The subjective observer is a fictional character

[GrahamH]

But you're saying that the internal states of the brain are directly effected by (are products of) the external environment. If we both look at the sun, for example, we should expect to see similar 'growths' within each of our brains that ultimately lead each of us to say "that's the sun". And, for the most part, this kind of universality is apparent. But how does your theory fit in with those individuals who look upwards at the same thing and say "that's God"? We must assume that the brains of all individuals have similar internal responses to specific stimulae, or else the universal laws of physics would be meaningless to us all.

In isolation there would be no purpose in any vocalisation "Sun" or any other word. Language makes other brains part of the environment. The reason you say "Sun" rather than "Soleil" or "mặt trời" is purely environmental. If there were no visible Sun you would have no word for it.

We are part of the environment, part of our own environment. How we behave affects how we behave. We 'experience ourselves' and our experience changes who we are. Our experience produces unique patterns of growth in our neural networks.

What your theory amounts to, is that it is not 'the individual' that considers and then speaks, but the objects upon which his eyes gaze that ultimately speak. Words are just consequences/products of brain states that are consequences/products of external reality - is what you more-or-less said.

More or less, but 'the individual', body and brain, is a vital part of that picture. The individual is not apart from the environment, he is a matrix of connections that relate the objects of experience together in ways that control one of those objects, the person.

Without the person there is no thought, but the thought is not apart from its substance.

But if the behaviour and discourse that proceeds from an organism are just automatic responses to its environment, then wherein does your theory account for learning and the revising of erroneous opinion? If there is no 'one' to consider (and reconsider) the data, then how do erroneous
words come about, and how are they corrected?

Opinion is a pattern of growth and activity influenced by circumstances and life-history. A consequence of the pattern is action. Action changes the circumstances and therefore the pattern. Some patterns will be self-eliminating and some will be self-reinforcing. These have hard truth value. That is, they work empirically, not that they are absolutely true. Others will be detached from the empirical and diverge arbitrarily from a supposed reality-relation.

There is an objective truth about a pattern of roots that grow around a stone, but a similar pattern might arise as roots grow around roots and we might say there is no objective truth to that.

And, it must be asked: how would any organism ever come to utter the words: "I believe in God."?

I don't intend to discuss religion in the topic. We will probably get to discussion of the physical nature of beliefs and that will be more than enough for here. Bring up god elsewhere if you must.

Beliefs; subjective and diverse emotional responses; erroneous thoughts... all such things speak of 'a one' that considers that which is being observed.

I'm suggesting there is 'a brain' responding to 'that which is being observed'. I don't see a need for another entity and another level of repsonse.

I think your objection can only be based on a mistaken idea that brains are identical, but even if that were the case each individual's situation would be different unless some mechanism existed to keep all brains precisely in-step.

All brains are different, but they respond to the same world and comprehend the same laws-of-physics, enabling meaningful communication. Therefore, the internal states of our brains must all be very similar in response to specific events.

You are overlooking the significance of meaning, here, for the organism itself. That is, there aren't just behavioural and verbal responses to the environment. There are emotional responses to the environment - and the environment does not effect the emotional disposition of an organism. Practically everything we say is guided by desire; intent; purpose; belief. Hence, your theory here, for instance. That is not just a consequence of your brain's response to its environment, any more than my theory about God is just a consequence of my brain's response to the same environment.

The issue of emotion and motivation is significant and we get into more detail later, but I see these as aspects of the fictional self. The story of 'I' can be seen as a narrative that serves to provide simple but predictive accounts of how people behave. It is impossible for brains to model themselves in intimate detail, but a drastically simplified model is very useful. It leves a great deal unaccounted for. We won't always know why we feel the way we do. Our intent and action will not always match and we may not know why. We won't have explanations for how thoughts form or where ideas come from because the simple model doesn't deal with such things.

The narrative does not include the brain, or neurons.

There must be something that considers 'the data', Graham. It's the only way to explain the diversity and depth of opinion. There is just no way to account for the traits inherent within diverse opinions, without such a 'one'.

There is a brain, doing unimaginably complex and diverse things with 'the data'. The brain itself is diverse in function, and the mind is also diverse and sometimes contradictory. 'The one' is a too simple representation of a very complex entity.

[GrahamH]

I don't think there is nearly enough data in the human genome to define every branch and connection.

This is a bold claim. What I mean is that it is probably unproveable. It is also not being claimed that what is required for subjectivity is every branch and connection of the human brain. Even my cat is subjective enough to deal with that. My cat and I live together amicably. I talk to him, and he doesn't talk back. If he did, I'd think I was crazy.

I feel justified in saying that all brains are physically unique variation on a common theme. Can you say why you think this is not the case?

No, I agree with you. How is it instantly an argument for "subjectivity", and not just an explanation of "differences of opinion", which are as empirical as the variations among brains?

