A Conscious Universe

[The Grand Nudger]

1) The transplant of brain parts is a pretty exciting idea, and I suspect we may actually see, in this lifetime or in the next couple, what it's "like" to have a natural brain supplemented by one from another human, or by an electronic part.

I think that augmentation is more likely than transplants, particularly if our brains -are- computational systems. Besides, we already augment our minds and our experiences in a variety of ways...we don't think of people who wear glasses as cyborgs......but they are. This is all a "what if" on that note..obviously, but keeping in mind that there's no standard, no authority enforcing industry paradigms, it might be too much to expect our brains to speak the same high level language, or even operate with the same machine language at a base level. They may be custom jobs, entirely incompatible or, compatible, but like so many other computational interfaces between even marginally different manufacturers - that function is significantly reduced. You're already augmented, to a minor extent just in speaking with me in this manner - it's just not a direct hook, and that leads me into the next bit of my response.....

2) My computer did not arrive at a subjective state, by any sensible definition of the word-- that is a semantic abuse that goes too far for the word "subjective" to have any meaning any more-- something which suits your purposes just fine, hmmmm?

With reference to other computers, unconnected and unassisted, it did. Of course, when you say "subjective experience" with regards to a human being that can only extend so far when we use a digital comp as an analogy. I would extend it all the way, sure...but that's a loaded term for you in ways that it isn't for me and I understand your reluctance even though I don't agree with it. I keep mentioning this, but perhaps the reason that I keep finding easy ways to make a comparison to a comp system is that there are undeclared values in these descriptions you give me.

Nevertheless I only meant to express that the subjectivity of your experience is to be expected, given the limitations of your central nervous system. What else would your experience be...what else could it be? Is there actually any traction when it comes to wondering why we have these subjective experiences if we don't seem to possess any faculties that would provide any other function directly?

You don't see what I see because you aren't connected to my eyes - you physically cannot see what I see, even when we are looking at the same thing.

Neither of us can see what the screen sees because we are incapable of seeing anything, visually, in the language that the screen uses.

The screen cant see the gates that lead to the map because it physically cannot observe the gates, only the output of the gates as a bitmap
(I'd say that this, too, is a great analog for human experience as it relates to the operation of the brain).

Personally, I don;t think that this is semantics at all, I think that it's unsatisfying to you because of some additional stuff you are implying or assuming when you use the term subjective experience. If you could describe all that, in exhaustive detail, we might find a point where I am unable to model it mechanically or draw analogy to existing systems in current use - after all..human beings, if machines, are machines of a different order than other machines. Even if all of my suspicions about our minds are true there will come a point where no analogy can be drawn between ourselves and other comp systems. On the other hand, the string targetting comps operated by seamstresses in WW2 share no outward resemblance to digital machines of today - they still work on the same principles (and this is how I see our minds, our brains, as biological implementations of a computational system tasked to provide survival as a service with all other function as pleasant side effects).

The computer also grants unity, in the bitmap Benny. Processing balloons out and then shrinks in at many steps along the way. The screen doesn't see all the pixels that we do, it sees only the bitmap - the multiplicity of pixels on the screen is a translation for our benefit so that we can see what the computer is capable of handling as a singular entity. If we could feed the bitmap to ourselves then computers wouldn't need to represent that map in a field of pixels...that's a consideration/concession made -specifically for our eyes-...it's interface and translation, a pc talking to a mac (old school, not the modern clones). If two comps want to share an image, they don't need to project it for our benefit, they can work on the bitmap (but of course they aren't hampered by the eye structure that we are- so this is unsurprising as well - by reference to the machine) - unless they don;t use the same language or architecture, in which case, just as we require it when we interface, the comps would have to format the data for the dissimilar system...as they do when they "step out" and communicate with us. So no, my example isn;t poor...your understanding of computation is - and that's not a dig...this shit is arcane from a systems perspective. Plenty of people "get" programming, but very few are familiar with what it takes to facilitate all of that programming....it starts with sandwiched sheets of copper and silicon wafers and nothing comes from it that isn't limited by that foundation and wholly described by means of it's limitations (and ours). Does the digital PC provide "unity of experience"...? Yes. Are we, as human beings, capable of experiencing that output in the form that it is provided -in- by a digital; machine...no. It's easy to confuse our limitations with the limitations of the machine, but it isn;t an accurate description of the operation of the machine which we are (largely) incapable of perceiving without augmentation and understanding of principle ourselves.

(theres no sense ignoring evolutionary benefit when discussing biological mechanism, btw - admittedly it's less than definitive....but it's always informative and explanatory. From my perspective you asked a damned simple question as a deepity. Why do we experience what we do, the way that we do. Firstly, because there is no identifiable means by which we -could- experience it another while, while there is no shortage of evidence of a means by which we could experience it -that way-. Secondly, because experiencing it in the manner that we do, in principle, is definitively more useful to a biological organism subject to the pass/fail conditions -of- a biological organism. You don;t have to agree that this is the case, obviously, but if, for the purposes of conversation, you could assume my foundation for a moment I think that you'd see the completeness of that explanation. For my part, going with idea of ideas, or concepts or data as the fundamental building block of reality I can also see why one might wonder why we experience things subjectively and with some measure of unity or at least localization- from that framework, it would, to my mind, be a little mysterious. It's a non-question, a non-issue in my framework, in yours...perhaps a bit more difficult...and yet we do experience it....can you see why I might prefer my explanation to yours....that explanation being that the mystery, the trouble, is with the framework, not the operation or mechanism?)