It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's tackle the hard problems.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
First, what are some of the "hard problems"?

Secondly, let's address the problem and think about them in open minded and clear ways.

The first hard problem I want to tackle is the subjective nature of human experience. This is, fundamentally how each of us experience reality and from this experience we come to certain realizations and understanding relative to oneself.

This has always fascinated me, in how humans evolve from single-celled organisms which at some point evolved a relationship that enabled single-celled organisms to suddenly form families of cells that worked in groups to preform more advanced and sophisticated tasks. Certainly, I am not alone as many of us endure to try to understand such a profound and complex cellular systems as found in the human body, this organic complexity is found in all life.

Each cell in a relative way must also experience it's life and existence subjectively. Is a single-cell self-aware? At some cellular level it must be. Not necessarily in the way each of us are, but certainly in a way that is to scale and relative to the single cell.

It's in the single cell that we find a new system of relationships which is not multicellular rather protein based and amazing that at a molecular level, proteins are forming simple mechanical systems which propagate functions needed for cellular life. Is a single protein also subjectively self-aware as the cell may be? It is composed of many atoms which create it's molecular structure, thus potentially providing a framework for conscious, self-aware circuitry to propagate in scale upwards into larger systems. Just an idea.

It seems that subjectively experiencing reality is part of the laws as every living organism is subjectively experiencing information from the objective Universe. This is where many of the hard problems come from, how the subject experiences the objective. How do we measure this, how to we quantify it and understand it?

It's relative in understanding the subjective nature of human experience as all organisms function at this similar fate. At least what we do know is that each subject is experiencing life in an objective universe and certain fundamental mechanics are at work which govern the experience for that living system.

It's that experience of reality which makes the entire symphony of relationships between atoms, molecules and cells as it scales up into multicellular organisms. Moving from the physical mechanics, there are also informational mechanics at work. A communication system that propagates information. A digital, language orientated system that nature uses to preform functions relative to rendering out the experience of objective data in a subjective way so that the organism can survive and exist in it's current subjective state.

The digital aspect of these systems is where we find self-awareness, consciousness and our experience of reality. It is the result of all of these atomic, molecular and cellular relationships which produces an amazing self-aware conscious organism that is experiencing the rendering of data in a subjective way as something we call reality.

It's very profound as it seems every living system has this requirement to digitalize information into subjective renderings of reality. How reality renders is based on the limits of these relationships as eyes, ears, noses and other sensory organs interpret very specific ranges of energy, vibration and chemistry. The end result is the subjective nature of reality. What I like to call the experience of reality. A not entirely objective view, but good enough to survive in model.

What is this digital chemistry in the brain that renders out the experience of reality? Does a cell also produce a rendered version of sensory data within it's limited ability to process information? It's really something one can only muse at. I really don't know, but there are interesting systems in each cell that suggest this is so. Systems which scaled up appear like multicellulared organs in our body.

For example digestion. Each cell uses a protein arrangement that deals with digestion where in larger systems this is a cellular matrix. Like the larger scale organisms each cell has a nucleus that is like the central CPU of the cell processing all the data the cell gets from it's limited sensory apparatus. So you might think a cell does not render an experience of reality, but in fact it's very likely that it does within the nucleus in a way similar to how our brain also renders this data.

Proteins and atoms however is much harder to suggest such a possibility. In turn-machines and automata, even an atom has the basic requirements to produce automata thus create information processing potential.

Information processing is a very important part of life and an ongoing evolutionary marvel. How does a cell process information? How does a larger multicellular organism process information? It's relative to scale, it's relative to evolutionary design... we are living examples of what that end-result is capable of.

Each of us subjectively rendering out an experience of objective reality. Something that can lead to a difference of opinion, but that is expected. Being subjective predicts that trait. Thoughts?
edit on 10-9-2011 by YouAreDreaming because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
So what you are saying is that it is nearly impossible for a person to be completely objective because of their own latent inhibition? Makes sense I guess. If latent inhibition filters out stimuli that are generally irrelivent to the individual, then there are many alternative perspectives that we are naturally inclined to not see. Interesting thoughts.
edit on 10-9-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
interesting thread. s&f.

I may be wrong, but i have heard that we need certain bacteria in our digestive system to survive, and would eventually die without them?

If true, this symbiosis adds to your discussion.
which came first?
Are our cells aware of these bacteria processes that convert/create nutrients that the cells utilise?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheThirdAdam
So what you are saying is that it is nearly impossible for a person to be completely objective because of their own latent inhibition? Makes sense I guess. If latent inhibition filters out stimuli that are generally irrelivent then there are many perspectives that we are naturally inclined not see. Interesting thoughts.


Well, that brings up the limits that each person has to objectivity in that it must be filtered biologically down into an information system which is further interpreted by a cellular chain that produces a "rendered" result. This rendered result is the subjective experience of reality. And yes, it is fundamentally flawed and limited by the constraints that physical sensory organs impose.

For example, the human eyes do not see in the ultra-violet spectrum. Which is a shame because flowers have more patterns in this spectrum. Humans do not see these patterns but bees do. A bee's rendering of reality is vastly different then humans. Sure it's the same objective data, but rendered relative to organism, which is relative to cellular limits and further limited by scale and if we keep moving down in scale it begs the question where does this phenomena begin and end?

Each scale, or group has it's own interpretation of objective data relative to it's sensory apparatus. Yet the reality each scale experiences is totally alien. A good analogy is met with Carl Sagan who talks about flatlanders when approaching geometry and dimensions.

