FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
The following are
a small sample of questions, asked and answered. I actually lost most of
my saved Netscape, ©, correspondence to the “Blaster Virus”, so I have very
limited resources for this task. I hope the following might be of help to
you, and I would welcome any decently phrased questions and do my best to
answer them. Please remember to set the subject line of your
correspondence to refer to my web page, (e.g. “RE WEBPAGE” so as not to have
your letter deleted, unread, as spam. I will protect the identities of my
correspondents unless they request otherwise.
(Note: I just located a printed version of my
initial submission correspondence with the Journal of Consciousness
Studies. It was turned down by Anthony
Freeman, (editor), after about 5 interchanges, but I think his early comments
are suggestive and actually represent my further experience with JCS in
subsequent submissions, (lost to Blaster Virus). No matter which particular “slice” of my
thesis I tried to present, (necessary because of the size limitations inherent
in such a journal), I was usually given a backhanded compliment on what seemed
obvious to the reviewers, but then was totally chastised for not answering the
other huge aspects of the problem. This
happened again and again –over the course of about 5 different article
submissions. It illustrated the problem,
(as Anthony Freeman initially saw clearly), of trying to compress a book into a
free-standing, limited journal article.
I will copy my scanner converted copies of that initial correspondence
immediately below. I think it is
relevant and instructive. It is causing
me to reorient my thinking and try it his way.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MOST OF THE
ORIGINAL ANTHONY FREEMAN, (JCS), CORRESPONDENCE –SCANNED FROM SAVED PRINTED
EMAIL
NOTE: THERE IS
MUCH MORE CORRESPONDENCE –THIS ONE RELATES ONLY TO THE FIRST SUBMISSION. –LOST TO BLASTER VIRUS –WILL TRY TO RECOVER!!
From jshear@cabell.vcu.eduThu Jul 4
Date:
From: Jonathan
Shear <jshear@cabell.vcu.edu>
To: Jerry
Iglowitz <jerryi@foothill.net>
Subject: Re: An
inquiry
Dear Jerry
Iglowitz,
I have passed
your interesting manuscript on to Anthony Freeman --Managing Editor, who for
now is handling all non-"hard problem" submissions.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Shear
Managing Editor, JCS
PS. For future emailings
to me, the following address will be by far the most efficient: jcs@richmond.infi.net
FROM FREEMAN
BELOW:
FREEMAN 1
From anthony@imprint.zynet.co.ukMon Jul 22
Jonathan shear
<jcs@richmond.infi.net> Subject: Re: A request
Dear Jerry
Iglowitz,
I write in
response to your recent message.
In message
<Pine.BSD/.3.91.960720182907.18707C-100000@nsl.foothill.net>, Jerry
Iglowitz <jerryi@foothi11.net>
writes
>Dr. Shear informed
me that he had
>forwarded
my MS to you because you handle all the "non-'hard >problem'
submissions" for the Journal of Consciousness Studies.
>
> If you have had a chance to look at it, you
will have seen that
>my
submission constitutes a precis of exactly that: a tenative
>solution of
the mind-body problem.
>
The papers
which Dr Shear is handling are those which are specific responses to Dave
Chalmers keynote 'hard problem' paper. There are obviously many papers which
are concerned with mind-body problem but are not part of that symposium. Your
submission is one such,
and has quite
properly been forwarded to me.
>
>
>P.S. Did you receive the comments on my thesis by
Dr. Walter
>Freeman,
(UC/Berkeley), which I sent to Dr. Shear?
Yes, thank you.
Now I turn to
your submission itself.
We have had a
number of people send us papers which are closely related to forthcoming books
or other much longer MSS, either in the form of an opening chapter, or an
introduction, or a summary. There is an obvious attraction to an author in
having a book "trailed" by means of such an article, but our experience has been that
these submissions simply do not "work" as papers for the Journal of
Consciousness Studies. Much time has been wasted by authors and editors alike,
trying to make a submission fit a format which is not appropriate. I fear that
your own example would become another of these.
As you yourself say, it *is* a very complicated thesis. If
we were to send the segment of chapter one and the abstract which you have sent
us out to referees, a host of questions would be raised by them which you would
only be able to answer by reference to other parts of the book. This is not satisfactory from anyone's point
of view.
My advice would be to get straight on and publish your
book. If, however, you do wish to submit an article to JCS, then it needs to be
a free-standing, fully referenced paper in its own right, quite separate from
your larger publication.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony Freeman.
