Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 5

[Pharoah]

Rationality is a consequence of stablizing concepts but not all stabilizing concepts are _____ I want to put "rational" in the blank, except you say: which would, at the extreme, instigate a neurosis or other mental coping mechanism that would seem highly irrational ... "seem" highly irrational but would in fact serve some purpose? Help me untangle that.

This feels something like Sperber's Argumentative Theory of Reason ... I know very little about it, except that it says we evolved reason in order to win arguments, to give reasons ... and it explains cognitive biases / why we are so much better at defending our pre-existing views than at evaluating new ideas objectively.

I still struggle with basic mechanism of HCT which is to explain everything in terms of a hierarchy of stabilizing constructs ... it seems necessary but not sufficient and it doesn't seem much different than the orthodox view of evolution in the sense of things that can replicate with change showed up and were then sorted by environmental contingencies and the rest, as they say, is history. And again, see Stephen J Gould's The Spread of Excellence for an argument against the idea that evolution leads invitably to increasing complexity (although I recall we had that discussion).

@smcder Not sure you have quoted me correctly there...
From the individual's perspective, their construct is stable (on the whole) and for that reason, they perceive it as rational. (e.g Tononi thinks IIT is rational. I think HCT is rational etc.)
Similarly, a person who has a mental condition may see rationality in their thinking but the general public may see only illness. So they may behave 'irrationally' but in their conceptually constructed world they do not see the irrationality because they are protecting the stability of their conceptual construct at all cost. This then defines their view of what is and what is not rational.
You get it in everyday conversation, "how could they do that... it is irrational..." etc. They do it, because it complies with their conceptual construct about the world—it defines what is rational for them.
Of course, unlike physiological constructions (which evolve over generations of replicants) concepts are continually being challenged merged, updated, reviewed in every individual i.e. very dynamic, particularly in creative people.

Thanks for the Sperber reference and @Constance for the Menant, which sounds consistent with HCT—very interesting.

 

[smcder]

Just skip to this part and you'll get it right away ... LOL

Shannon's equations are well known and explanations are readily available on the internet:

Without this equation there would have been no internet

If we are going to discuss information, ITT etc - we are going to encounter some equations.


I also did a search on YouTube and there are a number of video explanations available.

This is a good one for example:

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

@smcder Not sure you have quoted me correctly there...
From the individual's perspective, their construct is stable (on the whole) and for that reason, they perceive it as rational. (e.g Tononi thinks IIT is rational. I think HCT is rational etc.)
Similarly, a person who has a mental condition may see rationality in their thinking but the general public may see only illness. So they may behave 'irrationally' but in their conceptually constructed world they do not see the irrationality because they are protecting the stability of their conceptual construct at all cost. This then defines their view of what is and what is not rational.
You get it in everyday conversation, "how could they do that... it is irrational..." etc. They do it, because it complies with their conceptual construct about the world—it defines what is rational for them.
Of course, unlike physiological constructions (which evolve over generations of replicants) concepts are continually being challenged merged, updated, reviewed in every individual i.e. very dynamic, particularly in creative people.

Thanks for the Sperber reference and @Constance for the Menant, which sounds consistent with HCT—very interesting.

OK - that's what I was thinking you meant ... how is that different from the idea of memes?

Where is the misquote? The quoted material is in italics:

which would, at the extreme, instigate a neurosis or other mental coping mechanism that would seem highly irrational

and is taken from your original sentence:

Rather, the requisite of a conceptual construct is that it maintains stability, by which I mean that it must not comprise conflicting constructive parts (which would, at the extreme, instigate a neurosis or other mental coping mechanism that would seem highly irrational).

 

[smcder]

Shannon's equations are well known and explanations are readily available on the internet:

Without this equation there would have been no internet

If we are going to discuss information, ITT etc - we are going to encounter some equations.


I also did a search on YouTube and there are a number of video explanations available.

This is a good one for example:

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

if you stick it through to the third video, you'll learn something really cool about the game of 20 questions

 

[Pharoah]

OK - that's what I was thinking you meant ... how is that different from the idea of memes?

Where is the misquote? The quoted material is in italics:

which would, at the extreme, instigate a neurosis or other mental coping mechanism that would seem highly irrational

and is taken from your original sentence:

Rather, the requisite of a conceptual construct is that it maintains stability, by which I mean that it must not comprise conflicting constructive parts (which would, at the extreme, instigate a neurosis or other mental coping mechanism that would seem highly irrational).

It was the previous quote I didn't get... but doesn't matter.
The concept 'meme' commits the fallacy of information (a meme) being carried, transmitted, embedded etc from one agency to another.
The only way that any meme can make sense is if it somehow resonates cross-culturally because of some existing parallel or equitable conceptual relation. Without that correspondence, a meme would be jibberish...

