3 ms·

What is it, that a robot is missing... When we see, the eye picks signals, when we touch something some cells pick the signals that inform about pressure or te

by sdfin 7y ago

What is it, that a robot is missing... When we see, the eye picks signals, when we touch something some cells pick the signals that inform about pressure or temperature. These signals are sent to the brain. They may be coded in binary form. The brain gets the signals and processes them and produces some reaction. Up to this point we are dealing with signals, and the signals apparently would be enough to transmit the information which would be processed, and the reaction would also consist of signals, which may be binary-like. But why, if signals are enough, we "see" an image, we feel the temperature? I mean, there's something else apart from the binary signals. How do the signals become the experienced perceptions?

danbruc 7y ago
But why, if signals are enough, we "see" an image, we feel the temperature? I mean, there's something else apart from the binary signals. How do the signals become the experienced perceptions? That is the million dollar question. I have never been a camera attached to a computer running some object recognition software, but I am willing to at least consider the possibility that having an array of pixels and a list of regions with labels for the objects in memory is the same thing as me »seeing« a scene. I mean, what does it really mean that I »see« a tree? I am aware that light with some specific frequencies - mostly shades of green and maybe brownish bark - is coming from some direction in some specific pattern of a trunk and branches and leaves and I associate labels with the whole thing and parts of it. Maybe let's add that I reconstruct a kind of 3D model of the tree. What more does it mean to »see« a tree?
- sdfin 7y ago
  I may have a bmp file of a tree with bytes encoding the different colors of each pixel of the image, and then run some machine learning algorithm to process the image and generate a file that defines regions of the bmp and labels each region. I find it difficult to consider that my experience of seeing is similar to having those two files. I'm more likely to believe that there's an unexplained gap between the signals and the subjective experience. I may be wrong, I don't know.
  - danbruc 7y ago
    I find it difficult to consider that my experience of seeing is similar to having those two files. Had we discussed this just four weeks ago, I would have totally agreed with you. And to some extend I still find it hard to believe myself. I'm more likely to believe that there's an unexplained gap between the signals and the subjective experience. Now try to tell me more about this gap. What is part of this gap? And what is the evidence for that or the existence of this gap in general? And try hard to avoid using any word with fuzzy or ambiguous meaning like experience or
  - danbruc 7y ago
    I find it difficult to consider that my experience of seeing is similar to having those two files. Had we discussed this just four weeks ago, I would have totally agreed with you. And to some extend I still find it hard to believe myself. I'm more likely to believe that there's an unexplained gap between the signals and the subjective experience. Now try to tell me more about this gap. What is part of this gap? And what is the evidence for that or the existence of this gap in general? And try to avoid using any word with fuzzy or ambiguous meaning like experience or qualia and don't appeal to the fact that I am also a human and therefore know what you mean. My own failure to come up with anything I can say about this gap and my failure to find any evidence for the existence of this gap is what made me consider the possibility that the gap does not exist, that it is an illusion my brain tricks me into believing in.
    - sdfin 7y ago
      If we see or imagine a 3D model of a tree there must be something that happens in the brain to transform the "binary" (the electrical impulses sent through the nerves) into the 3D model. When we scan brains there are no 3D models found inside it. The same can be said about scanning a PC's disk, there's no 3D trees inside. But the code can be converted to a tree and displayed on a screen. On the computer the screen has a physical form. What would be the screen in our body? The lack of understanding about the mechanism that turns the "code" into a 3D model may be considered a gap in understanding.
      - 7y ago

by sdfin 7y ago

danbruc 7y ago

But why, if signals are enough, we "see" an image, we feel the temperature? I mean, there's something else apart from the binary signals. How do the signals become the experienced perceptions? That is the million dollar question. I have never been a camera attached to a computer running some object recognition software, but I am willing to at least consider the possibility that having an array of pixels and a list of regions with labels for the objects in memory is the same thing as me »seeing« a scene. I mean, what does it really mean that I »see« a tree? I am aware that light with some specific frequencies - mostly shades of green and maybe brownish bark - is coming from some direction in some specific pattern of a trunk and branches and leaves and I associate labels with the whole thing and parts of it. Maybe let's add that I reconstruct a kind of 3D model of the tree. What more does it mean to »see« a tree?

sdfin 7y ago
I may have a bmp file of a tree with bytes encoding the different colors of each pixel of the image, and then run some machine learning algorithm to process the image and generate a file that defines regions of the bmp and labels each region. I find it difficult to consider that my experience of seeing is similar to having those two files. I'm more likely to believe that there's an unexplained gap between the signals and the subjective experience. I may be wrong, I don't know.
- danbruc 7y ago
  I find it difficult to consider that my experience of seeing is similar to having those two files. Had we discussed this just four weeks ago, I would have totally agreed with you. And to some extend I still find it hard to believe myself. I'm more likely to believe that there's an unexplained gap between the signals and the subjective experience. Now try to tell me more about this gap. What is part of this gap? And what is the evidence for that or the existence of this gap in general? And try hard to avoid using any word with fuzzy or ambiguous meaning like experience or
- danbruc 7y ago
  I find it difficult to consider that my experience of seeing is similar to having those two files. Had we discussed this just four weeks ago, I would have totally agreed with you. And to some extend I still find it hard to believe myself. I'm more likely to believe that there's an unexplained gap between the signals and the subjective experience. Now try to tell me more about this gap. What is part of this gap? And what is the evidence for that or the existence of this gap in general? And try to avoid using any word with fuzzy or ambiguous meaning like experience or qualia and don't appeal to the fact that I am also a human and therefore know what you mean. My own failure to come up with anything I can say about this gap and my failure to find any evidence for the existence of this gap is what made me consider the possibility that the gap does not exist, that it is an illusion my brain tricks me into believing in.
  - sdfin 7y ago
    If we see or imagine a 3D model of a tree there must be something that happens in the brain to transform the "binary" (the electrical impulses sent through the nerves) into the 3D model. When we scan brains there are no 3D models found inside it. The same can be said about scanning a PC's disk, there's no 3D trees inside. But the code can be converted to a tree and displayed on a screen. On the computer the screen has a physical form. What would be the screen in our body? The lack of understanding about the mechanism that turns the "code" into a 3D model may be considered a gap in understanding.
    - 7y ago