Perception: order out of chaos?
I was discussing order and chaos elsewhere and someone suggested that the quest to defeat chaos is the primary task of mind.
Would you agree that this is true in some sense?
And a second question: could it be that to look or otherwise sense is to try to create order?
Would you agree that this is true in some sense?
And a second question: could it be that to look or otherwise sense is to try to create order?
Comments (43)
I'm only suggesting that the mind is consistent with natural selection: there is a survival value. The consequence of natural selection (survival) is not driven by a goal, rather it is a mathematical consequence of the natural process.
The idea is that our brains approximate Bayesian machines by some quick and dirty methods (because true Bayesian prediction would be computationally too expensive); the result is that the fundamental driving force in all cognitive processing (and proceeding from that, all human action) is maximizing certainty and minimizing surprise.
Not terribly new or ... surprising. At least in basic concept (the idea that our brains are in some sense Bayesian machines has been around for a while, and people like Popper and Dennett have talked about similar or analogous ideas in the past). But it seems to be the new hotness in neurology and neurophilosophy, backed up by lots of research and maths, and some very big brains.
So yes, in that sense, the function of perception is to "defeat chaos."
A feature that appears due to genetic drift can (in some way) enhance survival. Mind evolving by natural selection would require a population which includes both minded and non-minded individuals (both arising randomly) .
That scenario couldnt be any more than speculation since we don't know the origins of what we label "mind".
Human evolution is mostly genetic drift due to small population size.
Based on prior experiences? Why not a priori?
Life is a partnership between organics and water, with the oil-water affect active at all levels of life, to various degrees, causing order to appear, including in the mind and brain.
Energy input such as light into the eyes, is like the agitator. It will cause some chaos in the water-organic medium, but once this energy is dissipated; agitator stops, the water and oil separate into new order.
No this isn't really in books yet, mostly in scientific papers. The link I gave is an excellent resource on the topic in itself, with many further links.
Teleology, misplaced, again.
Brains are optional? They don't evolve for a reason?
Sounds legit.
And when it does, it has a better chance of proliferating.
"Mind evolving by natural selection would require a population which includes both minded and non-minded individuals (both arising randomly) "
That makes no sense. Humans aren't alone in having minds, we just have the most sophisticated ones. So the proto-human population didn't suddenly have some individuals with minds, among all the others who didn't. Rather, some individuals happened to have genes that gave them more intelligent minds than the rest of the population. This would seem to confer a survival advantage.
"That scenario couldnt be any more than speculation since we don't know the origins of what we label "mind".
We know quite a lot about how we fit into the animal kingdom. Our similarities with other primates gives us a pretty good idea about how we differ from them. Our mental difference with chimps are due to genetic differences, and there's really not all that many genetic differences.
"Human evolution is mostly genetic drift due to small population size. "
Sure.
https://www.amazon.com/Surfing-Uncertainty-Prediction-Action-Embodied/dp/0190217014/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1532235990&sr=8-1&keywords=Surfing+Uncertainty
Hearts pump blood. Do hearts have blood-pumping as their goal? Or is it just their purpose? Is the primary task of the heart to pump blood?
There's a play on words going on here. Some of these terms imply volition; others, not so much. It is a play between cause and purpose. And it's no more than a word game.
The heart pumps blood to maintain blood pressure. Some pressure is required to force oxygen and glucose-rich blood into the tissues and uphill into the brain so crazy questions can be asked. :joke:
I dont think there's any evidence of this, is there?
It is an explanatory hypothesis that fits the facts better than any other.
No. Such a genetic change has been searched for in human remnants. It's not there. There are a number of alternate theories.
In the sense that a mind is ordered, and counters entropy in some simple and temporary way, I would agree that it is strictly true. But that the purpose of mind is to defeat chaos is not really true either, even though I just admitted it is (in a way). We have no idea of the purpose of mind, body or Universe, do we? Your speculation is ultimately unhelpful, I suggest. :chin:
It is an explanatory hypothesis that fits the facts better than any other.
— Relativist
No. Such a genetic change has been searched for in human remnants. It's not there. There are a number of alternate theories.
