3 ms·

There has to be something in between, which takes the sensory input and constructs a model of "objective" reality [...] Isn't that what a object recognition al

There has to be something in between, which takes the sensory input and constructs a model of "objective" reality [...] Isn't that what a object recognition algorithm would do? Identify regions of an image and recognize them as instances of some class of things, maybe also build up relations between them - a person walking on the side walk vs another person riding a bike that has been recognized. [...] which is not subject to free will [...] I am not sure what you mean with that. "Being fooled" would arise from the model being incorrect of itself [...] Exactly, that's my point. We are so sure that our experience of »seeing« a tree is fundamentally different from a camera »seeing« a tree and a object recognition algorithm labeling a region of pixels as a tree...but where is the evidence for that? No human has ever been a camera attached to a computer and could compare the two »experiences«. It is just our brain believing that a human is different from a camera plus computer and algorithms, so maybe our brain is just wrong in this regard, fooling us into believing that there is something more going on inside of us. I'd make an analogy to "Trusted Execution Technology"[1] on computers these days. It's easy to overlook except when it goes wrong. I was really convinced for my entire life that me »seeing« a tree involves something that a camera does not have, it always just seemed so obvious to me. But once I started really thinking about it, I noticed that I neither have evidence for that, nor that I am even able to make precise what this missing thing is supposed to be. So it is not only that I may have missed the TPM module, but I am even unable to find it when I am actively looking for it. Maybe it is just hidden very well, but my natural confidence in its existence paired with zero evidence for that, makes me at least somewhat suspicious nowadays.

perl4ever 7y ago
I think it's hidden very well because if "you" are aware of it, you will influence it, which means it will be unreliable, and that is a major malfunction which we colloquially call "insanity". If you want evidence, read Kafka, read Incompleteness (about Kurt Godel), read Schreber's "Memoirs of my Nervous Illness".
- danbruc 7y ago
  Thanks for the suggestions, I will have a look at them. I am however not sure that I buy into the idea of something being hidden to avoid tinkering with it, I will have to think a bit about that.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    The theme is that when an intelligent person goes insane, or is on the border line, they tend to experience a self-referential hall of mirrors sort of effect. I take that to mean that there is a very important part of the brain which must be outside of any feedback loop involving the "self" to be healthy.

perl4ever 7y ago

I think it's hidden very well because if "you" are aware of it, you will influence it, which means it will be unreliable, and that is a major malfunction which we colloquially call "insanity". If you want evidence, read Kafka, read Incompleteness (about Kurt Godel), read Schreber's "Memoirs of my Nervous Illness".

danbruc 7y ago
Thanks for the suggestions, I will have a look at them. I am however not sure that I buy into the idea of something being hidden to avoid tinkering with it, I will have to think a bit about that.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  The theme is that when an intelligent person goes insane, or is on the border line, they tend to experience a self-referential hall of mirrors sort of effect. I take that to mean that there is a very important part of the brain which must be outside of any feedback loop involving the "self" to be healthy.