 

[Pharoah]

btw. you don't have to have any understanding by way of mathematics to workout that IIT is jibberish

 

[smcder]

btw. you don't have to have any understanding by way of mathematics to workout that IIT is jibberish

That is good news for those don't have any understanding by way of mathematics!

 

[smcder]

It was the previous quote I didn't get... but doesn't matter.
The concept 'meme' commits the fallacy of information (a meme) being carried, transmitted, embedded etc from one agency to another.
The only way that any meme can make sense is if it somehow resonates cross-culturally because of some existing parallel or equitable conceptual relation. Without that correspondence, a meme would be jibberish...

I'm not sure I follow this ...

What is the fallacy of information being carried, transmitted ... from one agency to another? If I have a clever idea (like kittens with flame throwers and I post it on the internet and it "goes viral" (<--- a direct reference to Brodie's Viruses of the Mind) then have I not carried, transmitted, embedded ... etc?

Also what is meant by resonating cross-culturally because of ... etc?

 

[smcder]

btw. you don't have to have any understanding by way of mathematics to workout that IIT is jibberish

I would say don't tell me, tell Aaronson! Why not do this - why not post your argument on his blog?

Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » Why I Am Not An Integrated Information Theorist (or, The Unconscious Expander)

He seems to do a very good job of keeping up with comments (though it looks like it died down in mid 2014). He updates for Tononi's 3.0 version, and Chalmers has commented on there ... it seems like it would be a good opportunity to get some feedback and maybe get HCT out there as well?

 

[Pharoah]

I'm not sure I follow this ...

What is the fallacy of information being carried, transmitted ... from one agency to another? If I have a clever idea (like kittens with flame throwers and I post it on the internet and it "goes viral" (<--- a direct reference to Brodie's Viruses of the Mind) then have I not carried, transmitted, embedded ... etc?

Also what is meant by resonating cross-culturally because of ... etc?

It wouldn't go viral if nobody had a concept, already, of what a kitten is.... or a flamethrower
"fluxoodles with flamethrowers" doesnot go viral because nobody has a concept of a fluxoodles.
Even if a completely new discovering is made, it can only be communicated using the existing concepts and defining new concepts by old.
Where do the first concepts come from? Through a realisation of qualitative phenomenal experience. . I would argue that even abstract concepts e.g. maths, are founded on conceptual principles relating to qualitative experience.
forget the resonating bit...

 

[smcder]

It wouldn't go viral if nobody had a concept, already, of what a kitten is.... or a flamethrower
"fluxoodles with flamethrowers" doesnot go viral because nobody has a concept of a fluxoodles.
Even if a completely new discovering is made, it can only be communicated using the existing concepts and defining new concepts by old.
Where do the first concepts come from? Through a realisation of qualitative phenomenal experience. . I would argue that even abstract concepts e.g. maths, are founded on conceptual principles relating to qualitative experience.
forget the resonating bit...

"I would argue that even abstract concepts e.g. maths, are founded on conceptual principles relating to qualitative experience."

As I understand what you are saying, that is exactly the argument behind Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes From

Where Mathematics Comes From - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see also Philosophy in the Flesh

Philosophy in the Flesh

 

[Pharoah]

I would say don't tell me, tell Aaronson! Why not do this - why not post your argument on his blog?

Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » Why I Am Not An Integrated Information Theorist (or, The Unconscious Expander)

He seems to do a very good job of keeping up with comments (though it looks like it died down in mid 2014). He updates for Tononi's 3.0 version, and Chalmers has commented on there ... it seems like it would be a good opportunity to get some feedback and maybe get HCT out there as well?

nice suggestion.
Probably won't... you know when you go to the wrong end of the football stadium... amongst the opposing fans.... and you start singing your anthems of insults... doesn't matter how rubbish their team is.... that is their placae of worship. With most theories, critical review can lead to debate, but not with IIT: its advocates are true-believers. We're talking panpsychists here! You don't want to be in a room with a bunch (a pack) of panpsychists.

 

[Pharoah]

"I would argue that even abstract concepts e.g. maths, are founded on conceptual principles relating to qualitative experience."

As I understand what you are saying, that is exactly the argument behind Lakoff and Nunez Where Mathematics Comes From

Where Mathematics Comes From - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

see also Philosophy in the Flesh

Philosophy in the Flesh

cool... I will read... thx

 

[Constance]

It was the previous quote I didn't get... but doesn't matter.
The concept 'meme' commits the fallacy of information (a meme) being carried, transmitted, embedded etc from one agency to another.
The only way that any meme can make sense is if it somehow resonates cross-culturally because of some existing parallel or equitable conceptual relation. Without that correspondence, a meme would be jibberish...

