Codex Seraphinianus

I found out about this amazing book, Codex Seraphinianus, while reading a collection of articles by Douglas Hofstadter. It purports (or does it?) to be an encyclopedia of another civilization or world, written in another language that is indecipherable to us. Most of the images are delightful containing all sorts of playful modifications of form from what we're used. Hofstadter compares it to music. I've included some of my favorite pictures here although I would definitely recommend finding it and looking at it yourself. When one browses the internet, the standard refrain is that large university libraries have it, and indeed, that's where I got my copy.

The first image is from the "botany" chapter. Who says plants have to be connected, or only have one root? The second image is from the "physics" chapter indicating a contraption for some physical experiment that presumably makes sense in their physics. The third image is really funny is all I have to say, and so is the fourth, an entry on one of the various tribes that inhabit this other world.

More philosophy of mind

Beckett, in a comment below, asks: "What if it is true that our rational decision-making thought process is actually a fantasy ; a running commentary to justify decisions already made (a concept supported by some evidence, according to a NY Times article)."

I think this is probably largely true. The way I see it at the moment, the decision making process occurs largely unconsciously, as does the thought generating process. But, who is coming up with that running commentary, and more to the point in my mind, who is experiencing the running commentary? As far as I see, it is our awareness that experiences the results of our unconscious thought processes. However, I don't think that our actions are completely determined by our unconscious mind in this way. What would the point be of our awareness if it were powerless? I think that we can affect the way our unconscious mind works through our awareness, but it is subtle and it takes time.

Mount Timpanogos Photos Part 3

First photo: Emerald Lake, fed by a year-round snow field.
Second photo: Tibetan prayer flags someone had hung on the little structure at the peak. Very cool!
Third and Fourth Photos: A lone mountain goat that was wandering around very close to the summit.

Mount Timpanogos Photos Part 2

The first image captures some mountain goats high on a rock wall. The third photo is a view of the top.

Click on pics for more resolution.

Mount Timpanogos Photos Part 1

I hiked to the top of Mt. Timpanogos about an hour south of Salt Lake. It's definitely among the top hikes I've ever been on, if not the top one. It ranks among the hikes I've done in the high Sierra in California.

Be sure to click on the photos for a larger view.

Salt Lake City

I took a little (1.5 hour) hike from my hotel room up the side of an adjacent foothill this morning. It was hot, but the air is so dry that it didn't feel too bad, especially with a hat. The temperature is actually about the same (95 degrees) as back home, but it feels infinitely better here. I snapped this picture when I reached the highest point I could get to in time. I had a talk to present at 1pm, so I didn't have the luxury of climbing all day, even though it looked like I was about 20 minutes from the peak. Alas. The surrounding countryside is stunningly beautiful.

If you lived in Nebraska, you'd see this all the time!

On the road I'll be

I'll be leaving tomorrow for Salt Lake City, where I'm attending a conference. I've decided to drive because I love to see the countryside change as you move further west. It's about 1800 miles from here, which I plan on doing in two and a half days. The conference itself is three days long, so there'll be more driving than conferencing, but that's okay. While in Utah, I hope to get a bit of hiking done. I'm bringing my trusty camera with me so hopefully I'll get some good pictures. See y'all later!

Hofstadter versus Searle on the mind

I read I am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter several weeks ago, and it contains an extremely good explanation of something called Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. This is a result in the foundations of mathematics that says, essentially, that there are true mathematical facts that cannot be proven. The heart of the proof is a method for reading a second encoded meaning into arithmetical statements, one which is consistent with the axioms of arithmetic, but which actually means something else to us. (Similar to the way a string of zeroes and ones underlies the entire operation of your computer, and yet you are reading a different meaning into it.) Hofstadter then points out that this is the way consciousness works. There's the laws of physics which underlie the operation of our brain (kind of like the zeroes and ones), but then there's our conscious experience which arises from symbols interacting at a higher level.

So far, I have to say "Right on!" However, here's where things get sticky. Hofstadter argues that once you have a set of symbols in whatever substrate, the human brain, a computer (not too hard to imagine) or anywhere else (hmm), which is sufficiently complicated then there lies consciousness. John Searle argues against that point of view. He says that computers will never be conscious, even if they act like it, because they won't understand what they're doing. He doesn't explain what makes humans different, though.

I personally believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I don't see any reason why computers can't be conscious. Maybe they can, maybe they can't. There definitely seems to be something special about conscious awareness. But here's a question. Could I act like myself, going about my usual daily activities, in the same way I always do, with my conscious awareness shut off? When I phrase it that way, it seems more intuitive that I could not, and that actual conscious awareness is concomitant with behavior of a certain kind.

If a computer were made that acted conscious, would we ever be able to know that it is conscious? It seems unlikely that that could ever be settled scientifically.

And what about the Buddhist perspective? After all, in Buddhism we seek to understand the nature of mind. Well, I don't see any reason why, within the Buddhist framework, computers can't be conscious. There are all types of sentient beings, in all different types of states. (In fact, in one of the hell realms, mention is made of metallic beings.) But, just because I don't see a reason why not, doesn't mean I see a reason why. :)

And now, I must go eat lunch...