073-basic model - material with no meaning [20120903]

if representation and the simulating of the world is one half of consciousness/intelligence.  then the other half is the material world of cells, and stigmergic signals, and network structures.  

except that signals are what?  material. 
cells are made of what?  material
network structures is signaling in what?  a material structure. 

in fact, when we look at material, a place where there is no representation, what we too easily talk about is representation. 

material exchanged between cells is not a signal.  it has no message. it is some material the cells receives.  cells "send" material out, and other cells take that material in.   there is no meaning in this exchange.  

how do we know this?  

because the meaning does not exist in the material.  Where is the meaning?  the meaning can only be found in the material processing structures of the cell.... and even then, the meaning is not a meaning, but a function.  For us to assert that some molecule or molecular structure has meaning necessitates that the material "carries" the meaning.  and no material carries meaning.  it's only meaning comes from the cell that acts on the material.  

there is no message in messenger molecules.  

this is exactly what we see in computers.  the binary data stored or processed HAS NO MEANING.  it's meaning exists solely in our own representations.  This is the great schism of material and representational.  

as we see in the earlier explanation of the basic model, the interaction of the simulation and the material structure is driven by the interaction of various structures that are instantiations of representations, in the representational simulation.  these structures are the interface between representation and material. 


in fact, we should see this kind of behavior whenever there is an interaction between a representation and the material.  

Structures are representations that are also a material.  The structures causes material action from a representational/simulation fact, or changes a representation/simulation fact from material action.


these interfacing structures.... where are they?   they are only in bodies.  a body which interfaces between representation and material actions.  



consider this:  there are no material limits to action or growth. the problem of limits is representational.  some combination of material leads to action and growth.  But the concept of limit, is not a material fact, it's a representational idea.   In any stigmergic system:  an economy, a cell, a body of cells, an ecology, a central nervous system, there is no material limit... some combination of material (again, without meaning) can overcome any limit.  Becasuse the limit is limit of representation, it is not a limit of materials.  

this may be hard to accept.  but it is important to remember that material has no meaning.  the idea of a limit, is derived from representation and meaning.  there is some combination of material that transcends or overcomes any limit.  limits are irrelevant to materials.  it doesn't make sense to speak about material "limits".   limits are "learned helplessness".   there are no action or growth limits in materials because those are simply combinatorial problems, which again are representational problems, not material problems.  


which brings us to the other nature of representation.  abstraction.  abstractions are not material.  but abstractions must be externalized.  abstractions are expressed via "externalities" or in a material form.  

what are examples of materials:

matter
chemistry elements
colour/paint/marks
voltage/binary values (in a computer)
chemistry and action potentials in CNS cells. 
letters/sounds/words   words are a special case.  they are marks at one material level, but because they can be made from the same materials of sounds/marks, the consistency and reference of these materials take on a meta level of material quality.   words themselves can be objects that different organisms encounter and the meaning is "internal" to the word.   

what about structures and shapes?  structures and shapes, to be material, can have no meaning.  but it is when they have meaning, that we either see them as representations (letters, words, drawings, faces, etc).  or that they produce meaning, as in the shape of central nervous system cells etc.  


material does not represent.
material has no meaning.

so what are material receptors, senders, growth/transform functions, motive action, material change?

as soon as you have a body, the problems of homeostasis and representation exist:

A body maintains itself through sending, receiving, growing, moving, change, action.  a body creates material structures to perform these various functions (these functions are ideas!).  without creating structures to manage and change, the body will not maintain homeostasis.  a body's primary functions are to de-randomize material events.  A body makes and has material structures and those structures are causal forms of material action. 

a body will engage in seeking behavior and making behavior.   (seeking behavior is also non-seeking behavior where the seeking behavior is an ability)

seeking and making are the basic forms of representation.  

one of the most interesting functions of a rep system, of a body, is to decide what it's inputs are and what outputs they produce (receive/send/act/grow)

input -> rep -> output:   action, growth, motion, send


visualization.   any process that visualizes an output, or inputs is clearly a representing organism.  visualizations are not outputs or inputs.  visulation is a way to build structures that can get inputs and produce outputs.   what visualization happens in a body will correlate to how that body processes inputs and produces outputs.  


in a body, all output action is to produce some change (or stasis) in inputs.  


