According to Daniel Dennet, consciousness is "software". This would imply that animals, like cats and dogs, are not conscious, that month-old babies are not conscious (up to the point I've read in the book, Dennet has not speculated as to what age the installation completes), and that in some cultures, fully functional adult humans might not be conscious.
In my arrogant opinion, pain (and pleasure) are conscious states, states of mind. Therefore, only a conscious being can feel pain. Therefore, to claim that cats are not conscious implies that cats cannot feel pain. This is possible, of course, but it sounds wrong.
The Jewish tradition would seem to assume that animals can feel pain, as evidenced by the commandment not to cause (needless) pain to animals. But to what animals? Is one allowed, in theory, to hunt non-kosher fish for sport? Is one allowed to step on a roach on the sidewalk to vent one’s frustration about the roaches in one’s house?
Destroying plant life is (sometimes) forbidden because of a different commandment, “bal tashchit”, not being wasteful, but uprooting weeds in a public area is certainly not seen as causing pain to anything.
And while we're on the subject, does the halachic distinction between plants and animals agree with the biological distinction? Are sponges kosher?
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
The Importance of not Being Earnest
One of the things about being a dilettante is that you tend to reinvent things that were actually invented years or decades earlier. For example, I invented the deflationary theory of truth, the Mary’s Room argument from knowledge, object persistence, transactional memory, and even the for-each loop, which were all well-known to the experts, but unknown to myself in my own personal ignorance, at the time I invented them.
One of the things that I ignorantly reinvented is Nerdcore Hip-Hop, also known as Geeksta Rap. I’ve been rapping about computer science and software engineering since 2004. In 2007, someone finally pointed out to me that Nerdcore was a well-established musical/literary genre. Immediately, as the Midrash would say, I went to Wikipedia to get a list of the prominenent Nerdcore MC’s. List in hand, I went over the list MC by MC and listened to whatever music they had on line.
One of the MC’s on the list was MC Lars. On his website at the time, Lars had the songs “Download this Song”, “iGeneration”, and “Hot Topic is not Punk Rock.” My reaction: good music and good delivery, but the lyrics were too earnest. There’s something unsubversive about an MC who can say “It’s the new artist model” with a straight face. So it made an impression...but I didn’t go back for more.
One of the MC’s from the list who I did buy was Shael Riley. I wouldn’t really call him an MC. He might have done some rapping, but he mostly plays music and sings. A few months ago, I wrote a rap inspired by Shael’s song “Music Ruined Video Games” (which, by the way, is breathtaking). I thought I might actually get the chance to record it, so I went to Shael’s website to download the song. On Shael’s website, I saw that he had a Twitter account, so I followed him.
I don’t remember if it was Twitter who suggested Lars based on the fact that I was following Shael, or if Shael actually retweeted Lars, but when I saw Lars was on Twitter, I followed him too. I thought, “He’s not a geek. He looks like a quarterback.”
From Lars’ posts, it soon became clear that he runs a record label. That piqued my curiosity. I’m always on the lookout for labels that might want to sign me. I checked the label's website: Lars and one other band, nothing in the mission statement about “this label exists for the purpose of publishing the albums of MC Lars.” I figured I should do a bit more homework before pestering, so I went to Lars’ website and clicked on “Music Videos”. I listened to “Ahab” and “Signing Emo” (I don’t remember why I didn’t listen to the other songs there). They were pretty cool, so I sent my unsolicited demo to Horris Records.
About a week later, I received one of the nicest rejection emails I’ve ever received. Lars basically said that he liked my songs but he wasn’t signing new acts right now. (The fact that he wasn’t signing new acts didn’t surprise me, but the nice email did.) In his email, Lars said I should listen to his new mixtape, “Indie Rocket Science”. I figured it was the least I could do, so I listened.
I was blown away. Somehow, nothing in “Ahab” and “Signing Emo” had prepared me for the brilliance of “Indie Rocket Science”. I wondered: when did the earnest Lars of 2007 become so ironic? Lars has his entire discography up for free online listening, so I listened to the whole thing in reverse chronological order.
I think that the leap from “great” to “brilliant” occurred between the “Digital Gangster LP” of 2008 and the “Gigantic Robot” album of 2009. I think that “The Graduate” (2006), which contains the songs I’d heard in ‘07, is a great album too, I’d just listened to the wrong songs from it. If I’d listened to “Space Game”, “Crunk Rap”, and, yes, “Signing Emo”, I would have bought back then.
