The Binding Problem: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The Binding Problem » The Binding Problem

The Binding Problem

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

The Binding Problem

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 04/07/09 - 04:06 AM:	#11
bert1 wrote: But it cannot be an illusion, unless you are willing to say that phenomenal experience doesn't exist. An illusion is a genuine mental phenomenon, and as such involves a many-in-one experience. Saying that the many-in-one aspect of an illusion is an illusion seems absurd to me. I am saying that the impression we have of it all coming together in one place at one time is an illusion. Why does this entail that phenomenal experiences do not exist? bert1 wrote: I'm not sure I understand you here. Consciousness is a real physical phenomenon (isn't it?). If it's logically true that it must be a certain way, then it is also empirically, physically, true that it must be that way, a fortiori. One can have a logical relationship which links phenomenal properties X, Y and Z (such as shape, colour and size for example), without any necessary spatio-temporal relationship (within the brain) between the same properties X, Y and Z. The mind creates the logical relationship, and from this it creates the illusion of a (mental) spatio-temporal relationship. wuliheron wrote: I'm not interested in what is true and false, just what fits the facts and is useful. Doesn’t a fact (at least in philosophical circles) entail truth? EDIT: Let me put it another way, then: Many supporters of reductionistic or holistic arguments would argue either that all facts fit with reductionist explanations (reductionists) or that some facts do not fit with reductionist explanations (holists). One of these extreme viewpoints cannot fit the facts. Edited by reincarnated on 04/07/09 - 04:13 AM
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 04/07/09 - 09:38 AM:	#12
reincarnated wrote: Doesn’t a fact (at least in philosophical circles) entail truth? EDIT: Let me put it another way, then: Many supporters of reductionistic or holistic arguments would argue either that all facts fit with reductionist explanations (reductionists) or that some facts do not fit with reductionist explanations (holists). One of these extreme viewpoints cannot fit the facts. In philosophical circles it just matters who you ask. It is a bit like asking if all philosophers have a belief in metaphysics, some do and others don't. I don't know if facts actually correlate with some kind of absolute truth anymore than I know if there is some sort of absolute metaphysical basis of existence. I just know that facts are things that we collect using different methods and that are useful for different things. A scientific fact is usally very different from a spiritual fact, which is also different from a legal fact. Each has their own standards for what they call a fact because words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. That they also sometimes argue about what are the facts then comes as no surprise. It also makes it impossible to say which side is correct without knowing exactly what they mean by the term "fact" and the exact context in which it is used.