Anthony Freeman (
Studies)
Imprint
Academic,
Tel. +44 (0)1392 841600
Fax. +44 (0)1392 841478
Emai1: anthony@imprint.co.uk
FREEMAN 2
Dear Dr.
Freeman,
I have read
your response and see your point. I am including below what I believe is a
free-standing article based on the fragment I sent you and deleting all
reference to my MS. I think it addresses a major element of the question of
mind and does not cite nor require my book in any way.
Would it work
this way as an article, do you think? Jerry Iglowitz
A
NON-REPRESENTATIVE MODEL **************************
Jerome Iglowitz
jerryi@foothi11.net
Humberto Maturana
and Francisco Varela's "The Tree of Knowledge", (1987), is a detailed
and compelling argument, based in the very foundations of physical science and
biology, against even the _possibility_ of a biological organism's possession
of a representative model of its environment.
(cf Freeman, 1995). These respected biologists argue, moreover, against
"information" itself. They
maintain that information _never_passes_ between the
environment and organisms; there is only the "triggering" of
structurally determinate organic forms.
I believe that theirs is the inescapable conclusion of current science.
The present
paper is not intended to establish that conclusion, however. It is not primarily argumentative, but
constructive. It presents a specific and
constructive counterproposal for _another_ model, ("the schematic
operative model"), which, contrary to the case of the representative
model, _does_ remain viable within the critical context of modern science. I believe that we as human organisms do, in
fact, embody a model. I believe it is
the stuff of mind!
THE SCHEMATIC
MODEL, (what is an "object"?):
1.
_Representative_ models are not the only possible kinds of models. Nor is
representation a model's only conceivable use. Consider the models of our
mundane training seminars, for instance. "'Motivation' plus 'technique'
yields 'sales'.", we might hear at a sales meeting. Or,
"'Self-awareness of the masses' informed by 'Marxist-dialectic' produces
'revolution'!", we might hear from our local revolutionary. Visual aids,
(models), are ever present. The lecturer stands at a chalkboard and asks us to
accept drawings of triangles, squares, cookies, horseshoes... _as__objects_ -with a calculus of relations between them- as
standins for concepts or processes like "motivation",
"the nuclear threat", "sexuality",
"productivity", and "evolution". In these representations,
the objects do not stand in place of _entities_ in objective reality, however.
(What _is_ “a productivity" or “a sexuality", for instance?) The
function of the objects, _as_objects_, in these
"schematic models" is, rather, specifically to illustrate, to enable,to_crystallize_and_simplify_ the_very_calculus_
_of_relation_proposed _between_them_!
(cf Cassirer, 1953).
The objects are
an expression of the calculus, not the converse. The objects of these models
serve to organize process, (analysis or response); they are _not_
representations of actual objects or actual entities in reality. _These_
objects functionally bridge reality in a way that physical objects do not. They
are, in fact, metaphors. The rationale for using them, (as any good
"seminarian" would tell you), is clarity, organization and
efficiency.
2.
Instrumentation and control systems provide another example of the
non-representational use of models and "entities". Their objects need not mirror objective
reality either. A gauge, a readout
display, a control device, (the "objects" of such systems), need not
mimic a single parameter -or an actual physical entity. Indeed, in the monitoring of a _complex_ or
_critical_ process, it should not.
Rather, the readout, for instance, should represent an efficacious
synthesis of _just_those_aspects_ of the process
which are relevant to response, and be crystallized around those relevant
responses! A warning light or a status
indicator, for instance, need not refer to just one parameter. It may refer to electrical overload and/or
excessive pressure and/or... Or it may
refer to an optimal relationship, (perhaps a _complexly_ _functional_
relationship), between many parameters -to a relationship between temperature,
volume, mass, etc. in a chemical process, for instance.
The exactly
parallel case holds for its control devices.
A single control may orchestrate a multiplicity of (possibly disjoint)
objective responses. The accelerator
pedal in a modern automobile, as a simple example, may integrate fuel injection
volumes, spark timing, transmission gearing...
(Ideally
instrumentation and control would unify in the _same_ "object". We would manipulate "the object" of
the display itself and_it_ would be the control
device. Think about this in relation to
our ordinary "objects of perception" -in relation to the
sensory-motor coordination of the brain and the problem of naive realism!)
3. A "war
room", (a high-tech military command center resembling a computer game),
is a viable, though primitive, example of such a usage. It is specifically a schematic model,
expressly designed for maximized response.
The all-weather landing display in a jetliner supplies another example.
