From: Brent Allsop (allsop@swttools.fc.hp.com)
Date: Wed Nov 26 1997 - 12:43:20 MST
Mark <mark@unicorn.com> replied:
> The question isn't whether he's popular, but whether he's right.
Yes, I just wanted to point out the fact that I'm not the only
one that thinks his arguments are just plain wrong and that there are
some very good resons for thinking so.
> Three-dimensional in your conscious mind? You mean there's a 3D
> strawberry inside your head?
YES! It is possible that the actual lay out of this 3D space
is somewhat or even extremely distorted, like an autocad 3D model laid
out on a hard drive is almost randomly distributed, but there is some
evidence that this distortion isn't two extreme, at least within the
visual cortex itself. And if you think about it, it is much more
efficient, having the layout somewhat 3D, for processing such
information as edge detection and such. The more the representation
distorts from actual 3D, the more inter neuron communication there
must be to comprehend the representations. I have some papers on this
that go into much more detail if your interested.
Also, 3D parts of our body are very clearly laid out in
portions of the brain. True, the hands are distorted to be much
larger and dense than other parts of the body for obvious reasons, but
the general 3D maps can clearly be seen. If you stimulate the correct
part of the brain while doing brain surgery, the person feels a
sensation in the corresponding part of his body, not in his brain.
> Presumably this means that noone can ever perceive an elephant or
> whale, since the 3D qualia wouldn't fit? And could you point to a
> qualia, because I'd really like to see one?
When you are looking at a 6 foot Christmas tree, you think
your perception of it is 6 feet tall when in actuality it is less than
a centimeter in your visual cortex, depending of course on how close
you are to it. It only seems that big because it is in the proper
preportions with all your other conscious visual knowledge. Haven't
you ever seen one of those brain pictures with the tree being
projected onto the retina of the eye, and the corresponding image
overlaid in the primary visual cortex which would be a representation
of the tree in our consciousness in the visual cortex at the back of
the brain?
Why do you think mountains on the horizon several miles away,
the moon many hundreds of thousands of miles behind them, the sun many
millions of miles behind it, and the stars many light-years behind it,
all look like they are the same distance? It is because there is only
so much room in your visual cortex and these objects are all
represented at the edge of this representational space in your mind.
Again, the representation is obviously nothing like reality. But it's
hard for you to realize this because your representations are all you
know. But remember, you can abstractly cognisize about the difference
between a light year and and several miles, even though these
distances don't fit within your visual cortex without some distortion.
> And could you point to a qualia, because I'd really like to see one?
This is precisely the point. We can point to more or less 3D
spaces in our brain which must be some kind of neural corelate to
conscious qualia. If we stimulate a certain part of the visual
cortex, a visual sensation occurs in the visual space that seems to
the experiencer to be beyond his eye wrather than in his brain. (If
you really think abou this, if this were not true, artificial eyes
would not be possible, yet more scientific proof...) The qualia must,
in some way, be very closely related to such stimulation at that
location in the brain. Though we know the general location, we don't
yet quite know what qualia are and how they are produced, and how they
are unified together to make up our conscious knowledge. Once we
discover the answer to this question, we will have made the greatest
scientific discovy to date and finally know what consciousness is
fundamentally made of.
> As a scientist I like to have some evidence for theories, and you
> aren't providing any.
Some of what I say is assertions, but it is mostly rational
reasons and scientific evidence which you seem to be ignoring or
failing to comprehend. My communication abilities aren't to swift so
it is probably mostly my fault. I apologize for this and appreciate
your patience. There is plenty of scientific evidence for all this
stuff. Most of it is in common every day thinking and experience,
it's just that our common sense thinking about it is incorrect in some
places (like you think the tree is really beyond your eyes). Once you
realize this it all makes perfect sense and the "common sense"
contradictions and impossibilities become much more obvious and vanish
with true acurate predicting understanding.
Brent Allsop
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:10 MST