Thursday, December 15, 2005

Cogito Ergo Sum

This was a conversation between me and my cousin. It was rather good.

I thought I need to put it up here.
aravind4evry1: Cogito Ergo Sum
aravind4evry1: right
balachandran_c: i think therefore i am?
aravind4evry1: yes
aravind4evry1: Descartes
balachandran_c: i think that i think therefore i think that i am? ;)
balachandran_c: so whats up with that?
aravind4evry1: well What neitzche
aravind4evry1: view is that
aravind4evry1: Oops missed an s in neitzsche
aravind4evry1: k.
balachandran_c: k
aravind4evry1: he says that it only proves the apparent reality of thought
aravind4evry1: thats as there is thought
aravind4evry1: there exactly need not be a thinker as in Cause and effect relationship
balachandran_c: as in "i think that i think, therefore i think that i am"?
aravind4evry1: somewhat like that.
aravind4evry1: :D
balachandran_c: i didnt get you
aravind4evry1: where as Descartes was trying to prove that the thought was real.
aravind4evry1: So you were
aravind4evry1: real
aravind4evry1: getting me.
balachandran_c: what do you mean by "thinker as in cause and effect" ?
aravind4evry1: thats for a thought to occur you really need a thinker
aravind4evry1: in that order
balachandran_c: ah
balachandran_c: as far as i am concerned,
balachandran_c: they look like a closed system,
aravind4evry1: oh
balachandran_c: i do not know what a thinker is,
aravind4evry1: k.
balachandran_c: nor am i able to separate it from thought.
aravind4evry1: ok.
balachandran_c: maybe i could find a "thinker and thought" in a computer network.
aravind4evry1: yes
aravind4evry1: you might
aravind4evry1: will be back in a min.
balachandran_c: k
aravind4evry1: k.
aravind4evry1: Just reread it once more
balachandran_c: hmm
aravind4evry1: and what the guy is taking pains to say is that
aravind4evry1: linking doer to the effect
aravind4evry1: is just one persepective or one way to look at things.
balachandran_c: hmm
aravind4evry1: So we cant for absolute certainity say that
aravind4evry1: causality exist always
balachandran_c: absolutely not.
aravind4evry1: meaning
balachandran_c: personally, i feel that a lot of problems disappear when we view "I" as an effect.
aravind4evry1: kk.
balachandran_c: effect as in corollary.
aravind4evry1: I get it.
aravind4evry1: But if you say I as an effect you should be meaning the conscience as the cause
aravind4evry1: eh
aravind4evry1: ?
balachandran_c: i am unable to put "I" above what "I" think.
aravind4evry1: "I" agree
balachandran_c: they are at the same level in the hierarchy.
aravind4evry1: That amount of subjectivity usually remains.
balachandran_c: no i am not talking about conscience,
aravind4evry1: hmm.
balachandran_c: i was talking about a physical phenomenon.
aravind4evry1: But My question is if I is the effect as you said
aravind4evry1: then
aravind4evry1: ?
balachandran_c: or a physical system. like a computer network.
balachandran_c: as a result of the systems working, (purely according to laws of physics), an "I" could be formed as a result.
aravind4evry1: hmm.
aravind4evry1: Well if you can form I as a result of a system
balachandran_c: this "I" does not control the physical system at any point of time.
aravind4evry1: Got that point
aravind4evry1: I is the product of the system.
aravind4evry1: thats what I understood from you
balachandran_c: yup
aravind4evry1: k.
aravind4evry1: then could it be or could it not be the same case with
aravind4evry1: Thought
aravind4evry1: thats thought as a product of a system.
balachandran_c: thought is not separable from "i"
aravind4evry1: Well isnt that just empirical
aravind4evry1: I dont feel its conclusive in the sense.
balachandran_c: we are artificially splitting the effect into two parts, "I" and its "thoughts"
aravind4evry1: What I understand is that
aravind4evry1: Our system makes a correlation between the outcome thought and "I"
aravind4evry1: and outcome "I" i menat
aravind4evry1: so that actually what we see as the result of I is actually the result of the self same systems whos outcome is the 'I" of it.
balachandran_c: i lost you completely.
aravind4evry1: meaning the I and the thoughts are the product of the single same sytem
aravind4evry1: k.
aravind4evry1: and the system
aravind4evry1: connects or correltes these
aravind4evry1: output
aravind4evry1: *corelates these outputs.
aravind4evry1: couldnt that be possible
balachandran_c: then it looks like your "system" is capable of perceiving things, and correlating them.
balachandran_c: in the model that i was trying to explain,
balachandran_c: i use the word "system" for the physical system,
aravind4evry1: Well I agree in one thing Correlate is not exactly the word I am looking for
aravind4evry1: hmm.
balachandran_c: with particular properties. there is no "thought" "intelligence" "conscience" or whatever at that layer.
