A memory is a physical thing.

Great Debates
121

Incidentally, Other-wise, I should have inserted a bit more (highlighted below) for clarity, pursuant to the chain of implication you brought up earlier, which I would render as… event -> immediate memory -> awareness -> reaction -> short and/or long term memory (or not):

I don’t even think of awareness as a process at all. It is merely that state which is attained upon presentation of the immediate memory image. The brain has already determined that it is something you will recognize, because that is exactly what it was hard at work doing — working up something that you could look at (metaphorically) and react to. If it were presenting you with some sort of word jumble or picture puzzle, then it is doubtful that humanity would have evolved because it is too onerous a demand that you have to interpret twice, once to make sense of the event and then another to make sense of the brain teaser. The metaphorical brain process pre-awareness of the sudden truck horn goes something like this. The brain processes the sensory stimuli into a pattern (but not one recognizable on the whole). It holds that pattern in a holding place. It scours through the imagery and symbols that it has stored, beginning first with the most significant, which it keeps on top — things that are dangerous or important, etc. Finding something that closely matches what it is holding, it retrieves it. It compares the two, and determines that you might be in mortal danger. It dispatches adrenaline and other useful chemicals, formulates the pattern into an image or symbology you will recognize, such as “What the fuck! That’s a truck!”. It then puts that image into your cognative space while simultaneously putting the reptilian part on full red alert. Sort of “Be prepared for anything. Disregard even breathing until further notice. More instruction to follow.” All of this happens pre-awareness. You are still thinking about Joan’s (or Jim’s, whatever) beautiful legs, when all of a sudden you feel like a man launched from a flight deck. Your body has been prepped, the adrenaline is flowing, and you see the image of the truck predesigned to convey danger. The brain has done the best it could. The more experience you have with the situation, the more information your image will contain. If you’ve never encountered anything like this, then you will have to figure out things like whether to turn left or right or slow down or speed up. And that will be unfortunate because your brain has put you in a mode more suitable for panic than for rationalizing and problem solving. But at any rate, your awareness of the event is a direct result of the event image being presented to you. That event image is your first memory of the event. Awareness follows from it. It has to be called a memory because the event is now in the past. It happened several milliseconds ago. You are not aware of the event in se. It is gone. Awareness is not a process, but a state.

122

What does it mean to say a process is aware? Why is one brain process aware while another is not?

123

Just a disclaimer: this isn’t necessarily the model I use, it’s something I created to see if I’m understanding Lib and Sentient’s model.

In this model, I don’t see how there could be awareness without information coming in (or having access to stored information). Without the information, what would awareness be an awareness of?

124

Okay, awareness is a state. I can go with that.

Since there is no need for awareness in the processing of sensory data or creative ideas, I can’t imagine what the hell awareness is for, unless it can somehow interrupt or influence those states that are non-aware.

If true, then awareness isn’t so much a state as a meta-state; a state that can monitor and influence other states. I can understand what a brain-state is, but I don’t understand what a brain meta-state would be.

125

It is the first step in the memory process. Without it, you would have no memories other than immediate ones that just go by like flash cards while you stare blankly at them like a soma induced Gamma. The brain would have no images, processed through the awareness state, to place in short and long term memory, and therefore nothing to compare event images to before presenting. All of life would therefore be a moment by moment surprise with nothing familiar and everything puzzling.

126

Sorry, I was otherwise occupied for a time there. I’m going reverse the order of your post:

Sorry if I seem accusatory. While I am focussing on nuclear reactors, as brought up by SentientMeat to be machines that achieve a low level of awareness, I also specifically say it’s just one thing to pursue. I certainly don’t wish to keep discussion from hitting interesting topics; yet, at the same time, I appreciate when a thread remains on topic. (Not necessarily linear, mind you, but on topic. There’s a difference.)