Interestingly, I think there was also a leap from “good” to “great” between “Insectivorous” (2000, Lars’ first album) and the “Laptop EP” (2004). The delivery on “Insectivorous” is kind of unprofessional IMAO. I find this very encouranging. If MC Lars can learn to rap, maybe I can too!
In my arrogant opinion, Lars is the second-best rapper in history. I still think Eminem is #1.
One of the things that I ignorantly reinvented is Nerdcore Hip-Hop, also known as Geeksta Rap. I’ve been rapping about computer science and software engineering since 2004. In 2007, someone finally pointed out to me that Nerdcore was a well-established musical/literary genre. Immediately, as the Midrash would say, I went to Wikipedia to get a list of the prominenent Nerdcore MC’s. List in hand, I went over the list MC by MC and listened to whatever music they had on line.
One of the MC’s on the list was MC Lars. On his website at the time, Lars had the songs “Download this Song”, “iGeneration”, and “Hot Topic is not Punk Rock.” My reaction: good music and good delivery, but the lyrics were too earnest. There’s something unsubversive about an MC who can say “It’s the new artist model” with a straight face. So it made an impression...but I didn’t go back for more.
One of the MC’s from the list who I did buy was Shael Riley. I wouldn’t really call him an MC. He might have done some rapping, but he mostly plays music and sings. A few months ago, I wrote a rap inspired by Shael’s song “Music Ruined Video Games” (which, by the way, is breathtaking). I thought I might actually get the chance to record it, so I went to Shael’s website to download the song. On Shael’s website, I saw that he had a Twitter account, so I followed him.
I don’t remember if it was Twitter who suggested Lars based on the fact that I was following Shael, or if Shael actually retweeted Lars, but when I saw Lars was on Twitter, I followed him too. I thought, “He’s not a geek. He looks like a quarterback.”
From Lars’ posts, it soon became clear that he runs a record label. That piqued my curiosity. I’m always on the lookout for labels that might want to sign me. I checked the label's website: Lars and one other band, nothing in the mission statement about “this label exists for the purpose of publishing the albums of MC Lars.” I figured I should do a bit more homework before pestering, so I went to Lars’ website and clicked on “Music Videos”. I listened to “Ahab” and “Signing Emo” (I don’t remember why I didn’t listen to the other songs there). They were pretty cool, so I sent my unsolicited demo to Horris Records.
About a week later, I received one of the nicest rejection emails I’ve ever received. Lars basically said that he liked my songs but he wasn’t signing new acts right now. (The fact that he wasn’t signing new acts didn’t surprise me, but the nice email did.) In his email, Lars said I should listen to his new mixtape, “Indie Rocket Science”. I figured it was the least I could do, so I listened.
I was blown away. Somehow, nothing in “Ahab” and “Signing Emo” had prepared me for the brilliance of “Indie Rocket Science”. I wondered: when did the earnest Lars of 2007 become so ironic? Lars has his entire discography up for free online listening, so I listened to the whole thing in reverse chronological order.
I think that the leap from “great” to “brilliant” occurred between the “Digital Gangster LP” of 2008 and the “Gigantic Robot” album of 2009. I think that “The Graduate” (2006), which contains the songs I’d heard in ‘07, is a great album too, I’d just listened to the wrong songs from it. If I’d listened to “Space Game”, “Crunk Rap”, and, yes, “Signing Emo”, I would have bought back then.
Interestingly, I think there was also a leap from “good” to “great” between “Insectivorous” (2000, Lars’ first album) and the “Laptop EP” (2004). The delivery on “Insectivorous” is kind of unprofessional IMAO. I find this very encouranging. If MC Lars can learn to rap, maybe I can too!
In my arrogant opinion, Lars is the second-best rapper in history. I still think Eminem is #1.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Reading Consciousness Explained Part 3: Sliding Windows
Memory and sensory experience are different in kind, not just in degree.
Many arguments in Consciousness Explained seem to be implicitly founded on blurring the distinction between the two -- mistakenly, in my arrogant opinion.
It follows from this distinction that we never remember vivid sensory experience. Instead, we remember sensory experience and assume that it was as vivid as the sensory experience of the present. If a demon were to claim that my past sensory experiences were less vivid than my present experience, I wouldn't be able to invoke my memories to counter the claim.
What about motion? Motion happens over time. Is motion experienced, or just remembered? The claim that motion is only remembered and not experienced sounds very wrong. But experience is of the present, and the present is static. I mean, it should be static. What would it be like to remember motion but never experience it?
