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

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 04/08/09 - 03:17 AM:	#21
reincarnated wrote: So when you use the term "fact" (as in post #10 ), exactly what do you mean by this? I meant an accepted scientific fact supported by emperical evidence. Such evidence can either be construed to mean it correlates with the truth or that it is merely useful.

Rilx
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 92

Posted 04/08/09 - 04:42 AM:	#22
bert1 wrote: 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. If you don't mind, bert, I'll explain some aspects. There's no need to create a new physical collection of elements belonging to some perception. The perception triggers processes which spread signals around our brains, searching elements of perception and activating those found. The process loops in the brains as long as we are conscious of the perception. The binding is dynamic, it's created and maintained by the looping signals which keep the associated neurons fired. The process keeps the binding connected.
"In the life, there are no solutions. There are forces in motion. Those need to be created, and solutions follow." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Night Flight

bert1
Graduate

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

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 239

Posted 04/08/09 - 05:15 AM:	#23
reincarnated wrote: I am not denying any binding takes place - logical binding takes place. Ah! OK, thanks, that's made things a bit clearer. reincarnated wrote: 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). OK, I'm not sure I agree on that, but I'll accept it while I try and understand your view. reincarnated wrote: And logical binding (imho) is not difficult to explain. Could you explain it please? If you think you already have, could you quote the bit that you think explains it? reincarnated wrote: 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. OK, we have two sets of data which are, somehow, related. The binding problem is: What relates them? In the case of the computer, your answer is that the computer database relates them. So you have offered a solution to the binding problem in that example. What, in the case of the logical relationships involved in phenomenal experience, relates the elements of the relation? Rilx: I'm still trying to understand your post, I'll reply when I've got a bit more time. Edited by bert1 on 04/08/09 - 10:24 PM
"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 04/09/09 - 07:43 AM:	#24
bert1 wrote: Could you explain it please? If you think you already have, could you quote the bit that you think explains it? Logical binding is simply : I have a set of data A, and I have a set of data B. These two sets of data are logically related, even though they may be separated in space and time. For example, I may have data (1) on the particular shape of a portion at coordinates X,Y of a (perceived) tomato in one folder on my computer, and I may have data (2) on the colour of a portion at coordinates X,Y of a (perceived) tomato in another folder on my computer. If I want to know both the colour of the tomato and the shape of the portion of tomato at coordinates X,Y I do not have to physically bring both sets of data together into the same spatio-temporal location (ie the Cartesian Theatre), instead I can simply do a lookup on the outputs of (1) and (2) (which outputs may be at different times and physical locations) to get my answer. bert1 wrote: OK, we have two sets of data which are, somehow, related. The binding problem is: What relates them? In the case of the computer, your answer is that the computer database relates them. So you have offered a solution to the binding problem in that example. What relates them is simply the information that both sets of data come from the same X,Y coordinate at the same time in the field of view. If I have a set of shape data from coordinate X,Y and a set of colour data from coordinate X,Y, and both have the same “timestamp” on them, then I can logically associate them (even though the exact times that I access the two sets of data within my conscious mind may be different – I don’t need to access both datasets simultaneously). The relationship is created by the neural processes taking place in the brain – the equivalent of the processes taking place in a computer which relates two sets of data from a database. bert1 wrote: What, in the case of the logical relationships involved in phenomenal experience, relates the elements of the relation? The subconscious neural processes that direct our conscious attention. Our subconscious tells our consciousness that when we access dataset 1 (the shape of the tomato at coordinate X,Y) we should associate the output of that dataset with the output of dataset 2 (the colour of the tomato at coordinate X,Y). We do not actually have to make that association in realtime, and we do not have to physically bring the two sets of data together – we simply fool ourselves into thinking that we are making the data association in realtime – and this gives rise to the Cartesian Theatre illusion.
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")