4. The
"object" in the graphic user interface, (GUI), of a computer is
perhaps the best example available. In
my simplistic manipulation of the schematic objects of a computer's GUI, I am,
in fact, effecting and coordinating quite diverse and disparate -and
unbelievably complex- operations at the physical level of the computer,
operations impossible, (in a practical sense), to accomplish directly. What that object represents and what its
manipulation does, at the physical level, can be exceedingly complex and
disjoint. The disparate voltages and
physical locations, (or operations), represented by a single
"object", and the (possibly different) ones effected by manipulating
it, correlate to "an object" only in this "schematic"
sense. _Its_efficacy_lies_in_the_simplicity_of_the_
_"calculus"_it_enables_!
5. Consider,
finally, a formal and abstract problem.
Consider the problem of designing instrumentation for the efficient
control of _both_ especially complex _and_ especially dangerous processes. In the general case, what kind of information
would you want to pass along and how would you best represent it? How would you
design your display and control system?
It would be
impossible, obviously, to represent _all_ information about the objective physical
reality of a, (any), process or its physical components, (objects). Where would you stop? Is the color of the
building in which it is housed, the specific materials of which it is
fabricated, that it is effected with gears rather than levers, -or its location
in the galaxy-necessarily relevant information?
(Contrarily, even its designer/s middle name might be relevant if it
involved a computer program and you were considering the possibility of a
hacker's "back door"!) It
would be counterproductive even if you could as relevant data would be obscured
and the "calculus" would be too complex and inefficient for rapid and
effective response. Even the use of
realistic _abstractions_ could produce enormous difficulties in that you might
be interested in many differing, (and, typically, conflicting), significant
abstractions and/or their interrelations.
This would produce severe difficulties in generating an intuitive and
efficient "calculus" geared towards maximal response.
For such a
complex and dangerous process, the "entities" you create must, (1)
necessarily, of course, be viable in relation to both data and control -i.e.
they must be comprehensive in their function.
But they would also, (2) need to be constructed with a primary intent
towards efficiency of response, (rather than realism), as well -the process
_is_, by stipulation, dangerous! They would need to be fashioned to optimize
the "calculus" while still fulfilling their (perhaps consequently
distributed!) operative role.
Your
"entities" would need to be fabricated in such a way as to
intrinsically define a _simple_ operative calculus of relationality between
them -analogous to the situation in our training seminar. Maximal efficiency, (and safety), therefore,
would demand crystallization into schematic _virtual_ "entities"
which would
resolve both demands at a single stroke.
Your objects would then distribute function so as to concentrate and
simplify control, (operation)! These
virtual entities would be in no necessarily simple (or hierarchical -i.e. via
abstraction) correlation with the objects of physical reality. But they _would_ allow rapid and effective
control of a process which, considered objectively, might not be simple at all. It is clearly the optimization of the process
of response that is crucial here, not literal representation. We do not _care_ that the operator knows what
function(s) he is actually fulfilling, only that he does it (them) well!
6. Biological
survival is exactly such a problem -it is both especially complex _and_
especially dangerous. It is a moment by
moment confrontation with disaster. It
is a schematic model in just this sense that I propose that evolution
constructed, and I propose that it is the basis for both the
"percept" and the "mind".
But it is just the _converse_ of the argument made above that I propose
for evolution. It is not the
_distribution_ of function, but rather the _centralization_ of disparate atomic
biological function into efficacious schematic -and virtual-objects that
evolution effected while compositing the complex metacellular organism. (These are clearly just the complementary
perspectives on the same issue.)
But let's talk
about the "atomic" in the "atomic biological function" of
the previous statement. There is another
step in the argument, to be taken at the level of biology. The "engineering" argument, as made
above, deals specifically with the schematic manipulation of
"data". At the level of
primitive evolution, however, it is modular (reactive) process that is significant
to an organism, not data functions. A
given genetic accident corresponds to the addition or modification of a given
(behavioral/reactive) process which, for a primitive organism, is clearly
simply either beneficial or not. But
that process is itself informationally indeterminate to the organism -i.e. it
is a modular whole. No one can presume
that a particular, genetically determined response is informationally, (rather
than reactively), significant to a Paramecium or an Eschericia coli, for
example, (though _we_ may consider it so).
It is significant, rather, solely as a modular unit which either
increases survivability or not. Let me
therefore extend the prior argument to deal with the schematic organization of
atomic, (modular), process, rather than of primitive, (i.e. absolute),
data. It is my contention that the
cognitive model, and cognition itself, is solely constituted as an organization
of that atomic modular process, designed for computational and operational
efficiency. The atomic processes themselves remain, and will forever remain,
informationally indeterminate to the organism.
