From: thomas@ckgp.UUCP (Mike Thomas)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Non-Dimensional Space (RE: Simulated Brain)
Keywords: AI, Mind, Brain, Cool Stuff
Date: 14 Nov 92 00:00:10 GMT

      Since I was the original poster I thought that I should (or atleast
I wanted to?) respond...

>In article <Hy3XTB5w165w@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz> system@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall) writes:
>>max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
>>
>>> 
>>> Close one eye. Now open it and close the other.
>>> See the parallax shift? Think you would miss that happening over and over?
>>> I don't think so. The point is that awareness has been split, and what
>>> is on one side of the divide is prevented from crossing over. Period.
>>> 
>>Not that I wish to imply that I agree or disagree with anyone, but I 
>>would like to say that the above argument, IMO, is false.
>>If the mind pearl leaping across, isn't carrying the memories, or 
>>histories of perception from one side to the other with its jump, AND 
>>if the two sides of the brain aren't communicating, then I don't see 
>>that the mind pearl would be aware of any parallax change. Change means 
>>being able to compare before and after.
>If you reread the original article with more care, you will discover
>that the original poster claimed that the 'mindpearl' didn't notice
>any change, _because_ both eyes were looking at the book, and supposedly
>recieving the same data. This is only relevant if the mind pearl _can_
>carry information.

   Actually, you are in some sense, both right. It is just what you are 
right about which is confusing. We all know that each hemisphere has
specialized tasks. I am assuming, in the example of reading a book, that
the Domain/Model of the world created by the brain is preceived differently
by the Mind Pearl. Please let me explain.
   Basically, the mind pearl and the mind are the same thing ("stuff").
Now realize that the mind doesn't know anything about anything on its own,
but with the help of the brain, it receives information which directs the
mind/mind pearl into what it wants. so, the world around you is modeled with
the mind. In doing this the mind, which was just a mind pearl before is
now a model of the world, so the item which was longing to think/do/act/be is
nolonger present, so what does the mind do? It puts itself in the model
(I call it the Item's Object) as the Mind Pearl. In other words the mind
models its raw state (or rather the mind pearl) in itself. Why all the 
trouble? 
   Think of it like this. There is a void where nothing exists except a
ball of clay. The ball of clay wants something say a girl named Sue. So
the ball of clay looks out into the void and can see nothing! It moves
100 meter north by north east and finds nothing. So, the Ball of clay, having
all of the information about what it wants about Sue, makes a domain (a
model) of the place where sue is (or was) and puts sue in that domain. Here
is the point. Now the ball of clay has what it wants -- Sue -- but the ball
of clay is not there just Sue in the domain. So the Ball of clay adds itself
to the domain as the mind pearl (or item's object) so now the ball of clay
has what it wants.
   All I am saying is that the mind does not know what it wants, but the brain
tells it something, the world around you. You memory of places works in this
way also... The mind controlling the brain to recall information... This mind
pearl is also the reason why dispite the visual and other senses are actually
happening within your brain, you perceive or think, that they are around you.
   But, here is the paradox in all of this... I guess I should prepend this
with a brief comment... some of you might find a simalarity of this with
the universe and the big bang? In one sense the universe is exactly the same
as it has always been a ball of clay (or matter, you see it is both infinite
and finite because the only thing that the universe can compare itself to
is nothing, in other words looking out at the void...(you wouldn't look out
from the center of yourself but from the edge so even though the edge moves
the universe doesn't nothing a change. YET, if it were to look inward it can
see the parts of itself. Here is the point: The same is true of the mind.
Without putting itself in the domain it would not notice the change. The
part of teh paradox I can explain with that brief explination is that the
only way the Mind (or universe) can perceive itself is by looking inward
and the only way to look inward is to put itself in the domain... (next point)
I believe this is why people describe themselves/and things generally by
their or the object's function... (I am an author, a table is ...) because
the mind which performs the cognition of the information is modeling the
things (and you) with the bulk of the work load being handling the action/
function in the domain. 
   Oh, another side note: I am sure there are a few people out their wondering
why we have to go through all of this anyway? The answer is found in what
exactly the function of the Mind would be, not just for humans but all
mammuals. So, the answer becomes: Insight, Hindsight, and Foresight. If you
have an AI or model for an AI which does not at some point focus on these
Big Three then you will run into trouble. Also for the people who feel
strongly about emotion playing a strong role in a "complete" AI, I do also
and this model supports it as well... but that can be explained at great
length later.
   This is just a vague discription of something I call Non-dimensional space.
The mind is a non-dimensional space. The universe is a non-dimensional space.
Some people might say that god is a non-dimensional space (an intresting
concept, where god is everything and creates a domain with us as objects and
perceives himself through creating this domain -- this universe...) I have 
a better discription on NDS, just not on this system, I will try to remember 
to bring it, if anyone is intrested. It is an intresting way to look at the 
mind to say the least, and answers alot of the un-answered questions about 
what is going instead a mammuals head.