bert1
Graduate

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

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 239

Posted 04/11/09 - 12:41 AM:	#25
reincarnated wrote: Logical binding is simply : I have a set of data A, and I have a set of data B. These two sets of data are logically related, even though they may be separated in space and time. For example, I may have data (1) on the particular shape of a portion at coordinates X,Y of a (perceived) tomato in one folder on my computer, and I may have data (2) on the colour of a portion at coordinates X,Y of a (perceived) tomato in another folder on my computer. If I want to know both the colour of the tomato and the shape of the portion of tomato at coordinates X,Y I do not have to physically bring both sets of data together into the same spatio-temporal location (ie the Cartesian Theatre), instead I can simply do a lookup on the outputs of (1) and (2) (which outputs may be at different times and physical locations) to get my answer. OK, that's clearly put, thanks. reincarnated wrote: (even though the exact times that I access the two sets of data within my conscious mind may be different – I don’t need to access both datasets simultaneously). Does memory play a role here, then? Can you access one dataset, then forget about it, and then access the next dataset, and still construct a phenomenal experience from these two? Or does the first one have to be 'held' in memory while you look up the next one, so that they can be logically related at the same time in order to get the phenomenal experience? reincarnated wrote: The relationship is created by the neural processes taking place in the brain – the equivalent of the processes taking place in a computer which relates two sets of data from a database. OK, but the 'neural processes taking place in the brain' have a spatio-temporal location, at least roughly. They are within the boundary of your skin and take, say, a few seconds (to be generous) or whatever to do their stuff. Don't forget we're talking about what does the logical binding necessary for phenomenal experience which you have previously said does not have a spatio-temporal location. Could you clarify this please? Just to be super-clear: Have there been any phenomenal experiences within the boundary of your skin surface within the last five minutes? reincarnated wrote: The subconscious neural processes that direct our conscious attention. OK, I'm getting confused again now. We have two things in this sentence, the neural processes and our conscious attention. It's the conscious attention bit which, by definition, the phenomenal experience happens in. It has to be the conscious bit in which the logical binding takes place doesn't it? Otherwise we can't achieve a phenomenal experience? Does our 'conscious attention' have a spatio-temporal location? I'm not asking for a place in the brain, just a rough location in, say, a room with a person in it, will do. reincarnated wrote: Our subconscious tells our consciousness that when we access dataset 1 (the shape of the tomato at coordinate X,Y) we should associate the output of that dataset with the output of dataset 2 (the colour of the tomato at coordinate X,Y). We do not actually have to make that association in realtime, and we do not have to physically bring the two sets of data together – we simply fool ourselves into thinking that we are making the data association in realtime – and this gives rise to the Cartesian Theatre illusion. OK, I've let your use of all the bolded words slide for now, just so we don't get bogged down. I'm also aware that if I prohibit the use of these words without definition it will become difficult for you to say anything. Also, you may be using these words metaphorically without the intention of implying a subjective entity to which they refer. So, by 'we' do you mean whatever-it-is-which-binds-the-logical-elements-to-form-a-phenomenal-experi ence? I'm sorry if it seems like I'm asking the same questions over and over! I do appreciate the time you are taking to answer them. I think I have a better chance of understanding you than I do of getting through one of Dennett's books - at least I can ask you questions! Rilx wrote: There's no need to create a new physical collection of elements belonging to some perception. Sorry, I don't understand. Did anyone suggest the creation of a new physical collection of elements? Rilx wrote: The perception triggers processes which spread signals around our brains, Sounds reasonable. Rilx wrote: ...searching elements of perception and activating those found. Not sure what you mean by that. Maybe you mean memories of previous similar experiences. Rilx wrote: The process loops in the brains as long as we are conscious of the perception. OK, sounds plausible. Rilx wrote: The binding is dynamic, it's created and maintained by the looping signals which keep the associated neurons fired. The process keeps the binding connected. OK, but to my mind, a process cannot, of itself, bind anything, because it is distributed and is itself made of separate bits. We can't have a bitty thing relating other bitty things. We have to have a unity in order to relate bitty things. Edited by bert1 on 04/11/09 - 03:30 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

Rilx
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 92

Posted 04/12/09 - 08:29 AM:	#26
bert1 wrote: Rilx wrote: There's no need to create a new physical collection of elements belonging to some perception. Sorry, I don't understand. Did anyone suggest the creation of a new physical collection of elements? Not really, I just emphasized the fact that no binding of perception to any form of "collected image" is necessary. The difficulty is that there is no good metaphor or analogy to explain it. bert1 wrote: Rilx wrote: ...searching elements of perception and activating those found. Not sure what you mean by that. Maybe you mean memories of previous similar experiences. Yes. Everything you recognize and understand must be in your memory, otherwise you wouldn't recognize it. New things always relate to old ones, otherwise they'd exist in another universe than the rest of you. bert1 wrote: Rilx wrote: The binding is dynamic, it's created and maintained by the looping signals which keep the associated neurons fired. The process keeps the binding connected. OK, but to my mind, a process cannot, of itself, bind anything, because it is distributed and is itself made of separate bits. We can't have a bitty thing relating other bitty things. He have to have a unity in order to relate bitty things. The process is the unity of bitty things. It is made of them, so to say. My key point is, that the process doesn't create any kind of unity which could any more be presented to someone/something else. The process is the "final perceiver" in which perceiver and perception unite. I don't know how it works, neither do I know how near of far from truth the final perceiver metaphor is. But logically it must exist, because the only option is the infinite series of perceivers, aka Cartesian homunculi.
"In the life, there are no solutions. There are forces in motion. Those need to be created, and solutions follow." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Night Flight