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 239

Posted 04/07/09 - 11:36 AM:	#13
I'll quote your post from the Substance thread here just to keep things organised. Thanks for the link to Cartesian materialism - I'd never heard of it. It's a good article and explains Dennett's position on this in a way I can understand fairly well. I want to emphasise I am not arguing for Cartesian materialism, or at least in the way it is described in the article. I don't think there is a lumpy grey thing lurking in the brain somewhere where 'it all comes together'. Such a material lump cannot be a unifier, because it would be made of atoms which would themselves require relation. That's why I jump straight to space. That way all the neural processes associated with conscious experience can be a distributed as you like, even throughout the whole body, because space still relates them. reincarnated wrote: Of course it seems wrong to many of us to say that experience is not unified in one place at one time, simply because we have a strong intuition which leads us to the simple Cartesian Theatre view. Thanks for acknowledging the intuitive plausibility of the unity of consciousness. reincarnated wrote: Yes, your perception of a tomato leads you to think of that perception as a holistic experience, but bringing things together logically does not entail that they must be brought together either spatially or temporally. reincarnated wrote: One can have a logical relationship which links phenomenal properties X, Y and Z (such as shape, colour and size for example), without any necessary spatio-temporal relationship (within the brain) between the same properties X, Y and Z. I certainly wouldn't want to argue that shape, colour and size phenomenal properties can be found in the brain, maybe only their neural-correlates (if such things exist, or make sense, I don't know if they do). reincarnated wrote: The mind creates the logical relationship, Yes, I think that may be all I am arguing. But it is exactly this relating that involves a binding problem. How does the mind do it? reincarnated wrote: and from this it creates the illusion of a (mental) spatio-temporal relationship. OK, I follow you now (I think!) although I'm still not sure if 'illusion' is correct here, but no matter. reincarnated wrote: I am saying that the impression we have of it all coming together in one place at one time is an illusion. Why does this entail that phenomenal experiences do not exist? I was thinking of the brute facts of phenomenal experience which it makes no sense to call illusory without denying their existence. Illusions are phenomenal experiences, and there is a unification of discrete elements in all experiences, even if it is only in the logical aspect of the experience rather than the physical (if that distinction can be maintained, and I am doubtful of that). I think we may have been initially talking at cross-purposes, I'm not sure. Edited by bert1 on 04/07/09 - 11:43 AM
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 04/07/09 - 08:43 PM:	#14
Conciousness is an illusion. As is self, and free will. Take a computer program such as Windows as an example. What you call a 'window' is just an electrical pattern. If you took the computer apart, you would find fundamentally the same thing as the human brain. Conciousness is software. The binding problem is irrelevant. (For those of you who want to point out the difference between computers and the human brain, you don't get what I have written and you shouldn't reply.)
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 04/07/09 - 11:04 PM:	#15
wuliheron wrote: A scientific fact is usally very different from a spiritual fact, which is also different from a legal fact. Each has their own standards for what they call a fact because words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. That they also sometimes argue about what are the facts then comes as no surprise. It also makes it impossible to say which side is correct without knowing exactly what they mean by the term "fact" and the exact context in which it is used. So when you use the term "fact" (as in post #10 ), exactly what do you mean by this?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 04/07/09 - 11:46 PM:	#16
I don't see how else it could "come together" really. Can you even imagine seeing the color and the shape separately somehow? Like dual screen or something? Can shape exist without color? Can multiple colors exist without shape?
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 04/07/09 - 11:54 PM:	#17
bert1 wrote: But it is exactly this relating that involves a binding problem. How does the mind do it? Do what? Create a logical relationship? This is nothing more nor less than an association – the brain subconsciously processes data from stimuli based on phenomenal input X (which may be data relating to the colour of an object for example) and also from stimuli based on phenomenal input Y (which may be data relating to the shape of the same object), then some other subconscious part of the brain (metaphorically) says “aha! These two sets of data are from the same object – thus they are logically related/associated” – and all your consciousness is then aware of is that the outputs from these two sets of data are logically intimately associated/related in time and space (but such a logical relation does not require that the two datasets be actually, physically spatio-temporally coincident within your brain). bert1 wrote: OK, I follow you now (I think!) although I'm still not sure if 'illusion' is correct here, but no matter. I use “illusion” to illustrate the fact that your subconscious mind somehow makes your conscious mind believe that when you look at a red tomato, the information derived from the stimulus corresponding to the “red” of the tomato somehow spatio-temporally "coincides" with the information derived from the stimulus corresponding to the “shape” of the tomato somewhere within your brain – that there is a unique place in your brain (the Cartesian Theatre) where the information about “redness” and the “shape” come together at the same time to form an integrated “perceptual unit”. But such a theatre is redundant, it is not necessary. All your subconscious brain needs do is to form a logical relationship between the spatio-temporally separated information corresponding to “redness” and “shape”, and to pass this relational information up to your consciousness – your conscious mind then simply (logically) associates those two sets of information together as one perceptual unit – but no physical theatre is necessary to bring these things together - because there is no homunculus to watch the show. bert1 wrote: I was thinking of the brute facts of phenomenal experience which it makes no sense to call illusory without denying their existence. Illusions are phenomenal experiences, and there is a unification of discrete elements in all experiences, even if it is only in the logical aspect of the experience rather than the physical (if that distinction can be maintained, and I am doubtful of that). I think we may have been initially talking at cross-purposes, I'm not sure. OK, just to clarify – I am not saying that the phenomenal stimuli themselves are illusory – these are very real. What I am saying is illusory is the conscious sense we have that all of the information from a single perceived object (information derived from stimuli corresponding for example to colour, shape, size, etc) somehow physically come together at one time and in one place to “present themselves” for conscious observation as one single perceptual unit. kkiiji wrote: I don't see how else it could "come together" really. Can you even imagine seeing the color and the shape separately somehow? Like dual screen or something? Can shape exist without color? Can multiple colors exist without shape? Nobody is suggesting that shape exists without colour - this is not the point. I can analyse the colour of an object without analysing the shape, and I can analyse the shape without analysing the colour. This is what the subconscious brain does. It then effectively tells your consciousness "this colour infomation over here and that shape information over there are logically associated with the same object that you happen to be looking at" - but the two sets of information do not need to be physically "brought together" at the same time and place (the Cartesian Theatre) - the logical relationship is enough to enable all of the interpretation/analysis/data processing one might wish to do.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 04/08/09 - 12:02 AM:	#18
I suppose I am having a hard time imagining what it would be like if they are not brought together at the same time, or how it is possible. I mean this of course dives into deeper neurological questions that no one is able to answer, such as how exactly brain activity produces such sensual experiences in the first place. Perhaps the color and shape processed in two different areas of the brain are both led to a categorical recognition area as well. I mean I doubt our memories of apples are in the same area as the place that processes color and the place that processes shape. So the two processes end up in a third process that links the two perceptional aspects together with an identity, or an active interpretation by the perceiver. When we perceive something that we have no categorized identity for, the two areas might lead into the recognition center and it goes wtf is that? Thus we also go wtf is that? At the same time it binds the two aspects together through the ATTEMPT of recognition, even though we have never seen it before. Who really knows these things? Aren't neuro-scientists still trying to figure this stuff out as well? I have seen some lectures by Professor Ramachandran of UCSD that depicts this particular process of perception->identification->emotional connection(this is irrelevant for this discussion) though. So this might actually be how it works. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2LwnaUA-k I'm speaking of the part about the Capgras syndrome. Edited by kkiiji on 04/08/09 - 12:25 AM
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 239