But I think it does make a metaphysical statement. Suddenly, at least in my thinking, we’re in the realm of Paley’s watchmaker. This sense is borne out by other responses you’ve given, such as “It isn’t being homo sapiens that makes us morally special; it’s being spiritus eternus” or “There is no “ethereal hand” involved until a moral decision is made.” This indicates that you feel that there is something more than the physical necessary for awareness, at least at the human level. And don’t get me wrong – that’s fine. It just that cryptic statements such as “it’s man’s essence (his heart)” don’t really say anything that helps to define why a man is aware but an amoeba/bee/chimanzee/nuclear reactor is not.

If I’m wrong, then it’s because I misunderstand what you’re saying (as with amoeba and determinism). I’m completely willing to admit the mistake. But I’d ask you to point out my error. To help you do so, I’ll propose an updated list of qualities of awareness:
[ol]
[li]A physical substrate[/li][li]“Sensors” (e.g., vision, touch, etc.)[/li][li]Memory[/li][li]A mechanism that can relate memories to perceptions (or other immediate stimulus) or other memories[/li][li]A mechanism (or set of mechanisms) for attentional focus[/li][li]A “process” (or set of processes) that handle each of the above[/li][/ol]
Sorry for the vague terms (e.g., “process” and “handle”); feel free to propose better ones. Is there more? Is the above list sufficient for attainment of awareness?

127

And that’s good. I don’t have an issue with “more aware”, I’d just like to establish a minimum, as it’s easier to dissect. Particularly one that may or may not qualify a non-biological item and, more importantly, why it does or does not qualify said item.

No, you haven’t. But Liberal did, just a few posts above that one. And I think there’s something there that fundamentally separates the two of you on this. I’m just poking around for some explanation as to what it might be and how it is removed from the physical (if it is removed from the physical).

128

I am on topic, sir or madam. The topic is memory, and I am discussing it.

I can understand your confusion to an extent, but I brought up morality specifically with respect to your question about determinism to explain to you that I am coming from a point of view in which man has the dual nature that I described in some detail then. Maybe you had forgotten that exchange. But once it had been raised, other people as well asked me questions about it. I answered them, and here we are. If I wish to invoke a cosmological argument or reference, I will do so directly. Please do not assign to me motive or intent to which you are not privvy. Or if in doubt, ask. But when you do, please then remember that you did.

129

We’re getting closer, but we’re still whooshing each other. Without awareness, immediate memories couldn’t go by “like flash cards” because you’d have no awareness of them. There would just be sensory input and motor output, no intermediary brain-state of awareness. Life wouldn’t be a “moment by moment surprise” because there’s no awareness of either “moments” or “surprise”.

The way we’ve been talking about awareness, it just seems utterly extraneous to me. Why not just sensory-input, motor output?

130

Yes, you are discussing memory. And admirably. I’d nitpick that the topic is physical memory and possible alternatives. About alternatives, the OP says “if the mind does not emerge from biology, where are you saying it does come from?” I believe – and again, correct me if I’m wrong – that you are positing an alternative with no explanation. Perhaps this is part of “awareness” and not “memory”, but I’m not clear on where you make the distinction (if you do).

I had not, and do not now forget it. It is the “dual nature” that is nibbling at me; it seems that you are positing that the non-deterministic element is non-physical. Is that correct? Just a simple and unexplained assertion? Or a misunderstanding on my part? I’ll copy what you said before:

I see no explanation there, just a claim of a “dual nature”. If I’m missing it, I ask you to remedy my blindness.

If I have, and wrongly so, I apologize. Now, please relieve my confusion and be so kind as to explain.

131

There! Yah happy now! :wink:

132

I find myself late for the ball. So sad, because I do so love physicalism, and it’s family of close relatives, determinism, objectivism, and realism.

First let me say, for a discussion that begins with a description of hypothetical light being reflected off of undefined objects, through an imaginary lens onto the wall of Plato’s cave (!) and from there pursues the proposition that it has no fundamental difference in nature than the memory of such an event in the mind of the debaters not physically present, (pant, pant) the sounds of reality creaking under the strain have been heroically ignored. Here, here! You physicalists are a wild and daring bunch!

