Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 4

[Constance]

By the time computers have evolved equivalent processing power to the human brain, Earth will be part of the Federation of Planets, and society will have done away with money. So the idea it would only cost a dollar will no longer have any relevance. But for the sake of discussion, assuming that equivalent "computing power" includes equivalent intelligence

Who or what (movie, podcast) has persuaded you to accept that presupposition? How many types and varieties of human intelligence do you think are 'computable'?

. . . ( after all, computers are already more powerful at computing things like numbers ), would that not be the same as saying human intelligence is only worth a buck apiece? Say bye bye to eggheads with comfy desk jobs. They'll become drones just like the rest of us, whose purpose is to maintain and service the machines.

It's not the resentment indicated in that last statement that is most disturbing; it's the suicide pact you want to see enforced on the human species.

 

[smcder]

I'm familiar with Dr Radin's website but I'll have a look at the Utt's article. Thanks!

I think I've heard every interview he's given. The best one in my opinion is the one with Greg Bishop on Radio Misterioso:

http://radiomisterioso.com/2012/12/13/dean-radin-entangled-minds/

You probably know his writings on the paradigm shift, I think it's on his blog too. One thing that Kuhn didn't seem to anticipate was multi-disciplinary work and collaboration evolving in reponse to (in part) crises in science.

 

[Soupie]

Toward a noncomputational cognitive neuroscience

Abstract

The near universally accepted theory that the brain processes information persists in current neural network theory where there is "subsymbolic" computation (Smolensky, 1988) on distributed representations. This theory of brain information processing may suffice for simplifying models simulated in silicon but not for living neural nets where there is ongoing chemical tuning of the input/output transfer function at the nodes, connection weights, network parameters, and connectivity. Here the brain continually changes itself as it intersects with information from the outside. An alternative theory to information processing is developed in which the brain permits and supports "participation" of self and other as constraints on the dynamically evolving, self-organizing whole. The noncomputational process of "differing and deferring" in nonlinear dynamic neural systems is contrasted with Black's (1991) account of molecular information processing. State hyperspace for the noncomputational process of nonlinear dynamical systems, unlike classical systems, has a fractal dimension. The noncomputational model is supported by suggestive evidence for fractal properties of the brain.

 

[Randall]

@ufology ... a bit more on chess ...

... I will, therefore, take occasion to assert that the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of draughts than by all the elaborate frivolity of chess ...

I daresay, that bit sounds like a comment made by someone who sucked at chess .

 

[smcder]

I daresay, that bit sounds like a comment made by someone who sucked at chess .

I don't know - it's hard to find that biographical detail, search results focus on the Maelzel chess player "hoax" and his revelaiton of it ... wikipedia indicates a writing of his did presage the Big Bang theory by 80 years.

 

[smcder]

Last night I watched the documentary Between the Folds - (green fuse films) - on Origami.

The film looks at a variety of approaches to the art, from the analytic to the anarchic, what was most interesting to me was that each approach produced equal beauty and ingenuity - pointing, I think, to an underlying intelligence in the hand itself.

This was best illustrated for me in the work of the French anarchists "Le Crimp" - whose work seemed to come directly from the hand.

It reminded me of the Tai-Chi exercise of "pushing hands".

 

[Randall]

I don't know - it's hard to find that biographical detail, search results focus on the Maelzel chess player "hoax" and his revelaiton of it ... wikipedia indicates a writing of his did presage the Big Bang theory by 80 years.

Just think about it. He's comparing checkers to chess. I assume you've played both games? Only someone seriously lacking in chess experience would claim that, " the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of draughts than by all the elaborate frivolity of chess." I'll tell you what "elaborate frivoloty" is in games: It's action video games, especially first person shooter and driving games. The elaborateness is all the engineering that goes into high-end PCs plus all the hours of game programming and artwork, these days costing millions of dollars. Chess on the other hand only requires two proficient players who each know the rules, though it's common to use a simple board and pieces. Plus chess levels the playing field. Physical strength and chance are excluded. No throw of the dice, luck of the draw, strong arm, or faster GPU can give a player an edge. And as for checkers. It's kid's stuff in comparison. That comment was nothing more than a flame delivered by a different kind of media ... LOL.

 

[Randall]

@smcder @ufology

What do you two (and anyone else) make of this:

1) Consciousness (subjectivity) is neither objective nor physical. It cannot be measured/observed in the 3rd person.

Furthermore, it is unclear how subjective processes (subjectivity) could arise/emerge from objective processes. (The Hard Problem.)

Thus, it is proposed that consciousness/subjectivity is a fundamental feature of what-is, not unlike space, time, and energy/matter.