Posted 04/08/09 - 01:36 AM:	#19
reincarnated wrote: ...your conscious mind then simply (logically) associates those two sets of information together as one perceptual unit – but no physical theatre is necessary to bring these things together - because there is no homunculus to watch the show. Don't the two bolded bits contradict one another? You're happy to talk of two sets of information being related, and yet still deny any binding takes place. I don't understand. To my mind there is no difference between binding and relating and associating. I don't particularly mind for the purposes of this thread where you want to put the binding, whether it's just in the conscious mind and in a logical (and non spatio-temporal) sense, or whatever. But binding there has to be, somehow. And that deserves explanation. Perhaps we have different concepts of relation. For me, all relations involve a binding problem. It a problem because a relation is both many things and one thing. We don't normally worry about relations because we are so familiar with them. And in normal physical life relations, say, the relationship between two cars parked on the roadside, space does a good job of solving the binding problem. It both separates the cars, and simultaneously provides a habitat for them both. Do you think that, in general, relations involve a binding problem?
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 04/08/09 - 01:55 AM:	#20
bert1 wrote: You're happy to talk of two sets of information being related, and yet still deny any binding takes place. I don't understand. To my mind there is no difference between binding and relating and associating. I am not denying any binding takes place - logical binding takes place. But logical binding of X, Y and Z does not require X, Y and Z to be physically brought together in one place at one time (ie the Cartesian Theatre is not necessary). And logical binding (imho) is not difficult to explain. bert1 wrote: Perhaps we have different concepts of relation. For me, all relations involve a binding problem. It a problem because a relation is both many things and one thing. We don't normally worry about relations because we are so familiar with them. And in normal physical life relations, say, the relationship between two cars parked on the roadside, space does a good job of solving the binding problem. It both separates the cars, and simultaneously provides a habitat for them both. Do you think that, in general, relations involve a binding problem? What problem? I fail to see what the problem is in defining a logical relation between two or more sets of data. Computers (relational databases) do it all the time.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.