I agree that the memories of the participants are, in some fundamental way based on physical phenomena, and have no trouble believing that. But the thing remembered does not have, nor ever had any such physical existence. In fact in part it has no claimed reality (the lens) and in another (the cave) has a greater reality in the collective minds of western civilization than the fundamental laws upon which your arguments for physicality depend.

I have to pause a moment, and play my gausopheme.

On to the discussion at hand.

Awareness must include more than physical change resulting from external changes in environment. If not, the universe, and each component part of it are arguably aware. (Pantheism, as a bedfellow of physicalism. Delicious.) In fact, awareness must include more than memory, especially if memory is expanded to include changes reflecting accrual of physical events qualifying as experiences remembered. Under these over broad definitions, everything is aware, and everything remembers, because everything is affected by every other thing.

The thermometer, and even the thermostat are not aware, and do not remember. They are affected, and changed by environment, and designed to provide information to an observer aware of the design. Even a very powerful computer, thus far, is not aware, nor does it have memory. It records inputs, and when programmatically instigated, accesses stored data. Awareness cannot be limited to those functions.

So what is aware? Tough decision and one I don’t want to be left out of. (:)) It seems to me that I am aware. Most of you seem aware, as well. Dogs, cats, toads, all make the cut, in my opinion. Grass? I’m not so sure. I don’t think so, but I can’t be absolutely sure. Mold? My doubts increase. Viruses? Whole orders of magnitude of increase. Sand, gravel, rocks, and such are way out of consideration, in my opinion. But, it’s just an opinion. What makes one seem aware, and one not, that’s the direction I need to explore.

At a certain level, the actions of multiple generations of viruses seem to accomplish much the same as memory. But individually, the part that viruses play is either replicating or not replicating. The same part they play in every scenario involving viruses. So, viruses as an aggregate seem to have one function of awareness. But not much more. Same general case for bacteria, and amoebae, and some of the less complex multicellular life forms. Yet, at some point, (flagellates?) there seems to be a need to be aware, and to respond. But I don’t think they have memory.

Flatworms, according to apocrypha have, and can eat memories. Kinda pokes holes in my thinking, and you have to know it sucks getting put down in a debate by a flatworm.

I’m done for a while.

Tris

“Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all.” ~ Hypatia of Alexandria ~

133

Hi Tris! I was hoping you’d show up.

Thank you for voicing a nagging concern of mine. As far as I can tell, all we’ve been talking about is physical changes causing physical changes which cause more physical changes. Yet somewhere in the middle awareness pops up like Casper the Ghost.

I sometimes wonder if part of the problem is a sort of hubris of scale. Except in unusual circumstances, we only deal with extremely narrow scales of time and space, and I think it messes with our conceptions. Your example of the virus could readily be changed to:

“At a certain level, the actions of multiple aggregates of neurons seem to accomplish memory. But individually, the part that neurons play is either firing or not firing. The same part they play in every scenario involving neurons. So, neurons as an aggregate seem to have one function of awareness. But not much more.”

134

I’m curious. Are you saying that the “thing remembered” has no physical existence? Or that the “sensory perception” of the physical thing has none? Or that the “memory” itself has none? Or are you talking about the “thing” referenced by the metaphor (obviously a mental construct)? Perhaps the metaphor itself? Just trying to understand…

135

I would like to offer something I experienced for feedback from anyone. I am not inclined toward the scientific, so you won’t hurt my feelings if you write in crayon in big block letters when you answer.

When I was about forty, I unwittingly turned on only the hot water in the shower one day and when I stepped into the extremely hot water and reflexively back out again, it triggered something else in my brain. I immediately sat down and drew my knees up under my chin. I felt totally helpless. More importantly, I knew that this had happened before – really scalded feet in water.

I asked my mother about it and she confirmed it. She said that I was just a babe in arms. I asked her what I did and she said that I just screamed and drew my legs up. (I assume that is reflexive.) She denied that my feet were scalded, but she did remember the incident forty years later.

