Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

"bugger all" = "not a lot"

Sorry, but I most emphatically do believe it, because it is an inescapable biological fact of life. We imperfectly perceive reality through our senses. We have no other way to do it.It seems to me that "respond" implies an element of choice among possible responses, and attempting to select an optimal response. If someone asks a question we usually try to respond by answering coherently and usefully. The automatic door mechanism has no choice. If it receives the electrical signal, the door opens. I do not think of machines as responding.

There are many responses that life makes that have no choice behind them. Reflexes are one for humans, but if we get down to lower orders of life...do plants have a choice to follow the sun? Do sea slugs have a choice to contract when touched?

Hi Filameter, Why do you suggest that we perceive it imperfectly? - Imperfectly as compared to what exactly? And yet you seem to be comparing it to some other way that is better? Or less imperfect?Are you suggesting that there is a perfect way to perceive reality? If so, how do we know when we get there, and can it be possible that we are there already? - If not, why not? Do you mean like a Cartesian Theater? Where the "self" is viewing the outside world and making choices as to how to respond?If you are suggesting that, which would be the Homunculus arguement, it is a fallacy.

quote:

---

The homunculus argument is a fallacy arising most commonly in the theory of vision. One may explain (human) vision by noting that light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something (or some'one') in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie screen (this theory of vision is sometimes termed the theory of the Cartesian Theater: it is most associated, nowadays, with the psychologist David Marr). The question arises as to the nature of this internal viewer. The assumption here is that there is a 'little man' or 'homunculus' inside the brain 'looking at' the movie.

---

If you are not implying that, then can you explain what you mean? How exactly are you suggesting that this is done?- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

To a certain degree, yes. If the plant is overheating from absorbing too much sun, some plants have the option of letting their leaves hang more vertically, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight aborbed, and heat which must be dissipated by evaporation of water. This typicaly results in a midday dip in photosynthetic rate. If the level of sunlight is persistently lower than what the plant can use for photosynthesis,and leaf position with respect to sunlight has been optimized, plants make more chlorophyll in the leaves, becoming noticeably darker green, thereby increasing the efficiency with which sunlight is trapped. Also, as plants grow, they tend to grow about 3 layers of leaves, because that is usually sufficient to trap almost all of the available sunlight. If the water supply of the plant is insufficient to meet its needs for evaporative cooling, it will shut its stomates, thereby depriving itself of carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, and causing the leaves to heat up unless the plant reduces the orientation of the leaves toward sunlight. Bottom line: a plant's response to sunlight is modulated by several interacting environmental factors.

Our eyes, for instance, generate imperfect images, and the imperfections vary among individuals. People who need glasses see things differently than people who do not. Color blind people also see things differently. A generalized imperfection: only the very center of the retina, in the part called the macula and its center, the fovea, are equipped to distinguish colors and detail, but only in relatively bright light. The periphery of the retina is much more sensitive to light and provides our night vision, especially of movement, but without color or detail. Also, our sinsitivity to light wavelengths is limited to between about 400 and 700 nm, while spectroscopic instruments tell us that reality has electromagnetic radiation at many other wavelengths.
Our hearing system only detects sounds in the 20 - 20,000 cps range. Our sense of smell is vastly inferior to that of dogs. Our sense of gravity is easily disturbed by rapid spinning.Also, every perception of reality occurs a few milliseconds after the event. We have imperfect, time-delayed (for processing) perception rather than real time, direct, completely accurate, perception of reality. If we had to make decisions in microseconds or less time in order to function and survive, we would be in big trouble. We expand our detection of aspects of reality by designing and building instruments. Examples: micrscope, telescope, mass spectrometer, Mars rovers, etc. No Hadn't heard of Cartesian theater No, I do not imagine a homonculus watching a movie in my head, or anyone else's.My hope is that one day, researchers will figure out how memories are stored, retrieved and interpreted in our minds.