bert1
Graduate

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

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 239

Posted 04/15/09 - 11:43 AM:	#27
Rilx wrote: The process is the unity of bitty things. It is made of them, so to say. My key point is, that the process doesn't create any kind of unity which could any more be presented to someone/something else. The process is the "final perceiver" in which perceiver and perception unite. I don't know how it works, neither do I know how near of far from truth the final perceiver metaphor is. But logically it must exist, because the only option is the infinite series of perceivers, aka Cartesian homunculi. I completely agree that we must have a final perceiver, although I imagine there are probably philosophers who don't actually believe in a unified self at all. Quite what they think holds their own beliefs, I don't know. For me, there must be some kind of unified subjective consciousness, which I take to be the same concept as your 'final perceiver'. So far I think we agree. Your final perceiver is a process in the nervous system which you take to be a unity which binds its parts, if I understand you correctly. You might be right. I think there are plenty of philosophers who think that such things as processes, (or brains, of bits of brains, or whole bodies, or whatever the particular theory is) are natural unities. Personally, I don't think they are. For me, a natural unity can only be something that is not made of parts, or we just get another binding problem. In physical terms, I can only think of two possibilities: a singularity (a dimensionless point) and space (a continuum). In mental terms, I can only think of one thing that is a natural unity: conciousness. Anything else is made up of smaller bits, and even the smaller bits are made up of smaller bits, and I think it is arbitrary which bundle of bits you draw a line around and call it one thing. For me, calling a process, or a brain, or a body, a unity which enables consciousness, is to assume the thing you are trying to explain. It is consciousness which confers unity on the brain, or a neural process, and not vice versa. If we are to avoid problematic substance dualism, we have to look at our list of physical unities (singularity, space), then look at our list of mental unities (consciousness), and we have to say something from each list is identical with something on the other list. So, could consciousness be a singularity? Not in the sense of a black hole, obviously, or we would all implode. If a geometrical point, well, there's no spot in the brain where all the neurons end up and get smaller and smaller until they disappear into a point. So consciousness can't be a singularity. Could consciousness be space? This is the only alternative possibility according to my lists of mental and physical unities. Space has the advantage of being intimately acquainted with all the processes in the body simultaneously, without actually being strictly identical with any of those processes. This is the holy grail when it comes to figuring out what consciousness is. We want it to be one thing, yet it must also be able to interact intimately with all the processes which we know accompany conscious experience. Space achieves this. Of course, if we say space is sentient, it means that consciousness existed in the universe right from the start. Some people like this idea, others don't.
"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

Mako
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2006
Location: In transit, somewhere in Nanjing

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 314

Posted 10/29/09 - 07:55 AM:	#28
wuliheron wrote: "Another good example is the fact that our senses and even muscles and joints have "minds" of their own." Hmm, if that includes organs, then women have been right about men all along.
"To alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." ~ Homer Simpson

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 562

Posted 10/29/09 - 10:30 AM:	#29
mway wrote: 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.) That is rather wierd, I thought what I call a 'window' was a rectangular-shaped area of my computer screen that I perceive as having separate information from the rest of my screen. Silly mind playing tricks on me. I wish there were more reductionists around to help me with these delusions that I keep having.
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

treemanshope
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 11, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 268

Posted 10/29/09 - 12:27 PM:	#30
The structural elements of the functioning nervous system have not yet been clearly defined. Neurons are the anatomical units of the nervous system but not the structural elements of its functioning, and it will be probably be apparent when they are defined that they must be expressed in terms of invariants of relative activities between neurons, in some manner embodied in the invariants of relations of interconnections and not in terms of separate anatomical entities. The notion of unities are fundamental. Breaking down the machinery and reducing the separating unities and parts is taken for granted as the way to understand consciousness. The idea of inclusive fitness and that we are just a package for the "selfish gene is a failure to recognize the individual as a true ontological unity in evolution. The binding problem is relative to unconscious principles of ordering and traditions of culture, which is part of the overall pattern of the brain. The overall pattern of the brain determines perception and is the main phenomena of perception, not what enters from the medium.
The words of peace are just words, it is man that gives them flesh. Bring peace into the material world. Or, bring something else. treemanshope.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

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