What Wind Tunnels Can Tell Us About Consciousness

[Jim Cross]

Are you suggesting that 'nature' builds and evaluates models and searches for solutions?

Lorenzop,

Actually I should have just answered "yes"? That is what I am suggesting. It's called evolution.

[Federica]

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/

Hi Jim, reading your article the following questions arise:


If there is only the model, and subject and objects are gone, this should mean that your model creates with equal rights, as representations, the you who writes the article and the explanation of the model enclosed in the article, correct? In other words the model you are presenting in the article must be within the model, right? If the model generates mere representations of the things-in-themselves (you, your body, your room, the tree outside your window, the clouds in the blue sky at a distance, all you remember about the past or imagine about the future are all parts of the model) then the explanation of the model itself, as product of the model, is itself an illusion, correct? If no, please explain. If yes, does it mean that behind this illusion there is an unknowable model-in-itself and inside the illusion there is a representation of the model-in-itself, within the model, which you are sharing with us? If yes, does it also mean - memory being also part of the model as you say - that when you consider your idea of the model, or the article you have written, the model forms a representation of the representation? So that there is a potentially infinite series of re-representations of the model, because there can't be a subject that rises itself above reality and postulates, or realizes or cognizes *the* model? If not please explain. If yes, then the model you are experiencing and the one you are sharing in the article can never be the real model, but only a representation of the model of some level. Then how can this (re)(re)(re)(...)representation teach you anything?


Also, if the you who has written the article is not rising above the model and cognizing it, or creating it (you is within the model, because the model is all there is) then how can the article speak of our models, how can it be about *the* model, as opposed to just Jim’s model? Hence how can this model teach us anything?


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?

[Jim Cross]

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?

Did you miss this sentence from the article?

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?

[Federica]

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?

Did you miss this sentence from the article?

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!

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.

[Jim Cross]

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?

Did you miss this sentence from the article?

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!

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.

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]

Did you miss this sentence from the article?

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.

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.

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.
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 Cross]

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.

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.

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.
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.

I have no idea what questions 1 and 2 are?

What are you suggesting in the way of motives and intent? Do you think there is some ulterior motive? Maybe rather than trying to understanding motives, you should concentrate on understanding what I actually write.

[Federica]

Maybe rather than trying to understanding motives, you should concentrate on understanding what I actually write.

That's exactly where I started, with question 1 and 2. I only went to intents and motives in response to your exhortation to consider and not to miss a particular sentence of your article. Therefore, as an expression of goodwill, I have given you my best understanding of that paragraph that you have pinpointed for me.


Again, I am more than happy to look at the understanding of what you actually wrote. My questions 1 and 2 are exactly about that:

1. If there is only the model, and subject and objects are gone, this should mean that your model creates with equal rights, as representations, the you who writes the article and the explanation of the model enclosed in the article, correct? In other words the model you are presenting in the article must be within the model, right? If the model generates mere representations of the things-in-themselves (you, your body, your room, the tree outside your window, the clouds in the blue sky at a distance, all you remember about the past or imagine about the future are all parts of the model) then the explanation of the model itself, as product of the model, is itself an illusion, correct? If no, please explain. If yes, does it mean that behind this illusion there is an unknowable model-in-itself and inside the illusion there is a representation of the model-in-itself, within the model, which you are sharing with us? If yes, does it also mean - memory being also part of the model as you say - that when you consider your idea of the model, or the article you have written, the model forms a representation of the representation? So that there is a potentially infinite series of re-representations of the model, because there can't be a subject that rises itself above reality and postulates, or realizes or cognizes *the* model? If not please explain. If yes, then the model you are experiencing and the one you are sharing in the article can never be the real model, but only a representation of the model of some level. Then how can this (re)(re)(re)(...)representation teach you anything?


2. Also, if the you who has written the article is not rising above the model and cognizing it, or creating it (you is within the model, because the model is all there is) then how can the article speak of our models, how can it be about *the* model, as opposed to just Jim’s model? Hence how can this model teach us anything?

.

[AshvinP]

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.

Of 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.

Jim,

Not a single person here has proposed any other models of reality to evaluate. I came the closest, I suppose, but didn't really speak of any dynamics I imagine are at work to make our modeling activity possible.

I think people assumed, since you wrote an article and posted it here, you were open to feedback and criticism of the model (and no model "bypasses theories and constructs", by their very definition), not only gawking and approval. I don't think Cleric or Federica assumed you would be immediately defensive and dismissive of 95% of what they are writing and asking you, which are genuine and straightforward questions. If they are difficult to understand, yet there is interest in reaching shared understanding of what is being asked, then I would suggest you pose them questions for clarification. If there is no such interest then, like I said, no amount of comments back and forth will approach anything close to a shared understanding of the words being written.

[Jim Cross]

Federica,

1- I have no idea what you are asking and why it matters. Representations are representations of representations which are representations of representations.. You can spin this forever but to what point? No there isn't an infinite series. Your model of the world is your consciousness. End of story.

2- I never said your model or my model is all there is. It is all you know. Not all there is.

The model that is consciousness is a physical model. We can put an airplane in a wind tunnel and understand drag and turbulence without an infinite regress into models within models within models...