I had had no visual memory or thought of the incident, but something in my brain retained the memory. I felt almost as if it were a sort of primitive thing. Could this have had anything to do with the brain stem rather than the brain itself?

136

The thing was the charming story in the OP. The hypothetical real thing that is now a part of the memory of all who read the thread.

See, the original thing, the story never had any reality. It is entirely imaginary, right down to the light of which it’s image was described to be made. Not real. No existence at all in history. But the biochemistry of language, and memory, and the magic of the Internet have now created a real world thing, a change in physical structure and connectivity in the neurons of dozens, perhaps hundreds of human brains. It is the essential expression of the physicalist dilemma. A thing with no real existence has created a thing with real physical structure. And from that thing, now comes creation again, in a discussion and the ontology of an entire metaphysical structure of thoughts, itself not physical, yet also creating changes in the physical structure of the world.

And in the background, a gausopheme plays beautiful sonatas unperceivable by any living being. Next to this sort of thing, invisible pink unicorns, and gardens beyond the gates of death are just tiny ripples in the fabric of objectivist reality.

I love this kind of stuff.

Tris

“Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty.” ~ Erwin Schrodinger ~

137

It seems to me that simple input/output mechanisms fall short of “awareness”, as established by the amoeba example (and possibly the thermostat, but I’m not sure that’s actually been resolved). I hope you’ll bear with me through the following. There are plenty of spots to place objections of “and then a miracle occurs”, and I’m interested in hearing them.

You’d agree that there are purely physical sensory input/motor output mechanisms. As an example, let’s use a fire/recoil reflex (visual and heat perceptions, pulling away motor control). Assume that it is possible to temporarily “disconnect” the “motors”. Now there are sensory inputs coming in, which are still received and processed as before, but they don’t cause any reaction. That is, fire is seen and heat is sensed, but there’s no recoil (ouch!). Now, let’s grant some form of memory (a record of a fire visual, the feeling of heat, and the reaction) and the requisite means to recall that memory. One more thing – a mechanism that will compare a memory with sensory input. If the memory “matches” the current sensory input, the memory reaction preempts the sensory/motor connection. Is there something specifically non-physical about that? Would you call it a rudimentary form of awareness?

138

Ah – wrapped up in my own feeble attempt at plumbing the depths of the wonders of the mind, I couldn’t come back quickly enough to recognize your appreciation of whimsy.

Yes, it’s really wonderful. Is the “gausophone” part of Godel, Escher, and Bach? Or is it a reference to something else I now feel the need to go out and read?

139

I think the “brain stem” is a little bit lower on the complexity scale than you need to go, though I’m ignorant about particular areas of the brain and their function. I believe research has shown that emotions play a large role in memory formation as concerns the strength or vividness of memory. (I say “believe” because I can’t provide cites. Based on what he’s posted earlier, I also believe Liberal would be able to cite something specific off the cuff.)

140

The Gausopheme is my own metaphysical instrument, from an old Great Debate on Objectivism versus religion. I supposed a mechanical device for creating and modifying magnetic fields, and enclosed it in a “black box” after programming it to create a series of magnetic fields in according to my own aesthetic choices. I dubbed the sequence “Concerto for Gausopheme, No. 1” In the thought experiment that ensued I found that the objectivists in the argument were, in the majority of cases willing to admit that the Concerto, although not perceivable by any known organism, might be beautiful.

I found that one revealing, as well. Despite the fact that neither the Concerto, nor the Gausopheme itself had any real existence, at least one person decided that the concerto had an undeniable characteristic that could be called beauty. Few were willing to categorically deny that it could be beautiful. All admitted that beauty, although subjective, and personal, nevertheless had reality.

And these were hard boiled Objectivists. Wild and crazy, for sure.

Tris

“In my opinion, there’s nothing in this world, Beats a '52 Vincent, and a red headed girl.” ~ Richard Thompson ~