Alternatively, 2) so far as we know, consciousness is only associated with human/animal brain processes. (Technically, one can only be sure that they are conscious, and not other people.) Consciousness, so far as we know, is only associated with brains/neurons.

Thus, it is proposed that consciousness/subjectivity arises/emerges from objective brain/neural processes.

Sure. Sounds good, but to be really clear we'd have to differentiate between "physical" and whatever else it ( consciousness might be composed of ), and not assume that the ideas of physical and material are interchangeable. When I use the word "physical" it's a reference to the physical laws and phenomena of nature e.g. gravity, electromagnetism, etc., plus what we think of as material, e.g. solids, liquids, gasses and so on. So whatever consciousness is composed of is IMO within the realm of natural physical laws and phenomena, even if they aren't not fully understood. I've thrown the idea of virtual photons out there in past posts.

 

[Randall]

Who or what (movie, podcast) has persuaded you to accept that presupposition? How many types and varieties of human intelligence do you think are 'computable'?

The assumption was made for the purpose of discussion rather than an indication that I accept it as a given. To clarify: I wanted to be clear on the concept of computational power. I don't think it's fair to boil the idea of "power" down to how many teraflops are taking place. It's what a computer is tasked with and how well it performs that task that gives it its "power". For example, the whole idea behind computers was to "compute" faster than the human brain, and computers surpassed us in that respect decades ago ( see trailer below ), so logically we can say computers already have more "computational power". But that's not really what is being implied is it?

The Imitation Game

​

It's not the resentment indicated in that last statement that is most disturbing; it's the suicide pact you want to see enforced on the human species.

I have no idea how you arrived at your interpretation above. Personally I think you might try replacing the word "resentment" with the word "irony" and just dump the rest. I don't want to see any suicide pacts enforced on the human species. No idea where that's coming from at all.

 

[smcder]

Sure. Sounds good, but to be really clear we'd have to differentiate between "physical" and whatever else it ( consciousness might be composed of ), and not assume that the ideas of physical and material are interchangeable. When I use the word "physical" it's a reference to the physical laws and phenomena of nature e.g. gravity, electromagnetism, etc., plus what we think of as material, e.g. solids, liquids, gasses and so on. So whatever consciousness is composed of is IMO within the realm of natural physical laws and phenomena, even if they aren't not fully understood. I've thrown the idea of virtual photons out there in past posts.

@Soupie ... see, I told you! ;-)

 

[smcder]

Just think about it. He's comparing checkers to chess. I assume you've played both games? Only someone seriously lacking in chess experience would claim that, " the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of draughts than by all the elaborate frivolity of chess." I'll tell you what "elaborate frivoloty" is in games: It's action video games, especially first person shooter and driving games. The elaborateness is all the engineering that goes into high-end PCs plus all the hours of game programming and artwork, these days costing millions of dollars. Chess on the other hand only requires two proficient players who each know the rules, though it's common to use a simple board and pieces. Plus chess levels the playing field. Physical strength and chance are excluded. No throw of the dice, luck of the draw, strong arm, or faster GPU can give a player an edge. And as for checkers. It's kid's stuff in comparison. That comment was nothing more than a flame delivered by a different kind of media ... LOL.

Let's see ... I think so ... Chess has the little horsies, right?

And checkers - that's the one that's played with poker chips that you can stack up - one every time you go up and down the board ... at either end you can score a "goal" for two points - if your stack falls over, it's called "Jenga!" And you have to draw a card, sometimes the card says you have to go to "jail". Simple, really!

 

[smcder]

Here is a thoughtful answer to the question:

Bob Newell » Chess, Checkers, and Go: A Short Comparison

I'm learning Go now ... very challenging!

 

[Soupie]

We can't define consciousness until we can describe all that it does and all that it is, and also how it has evolved in nature to produce an additional ontological primitive. So offering readers an assortment of terms implied to represent the same thing will never "promote understanding.

In this case, i wasnt trying to define consciousness per se, but just looking for a label that captured everything. Its my perception that when the term consciousness is used, some people think only of discursive consciousness and not phenomenal consciousness, which is why i thought to include the term subjectivity. Ive read your explanation of the term and while it makes sense, ive always thought the term was also used more generally; that it could be interchangable with experience. Yes, it is very muddled. There are layman understanding of terms, philosophical understanding of terms, and then just plain old misunderstanding of terms.

A few posts ago, i was simply using the term "feeling" in an attempt to avoid all this, but that seemed to only muddy the waters.

What term, constance, would you recommend to refer to all facets of consciousness?

Consciousness, self-awareness, phenomenal consciousness, subjectivity, mind, feeling, affectivity, etc.