The purpose of
the model was computational simplicity!
The calculational simplicity of the schematic object for dealing with a multifarious
environment constitutes a clear and powerful evolutionary rationale. Such a model, (the "objects" and
their "calculus"), allows rapid and efficient response to what cannot
be assumed, a priori, to be a simplistic environment. From the viewpoint of the sixty trillion or
so cells that constitute the human cooperative enterprise, _that_ assumption,
(environmental simplicity), is implausible in the extreme!
But theirs,
(i.e. _that_ perspective), is the most natural perspective from which to consider
the problem. For five-sixths of
evolutionary history, (three billion years), it was the one-celled organism
which ruled alone. As Stephen Gould puts
it, metacellular organisms represent only occasional and instable spikes from
the stable "left wall", (the unicellulars), of evolutionary history.
"Progress
does not rule, (and is not even a primary thrust of) the evolutionary
process. For reasons of chemistry and
physics, life arises next to the 'left wall' of its simplest conceivable and
preservable complexity. This style of
life (bacterial) has remained most common and most successful. A few creatures occasionally move to the
right... "
"Therefore,
to understand the events and generalities of life's pathway, we must go beyond
principles of evolutionary theory to a paleontological examination of the
contingent pattern of life's history on our planet. ...Such a view of life's
history is highly contrary both to conventional deterministic models of Western
science and to the deepest social traditions and psychological hopes of Western
culture for a history culminating in humans as life's highest expression and
intended planetary steward."(Gould, 1994)
RETRODICTION:
Do you not find
it strange that the fundamental laws of the sciences, (or of logic), are _so_few_? Or that our (purportedly) accidentally and
evolutionarily acquired logic works _so_well_ to
manipulate the objects of our environment? From the standpoint of contemporary
science, this is a subject of wonder -or at least it _should_ be. (cf contra: Minsky,
1985) It is, in fact, a miracle! From the standpoint of the schematic model,
however, it is a trivial, (obvious),
and necessary consequence. _It_is_precisely_the_rationale_for_the_model_itself!
Evolution, in constructing
a metacellular organism such »as ours, was confronted with the problem of
coordinating the physical structure of its thousands of billions of individual
cells. It also faced the problem of
coordinating the response of this colossus, this "Aunt Hillary",
(Hofstadter's "sentient” ant
colony . Hofstadter,
1979). It had to coordinate
their functional interaction with their environment, raising an organizational
problem of profound proportions.
Evolution was
forced to deal with exactly the problem/outline above. The brain, moreover, is universally accepted
as/an evolutionary organ of response. I
propose that a schematic entity, (and its corresponding schematic model), is by
far the most credible here -to efficiently orchestrate t coordination of the
ten million sensory neurons with/ the one million motor neurons, (Maturana and
Varela, 1987 )/ A realistic, (i.e. representational/informational),
"entity" would demand a concomitant "calculus" embodying
the very complexity of the objective reality in which the organism exists, and
this, I argue, is overwhelmingly implausible.
REFERENCES :
1. Cassirer,
Ernst. "The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms". (Translation by Ralph
Manheim) .
2. Freeman,
Walter. "Societies of Brains".
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 1995
3. Gould,
Stephen Jay. "The evolution of Life
on the Earth".
4. Hofstadter,
5. Maturana,
Humberto and Varela, Francisco. "The Tree of Knowledge". Shambala Press,
1987
6. Minsky,
Marvin. "The Society of
Mind". Touchstone, 1985
FREEMAN 3
From anthony@imprint.zynet.co.ukTue Jul 23
Date:
From: Anthony
Freeman <anthony@imprint.zynet.co.uk>
To: Jerry
Iglowitz <jerryi@foothill.net>
Subject: Re:
Would this work?
In message
<Pine.BSD/.3.91.960722175053.4363A-100000@nsl.foothill.net>,
Jerry
Iglowitz <jerryi@foothill.net>
writes
>Dear
Dr. Freeman,
>
> I have
read your response and see your point. I
am including
>below what I
believe is a free-standing article based on the
>fragment I
sent you and deleting all reference to my MS.
I think
>it
addresses a major element of the question of mind and does not
>cite nor
require my book in any way.
>
> Would it work this way as an article, do you
think?
>
Dear Jerry,
So far as the
form of the paper is concerned, this is much more suitable, and I shall put it
through the normal review process. As for content, we shall have to see what
the referees have to say! I will convert the email version into a properly
word-processed document before sending it out.