Your claim sounds like it was taken from the Institute for Creation Research, but it's irrelevant to what I said. There are facts available to us, such as the relative intelligence of various primates (including ourselves), the respective genetic structures of primates, and the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic drift. We can deduce the genetic structure of common ancestors, and from this we can deduce the mutations that would lead from that ancestor to ourselves. This is an active area of research. Genetic structure is the direct cause of brain structure, and brain structure is a direct cause of mental capability. Therefore we can conclude that the genetic changes supervene on the mental changes; ie no other causes need be postulated to explain what we see.
That's not even slightly true. Get informed. https://www.amazon.com/Lone-Survivors-Came-Humans-Earth/dp/1250023300
Fair enough, there's more to the evolution of the human mind than direct descent. What's your point? My only point is that the existence of the human mind, as it is, is the product of nature.
And not just! The most incredible thing is that it takes completely uncharacterized, undivided datum; identifies regularities, characterizes them, imbues them with identity, and catalogues a whole taxonomy of world that is then used to form predictions. Ultimately, all perception is inferential, I don't think there's a such thing as 'direct' perception. Rudimentary feature finding, feature stitching, and object classing happens automatically and unconsciously through dedicated circuitry. I just think it's incredible that that's happening all the time, so efficiently, on top of everything else in the forefront of consciousness
Yes, mind exists through limit as a limit in itself. Limit gives structure effectively encapsulating chaos.
Quoting Purple Pond
I think perceiving, in itself, is an act of ordering. That is, what would sensation be if not organised into percepts? The relationship which perception draws in connection with memory, observation, reason, imagination, etc is for the sake of giving context (significance/meaning) to an otherwise amorphous and incoherent mess.
Quoting Purple Pond
Possibly. But, it is also possible to create order out of chaos, that is, organise the disorganised.
Quoting Purple Pond
That would be the mind creating order because imagination is part of conception.
.
Quoting BrianW Agreed.
Quoting BrianW That would be a case of the mind creating order to its mental imagery.
What other order could there be?
Get it?
No, I don't. Does it imply that the initial status was chaotic or that chaos was introduced causing it to seek equilibrium?
But chaos was not yet to be.
What does this mean?
The infant comes into the world terrified. Only the mother can console and transform the world from chaos into something capable of being understood atop the premise of a neutral state.
Will give better argument when have time:
But effectively limit and no limit, through the point, line and circle as foundations of both empirical and abstract reality as effectively all phenomena through all phenomena.
We observe reality through limits with these limits forming our observations with this reciprocation being a limit in itself. In these respects, observation or mind and limit-no limit are one in the same.
Cool. I'm interested
Major issues with time constraints but the 13 prime directives I am arguing (along with points 1 and 6 which I am currently defining, hopefully clearly, and the eventual explanation of the other points) give a base foundation.
The ancient philosophers argue that God, and this point will mirror the individual constitition as an image of God under certain premises, is a sphere or set of limits which effectively in prisons chaos through pure order. Other philosophers, including modern ones such as Hall in his observation of ancient religions, observes God as being a trinity of the point, line and circle where this triad exists as 3 in 1 and 1 in 3.
In simpler terms the human ability to reason effectively gives direction to movements, through axioms which provide focal point of awareness as centers of origin in measurement, with these movements effectively giving boundaries that structure both the subjective and objective reality of the individual while simultaneously the environment through which the individual exists.
This structuring process, as directing intellectual, emotional and physical movements further extends at the group level as well and a form of reciprocation occurs in which the individual and group as existing through a series of movements as limits in themselves gives further precendence to li it being the foundation of mind.
This can be observed in a simple example of a man measuring materials for a house, with these materials representing various degrees of movement or "flux", which in turn forms the house. The house, as built, in turn forms the man and effectively changes him (provides relative stability which changes he emotional status and perception). This change in the man in turn is directed back towards the house and a form of reciprocation between the man and the house occurs where they exist as extensions of each other.
So the basic limits the man applies to forming the house, points, lines and circles, in turn form the man's consciousness. Consciousness as forming and existing through the basic point, line, circle limits as axioms in turn shows these limits as forming the consciousness with this connection observing consciousness exists through limit as a form of directive capacity.
The question occurs, considering under these premises consciousness extends from these axioms and consciousness is self aware, as to the degree in not just which the universe is conscious but also how the line point and circle (as "the all" through "the all" as "the all") manifests through various phenomena such as empirical sensory reality, language or even psychology as well considering all phenomena as existing as structures are composed of limits with all limits premised in the point, line and circle.