aravind4evry1: k.
balachandran_c: now, the "intelligence" is in the patterns in functioning of the system.
aravind4evry1: then whats on top of this layer
aravind4evry1: oh.
aravind4evry1: But the prob is
balachandran_c: yes,
aravind4evry1: here are you meaning that basically intelligence is pattern matching
aravind4evry1: and synthesis
balachandran_c: no, i am saying that "intelligence" or the "mind" IS a pattern.
balachandran_c: i take a few neurons and connect them,
aravind4evry1: k.
balachandran_c: they fire forming certain patterns in firing.
aravind4evry1: but intelligence as a pattern
balachandran_c: this pattern IS the intelligence.
aravind4evry1: k.
aravind4evry1: now I get it.
aravind4evry1: Now I get what you mean
aravind4evry1: but still something remains to be questioned
balachandran_c: this pattern thinks that it thinks,
aravind4evry1: Then what exactly
aravind4evry1: is intelligence as you percieve it
balachandran_c: actually, the problem is, i used the word "intelligence" in the sense that it denotes something encompassing an "I"
aravind4evry1: I know this prob you are referring to
balachandran_c: not in the sense that mr.x is more intelligent than animal y.
aravind4evry1: k.
aravind4evry1: Agreed
balachandran_c: but in my model this intelligence (in the second sense) is a property of the physical system,
aravind4evry1: as its actually the pattern
aravind4evry1: right
balachandran_c: certain properties of the pattern,
aravind4evry1: k
aravind4evry1: Next question
balachandran_c: like being able to "learn" other patterns.
aravind4evry1: Meaning for there to be a pattern
aravind4evry1: what is necessary
balachandran_c: here "learn" in the sense of learning theory,
aravind4evry1: I get it.
balachandran_c: not that there is a "learning mind" or anything
aravind4evry1: no
aravind4evry1: My question is whats the pattern
aravind4evry1: Meaning pattern is something
balachandran_c: could you explain your question?
aravind4evry1: subjective as
aravind4evry1: because
balachandran_c: no, i am talking about objective patterns.
aravind4evry1: Objective patterns as in.
balachandran_c: certain correlations between events.
balachandran_c: events are multidimensional objects,
aravind4evry1: agreed
balachandran_c: like neurons * time * position
aravind4evry1: k.
aravind4evry1: but then who/what determines the correlation.
balachandran_c: or whatever
balachandran_c: there need not be anyone to determine correlation.
balachandran_c: to be clear which patterns are you talking about now?
aravind4evry1: My whole point is even time and position are relative
balachandran_c: ya,
aravind4evry1: So how can we say anything about its objective nature.
balachandran_c: i think we are talking about patterns at different levels.
aravind4evry1: hmm.
aravind4evry1: K.
balachandran_c: as far as the physical system related to me is concerned,
aravind4evry1: tell me about what you are referring to as pattern
balachandran_c: the patterns are in firing of neurons,
aravind4evry1: k
aravind4evry1: k
balachandran_c: there is nothing subjective about that.
aravind4evry1: k
aravind4evry1: Now I get it.
balachandran_c: as far as what "I" the mind sees,
aravind4evry1: better word would be percieve
balachandran_c: it sees patterns everywhere,
aravind4evry1: from its sensa
balachandran_c: in which case, it is a subjective interpretation of external objective events.
aravind4evry1: but when the "I"
aravind4evry1: gets in
balachandran_c: these are two different patterns we are talking about.
aravind4evry1: It automatically becomes
aravind4evry1: subjective
balachandran_c: not to be mixed up.
balachandran_c: which patterns are you talking about now?
aravind4evry1: my point is When I gets in the supposedly objective pattern
aravind4evry1: becomes subjective
balachandran_c: could you explain your question from this view?
balachandran_c: i didnt get you.,
aravind4evry1: k
aravind4evry1: I will try.
aravind4evry1: the pattern is as in the firing of neurons.
aravind4evry1: its pattern inherent in that system
aravind4evry1: k.
balachandran_c: k, now we are talking about the patterns constituting "I", right?
aravind4evry1: yes
balachandran_c: k, go ahead
aravind4evry1: when the case of I comes in
aravind4evry1: Doesnt it automatically take it to the realm of subjectivity
balachandran_c: "I" cannot come into the physical layer.
balachandran_c: which is my whole point.
aravind4evry1: k.
aravind4evry1: Then
aravind4evry1: what are thoughts
balachandran_c: "I" is a pattern in this physical layer.
aravind4evry1: Understood
balachandran_c: thoughts are part of this "I" that i am talking about.
balachandran_c: they are not different.
aravind4evry1: hmm.
balachandran_c: i have no reason to believe that there exists a separate entity called an "I" and another called "I"'s thoughts on this system.
aravind4evry1: you are saying that