when we paint or draw, the action, the attentional, conscientious action is to DO the action.   we evaluate the result of the action, the input, post action... this is a horrible way to talk.  We evaluate the inputs we receive.  THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN INPUTS AND OUTPUTS OR OUTPUTS AND INPUTS.  Those are things we represent.  WE MAKE UP THAT THERE IS A CONNECTION.   in drawing, we draw the line, then evaluate if it's "like" what we want. the line we draw is, at best, the visualization we have created, or it is for its own sake, the action of mark making is the self contained intention of the line making.  in both cases, the meaning of a mark or a line, comes after... it is in the representation of the line after is is made (from inputs), not the line itself.  And any time we think the line has a meaning, as we make it, except that it is some meaning (like lines being made as rockets or gunfire) is imagination of what the line "should" mean, or what we WANT the line to mean.  

we imagine that our line making means something, but it doesn't.  the meaning is in our conception, not in the line.  

this is the only way automatic processes can producing meaning.  our intentional line making is an automatic process (at it's base), we just don't think that it is.   we conceptualize the automatic process, and combine these processes together to get a controlled process of line making.   controlled processes are conceptualized structured automatic processes. 

non conceptualized, or non structured implies it is is material, automatic, and without meaning.  (meaning accrues on input).


materials and automatic processes.
representation and conceptual processes.

automatic processes that create structures that instantiate representations, the effect of these structures, these representations is to create conceptual processes.    These conceptual processes, which are material structures, produce materials and automatic processes when conceptualized.  



body and flow


input -> rep -> output

receive -> action -> send
receive -> grow 
receive -> change 
receive -> move

any interim structure that connects the input to the output is the basis of representation. 

receive -> structure/transform -> action


only a body can have this sort of flow.  a body acts.  a body receives.  a body sends.  a body moves.  a body grows (structures).  a body changes. 

the embodiment of material automatic processes.  the regulation of automatic processes turns them into something else... something functionally representational to the body.  

in a computer AI, the body is made of binary code, both executable code and binary material used to send, receive, grow, change, move, etc. 

causation is a by-product of observation.  causation is not pre-observational.  the combinations of materials is something that must give rise to a body and thus the manifestation of representations.   or perhaps more clearly, the body is the first representation. (whether the body is a cell, or a body of cells, a creature)

make - material structures
flow  (send/receive material)
body - structures (to maintain the material body, and to manifest representations)   homeostasis and integrity/consistency


awareness:   

seeking ?
difference/similarity  unity/unique  
unity of experience 

in a body that acts as a unity (unity of experience), shows seeking behavior, expresses behavior as if objects are different and similar (when objects are defacto unique)

the material generation of awareness. 


could it be that material is just another kind of conceptual?  that it's two kinds of conceptual interacting that gives us awareness and consciousness? 

or is that some function, a function of representation is being expressed, enacted in two different modalities. 

representation and representational enactment. 


automata and automatic action - that is not awareness.  a seeking action can be an automata behavior (gliders, cilia)  automatically following a food trail.  ant trails.  turning toward the sun.   all automata.  

what is important is representation.  one thing for another thing.  NOT as an automata stream, but to substitute for an automata stream.  

automata must give rise to representation.    and the basic representation to get us above automata is when a thing represents a process.  

storing the ability to do a process. 

the next stage is substitution, where parts of that process are the same as other kinds of parts.  things as things. vs thing as process.    the reverse, process as things is also a representation.  both because a process makes a representation and that a representation can generate a process.

automata to representation - a body of representation. 

automata (make/flow) to representation (process;thing, thing;process) - a body of processes as things and things as processes, and things for other things and processes for other processes (we get substitution in representation because of uni-factors (difference/similarity -unique/unity)  these factors are representations too.  

at their base these object;object or object->object substitutions are again process/automata substitutions.  if we can substitute orange for red, then the process of using red is the same as using orange (thing as process).  if we substitute a skip for a hop, it's because the hop and skip are the same thing (process as thing)).  for instance, we cannot substitute a skip for orange, or red for bitter.  And we cannot substitute a hop for moldy, or a skip for reading.   There is a representational…. coherence.  The world of representation does make some sense (especially when we get to mathematical and logical representations).  But the instantiation of representations remains something done by non-representataion, non-meaning, material. 

As a matter of speculation, it could be that coherence of representation is entirely driven by the material instantiation of representations.  this is what synesthesia implies.  But this view leads us to very interesting places of representational instantiation and implies that consistency and "truth" or coherence of representation is not a matter of representational truth, but matter of group similarity.  That similar bodies perceive, represent, instantiate representations in similar ways and a vastly different body of instantiation will do things that appear to be insensible.    this view should find coherence then to be a by-product of the survival of embodiments of representation.  









previous next