Ah, I see. No it is not an argument for subjectivity, it is only a response to jamest who asks why everyone doesn't think exactly alike if it is brains that think. It seems a daft question, but I tried to answer it.

[FBM]

Posterior parietal cortex.

[Surendra Darathy]

Posterior parietal cortex.

Sooooo! It's not an immaterial fluid that permeates the cosmos, after all! If it was...


Never mind a sense of agency. What I need now is a sense of bacon. And a first person singular pronoun.

[FBM]

Posterior parietal cortex.

Sooooo! It's not an immaterial fluid that permeates the cosmos, after all! If it was...


Never mind a sense of agency. What I need now is a sense of bacon. And a first person singular pronoun.

"I" haz bacon. And a complete parietal cortex that convinces "me" that "I'm" enjoying it.

[GrahamH]

There are approx 1011 neurons and 1015 synaptic connections in the human brain. ref

There are only 6,459,228,160 bits of data in the human genome. ref

If we assume a hierarchical encoding scheme with 1000:1 compression ratio we get to 6.5 x 1012 single bit controls which is still substantially less than the number of synaptic connection, and it would seem to require more than one bit per connection to define a connection in a network of 1011 neurons.

Obviously not all of the genome is available to define the brain.

[GrahamH]

Posterior parietal cortex.

Thanks.

[FBM]

Posterior parietal cortex.

Thanks.

Interesting, innit? I just found that a few days ago.

[jamest]

There is a brain, doing unimaginably complex and diverse things with 'the data'. The brain itself is diverse in function, and the mind is also diverse and sometimes contradictory. 'The one' is a too simple representation of a very complex entity.

I haven't got alot of time at the moment. I just want to pick up on this comment, though. I've already agreed to entertain your idea about 'the brain' and ground this conversation upon that idea (though I'll entertain any other 'brain models'). But my point is that even a brain would have to have an individualistic function, in consideration of its own brain states about the environment, so as to act singularly, in response to that data. I'm just looking to establish the existing function of 'observer', even if it is just the brain itself, analysing its own states (responses to the environment).

You said that you'll move onto the emotional and belief aspects of discourse later. But I think that you need to address this issue now, as imo such things are clear evidence of a 'one' in consideration of environmental data... and cannot be accounted for in terms of just that data itself.

[Surendra Darathy]

There are approx 1011 neurons and 1015 synaptic connections in the human brain. ref

There are only 6,459,228,160 bits of data in the human genome. ref

If we assume a hierarchical encoding scheme with 1000:1 compression ratio we get to 6.5 x 1012 single bit controls which is still substantially less than the number of synaptic connection, and it would seem to require more than one bit per connection to define a connection in a network of 1011 neurons.

Obviously not all of the genome is available to define the brain.

This is a very interesting side issue, which has to do with whether or not the genome is all that is necessary to run the processes of embryonic development, and so on. I don't know enough biochemistry to argue this point, but neither of us would argue that the complexity of the brain is extra-biological. Perhaps you are citing facts in support of saying that the brain neurodynamics has aspects of self-organizing systems. It would not come as news to me.

I seem to recall that there is a lot of interesting discussion about the non-genomic dimension of organ development, but it would take us afield from discussing subjectivity and whether or not agency is a logical consequence of the integrity of a single organisms physiology, and how a reported "sense" of agency (the difference cited in the wiki article between moving one's own arm and having it moved for you) can be modified by specific manipulation of structures in the brain.

As always, I focus on trying to distinguish between a "sense" and a "sense reported". If every report bears similarities, it is a bit over-determined because the means for making reports is limited to some sort of language. This is my philosophical position on the subject: That the role of language is difficult to separate from the process of accumulating reports of subjective experience.

[GrahamH]

There are approx 1011 neurons and 1015 synaptic connections in the human brain. ref

There are only 6,459,228,160 bits of data in the human genome. ref

If we assume a hierarchical encoding scheme with 1000:1 compression ratio we get to 6.5 x 1012 single bit controls which is still substantially less than the number of synaptic connection, and it would seem to require more than one bit per connection to define a connection in a network of 1011 neurons.

Obviously not all of the genome is available to define the brain.

This is a very interesting side issue, which has to do with whether or not the genome is all that is necessary to run the processes of embryonic development, and so on. I don't know enough biochemistry to argue this point, but neither of us would argue that the complexity of the brain is extra-biological. Perhaps you are citing facts in support of saying that the brain neurodynamics has aspects of self-organizing systems. It would not come as news to me.

