[ExI] you asked for it -here it is

[Brent Allsop]

Hi Will,



You asked: “*Present...where?*”



*Thank you for asking!*  We’re creating a video to help explain all this
and we just completed a crude rendering of the section that answers just
this question here <https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/>.



There is no narration yet, so I’ll try to walk you through it.



This will pause in the “Flashing Pixel” section in a loop with a single
flashing red/green pixel.



This flashing pixel basically proves there must be something physical in
our brain, which can physically change for each pixel of conscious
knowledge we are aware of.  (The “inverted perception” section proves
redness is not related to red, and in fact may be simply inverted anywhere
along the chain of perception.).



You’ll need to press the continue button to get out of the loop.



The simplest theory is that each of the cortical columns in the visual
cortex is representing a pixel of knowledge in our visual space, and so
far, all evidence seems to support this theory.  Steven Lehar recommends
thinking of it as an actual diorama of 3D knowledge laid out in the visual
cortex composed of voxels (3D pixels) spread out in the visual cortex.



In the “scrunched cortex” section, we split things into 2 spaces.  The one
on the left represents the virtual reality represented, or how things seem
to us.  The one on the right (hypothetically) represents the actual layout
of the neurons representing each of these pixels of knowledge, physically
laid out in the visual cortex.  There is much higher resolution in the
center field of vision, so this requires things to be scrunched up in some
way to make room for additional pixel neurons in the center of our field of
vision.  Of course, this scrunching is consistent with the folds in the
cortex.



<https://drive.google.com/file/d/16f0my54ba7m7SliUDkGdvcxdfOJmfZiI/view?usp=sharing>
[image: image.png]



As you can see in the above model of the primary visual cortex, there is of
course the ”Longitudinal fissure” separating the two halves of the diorama
which are physically split between the two hemispheres of the brain.  There
is also the “Transverse occipital sulcus” splitting the visual cortex in
half again from top to bottom (looks like a frown), splitting the diorama
into 4 sections.  This cross of valleys centered on our field of vision
makes room for the additional pixels at the center of vision.



You can see the seeds of the strawberry, as they move around these cortical
column pixels, into and out of these sulci as they increase and decrease in
resolution.



Does that answer your question? ;)





On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:50 PM Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:31 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Will,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:41 PM Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well,
>>>
>>> 1) I'm Will not Bill ;)
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I guess I confused you with William Flynn Wallace aka (Bill K).
>> Thanks for clearing this up.
>>
>
> You did confuse me with BillK, but he is not, to my knowledge, William
> Flynn Wallace!  We have many competing Wills here and further competing
> wills beyond we eponymous ones.
>
>
>> Once someone experiences redness, when there is no glutamate present,
>> glutamate = redness theory falsified.
>>
>
> Present...where?  There is definitely glutamate present in the brain at
> all times and during all qualia.  To do what you are doing, you seem to
> need to find the *location* of the qualia, which runs into precisely the
> same issue.  How will you possibly determine what the bounds of 'present'
> are?
>
>
>
>> 3) The universe clearly cannot exist without consciousness.  There is no
>>> universe.  All we know was gathered by consciousness.   Observation
>>> directly affects reality.  A theory of the universe obviously includes
>>> consciousness because it is far too big a deal to be extraneous.  Why do
>>> people try to find the underlying geometry of the fundamental forces, but
>>> claim consciousness is one of John's "brute facts"?  Gravity may be a brute
>>> fact, but also one that is able to be studied.
>>>
>>
>> Then, does a person not exist when they are asleep and unconscious?  Are
>> you saying that even if a huge asteroid completely destroyed all life on
>> this earth this solar system could no longer exist (possibly to try again)
>> since it was no longer conscious?
>>
>
> No.  In my opinion, our consciousness is merely an extension of some
> original flagellum from the beginning of the universe, when everything was
> integrated a la Tononi's IIT.  Also, in any case, I think the solar system
> is a sufficiently integrated system to contain consciousness (c.f. orbital
> harmonics) and furthermore I think atoms are sufficiently integrated
> systems to contain consciousness.  I do not think that atoms are
> self-conscious because they don't appear to contain sufficient machinery to
> map themselves, unlike the human brain, though I could be wrong and atoms
> could be little brains, but I don't think so.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20191229/827ab7ff/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 98905 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20191229/827ab7ff/attachment-0001.png>