Best wishes,
Anthony.
Anthony Freeman
(
Studies)
Imprint
Academic,
Tel. +44 (0)1392 841600
Fax. +44
(0)1392 841478
Email: anthony@imprint.co.uk
FREEMAN 4
From anthony@imprint.zynet.co.ukSun Aug 18
Date:
From: Anthony
Freeman <anthony@imprint.zynet.co.uk>
To: Jerry
Iglowitz <jerryi@foothill.net>
Subject: A
non-representational model
Dear Jerry
I sent your
paper out to a reviewer I had reason to believe would be "friendly".
Here is his reply, just received:
Report on *A
non-representational model - Jerry Iglowitz*
Although I am
sympathetic to Iglowitz's approach, I find the MS very confusing and somewhat
contradictory. The argument needs to be fleshed-out with connecting ideas
included. As it stands now, it seems to be a jumble of ideas with (maybe) a central
theme, but what that is exactly is unclear.
I would advise
that you reject the paper as is and tell Iglowitz that if he wishes to
resubmit, he must prepare a longer, more linear and better argued MS. I'd be
happy to write a longer and more substantive review of a complete article.
In addition, I
would ask him the question: What
does this have to do with consciousness?
On the strength
of the above (which chimes in with my own reaction to your initial submission)
I invite you to revise the paper and re-submit it. This does not guarantee
publication, but at least you know
that you have
one sympathetic reviewer lined up who will take what you say seriously. The
revised paper would also be sent to an inhouse reader
and one further external referee.
Best wishes,
Anthony.
Anthony Freeman
(
Studies)
Imprint
Academic,
Tel. +44 (0)1392 841600
Fax. +44 (0)1392 841478
Email: anthony@imprint.co.uk
FREEMAN 5
From anthony@imprint.zynet.co.ukThu Aug 29
Date:
From: Anthony
Freeman <anthony@imprint.zynet.co.uk>
Cc: Jerry
Iglowitz <jerryi@foothill.net>
Subject: Re: A
few questions
Dear Jerry,
Thanks for your
queries.
>
> 1.
What is a reasonable top limit for length for a submission? >As you have said, mine is a *very*
complicated hypothesis, and to >flesh out this single aspect would take some
space.
9,000 words
(including notes and references) is our normal limit, but occasionally we print
something which is longer than this. If much more space is needed, we sometimes
suggest a two-part article, but we obviously have to be persuaded that the
argument presented warrants this much space. (If you are including any
"heavy" maths, this should be put into an
appendix. It will still be included in the word-count, but its breaching the
9,000 word limit will be less serious.) >
> 2.
Would it be possible for you to forward the "Extended >Abstract"
I sent you to this reviewer? In it I
dealt with his >specific
question: "What
does this have
to do with consciousness?"
I do not think
this is necessary. This reviewer
had that particular question asked of his own submission to JCS (which was subsequently
published) and I think his comment may have been slightly
tongue-in-cheek, and aimed more at me than at you!
>I feel I am
in a "catch-22" situation: I
couldn't refer to my MS, >(by fiat -yours! :-) ), and then am faulted for
not doing so. >Would this reviewer be interested in looking at the draft of
my >book which answers the question in full?
It would be a simple >matter to MIME-EMail
it to him. If he chose to retain his
>anonymity, I could send it to you and you could forward it. I >realize that articles must be
self-standing, and I intended this >one to be free-standing only *as an
aspect* of the problem of >consciousness.
It has always
been clear to me that your brief article (submitted in its present form by my
"fiat") will need to be fleshed out for publication. What I needed to
know from this referee was "whether there was "likely to be anything
worthwhile at the end of the process. The answer to that question that I hear
is "yes — time spent on the paper will not be wasted".
I do not,
however, think it would be a good idea to send him your draft book. Much better
to send him a MS in the form you intend for publication in JCS, so that it can
be judged on its own merits.
>
> 3.
Would you be willing to submit my article to another >reviewer
-hopefully one with a mathematical background? Those >seem to be the ones
who understand it best.
>
We should
certainly send the expanded MS to a second referee, and I shall be happy to
make it one of our mathematical reviewers. But remember that the majority of
your readers in JCS will not have a
maths
background.
>Thank you
for your response and kind efforts.
>
>Jerry
>
And thank *you*
for seeing my role as one which is intended to be helpful and supportive — even
if it does not always feel like that. Remember that my job depends upon
maintaining a flow of good articles for the journal, so I am as keen as you are
to see your paper published. And it is in all our interests to see that it is
as good as possible.