Definitely a side issue, so this is probably a final comment on the issue. The genome doesn't has to encode for every cell and every placement and connection of every cell. It only has to code for a generic cell and mechanism of self-adaptation from that generic model. That is, the genome defines stem cells and the definition includes mechanisms that allow stem cells to adapt to their immediate environment. Consequently we should expect every cell to be unique because it grows in a unique environment. A brain of unique cells, connected in unique ways, according to a general pattern determined by the genome, produces unique humans. As you say, no surprises in that.

[Surendra Darathy]

The genome doesn't has to encode for every cell and every placement and connection of every cell. It only has to code for a generic cell and mechanism of self-adaptation from that generic model. That is, the genome defines stem cells and the definition includes mechanisms that allow stem cells to adapt to their immediate environment. Consequently we should expect every cell to be unique because it grows in a unique environment. A brain of unique cells, connected in unique ways, according to a general pattern determined by the genome, produces unique humans. As you say, no surprises in that.

That bit I put in bold is more or less what I was grasping for. It is, I think, an aspect of individuality under-appreciated by the woo-heads. From their we can find our way into other avenues in the developmental process by which a newborn gradually grows an identity. The language will be somewhat florid for my tastes, but what I think is significant is to keep the focus on it as a process, and not as an entity. The metaphysicians will probably not wish to go with process.

I would, of course, caution against making too much of those "uniqueness" sources, because by the time you get around to undertaking how it is that people wish to see themselves as so different (in a metaphysical sense) from everyone else, you're already contending with the elephant in the room of humans as social animals.

I've been through this already with E.O. Wilson in his book on Consilience, and all the research from particle physics to sociology to weave together. Wilson refers to it as the "Ionian Enchantment", or something like that. The unity of all knowledge into the unity of unity. Wibble wibble wibble.

[jamest]

The genome doesn't has to encode for every cell and every placement and connection of every cell. It only has to code for a generic cell and mechanism of self-adaptation from that generic model. That is, the genome defines stem cells and the definition includes mechanisms that allow stem cells to adapt to their immediate environment. Consequently we should expect every cell to be unique because it grows in a unique environment. A brain of unique cells, connected in unique ways, according to a general pattern determined by the genome, produces unique humans. As you say, no surprises in that.

That bit I put in bold is more or less what I was grasping for. It is, I think, an aspect of individuality under-appreciated by the woo-heads. From their we can find our way into other avenues in the developmental process by which a newborn gradually grows an identity.

Are you introducing psychology into the proceedings? You must be, since "the process" must be a balance between nature and nurture. Although, I have no idea how Graham would incorporate this into his own theory.

The language will be somewhat florid for my tastes, but what I think is significant is to keep the focus on it as a process, and not as an entity. The metaphysicians will probably not wish to go with process.

I for one am entertaining any reasonable ideas that emerge.

[SpeedOfSound]

I dont have time to get involved yet, but I will do so in the next day or so.

Just want to say; lets keep it clean, civil and in a spirit of exchanging ideas, not confrontation. That way were all winners.

Just ignore me, I am just feeling all harmonious at the moment;
Harmony - greater than peace - greater than - strife.

Dont worry, I'll get over it, and its not infectious.

Oh Yeah!! I'll show you fucking harmony and peace. Mine's Bigger!!

[GrahamH]

The genome doesn't has to encode for every cell and every placement and connection of every cell. It only has to code for a generic cell and mechanism of self-adaptation from that generic model. That is, the genome defines stem cells and the definition includes mechanisms that allow stem cells to adapt to their immediate environment. Consequently we should expect every cell to be unique because it grows in a unique environment. A brain of unique cells, connected in unique ways, according to a general pattern determined by the genome, produces unique humans. As you say, no surprises in that.

That bit I put in bold is more or less what I was grasping for. It is, I think, an aspect of individuality under-appreciated by the woo-heads. From their we can find our way into other avenues in the developmental process by which a newborn gradually grows an identity.

Are you introducing psychology into the proceedings? You must be, since "the process" must be a balance between nature and nurture. Although, I have no idea how Graham would incorporate this into his own theory.

The language will be somewhat florid for my tastes, but what I think is significant is to keep the focus on it as a process, and not as an entity. The metaphysicians will probably not wish to go with process.

I for one am entertaining any reasonable ideas that emerge.

Nature and nurture can be seen as different aspects of life history of organisms. Structures that produce better responses to environment, perhaps hard-wired instinct, perhaps adaptations that permit better learning of adaptive behaviours. The nature bit is the starting point for the nurture bit. The former has a very slow response time and the latter has a very fast response time. Learned behaviour isn't passed on in the genes but if evolutionary trial and error produces a good instinct it gets passed on. This is similar in some respects to trial and error learning in an individual's life. The genome learns, but it doesn't need anything like our naive ideas of 'consciousness' to do so. It doesn't need to plan, it merely has to match patterns that give successful outcomes. Pattern matchers that work are preserved and those that don't work are lost. I will suggest that is is very much like what the brain does.