[extropy-chat] "Dead Time" of the Brain.

Fri May 5 19:17:34 UTC 2006

Hi Eugen,

  Eugen wrote:

  ..."I don't see why you would invoke Planck timescale for what happens in 
the brain,
unless for a gedanken (which is always dangerous, because people will 
take you literally).
Not much relevent happens in the brain significantly under 1 ms time 
scale, and subjectively 
the biochronon is at 50 ms, or larger, depending on how complex 
stimulus processing
is."...

  Yes, it was not absolutely necessary for me to express the passage of time in Planck Intervals. Like yourself, I was aware that the "subjective moment" consisted of a humongous total number of Planck Intervals which far exceeded ~10^29  -  a number that could be described just as validly in milliseconds. I chose Planck Intervals for the sake of simplifying my argument, because I was relating Time with neuronal discharges; because according to my calculation, approximately 10^29 Planck Intervals will elapse between the discharges of any two neurons (arbitrarily located anywhere in the brain). The total brain activity that would constitute the "subjective moment" would include far more discrete discharges than one or two, and hence, would occur over a far larger time span than 10^29 Planck Intervals  -  a time span perhaps better measured in milliseconds  -  but equally valid when described in Planck Intervals.

  Best Wishes,

  Jeffrey Herrlich 

  Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
  On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 06:59:40PM -0400, Heartland wrote:

> I have been updating my model many times since 2001 when it occurred to me that 
> minds are not information. (It's disappointing to see most people haven't updated 

It depends what your definition is (this is why I don't use the word mind,
nor consciousness, nor similiar portmanteaus). Would you agree that a mind
is a physical process, which happens to process information? So you only
have to look at those relevant aspects of the physical system engaged
in the abovementioned process, and can abstract away anything else?

> their thinking to at least that stage.) Usually, an update is a result of me 
> finding out some nonobvious inconsistency with the theory. It begins with either a 
> discussion of my theory on different boards or internal discussion. What happens 
> during these discussions is that some people are on the right track but get stuck 
> at some point and don't get the full picture of what I'm saying or people who don't 
> get it at all. Most often the only thing that changes after these debates is the 

Are you sure that you're always getting of what other people are saying?
No offense, but you were still arguing with yourself when I unsubscribed,
and you don't seem to have made any progress since.

> way I present the argument. New terms get introduced and their definitions get 
> tweaked so that the audience can more easily grasp what is being said. For example, 
> Jeffrey Herrlich's objection based on Planck Interval was wrong but to show it was 

I don't see why you would invoke Planck timescale for what happens in the brain,
unless for a gedanken (which is always dangerous, because people will take you literally).
Not much relevent happens in the brain significantly under 1 ms time scale, and subjectively 
the biochronon is at 50 ms, or larger, depending on how complex stimulus processing
is.

> wrong I had to reexamine the essence of what the mind actually is. This internal 
> examination lead me, in turn, to realize on my own that it is energy, not just 
> activity of matter that is the true substance of the mind. And when you view 

Now you're picking some arbitrarily single characteristic of a physical process,
and declare it to be the only thing what matters. On basis of which evidence?
Declaring that mind is energy is about as meaningfull as declaring that mind is
information. Or that the mind is a future predictor. None of it is completely
wrong, but perhaps the blind men shouldn let go of the nose hairs of the trunk,
and look at the whole animal.

> Jeffrey's objection in light of the fact that mind process is an expression of 
> energy, it should be clear why that objection breaks down because of conservation 
> of energy law. And that's the mechanism that moves the theory forward. Criticism 

Huh?

> inspires reexamination of your most basic assumptions that sometimes leads to a new 
> insight.

Or maybe just an illusion of a new insight. You sound awfully sure, and awfully
confused at the same time, this time. Are you realy sure you're making any progress 
when you're switching point of views? For an external observer, it looks
like a random walk in concept space.

> But in order to gain any new insight one must be willing to reexamine his or her 
> basic assumptions in the first place. There must be a commitment to finding the 

If you model the mind as a physical process, there's not much you can reexamine
without leaving the domain of science.

> truth at the expense of personal feelings about the truth. Very often you *know* 
> what the truth is long before you can consciously acknowledge it. There is 

Huh?

> definitely a mechanism of denial that protects you from truth, especially if it's 
> ugly and might hurt. There is very little chance that you can detect what truths 

You sound like a psychologist. This won't lead you anywhere. You need to be
at least psychophysics-level tall to ride this ride.

> denial mechanism hides from you because it's an unconscious process. The only way 
> to fight it is to commit to brutal criticism of your own ideas and willingness to 
> open yourself to criticism of others. It is only logic that can defeat denial. So, 
> in my case, it is constant questioning, "Does this concept really refer to a 
> territory or just a map?" Or, as part of brutal criticism, you set up your own test 
> cases *against* your own theory to see if it breaks down. And when it breaks down 
> you correct the theory.

There's no need to get lost on the metalayer meanderings, when the issues are
completely treatable with good old science and technology.

> As a result, this year my theory was *consciously* updated twice even though I 
> *knew* the truth long before that. The updates were, "death is irreversible" and, 

What is death? You better define it first, because most people don't know what
death is. (Death being irreversible is quite true, because it's the definition of
death -- irreversible loss of knowledge about a particular physical process).

> most recently, "death happens often". Even though I realized these things on my 
> own, the stimulus for conscious acknowledgment of these facts did come from people 
> commenting on my theory on this board and elsewhere.
> 
> Thanks for asking.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060505/95c208dc/attachment.html>