   Back to the point of this message though, in the the example of reading a 
book when your Corpus Callosum has been cut... each hemisphere creates a
seperate domain because the Mind pearl moves to a hemisphere that has 
information for the domain, the Mind pearl will perceive itself (in the domain)
based on the information it receives to create that domain. So the point
is this, if in the left hemisphere the domain which is created is a specialized
domain, a domain for language...

   side note: Think about when you read a story... you have an exteroceptive
domain (ED) which holds the words on the page and the surrounding book and 
you, etc.  But you also have a domain inwhich you model the world of the 
story... how many of use were wondering the streets of New York with 
Holden Cayfield (sp?) in the "Catcher in the Rye" (the story domain is 
the active domain (AD))

...if in the left hemisphere the domain which is created is a specialized
domain, a domain for language and language understanding then when the Mind
Pearl is in this hemishpere the mind will perceive itself both as a person
reading a book one moment and the main character in the story the next...
(I believe they call this "being lost in a good book") But the person with
split brain has the word ED which is reading the page and the story AD which
contains the storywhich is reading the page and the story AD which
contains the story. This is not to say that the person is in a constant state
of being lost in the story. The switch between hemishperes is instant (there
is no dimensions so there is no time involve). The person requests the page
to be turned... the mind pearl becomes the new domain in the right hemishpere
the spacial repersentaion of the world (or atleast that is more the focus of
this domain) But the information of the left domain is lost and several
pages are turned. So Max, is correct that the eyes and the brain receive
the same information, what the brain does to that information to prepare it for
the Mind pearl is different. Wanye is correct that the information does
not cross to the other domain so the symbolic counting left mind can not
tell the spacial turn the page right mind how many pages to turn. So the person
ends up turning the page with the left hand in a not so effiecent fashion...
in other words the Active domain (AD) of the left brain must be changed to 
represent the physical world (in a not so effiecent fashion) to turn the
page...

   I am sure someone is wondering why this doesn't happen to us? well there are
a few reasons, one is that since the two hemishperes are connected they
can create one domain, the second is that since the move from one domain
to another is instant we are not bothered by it as much as someone in this 
condition, now there is the virtual domain... (memory) which can hold the
symbolic information or the information to tell the brain so that the brain
performs the function so many times (turn page once) but the information can
not traverse the hemishperes..., finally (amoung other reasons...) Perhaps
this does happen to us and we just don't know it because the information is
passed about the count of pages to turn. The point is that the side of the
brain which thinks with language is not performing the task so the mind we
think with (atleast with language) is not experiencing that agony that a 
person with split-brain does when having to constantly stop reading and turn
the page with the same hand .... 

----

   I guess that is all... if anyone would like a copy of the more specific
document about non-dimensional space and the mind as a non-dimensional space
please e-mail me and I will send you a copy of it... if enough people reply
I will post a copy to the net... (it is not as "rabbled" as my mail
messages)

================================================================================
Thank you,            ||  "Sol est invisiblis in hominibus, in terra vero
Michael Thomas        ||   visibilis, tamen ex uno et eodem sole sunt ambo"
(..uunet!ckgp!thomas) ||                    -- Theatrum Chemicum (Ursel, 1602)
================================================================================