[ExI] you asked for it -here it is

[William Flynn Wallace]

william flynn wallace (me) is bill w, not bill k

On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 6:22 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> 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.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20191229/903796f7/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/20191229/903796f7/attachment-0001.png>