood the point in question even from the first post. The fact that you nitpick at the analogy details instead, tells me that you simply have no interest in confronting the actual issue. And that's fine.

For similar reasons, I guess the other post didn't make sense to you either.

[lorenzop]

A story, beginning with a Big Bang type event, and reality as entirely inert brutish physicality.
Reality builds and evaluates physical models (aka physical\biological evolution) - these physical models don't appear out of thin air, they are physical so come from reality, as a model airplane is made of the substance of reality.
So, reality is in the business of converting itself into models; bird wings, brains, galaxies, molecules, etc..
There's no reason to think this conversion into models would not be instantaneous, into basic elemental models. More complex models might take time . . . but 'time' may very well be a made up human concept.
My point being, when reality is converted to models, the notion of being a model (vs reality) loses any utility.
My second point is that there is nothing to prevent reality from converting itself to one brain - with your assumptions.

Of course, I am not arguing that everything is a model. I am talking about something very specific. A conscious organism creates a model of external and internal reality. It is a model of spacetime with the organism itself placed in the model. This is the most efficient way for an organism to deal with the complexities of its environment and enhance its survival. Consciousness itself, including what appears to us as the external reality, is the same as the model. In many ways, this is not different from Hoffman's Interface theory of perception if you substitute the word "interface" for "model". Where I differ is in explaining how and why the model arose. And I don't follow Hoffman down the road to full idealism (although he refuses to call it that).

You are saying everything is a model . . . reality builds and analyses models from within itself . . . reality converts inert brute physicality (itself) into models. There is no reality remaining - it's been converted into model(s).
And Cleric questions stands as 'cosmos as one brain' is the logical conclusion from the assumptions you present.
IOW, you are presenting a case for some flavor of Idealism.

[Jim Cross]

A story, beginning with a Big Bang type event, and reality as entirely inert brutish physicality.
Reality builds and evaluates physical models (aka physical\biological evolution) - these physical models don't appear out of thin air, they are physical so come from reality, as a model airplane is made of the substance of reality.
So, reality is in the business of converting itself into models; bird wings, brains, galaxies, molecules, etc..
There's no reason to think this conversion into models would not be instantaneous, into basic elemental models. More complex models might take time . . . but 'time' may very well be a made up human concept.
My point being, when reality is converted to models, the notion of being a model (vs reality) loses any utility.
My second point is that there is nothing to prevent reality from converting itself to one brain - with your assumptions.

Of course, I am not arguing that everything is a model. I am talking about something very specific. A conscious organism creates a model of external and internal reality. It is a model of spacetime with the organism itself placed in the model. This is the most efficient way for an organism to deal with the complexities of its environment and enhance its survival. Consciousness itself, including what appears to us as the external reality, is the same as the model. In many ways, this is not different from Hoffman's Interface theory of perception if you substitute the word "interface" for "model". Where I differ is in explaining how and why the model arose. And I don't follow Hoffman down the road to full idealism (although he refuses to call it that).

You are saying everything is a model . . . reality builds and analyses models from within itself . . . reality converts inert brute physicality (itself) into models. There is no reality remaining - it's been converted into model(s).
And Cleric questions stands as 'cosmos as one brain' is the logical conclusion from the assumptions you present.
IOW, you are presenting a case for some flavor of Idealism.

I agree this is a flavor of idealism. In my initial post, I referred to it as limited solipsism.

Other than that, I don't know how I can get you to understand that this is NOT everything is models.

[AshvinP]

Of course, I am not arguing that everything is a model. I am talking about something very specific. A conscious organism creates a model of external and internal reality. It is a model of spacetime with the organism itself placed in the model. This is the most efficient way for an organism to deal with the complexities of its environment and enhance its survival. Consciousness itself, including what appears to us as the external reality, is the same as the model. In many ways, this is not different from Hoffman's Interface theory of perception if you substitute the word "interface" for "model". Where I differ is in explaining how and why the model arose. And I don't follow Hoffman down the road to full idealism (although he refuses to call it that).

You are saying everything is a model . . . reality builds and analyses models from within itself . . . reality converts inert brute physicality (itself) into models. There is no reality remaining - it's been converted into model(s).
And Cleric questions stands as 'cosmos as one brain' is the logical conclusion from the assumptions you present.
IOW, you are presenting a case for some flavor of Idealism.

I agree this is a flavor of idealism. In my initial post, I referred to it as limited solipsism.

Other than that, I don't know how I can get you to understand that this is NOT everything is models.

Jim,

Are you just ignoring the Barfield quote I shared with you on the inextricable thinking-perception relation, or do you disagree that this is what all modern science concludes?

[Jim Cross]

Ashvin,

I didn't look at your Barffield quote but, having looked at it, I don't see any relevance to anything I'm discussing. I don't agree or disagree with it. It is just beside the point.

[lorenzop]

Other than that, I don't know how I can get you to understand that this is NOT everything is models.

Not to belabor the point, but if as you suggest:
1. reality builds models (including consciousness as a model)
2. builds physical models, out of physical 'substance', builds models out of itself
therefore, even if we grant that reality began as nonmodel matter, it converts itself into models.
When everything is a model you don't have models anymore - you are right back to where you started.

(for example thought experiment-> reality converts itself into model airplanes)

3. reality selects for bigger brains
ultimately the cosmos is one model, one brain.

Perhaps you are saying reality shows restraint and only builds model once in a blue moon, or maybe the physical models are of that mystery substance ie 'emergent properties'

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

I didn't look at your Barffield quote but, having looked at it, I don't see any relevance to anything I'm discussing. I don't agree or disagree with it. It is just beside the point.

The relevance is it that it completely undermines your assertion to Lorenzo that you are somehow bypassing models with your observations. Like Cleric said, you are smart enough to understand this connection, so it now seems like you simply ignore everything which tends to undermine your position. Let's be clear that your entire argument falls apart if it is admitted yours is yet another model and not direct revelation of the truth about consciousness.

To make it perfectly clear, you previously wrote:

What about the primary example of an model airplane in wind tunnel? No theories or abstract constructs there.

This could only be true if you are able to engage 'pure observation' of a model airplane in a wind tunnel, and no such thing exists, as summarized by the Barfield quote.