But now I can't follow your logic. If you say there is no perfect way to perceive reality, then there is also no imperfect way, either. The way you perceive it is just that, the way you perceive it.The way we perceive reality is how we evolved to perceive it. It has proven to be perfect for our survival as a species.So this: ...is just explaining our limited evolution based on a comparatively better possibility. But in no way is this a goal for humans to evolve to that in some way betters our perception of reality.Again, the way we perceive reality is perfect, because that is how we evolved to perceive it. First, that is not true (bellow I provide a link to the Color-Phi phenomenon). And I'll ask you to reference something to support your assumption. That certain areas of your brain have not received the information making you conscious of it, is another arguement. But that perceiving reality happens milliseconds after the event, from what I've studied, is not true. But I'll be convinced otherwise if you can provide some evidence to support it.However...lets say it was true.Then wouldn't that just be reality? When you perceive it.Have you seen the movie Spinal Tap? - "This knob goes to 11"..."well, why don't you just make that the highest volume and call it 10?" That's just the point though isn't it? If we did, if that was part of our reality, then our survival would have required it and we would have evolved the ability to do so. Given that we don't go extinct. We don't have wings either. If we required to fly for our survival we'd be in "big trouble." We don't, so we don't have wings.There are lots of conditions that if changed would end the human race. But the point of adaptation is that you adapt to only that which is required of you to adapt to, and nothing more. Since these things are a by-product of us, they are a by-product of biological evolution by way of ingenuity. They are as much a part of us as our eyes, glasses for those who need it and a cain for the blind. These things are not better in and of themselves, they are better for us. Without us these things are worthless. It's Dan Dennetts coined term. It was known as Cartesian materialism.And it addresses this position of yours: From the link:

quote:

---

In its simplest version, Cartesian materialism might predict, for example, that there is a specific place in the brain which would store a coherent representation of everything we are consciously experiencing in a given moment: what we're seeing, what we're hearing, what we're smelling, and indeed, everything that we are consciously aware of. In essence, Cartesian materialism claims that, somewhere in our brain, there is a place (or set of places) where a hypothetical outside observer could 'look in' and essentially 'see' the content of conscious experience moment by moment. In contrast, anything occurring outside of this "privileged neural media" is nonconscious.

---

The homunculus is hypothetical. What it means is that if this place exists where the information is stored then hypothetically a homunculous could watch it like a theater - hence the term Cartesian theater.However the problem with that is as follows:

quote:

---

One argument against Cartesian materialism is that most neuroscientists have discounted the idea of a single brain area where all information "comes together". Instead, information seemed to be stored and processed in a variety of disparate neural structures. For example, once information from the eyes reaches the visual cortex, it is analyzed by a variety of overlapping feature maps, each detecting a particular aspect, but a central location where this information is merged back together to re-represent it has not been found.

---

And the major problem is experimental - the Color-Phi phenomenon. And this experiment also disproves your assumption that we perceive reality milliseconds after the event (unless you can provide evidence to support that).

quote:

---

Another argument against Cartesian materialism is inspired by the results of several scientific experiments in the fields of psychology and neuroscience. In experiments that demonstrate the Color Phi phenomenon and the metacontrast effect, two stimuli are rapidly flashed on a screen, one after the other. Amazingly, the second stimulus can, in some cases, actually affect the perception of the first stimulus. In other experiments conducted by Benjamin Libet, two electrical stimulations are delivered, one after another, to a conscious subject. Under some conditions, subjects report having felt the second stimulation before they felt the first stimulation.

​

These experiments call into question the idea that brain states are directly translatable into the contents of Consciousness. How can the second stimuli be 'projected backwards in time', such that it can affect the perception of things that occurred before the second stimulus was even administered?

---

And finally Dan Dennetts conclusion of the arguement:

quote:

---

Dennett's argument has the following basic structure:

• 1. If Cartesian materialism were true and there really was a special brain area (or areas) that stored the contents of conscious experience, then it should be possible to ascertain exactly when something enters conscious experience.
• 2. It is impossible, even in theory, to ever precisely determine when something enters conscious experience.
• 3. Therefore, Cartesian materialism is false.

---

I think you may be hoping for something that just doesn't exist.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Would you agree that there are differences between how different people perceive reality ? Would you agree that instruments enable us to obtain knowledge about parts of reality which we cannot perceive with our unaided senses ? If you agree that individuaols perceive reality differently, and that all individuals fail to perceive many aspects of reality because of limitations of our senses, then I do not see how you can fail to understand that human perception of reality is incomplete and inaccurate, i.e. imperfect.If you believe human perception of reality is perfect, am I correct in assuming that you also would assert that every other quality of humans is perfect ?

Neural conduction velocities vary greatly, from less than 1 m/sec to up to about 120 m/sec. Assuming an average neuronal path of 1 m, it would take a single spike potential on average 8 - 1000 msec to traverse a 1 m neuronal path, not counting delays at synapses resulting from chemical transmission signal across each synapse. My assertion is correct that there is typically a delay of a few millisec between a real event and its perception in a human brain.Human vision typically does not detect discrete sequential events occurring at 30 - 50 millisec intervals. That is the basis of the illusion of smooth movement when we view a movie on a screen or a monitor. Individual frames of the image are not distinguished because the vision system needs more than ~30 millisec to discern a change in the reality it is perceiving.