Information has more potential in more advanced dimensions but truncates and becomes limited in lesser dimensions. Which relative to scale is an interesting point in understanding this subjective experience of objective reality.

What makes us different from cells is humans have adopted things such as the scientific method to try to measure what can be "objectively" known. However, in subjective experience the scientific method contradicts itself and cannot validate such experience.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by CitizenNum287119327
interesting thread. s&f.

I may be wrong, but i have heard that we need certain bacteria in our digestive system to survive, and would eventually die without them?

If true, this symbiosis adds to your discussion.
which came first?
Are our cells aware of these bacteria processes that convert/create nutrients that the cells utilise?



At the cellular level, everything is symbiosis. Relationships are forming as part of effective survival evolution. It is how single cells evolved to produce multicellular relationships. The survival was improved.

I'm ever curious as to how the cellular level experiences these subtle relationships, but I'll never know. In my camp, I get the mutlicellullar resolution of reality and I can't complain. It's pretty amazing.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Ok here is a difficult problem that another ATS member brought up today and made a few attempts at solving. It's quite the doozie you will find out.

Apparently when we create ozone in the lab, it only lasts for about 15-20 minutes and due to it's instability it decays into o2.
2 O3 ------> 3 O2

It takes longer than 15 minutes to transport manufactured ozone into the high altitude regions (80-160k ft).

A balloon or something like that could take hours to reach those altitudes. Airplanes as well.

Perhaps we could create some sort of 'floating factory' using balloons or something like that, solar powered, utilizing worker robots to create the ozone on site and release it into the air as it is made? Maybe this would work, I don't know.

But this is a hard problem. It's implications could be extremely dire as well. It may not seem to have effects today but the ozone depletion issue could actually create widespread extinctions in 15,000 years down the line. The chain of dominoes may take a very long time in human terms to coalesce but we need to think in grander scales which are appropriate for discussing ecological systems.

I would really love to see a problem like this solved and to see people working towards those ends. I won't get my hopes up however.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   

The first hard problem I want to tackle is the subjective nature of human experience. This is, fundamentally how each of us experience reality and from this experience we come to certain realizations and understanding relative to oneself.
May I? I suggest that the first hard problem we need to tackle is the apparent reality that there are people who do not come to certain realizations and understanding relative to themselves.

Maybe you are suggesting that as we can surmise some level of self-awareness inherent through all levels of physical existence it might be premature to also surmise that the level at which our human perceptions operate most fully is the high end of that micro-macro scale of self awareness.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TerryMcGuire

The first hard problem I want to tackle is the subjective nature of human experience. This is, fundamentally how each of us experience reality and from this experience we come to certain realizations and understanding relative to oneself.
May I? I suggest that the first hard problem we need to tackle is the apparent reality that there are people who do not come to certain realizations and understanding relative to themselves.

Maybe you are suggesting that as we can surmise some level of self-awareness inherent through all levels of physical existence it might be premature to also surmise that the level at which our human perceptions operate most fully is the high end of that micro-macro scale of self awareness.


It's the hard problems Terry, so I can't really suggest that Humans are the high-end of the micro-macro scale of self-awareness but indeed we are Human and can discuss such things, a discussion that is not likely happening in the scale of crows, rats and spiders. That is one of the great and unique qualities of being human, to be able to transcend limits with intelligence and thus such discussions are possible.

The Universe is very large and there are many trillions of solar systems and planets which may potentially offer life. Those life-forms are not known to me, so really another muse at the probability and potential of life to organize elsewhere as being probable, if so then have other lifeforms evolved which surpass our own human capabilities to be self-aware?

It's likely, however I think relative again to the organism. Our best source is ourselves so we can look there for some insights into the hard problems.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Biological Reality Rendering Farms

I've been pondering the nature of reality and the nature of biology as it plays a role in the facilitation of the "rendering" of the experience of reality. This is an important separation from objective data which we define as the knowable Universe and how organisms experience this data at the subjective level.

I've suggested an interest in knowing if a cell can actually render a perception of reality within a scale that is relative to it's atomic and protein limits. A single celled amoeba responds to changes in pressure, temperature and seeks food based on chemical senses. It's sensory apparatus is reduced in scale relative to it's protein based framework. It at a cellular level must have an awareness of an "experience of reality"; which is fundamentally different to how we experience reality based on scale and sensory limits.

When I start to think about the amazing processes that are going into producing this "experience of reality" even the amoeba is rendering from a computative level data from the objective Universe producing a micro-view based on the sensory stimuli. It is still producing complex protein calculations to derive a basic sense of what reality must be like at that scale.

In a way, it lets us break down what reality is from the objective Universe and the sensory-model which is the subjective experience every organism must face. When we look at how the experience of reality is modeled, it's very much based information processing and rendering. Biological life-forms are fundamentally reality rendering units or farms if they group up into multicellular organisms.

The rendering of reality is a unique property of living systems. At a basic level, this is a fundamental process that lifeforms big and small engage in. The rendering of reality from their sensory apparatus. What an ant experiences verses a spider, or a human all share in this fundamental process of rendering experiences of reality.

If we apply time and space to the experience, then each organism renders along in it's life experience at a very acute and subjective way. Each lifeform living in a present and now moment. One that changes. Subjectively, each lifeform has self-awareness and consciousness. An identity in the cosmic dream that is life.




top topics



 
2

log in

join