 

[smcder]

The assumption was made for the purpose of discussion rather than an indication that I accept it as a given. To clarify: I wanted to be clear on the concept of computational power. I don't think it's fair to boil the idea of "power" down to how many teraflops are taking place. It's what a computer is tasked with and how well it performs that task that gives it its "power". For example, the whole idea behind computers was to "compute" faster than the human brain, and computers surpassed us in that respect decades ago ( see trailer below ), so logically we can say computers already have more "computational power". But that's not really what is being implied is it?

The Imitation Game

​

I have no idea how you arrived at your interpretation above. Personally I think you might try replacing the word "resentment" with the word "irony" and just dump the rest. I don't want to see any suicide pacts enforced on the human species. No idea where that's coming from at all.

The original question about "power" was about the assumptions that Kurzweill made to come up with a figure for the level of computation that actually goes on in the brain. Noah Spivack questioned these assumptions and we were off and running!

The idea of raw computational power versus organization - the distinction I think you are making above - has been discussed in several places, if I remember, I think on the substrate independent and this is your body on silicone threads ... and maybe on one of the C&P threads too.

In fact, I just re-posted something yesterday by Lee Smolin, where he reinforces the point made by Jared Lanier ... I think it's interesting and worth quoting here:

One of the points Jaron is making is that the design of software required to do justice to the exponentially increasing capabilities of our machines are not CLASS 1 problems. Moore's law tells us that the fitness landscape for software is changing on a time scale comparable to the time required to write and debug software. Thus writing software involves problems of at least CLASS 4. This is of course just a different way of making one of Jaron's arguments.

PS - when do you ever sleep?? Have you tried Melatonin ... or Valerian?

 

[Soupie]

By your last sentence I take it you mean that consciousness develops in time understood as temporality. And indeed we recognize the temporal ground of consciousness in ourselves and others, especially as we observe the changes and developments of consciousness in our children.

Constance, I was referring to the apparent fact that while we can't seem to locate consciousness in physical space, we can seem to locate it in time. See the following excerpt from an article by Evan Thompson:

Is Consciousness a “Stream”? | The Brains Blog

"For example, recent experiments show that whether a visual stimulus is consciously detected or not depends on when it arrives in relation to the phases of the brain’s ongoing alpha (8–12 Hz) and theta (5–7 Hz) rhythms (see also this study). You’re more likely to miss the stimulus when it occurs during the trough of an alpha wave; as the alpha wave crests, you’re more likely to detect it.

The moral of these new studies isn’t that perception is strictly discrete, but rather that it’s rhythmic; it happens through successive rhythmic pulses (an idea James also proposed), instead of as one continuous flow. Like a miniature version of the wake-sleep cycle, neural systems alternate from moment to moment between phases of optimal excitability, when they’re most “awake” and responsive to incoming stimuli, and phases of strong inhibition, when they’re “asleep” and least responsive. Moments of perception correspond to excitatory or “up” phases; moments of nonperception to inhibitory or “down” phases. A gap occurs between each “up” or “awake” moment of perception and the next one, so that what seems to be a continuous stream of consciousness may actually be composed of rhythmic pulses of awareness."

That is some pretty interesting, exciting stuff!

 

[smcder]

In this case, i wasnt trying to define consciousness per se, but just looking for a label that captured everything. Its my perseption that when the term consciousness is used, some people think only of discursive consciousness and not phenomenal consciousness, which is why i thought to include the term subjectivity. Ive read your explanation of the term and while it makes sense, ive always thought the term was also used more generally; that it could be interchangable with experience. Yes, it is very muddled. There are layman understanding of terms, philosophical understanding of terms, and then just plain old misunderstanding of terms.

A few posts ago, i was simply using the term "feeling" in an attempt to avoid all this, but that seemed to only muddy the waters.

What term, constance, would you recommend to refer to all facets of consciousness?

Consciousness, self-awareness, phenomenal consciousness, subjectivity, mind, feeling, affectivity, etc.

I think it's worth taking some time on this ... Spivack's comments might be a good place to start:

When we talk about consciousness, there's a very specific distinction that we have to make, and that is what do we really mean by consciousness? Do we mean an entire landscape of thought, or do we mean something more precise? That is the entity that's actually aware, or witnessing of what is taking place. These are two very different phenomena, and in the West when we talk about consciousness, we don't make that distinction; we're very messy when we talk about this.

In Eastern philosophy, they're very precise about this. In Buddhism for example, there are very, very precise distinctions for all the different phenomena taking place within the field of consciousness. When you experience something, there are many different things going on in that experience, and there are labels and names and technical descriptions in all of these. That's still very lacking in the Western cognitive science and neuroscience. We have a very simple, primitive language we barely understand when we talk about what's going on in consciousness.
In the East, in Eastern philosophical traditions, they're much more sophisticated. They've had thousands of years of dialectical debate and research, and they've developed very sophisticated logic and very precise analytical method and language for explaining what's going on in consciousness.