Best wishes,
Anthony.
Anthony Freeman
(
Studies)
Imprint
Academic,
Tel. +44 (0)1392 841600
Fax. +44 (0)1392 841478
Email: anthony@imprint.co.uk
FREEMAN 6
First let me
thank you for your kind and encouraging letter of August 29th. I am in the
middle of some very nasty personal, (economic), circumstances here and it made
my day brighter.
I am attaching
a copy of the first revision of my proposed article as a MIME EMail attachment. It is an IBM WordPerfect 4.1 binary file
and should be readable on any later version of WordPerfect or Microsoft Word.
(This is the latest version they produced for my old Amiga.) This will
hopefully save you the trouble of reformatting it.
As you will
see, I have added an introduction to place it in the context of the problem of
"consciousness", and have appended a brief statistical argument for
its plausibility. I don't really like statistical arguments very much, (as I
have noted), but think it is alright so far as it goes, and it fits the space
restrictions. (I had relegated this to an appendix in my MS.) I would
appreciate your's and your referee's comments on it.
So where do we
go from here? Will you and I "duel it out", ( :-) ), until we arrive
at a version that you think suitable for resubmission to the referee, or will
this version be passed on as is, (assuming you think it is not *too* terrible)?
I have been having
some trouble rectifying his objections to the original article though, as I
really, (literally), don't understand them. They are *very* general and don't
give specific instances. This is almost exactly the same text I sent to Walter
Freeman and which he characterized as "compelling". Apparently *he*
thought it was cogent. Perhaps it is a question of context? I am not arguing
with you or your referee, however -if it is not clear then it is *my* fault and
I will strive mightily to fix it. I just need the feedback to do so.
Would you
please convey to the referee that I have made a "good faith" effort
towards his objections in this draft but that I need more detailed and specific
feedback, (objections and citations)-which I truly desire -to do more. I see
this as a progressive process of refinement.
Incidentally, I
have purposely over-"!"'d, and used CAPS and underlines in
this version that I realize must be removed in the final version. I have left
them in for now to (hopefully) clarify my line of argument for you and the
referee. If you cannot see the statuary you are liable to break off an arm in
trying to polish it! :-)
Please look over
this revision and, if you think it is suitable, please forward it to your
referee.
Thanks again:-and
let me know what you think.
Jerry
FREEMAN 7
From anthony@imprint.zynet.co.ukWed Jan 8
Date:
From: Anthony
Freeman <anthony@imprint.zynet.co.uk>
To: Jerry
Iglowitz <jerryi@foothill.net>
Subject:
Referee's Report on your paper
Dear Jerry,
K
Here at last is my math reviewer's report on your paper.
As you will see, we are back with the problems (which I raised right at the
outset) of trying to adapt an introductory chapter to be free-standing paper.
Referee's
report on Iglowitz, "Mind as a
non-representational model"
[My convention:
double inverted commas are either actual quotations or "scare quotes"
; single inverted commas are used to form the name of a word.]
I enjoyed
reading what I took to be the introduction to this paper, until I found myself
reading the Conclusions and realised that this was
all there was. I cannot recommend publication, for reasons indicated below.
Sections I and
II are a defence of the philosophical position that
mind cannot be regarded as a representation of external reality (whatever
supporters of this position might mean by the last two words ) , and drawing
out the consequence that , once this idea is abandoned, then the problem of
intentionality - how it comes about that a certain mental representation
"means" a corresponding external object - disappears, as does the
homunculus and other related problems. The idea that the mind is not
representation is not original (as the author, who makes clear his debt to
Cassirer, would no doubt be happy to admit). In view of its long pedigree, the
author makes very heavy weather of the idea: in referring to "terrible
consequences" he expects his readers to be shocked by the novelty of an
idea that has in essence been around since Kant.
Section III
is a "statistical" (actually,
combinatorial) argument
which is intended
to reinforce what has already been(convincingly-albeit ponderously, argued in
sections I and II. For me it tended to detract from the argument. I found it difficult
to follow, because the author was demolishing the representational position
without having explicitly enunciated, in detailed quantitative terms, just what
the representational position was. What the author is in fact demolishing is
the hypothesis that "Evolution would have had the problem of progressively
correlating a model with each, (or some significant portion), of the
possibilities of the sensory array - and with potential response as well."
