So Valentine’s Day got a meaning for us, yahoooo!

Consciousness, at implementation level is a theory-laden concept, meaning you cannot observe it, study it, and know it without having a theory about it. This suggest to have a framework to give an explanation of this phenomena, you must start with a theory, and I would like to say a design, and then try to see, through scientific observation, if this design is actually realized in agents we find conscious. Findings from these observations will correct the design and the successive refinement continues.

No War On Iran:

Read this description also.

کسی که سالهايی به هم گشوده بوديم، مدتی پيش تصميمی مشترک گرفت. خواستم اثری از آن در اينجا هم بماند. کس ديگری هم که اسمش را بسيار دوست میدارم و هميشه به نام فاميلی اش صدايش کرده ايم (!)، هم.

So I think I’ve reached a decision as to what to write about in the coming days:

Design Space of Mind: How Much Can We Know About It?

Assuming there can be different designs for mind is a paradoxical and difficult concept. I shall try to explore it by showing what areas of the space of possible designs of mind can’t be known to an agent possessing an instance of this space.

شوقی که از دوستی با تو مرا در می نوردد . ، . ِ .

I thought of science as a paradigm that is concerned about one of the realized possible worlds while not rejecting the space of possible worlds, how different everything could or even can be. And I thought of philosophy as a paradigm where you want to know “how different”, “the principles under which being could or can or are different”, “understanding the space of possibilities and in the meantime understanding how this present instance, limits that space for us …”. So it’s not all that odd if philosophy for me, is from a stand point of design: what and how can there be; not understanding but defining the possible ways of being.

I do not want to ask “Does a conscious state function by representing what it causes?” or “Is there a connection between consciousness and the capacity that mind has to represent objects?” but instead from a philosophical design view, and by going over the space of possible designs of mind, I want to ask “How can there be a members of this space that relies on presentation?”.

Of course, space of possible designs of mind, is constrained for us by this instance or member of it that we posses. And any successful approach to this question must take them into account.

Now how to do that?

Check this aim out!

"To show that how puzzling phenomena, matters of mind, language and society, can all be part of the natural world, continuous with plants, atoms and digestion."

That’s the book: mind, language and society that I read on the train.

I always wanted to know the technical meaning of “intentionality” and Searle had a good one: all the various forms by which the mind can be directed, or be about of objects or state of affairs in the world [and I add] and more.

It’s not a strange thing to think of consciousness as a higher-level property of the natural neurobiological processes of the brain. We do it all the times: add levels of abstraction. What’s not a “best practice” is to keep bring the description of a phenomena to this level, leaving the rest at the lower-level. If consciousness is a higher-level property of the brain, so are unconsciousness, malfunctions and the rest. You have to lift the level of your description as a whole. When so, you’ll get a model of the brain, something you can call a design.

I saw two sentences that fascinated me:

1-    A conscious state functions by representing what it causes.

2- There is connection between consciousness and the capacity that we have to represent objects.

I want to say something about consciousness but I still can’t write anything that I like. I’ll try this:

Searle summarizes his view like this:

1-     Consciousness is inner, qualitative and subjective states and processes that has a first-person ontology.

2-     It’s a biological phenomenon that is caused by lower-level neuronal processes in the brain.

3-     Consciousness consists of higher-level processes realized in the structure of the brain.

4-     And of course there is no reason in principle why we could not build an artificial brain that also causes and realizes consciousness.

Searle suggests that consciousness and underlying biological neurons are two levels of explaining a phenomenon. He uses the example of explaining the function of an automobile at the level of levers, pistons and cylinders; or at the level of passage of electrons and molecular structures; or as I add at the level of the driver and the interpretation of speed meters. The important claim is that none of these levels of descriptions are causally unreal.

I like this idea in another way though. I like it how we can organize the world at different causal levels. This example is about us and the mind. But what is, as is customary to ask, the evolutionary value of being able to describe the world we chose to live at different levels? Well I guess I should retype the question as: What power do we get from being able to expand the world and create at different levels of causality? And it becomes understandable: So humanistic.

Perspectivism states that if we have no unmediated access to the real world, there is no point talking about it; so we’re left with our views, perspectives, presuppositions, paradigm and stance.

1-     One might argue with simple examples like trees and mountains and point to the genetic fallacy. But it’s not about simple examples, perspectivism is about the really important facts, especially when they’re entangled with values and power: when a young scientist tries to prove her theory that will shake the orthodox science, when a priest interprets a phenomena as a miracle, when you make a judgment, when they accuse a government of terrorism, when they ask giant tobacco companies if cigarettes are addictive and so on.

2-     The world in itself does not matter, the world from our point of view, the world as our asset, the ways that we "want to" look at it so it'll be more useful, the world as we like it; that matters. Everything is not socially constructed, but anything that has a value or power, is a product of the society; our understanding of it is mediated and controlled by that production.

Perspectivism is not an odd idea for us, exposed to the mass media humans. How do we know what is happening in the world? You can trust that a media is honest with you over the unimportant, valueless events; but if a news will affect your vote, you might hear US went to war with Albany.

I like it, The Negative, because it was “constructed” out of fear and disgust. I clearly remember those fillings. I was disgusted by the order of the world, society and power; and it seems they ,Frankfurt School, were disgusted of power, order and progress after the two WWWs and WWWs to come.

Searle writes “If the real world is just an invention, a social construct designed to oppress the marginalized elements of society, then let’s get rid of it and build the world we want". He claims "the motivation to deny realism is a kind of will to power". The Negative, disgusted by power, claims that reality IS created by that will of power, and whenever we throw a reality away, capitalism, dictators, giant corporations, media and … will build the new reality for us (as have!). So let’s get rid of it, and that’s it, just get rid of it, they say.

يک چيزی که درمورد با دوچرخه سر کار رفتن می پسندم: در معرض طبيعت قرار گرفتن، باران و نور بعد از باران، رنگين کمان، دو پرنده به دنبال هم در شب از روی برکه پرواز کنان و خلاصه طبيعت بر روی من اثر ميگذارد، تهديد ميکند، نوازش و ... مکيوف ميشوم و چه خيال پرداز! انقدر که خيال کردم زير خط استوا زندگی ميکنيم :)

خوابيده بودم اکنون.

خوابيدن، گليم، برای بيدار شدنِ فردا ...

احمقانه است، تنها.

نترس، بگو، هين درياست اين.

دلم لرزيد.

ای کاش سرم را به بالين محمد ميگذاشتم و گريه ميکردم.

محمد حبيب است.

پايان ندارد.

بسيار متفاوت است. غير از ساعت ۷:۳۰ و ۲۰ ساعتهای ديگر هم کاری دارند. دنيا بزرگ ميشود. ما بزرگش کرديم. در ساعتهای خاصی ما پرش ميکنيم. من به دنيا در آن ساعتها فکر ميکنم. تصاوير برجا هستند. دو نفر پرنده ها را نگاه کردند. در پياده رو راندند. دکمه را فشار دادند و از خيابان گذشتند. قطار را سوار کردند. ريل را عبور. کامپيوتر را روشن. کد را نوشتن. ايميل بازی. انتظار. اميد. مهر. آرزو. ساعتها خواهند آمدن.