Well that depends upon what kind of existence we are talking about? IS there a 'consciousness' roaming about on it's lonesome out there? I doubt it but then that's because I think 'consciousness' only comes about due to certain types of bodies. What kind of thing do you think 'it' is?You are talking about it. You recognise it as a thing e.g it exists in your ontology. If it's not a phenomenon, what kind of thing is consciousness?
Not sure what a 'proper' definition would entail? Could we agree that it is what certain bodies appear to exhibit in their behaviour?Yeah, but the matter of whether consciousness exists (ontologically) is a separate concern as to whether we can agree on its proper definition. ...
Sure, but not sure what your point is, could you explain it another way?And in so doing, you are talking about "inter-subjective consensus". Are "subjects" not phenomena too? Are agreements/disagreements not phenomena too? ...
I thought we agreed that a thing is a phenomena? Not sure what the 'essence' of a phenomenon could be as to me you appear to be generalising from there being phenomena to reifying the class 'phenomenon'? Much like the idea that there is a thing or elan vital called 'life' rather than just living things.But then you aren't interested in understanding the essence of a "phenomenon" - you are interested in the thing you are pointing to. ...
Not sure we could but how about its the word we apply to any and all phenomena considered as phenomena?Whatever it is. So how could we ever arrive at inter-subjective consensus on what a "phenomenon" in general, not in particular? ...
For sure.We are both using the word "phenomenon" in this conversation assuming that we agree on its meaning. Maybe we don't - who knows? But it was a useful assumption to get us this far. ...
Yup, which is why they don't apply to the contingent world but are one of the limits on it with respect to language and reason.Well DUH. Everything is a phenomenon. And so it is true - by definition. ...
It used to be that it was a fact about the world but now it appears to be inter-subjective consensus or maybe just highly probably true if you like.What's the definition of "truth"? ...
Can a single word have a truth value?What's the true definition of "definition"?
I was taught them.You are telling me how your children know - you taught them.
You aren't telling me how you know - how did you learn those labels. ...
Well I'm not very religious about such matters.So in defending epistemic particularism (telling me what you know), you have left the epistemic methodists unsatisfied. ...
Pattern storage and retrieval is my best guess.You still aren't answering the "How do you know?" question. Which is really the same as asking "How does learning work?"
Caching is not about von Neumann - it's about redundancy and locality of data and the inherent problems that arise when all copies of the same data need to be updated. ...[/quote]Except that it is a solution to an efficiency problem that arises from the form of the architecture.Arising_uk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 10:01 am Not sure how this applies as we are not built upon a von Neumann architecture.
I get the idea just not sure what you are applying it to in this conversation?You change your telephone number - it takes time to propagate the new information to all of your friends. You are the "source of truth" for what your mobile number is - the address books of your friends are cached copies of that data.
That's cache invalidation. Note I make no mention of technology at all - the above scenario has inherent difficulties with good ol pen&paper.
Are you talking about how the propagation or timing of neuron activation may work? Not sure if there are any 'caches' in such a system but I could see that we could have groups of nets feeding into and out of each other for various functions so maybe. Personally I think the CNS pretty much doesn't 'forget' anything, apart from pain, but successful retrieval depends upon the methods used to active the neurons. Although again this is just personal opinion as its clear that we do 'forget' things and maybe inactivity means the 'paths' are gone but I don't think so.
Always found this guy fascinating -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-69AnA_To