It wouldn't go viral if nobody had a concept, already, of what a kitten is.... or a flamethrower
"fluxoodles with flamethrowers" doesnot go viral because nobody has a concept of a fluxoodles.
Even if a completely new discovering is made, it can only be communicated using the existing concepts and defining new concepts by old.
Where do the first concepts come from? Through a realisation of qualitative phenomenal experience. . I would argue that even abstract concepts e.g. maths, are founded on conceptual principles relating to qualitative experience.
forget the resonating bit...

Following you except for the last sentence. Above you said regarding 'memes' that "the only way that any meme can make sense is if it somehow resonates cross-culturally because of some existing parallel or equitable conceptual relation." In the last statement of the second post {"forget the resonating bit"} do you mean specifically forget 'resonance' concerning mathematical concepts? I think we should probably discuss the term 'resonance'. My sense of the meaning of the term is that it can refer to conceptual resonance and also to preconceptual resonance arising in prereflective experience, i.e., subliminally, and that it is a phenomenon in need of investigation in understanding consciousness.

 

[Constance]

I'm going to be gone for most of the afternoon and evening and will catch up with discussion here later tonight.

 

[Pharoah]

Following you except for the last sentence. Above you said regarding 'memes' that "the only way that any meme can make sense is if it somehow resonates cross-culturally because of some existing parallel or equitable conceptual relation." In the last statement of the second post {"forget the resonating bit"} do you mean specifically forget 'resonance' concerning mathematical concepts? I think we should probably discuss the term 'resonance'. My sense of the meaning of the term is that it can refer to conceptual resonance and also to preconceptual resonance arising in prereflective experience, i.e., subliminally, and that it is a phenomenon in need of investigation in understanding consciousness.

I just meant not to pursue it bcause it was too big a subject. Also, when I used the term , my avatar I was addressing in my mind was Constance when it should have been steve... so that's why I said forget the resonacne bit
@Constance what is the opposite of resonance, would you say

 

[Randall]

Shannon's equations are well known and explanations are readily available on the internet:

Without this equation there would have been no internet

If we are going to discuss information, ITT etc - we are going to encounter some equations.


I also did a search on YouTube and there are a number of video explanations available.

This is a good one for example:

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

I can wrestle down an equation if I really have to, but I don't enjoy it, and because, for me, it takes so much mental energy, I prefer to look at the underlying principles in order to determine if the resulting equations are going to yield practical results with respect to the issue at hand, or if they are strictly theoretical.

So far, my source material comes from here: From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0

In IIT a number of things, including things like qualia ( qualia space - formerly Q-Space ) are assumed, and formulas have been constructed to describe the relationship between the axioms, postulates and identities contained within the theory. The theory therefore makes a very serious attempt to be internally coherent. It also uses information from scientific observation and study, and is a seriously academic discipline. On these two counts it has IMO a huge advantage over theories based on religious, new-agey, or folk nonsense.

The problem I see with it however, is that because qualia-space is assumed, there is no explanation for it. Algorithms have been arbitrarily assigned. So in theory, if one were able to pinpoint the value of all the variables, one should be able to provide a yes or no answer to the question of something assumed to be consciousness. But in practical terms, a definitive yes or no answer seems unlikely. The best we're likely to achieve is a probability. A probability might still turn out to be better than nothing in some circumstances, however there is also another problem:

There appears to be no delineation between intelligence and consciousness. In fact the word "intelligence" isn't even mentioned, and the word "intelligent" only appears once. It seems that on initial inspection we could replace qualia-space with I-Space and run the same equations. We should really be calling it X-Space, where X is an unknown variable. Then we could say that something else is going on in there, but what exactly it is, is still another story. So as an example, in the case of a machine, where hypothetically we could connect it to a meter of sorts that logs all the variables in and out, and some extra unaccounted for bit were discovered, and the machine itself also claimed to be experiencing something, how could we be sure that it wasn't an intelligent lie rather than a sign of consciousness?

 

[smcder]

I can wrestle down an equation if I really have to, but I don't enjoy it, and because, for me, it takes so much mental energy, I prefer to look at the underlying principles in order to determine if the resulting equations are going to yield practical results with respect to the issue at hand, or if they are strictly theoretical.