Sorry, I should have been clearer: it was not your claim of imperfect perception that I'm objecting to but your assertion that "[e]very concept we have is projected by us". This is clearly untrue; and you don't believe it to be true, either. Otherwise you could not argue with me about the nature of reality. I maintain there is a real world, which has real properties and can be naturally grouped in meaningful way - it is, of course, only imperfectly accessible to us; but it is real. The ability to produce differing responses is not a necessary part of a response. To give some biological examples: your leg will respond with a kick if you're tapped with a hammer just below the knee. A neuron given a correct stimulus will always respond with an action potential. A nicotonic ion channel will respond by opening when it binds to a molecule of acetylcholine. Stereotyped responses litter the living world, and among the simplest of organisms there is no learning and no choice.Leaving that aside, it's still simple enough to find examples of machines that choose from available responses - fire up pretty much any computer game and watch the AI - pick up an expensive washing machine and you'll find it uses adaptive fuzzy logic to alter the wash cycle to how much you've put in and how dirty it is. Modern cars adapt their engine management to the fuel you're using and your driving style.I chose the example of the automatic door because it's simple and directly comparable to simple organic responses.

I know I stated that I would stick to the subject matter yesterday. I lied. There is some unfinished business from yesterday that I wish to address. I just wasted my time going through hundreds of pages looking for a statement like that from Behe. I should have known better. Oh yes, I could have gone there as well.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : html

But are those choices or just more reactions to stimuli without the benefit of choice. For example, if a plant is overheating, can it decide "Screw it, I want to be hot!" and keep it's leaves horizontal and continue to receive all the sunlight available? I wouldn't think so. The plant simply reacts to stimuli like a computer reacts when an input is performed.When a doctor hammers on your knee and you get that reflex reaction to kick, can you decide not to kick just to mess with the doctor? If so, that's a very neat trick you have there.Response implies nothing about intent or decision, it mearely means a reaction caused by a stimulus.

I disagree. They can be completely finished designs. Finished meaning meeting the requirements.It's impossible to know what to expect of a designer - anything is possible. This is why ID is unscientific. Agree, a modular design is easier to improve. But your second point is not true, the main reason being that a modular design can be designed, built and tested in independent chunks, once the interactions between the chunks are agreed. It's also much easier to understand for the people involved as it's easy to see the architecture of the whole solution in terms of the chunks. In practice, software is written with an even higher degree of modularity than that, so that someone who wants to understand the software in detail can do so. That is one of the main reasons, but equally important is delivering a high quality solution in the first place. I don't think the kind of programmers you are talking about exist - even if they did, the users never specify their requirements correctly anyway, so there are always changes, during the initial testing of the app or later. Modularising actually helps programmers while they are developing the code too. Hard coding is definitely faster as you say and sometimes things are hard coded for performance reasons.

Yes. But I would also add that there is a difference between how all species perceive reality. Within the individual species it varies as well. To "obtain knowledge" about certain aspects of reality, yes.But the reason we perceive reality is for the purpose of survival. Since we have survived as a species for millions of years then it follows that the way we perceive reality is perfect for that purpose. Because if it was incomplete or inaccurate then as a species, we would not have survived. The way we perceive reality is complete and accurate to serve the purpose it evolved for.And it's because of the way that we perceive reality that we are able to be aware of so much about our environment. Our highly intelligent brains exist because of our sensory functions and their ability to perceive reality so well.Can it be better? Well that depends. Better for what? First, I'm not saying that we perceive reality perfectly compared to (X). I'm saying we perceive it perfectly for the purpose of survival. There is no perfect way to perceive reality and there is no imperfect way, either. You either survive as a species the way you perceive reality, or you don't. Imperfections are removed during evolvement.That's why I asked you, imperfect as compared to what?- Oni

There is a delay, yes. But not in perception, the delay is between the event and you becoming conscious of it.Your senses begin to perceive it instantaniously, the moment it happens. There is no time delay in reality, there is just a time delay in us becoming conscious of reality.There is such a thing as non-conscious perception. You are talking about conscious awareness of changes in reality.If I put my hand on a table, even though I may not know it's a table for a short millisec, my senses still began to perceive it the moment I touched it.There is a difference between perceiving something and consciously perceiving something.Also, the Color Phi Phenomenon presents a problem for your assertion.

quote:

---

The existence of the color phi phenomenon poses an interesting philosophical problem. When asked to describe their experience, subjects report seeing the abrupt color change before the second dot is actually presented.

​

However, logically, it is impossible for a subject to actually experience the color change before the second dot has been presented — how could the dot change color before the second dot is shown and the subject finds out what the color of the second dot is going to be?

---

So how would you explain it? How could the subjects report seeing the change before the color is actually shown?- Oni