... and I'm still interested in comparing this vocabulary (which comes from a set of experiences) to what the phenomenologist may find and classify ... which is another vocabulary we could make use of ... of course, gaining this vocabulary isn't a trivial task.

 

[Soupie]

@smcder @ufology

I think autopoesis and even IIT could be helpful here. Both of these models present ways to determine when a system/process is "distinct" from the rest of reality. (Of course, nothing can be truly distinct at the most fundamental level, but at higher levels, both approaches offer quantifiable criteria for determining when a system is autonomous.)

 

[smcder]

Constance, I was referring to the apparent fact that while we can't seem to locate consciousness in physical space, we can seem to locate it in time. See the following excerpt from an article by Evan Thompson:

Is Consciousness a “Stream”? | The Brains Blog

"For example, recent experiments show that whether a visual stimulus is consciously detected or not depends on when it arrives in relation to the phases of the brain’s ongoing alpha (8–12 Hz) and theta (5–7 Hz) rhythms (see also this study). You’re more likely to miss the stimulus when it occurs during the trough of an alpha wave; as the alpha wave crests, you’re more likely to detect it.

The moral of these new studies isn’t that perception is strictly discrete, but rather that it’s rhythmic; it happens through successive rhythmic pulses (an idea James also proposed), instead of as one continuous flow. Like a miniature version of the wake-sleep cycle, neural systems alternate from moment to moment between phases of optimal excitability, when they’re most “awake” and responsive to incoming stimuli, and phases of strong inhibition, when they’re “asleep” and least responsive. Moments of perception correspond to excitatory or “up” phases; moments of nonperception to inhibitory or “down” phases. A gap occurs between each “up” or “awake” moment of perception and the next one, so that what seems to be a continuous stream of consciousness may actually be composed of rhythmic pulses of awareness."

That is some pretty interesting, exciting stuff!

I read something about the recogntion of timing in Buddhist meditation as it relates to consciousness ... may take me a bit to run it down and then we'd have to see if it's relevant ... but I'd been reminded of the idea before and so may have posted it in the past ... and also what it means to locate something in time. It would be very interesting to know if introspection is powerful enough to recognize this phenomena.

I'm also always curious about these experiments and the design and whether they apply to all minds - for example to trained minds, or if some of the fundamental ways that the mind operates are in fact plastic ... and the results of these experiments are then due to cultural factors, etc ... the freshman college student problem, so to speak.

This is it's important to read the original experiment, if at all possible.

 

[smcder]

@smcder @ufology

I think autopoesis and even IIT could be helpful here. Both of these models present ways to determine when a system/process is "distinct" from the rest of reality. (Of course, nothing can be truly distinct at the most fundamental level, but at higher levels, both approaches offer quantifiable criteria for determining when a system is autonomous.)

I've lost this train of thought! What is this referring to - "could be helpful here"? Can you locate that "here" in time and space for me? ;-)

 

[Soupie]

I think it's worth taking some time on this ... Spivack's comments might be a good place to start:

When we talk about consciousness, there's a very specific distinction that we have to make, and that is what do we really mean by consciousness? Do we mean an entire landscape of thought, or do we mean something more precise? That is the entity that's actually aware, or witnessing of what is taking place. These are two very different phenomena, and in the West when we talk about consciousness, we don't make that distinction; we're very messy when we talk about this.

In Eastern philosophy, they're very precise about this. In Buddhism for example, there are very, very precise distinctions for all the different phenomena taking place within the field of consciousness. When you experience something, there are many different things going on in that experience, and there are labels and names and technical descriptions in all of these. That's still very lacking in the Western cognitive science and neuroscience. We have a very simple, primitive language we barely understand when we talk about what's going on in consciousness.
In the East, in Eastern philosophical traditions, they're much more sophisticated. They've had thousands of years of dialectical debate and research, and they've developed very sophisticated logic and very precise analytical method and language for explaining what's going on in consciousness.

... and I'm still interested in comparing this vocabulary (which comes from a set of experiences) to what the phenomenologist may find and classify ... which is another vocabulary we could make use of ... of course, gaining this vocabulary isn't a trivial task.

Personally, im finding I prefer the language of thr neuro-phenomenologist because their language and terms bridge 1st person experience and 3rd person, brain/body processes.

The Eastern and pure phenomenological traditions seemed to be based only on 1st person experience, which as we know, may differ between individuals. Connecting 1st person experience to 3rd person brain processes—when possible—is ideal imo.