So far, my source material comes from here: From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0

In IIT a number of things, including things like qualia ( qualia space - formerly Q-Space ) are assumed, and formulas have been constructed to describe the relationship between the axioms, postulates and identities contained within the theory. The theory therefore makes a very serious attempt to be internally coherent. It also uses information from scientific observation and study, and is a seriously academic discipline. On these two counts it has IMO a huge advantage over theories based on religious, new-agey, or folk nonsense.

The problem I see with it however, is that because qualia-space is assumed, there is no explanation for it. Algorithms have been arbitrarily assigned. So in theory, if one were able to pinpoint the value of all the variables, one should be able to provide a yes or no answer to the question of something assumed to be consciousness. But in practical terms, a definitive yes or no answer seems unlikely. The best we're likely to achieve is a probability. A probability might still turn out to be better than nothing in some circumstances, however there is also another problem:

There appears to be no delineation between intelligence and consciousness. In fact the word "intelligence" isn't even mentioned, and the word "intelligent" only appears once. It seems that on initial inspection we could replace qualia-space with I-Space and run the same equations. We should really be calling it X-Space, where X is an unknown variable. Then we could say that something else is going on in there, but what exactly it is, is still another story. So as an example, in the case of a machine, where hypothetically we could connect it to a meter of sorts that logs all the variables in and out, and some extra unaccounted for bit were discovered, and the machine itself also claimed to be experiencing something, how could we be sure that it wasn't an intelligent lie?

I can wrestle down an equation if I really have to, but I don't enjoy it, and because, for me, it takes so much mental energy,

I prefer to look at the underlying principles in order to determine if the resulting equations are going to yield practical results with respect to the issue at hand, or if they are strictly theoretical

I'm not sure I understand what that means without examples, (can you provide an example?) but it strikes me initially as a very remarkable ability.

To clarify - is the claim that a set of underlying principles can be examined and any resulting equations from those principles can be determined to be either practical or theoretical? Such an ability, it seems to me, would save a tremendous amount of time in developing (or even searching for) equations and would address a practical problem for the mathematician, namely - what problems and principles to pursue.

It is also claimed, not universally, but widely I think - that all mathematics has applications ... GH Hardy most famously denied this and I suppose it's not provable, but even some of the most abstract areas of mathematics have turned out to have applications, so finding in advance mathematics that is strictly theoretical would at least be a very interesing result.

 

[smcder]

btw. you don't have to have any understanding by way of mathematics to workout that IIT is jibberish

My only hesitation with that is whether the theory has been fully explicated - is fully available, without equations? The blog link I posted noted that he found it difficult to actually find the core mathematics behind the concept. I'm not a mathematician but I have a fair undergraduate background and I think it can be difficult to convey mathematical ideas without equations ... equations are certainly a more compact way of conveying ideas. Musical notation comes to mind here but that is your area, so you could assess if there are any analogies there? Anything in terms of musical concepts that would be very difficult to convey without notation?

 

[Pharoah]

I can wrestle down an equation if I really have to, but I don't enjoy it, and because, for me, it takes so much mental energy, I prefer to look at the underlying principles in order to determine if the resulting equations are going to yield practical results with respect to the issue at hand, or if they are strictly theoretical.

So far, my source material comes from here: From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0

In IIT a number of things, including things like qualia ( qualia space - formerly Q-Space ) are assumed, and formulas have been constructed to describe the relationship between the axioms, postulates and identities contained within the theory. The theory therefore makes a very serious attempt to be internally coherent. It also uses information from scientific observation and study, and is a seriously academic discipline. On these two counts it has IMO a huge advantage over theories based on religious, new-agey, or folk nonsense.

The problem I see with it however, is that because qualia-space is assumed, there is no explanation for it. Algorithms have been arbitrarily assigned. So in theory, if one were able to pinpoint the value of all the variables, one should be able to provide a yes or no answer to the question of something assumed to be consciousness. But in practical terms, a definitive yes or no answer seems unlikely. The best we're likely to achieve is a probability. A probability might still turn out to be better than nothing in some circumstances, however there is also another problem:

There appears to be no delineation between intelligence and consciousness. In fact the word "intelligence" isn't even mentioned, and the word "intelligent" only appears once. It seems that on initial inspection we could replace qualia-space with I-Space and run the same equations. We should really be calling it X-Space, where X is an unknown variable. Then we could say that something else is going on in there, but what exactly it is, is still another story. So as an example, in the case of a machine, where hypothetically we could connect it to a meter of sorts that logs all the variables in and out, and some extra unaccounted for bit were discovered, and the machine itself also claimed to be experiencing something, how could we be sure that it wasn't an intelligent lie rather than a sign of consciousness?

@ufology you say,
"The problem I see with it however, is that because qualia-space is assumed, there is no explanation for it."
Yes!!