As with any "Aunt Sally" type of argument, it is necessary to be very
precise about what it is that one is demolishing in order to do the job well;
and this then enables the opponent to reply that this was not in fact what his
position was. In the case in point here, the proponent of representations might
reply that, in order to achieve a representation that was accurate most of the
time, evolution would not have to check out "some significant
portion" of the sensory inputs, but it could instead adopt a Monte Carlo
approach and optimise performance with respect to a
large randomly chosen number of such inputs. The success of the
At this point,
after two unsurprising sections and one unconvincing section, the paper
essentially stops. No dent has yet been made, however, on the problems of
consciousness as they are likely to be perceived by the readers of JCS
(including myself). The adoption of a non-representational position shifts the
locus of these problems. Given that I have a world consisting of perceptual and
conceptual objects (i.e. operational constructs) which I denote by terms such
as 'trees', 'despair', 'redness', 'brains' etc, is it possible to envisage how
last mentioned of these constructs could itself embody a world analogous to
that of my own? If the answer is, no that can't be done because it would
involve a fundamental confusion of categories, then we encounter severe
difficulties of the "other minds" type of philosophical problem. If,
however, it is admitted that what I call a 'brain' might itself form
operational constructs and this might thereby explain what I am myself doing
all the time, then are we not back in almost exactly the same place as we
started? Namely, we have to explain how it is that a pattern of neuronal firing
can have the attributes that I designate by the word 'tree'. The only gain is
that we no longer have the additional problem of hooking it onto a postulated
external "real" tree, and this gain may in fact be a loss for those
who hold that the real tree may play a role in establishing the qualia of our
percepts. I make these remarks not to criticise the
author's position, but to sketch out the field into which some inroad must
be made if the paper is to become* publishable, and not read like an
introduction to something else.
==========;===
Anthony Freeman
(
Studies)
Imprint
Academic,
Tel. +44 (0)1392 841600
Fax. +44 (0)1392 841478
Emai1: anthony@ imprint.co.uk
FREEMAN 7
From jerryi@foothi11.netThu
Jan 9
Date: Thu,
From: Jerry
Iglowitz <jerryi@foothi11.net>
To: "Revd. Anthony Freeman" <anthony@imprint.co.uk>
I have just
received your letter and the response from your Mathematical Reviewer. I am disappointed, of course.
I am in
somewhat of a quandry. If this were a published review of my
published article, I do not think that I would have much trouble in answering
it as I do not consider it a very perceptive reading. But this is *your* reviewer, so I must ask
how it is you wish me to respond. I
certainly do not wish to be ungracious or to put you "in the middle".
I shall,
therefore, await your desires, (do you wish me to comment at this time?), and those
of the original referee before I reply and only wish you a Happy New Year
-which I most sincerely do.
Best wishes,
Jerry.
P.S. When do you expect the original referee will
respond?
FREEMAN 8
From anthony@imprint. zynet. co. ukSat
Date:
From: Anthony
Freeman <anthony@imprint . zynet .co.uk>
To: Jerry
Iglowitz <jerryi@foothill .net>
Subject: JCS
Submission
In messag <Pine. BSD/. 3. 91. 970109010802.
5387A-100000@nsl . foothill .net> , Jerry Iglowitz < jerryi@f
oothill .net> writes
> I am in
somewhat of a quandry. If this were a published
review >of my published article, I do not think that I would have much
>trouble in answering it as I do not consider it a very perceptive >reading.
But this is *your* reviewer, so I must ask how it is you wish >me to
respond. I certainly do not wish to be ungracious or to put you >"in
the middle".
He is my
reviewer but it is your paper. By all means answer his challenges (bearing in
mind also what is said below) and send me a further revision, if you wish. ~~~
>P.S. >
When do you
expect the original referee will respond?
He replied so
long ago that I had forgotten that I had not passed on his(brief) comments, viz:
"I actually like Iglowitz' ideas, but not his style
and method of presentation. He thinks the reader knows (or should know) what he
is talking about and so leaves a whole lot unsaid. In consequence much of his
argument is left undone, with apparent non sequitors
etc. If he will re-write it with proper deference to his readers, I will gladly
look at it again, but in its present/form it is not publishable."
Best wishes/
Anthony. /
Anthony Freeman
(
Studies)
Imprint
Academic,
Tel. +44 (0)1392 841600 j
Fax. +44 (0)1392 841478
Email:
anthony@imprint.co.uk
of Consciousness
5YX,
FREEMAN 9
» Let's see what the sympathetic reviewer
has to say.
»
» I am very
interested in his response.
>I have now heard from the reviewer. The relevant
part of his
>response is as follows:
>
>"... this is not a matter of tenor, but
continuity. There are
>fragments of very original thinking there, but not
the connective
>tissue which allows me to evaluate it. I don't understand what
>he is driving at in the way that I need to evaluate
a paper."