aravind4evry1: mind, thought, I
aravind4evry1: these are all same entities?
balachandran_c: my following sentence is not accurate, but i will try.
aravind4evry1: k
aravind4evry1: I can understand the prob :D
balachandran_c: "I" as separate from its "thoughts" is more like an illusion.
aravind4evry1: hmm.
aravind4evry1: Well :D
balachandran_c: the "I" cannot really separate itself from its thoughts if it didnt have different words for it.
aravind4evry1: so you mean thoughts and I are the same thing.
balachandran_c: i can tell the difference between an apple and an orange, even if i didnt have words for them.
aravind4evry1: or like a fuzzy thing
aravind4evry1: thats why I asked Fuzzy meaning
balachandran_c: hmm, think of it like this,
aravind4evry1: something like a paradox
balachandran_c: i have a torch, with something in front of it, which throws patterns on the walls.
balachandran_c: say i hold the cutout of a man in front of the torch,
aravind4evry1: k
balachandran_c: and a shadow of this person is formed on the wall.
balachandran_c: now according to me,
aravind4evry1: hmm.
balachandran_c: the physical layer is the torch+cutout system,
balachandran_c: the I+thought is the shadow on the wall.
aravind4evry1: you mean the projection of the physical self in the mindspace
balachandran_c: it is as if, this shadow calls itself "I",
aravind4evry1: where this mindspace projection denotes the I and the thoughts
aravind4evry1: k
balachandran_c: more like the shadow is a property of the physical system.
aravind4evry1: Yes thats what
balachandran_c: now, this shadow can its "hands" or "legs" or whatever,
aravind4evry1: ok.
balachandran_c: and starts calling these parts as different from itself.
aravind4evry1: I get it
aravind4evry1: Suddenly something struck me as
aravind4evry1: The supposed I
balachandran_c: this part is my thoughts
balachandran_c: that part is my feelings
aravind4evry1: k.
aravind4evry1: and thoughts are the projection of the self into the wall
aravind4evry1: where the wall is the mind
balachandran_c: so as far as i am concerned, this "I", "thoughts" and "feelings" are all subjective things within the shadow, you have to be the shadow to make sense of it.
aravind4evry1: k
aravind4evry1: Understood that completely.
balachandran_c: for me it is just one phenomenon.
balachandran_c: maybe you could understand the shadow without being the shadow,
balachandran_c: if you were a shadow like yourself,
balachandran_c: *if you were a shadow yourself,
balachandran_c: and shared the same set of beliefs or language or whatever
aravind4evry1: I get it
aravind4evry1: thought and I are not entirely different
aravind4evry1: as you have said.
balachandran_c: ya
aravind4evry1: but then thought is not a product or effect of the I
balachandran_c: once we see this i+thoughts+feelings+whatever as an *effect*, many problems go away!
balachandran_c: ya, i agree.
aravind4evry1: the existance of Thought only really means that the particular
aravind4evry1: physical system exists
aravind4evry1: right
aravind4evry1: and inturn
aravind4evry1: as this sytems another property
aravind4evry1: is I
balachandran_c: it is not a product because, i donot have a mechanism to separate the two.
aravind4evry1: this I Exist
balachandran_c: nor does separating them make any sense.
aravind4evry1: no My point is simply that
aravind4evry1: both the thoughts and I maynot be what we percieve
balachandran_c: the simple shortest solution to this "problem" is to take the word "thought" as distinct from a sentient entity is taken away from our language.
aravind4evry1: k.
aravind4evry1: :D
aravind4evry1: I got to go
balachandran_c: sure, bye

8 Comments:

Blogger -Poison- said...

wow. privileged to share this conversation. i liked the torch+cutout+shadow concept.both of u rock!

12:07 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

"I" the inaneness, the insaneness...

2:31 AM  
Blogger Erosimian said...

*sleeps*

7:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey!
ashok gave me the link n i read the conv.
at some point though i was laughin n wonderin y i am readin this.......somewhere....the concept kicked in.....
i like some the analogies and found the conv and the topic very interesting...
well bye 4 now,
Divs

8:43 AM  
Blogger aravind said...

@rockus
Inaness and insaneness are defined by the self same "I"

@ Duttan
Dont worry dude. Even i might sleep reading this.

@Divya
It was not a blog. As it was a conversation. It is incoherent at the starting part.

5:59 PM  
Blogger -Poison- said...

this is a blog!
even though its a convo !

10:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

best regards, nice info » »

6:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hallo! ;)
hey... what sick news!
what do U think about it?

10:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home