There are three ways to process a stream. You can process it element by element, you can process it in chunks, or you can process it with a sliding window. Is it possible that the stream of consciousness is really a sliding window? This would imply that we subjectively live with two kinds of time...
Many arguments in Consciousness Explained seem to be implicitly founded on blurring the distinction between the two -- mistakenly, in my arrogant opinion.
It follows from this distinction that we never remember vivid sensory experience. Instead, we remember sensory experience and assume that it was as vivid as the sensory experience of the present. If a demon were to claim that my past sensory experiences were less vivid than my present experience, I wouldn't be able to invoke my memories to counter the claim.
What about motion? Motion happens over time. Is motion experienced, or just remembered? The claim that motion is only remembered and not experienced sounds very wrong. But experience is of the present, and the present is static. I mean, it should be static. What would it be like to remember motion but never experience it?
There are three ways to process a stream. You can process it element by element, you can process it in chunks, or you can process it with a sliding window. Is it possible that the stream of consciousness is really a sliding window? This would imply that we subjectively live with two kinds of time...
Reading Consciousness Explained Part 2: Short Circuit
How does memory work? What does memory record? Does memory record conscious experience, or does it record the sensory input that causes conscious experience?
It could be (A) that memory records conscious experience. Let's say I see a computer screen. So light waves enter my eyes, my eyes send messages to my brain via my neurons, and then I experience a vision of a computer screen, and then the information from my conscious mind is written back to my brain and recorded in my memory.
Or, it could be that (B) the "store" to memory, "short-circuits" the conscious mind, or in other words, memory is a record of the sensory (or emotional etc.) input, but not a direct record of my conscious experiences. When the visual message gets to my brain, my brain records the message in my memory and additionally also sends it to my conscious mind.
B sounds very reasonable (which is not to say that A is unreasonable). However, it has philosophical and spiritual consequences that are a little bit surprising. It implies that in a sense, all memory is fictional. It does not recall an experience from a record of that experience, but rather creates a conscious experience of memory from circumstantial evidence.
It could be (A) that memory records conscious experience. Let's say I see a computer screen. So light waves enter my eyes, my eyes send messages to my brain via my neurons, and then I experience a vision of a computer screen, and then the information from my conscious mind is written back to my brain and recorded in my memory.
Or, it could be that (B) the "store" to memory, "short-circuits" the conscious mind, or in other words, memory is a record of the sensory (or emotional etc.) input, but not a direct record of my conscious experiences. When the visual message gets to my brain, my brain records the message in my memory and additionally also sends it to my conscious mind.
B sounds very reasonable (which is not to say that A is unreasonable). However, it has philosophical and spiritual consequences that are a little bit surprising. It implies that in a sense, all memory is fictional. It does not recall an experience from a record of that experience, but rather creates a conscious experience of memory from circumstantial evidence.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Reading Consciousness Explained Part 1: The Cartesian Theater
I've been immensely enjoying "Consciousness Explained", but now it's getting frustrating. Dennet is attacking what he calls "the Cartesian Theater" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater) or "Catesian materialism". He says: "Many theorists would insist that they have rejected such an obviously bad idea. But as we shall see, the persuasive imagery of the Cartesian Theater keeps coming back to haunt us...even after its ghostly dualism has been denounced and exorcised."
But the Cartesian Theater is simply the proposition that the brain has a processor. Why is that an "obviously bad idea"? It's possible that the brain doesn't have a processor, but questions like that should be decided empirically.
Dennet says, "The brain is Headquarters, the place where the ultimate observer is, but there is no reason to believe that the brain itself has any deeper headquarters...in short, there is no observer inside the brain." Well, the fact that computers have a "deep headquarters" is a reason to suspect, if not to believe, that brains have one too. It has nothing to do with dualism.
Don't get me wrong, I love Daniel Dennet. I just wish he'd consulted with me before publishing this.
But the Cartesian Theater is simply the proposition that the brain has a processor. Why is that an "obviously bad idea"? It's possible that the brain doesn't have a processor, but questions like that should be decided empirically.
Dennet says, "The brain is Headquarters, the place where the ultimate observer is, but there is no reason to believe that the brain itself has any deeper headquarters...in short, there is no observer inside the brain." Well, the fact that computers have a "deep headquarters" is a reason to suspect, if not to believe, that brains have one too. It has nothing to do with dualism.
Don't get me wrong, I love Daniel Dennet. I just wish he'd consulted with me before publishing this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