>
>I am afraid that I really must draw a line at this
point, and say
>that we cannot accept the paper for JCS.
>
>Best
wishes,
>
>Anthony.
Dear Anthony,
I am, of course, disappointed but I would like
to express my appreciation to you for your efforts in my behalf. I will not try
to argue either with you or your "sympathetic reviewer". Your
decisions are your decisions.
Since this may be my last words with you, however, let
me try to give, as objectively and calmly as possible, my opinions in the
matter.
I think the real problem is that this is a very new and
different idea and just doesn't fit into the old molds. Is that megalomania?
Perhaps, and perhaps not. I have twice asked for a single illustration -a
specific case- where I have not served the needs of my readers, assumed that
they know what I am talking about or seemed to commit a non sequitor.
What I have been answered is generalities only. His final response is another
exact instance of this. I feel he is doing to me exactly what he says I am
doing to my reader.
If, indeed, he thinks with Walter Freeman and others
that I have something original and valuable to say, then a proper response
would have been a question, or a specific, pointed objection to at least one
physical place in my paper that would have allowed an answer or illustrated a
deficiency or discontinuity.
I can sympathize with his difficulty, but not with his
unwillingness to expose it to view. This is an analytic conception, analytically
argued -very much in the spirit of Kant. I had hoped to expand it in a dialogue
within your pages. That there are many questions to be answered, I fully
realize. But they must be asked first.
Let me close
this letter with a very different response to my ideas. It is from Dr. Blaise Lara, a respected mathematician at the
"Dear Mr Iglowitz
You are not
under misapprehension. I am VERY sympathetic with your scientific and
philosophical viewpoints. And after reading this morning your last message I
feel sincerely concerned by your personal situation. Unfortunately I am also
under heavy constraints of another kind (my wife's health) and that explains my
lasting silence.
As a matter of
fact, I was preparing an answer containing detailed comments on the border of
almost every two pages of your manuscript.
Please believe Mr Iglowitz on my deep sympathy
with your ideas. I even suspect a kind of spiritual brotherhood among us. This
spontaneous manifestation does not sound like a very academic statement or
manifestation. But the hell with the academy in front of the personal and
intimate adventure of the few real men we have the fortune of meeting from time
to time.
My sincere
regards
Blaise Lara" With my warmest thanks, Jerry
FREEMAN 9
Frqm anthony@imprint.zynet.co.ukTue Jan 28
Date:
From: Anthony
Freeman <anthony@imprint.zynet.co.uk>
To: Jerry
Iglowitz <jerryi@foothill.net>
Subject: Draw a
line
Dear Jerry,
In message
<Pine.BSD/.3.91.970113214109.16484C-100000@nsl.foothill.net>, Jerry
Iglowitz <jerryi@foothill.net>
writes
> Let's see
what the sympathetic reviewer has to say.
>
> I am very
interested in his response.
I have now heard
from the reviewer. The relevant part of his response is as follows:
"... this
is not a matter of tenor, but continuity. There are fragments of very original
thinking there, but not the connective tissue which allows me to evaluate it. I
don't understand what he is driving at in the way that I need to evaluate a
paper."
I am afraid
that I really must draw a line at this point, and say that we cannot accept the
paper for JCS.
Best wishes,
Anthony.
Anthony Freeman
(
Studies)
Imprint
Academic,
Tel. +44 (0)1392 841600
Fax. +44 (0)1392 841478
Emai1:
anthony@imprint.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________
End JCS Correspondence
Here is an old
letter from a distinguished mathematician at the HEC in
"
From:
"Blaise.Lara@hec.unil.ch"
To:
"JERRYI@delphi.com"
Subj: deep regret
Dear Mr Iglowitz
You are not under
misapprehension. I am VERY sympathetic with your scientific and philosophical viewpoints.
And after reading this morning your last message I feel sincerely concerned by
your personal situation. Unfortunately I am also under heavy constraints of
another kind (my wife's health) and that explains my lasting silence.
As a matter of fact, I was
preparing an answer containing detailed comments on the border of almost every
two pages of your manuscript. Please believe Mr
Iglowitz on my deep sympathy with your ideas. I even suspect a kind of
spiritual brotherhood among us. This spontaneous manifestation does not sound
like a very academic statement or manifestation. But the hell with the academy
in front of the personal and intimate adventure of the few real men we have the
fortune of meeting from time to time.
My sincere regards
Blaise Lara"