I’m not arguing that the brain isn’t an interface. But keep it grounded and Hoffman certainly doesn’t do that.
The past couple decades of neuroscience and Neuropsychoanalysis have developed an insight that in a very real sense the mind is the inside of our physical being, the brain is plugged into every part of our body, incoming sense signals are real physical inputs, how they get relayed is finely tuned.
This is the reality we need to learn to understand. Not the exciting mind games we can come up with.
I see that as a red herring dead-end. - There are physical inputs that your senses pick up and there are signals your body relays. To imply that is a non-experience is contrived.
Furthermore,
What are we expecting some sort of ‘direct experience’?
Why dangle the notion? What would a “direct experience” be like?
Is there an example of it in the animal kingdom?
Seems to me everything is relayed to other things. It feels to me like the genius talking heads are creating a crisis where none exists, while missing the important if more mundane details.
And for all you claiming that physical reality is acknowledged it really isn’t. If that where the case why does that dialogue end in flights of fancy, such as Hoffman’s outside Conscious Agents zinging around interpreting reality for us?
Then claiming evolution didn’t “create” us to perceive reality. It’s contrary to every deep time evolutionary observation you can learn about, and Donald has been spanked by plenty of experts on that point.
Creatures evolved to survive which require perceiving their reality as well as possible.
^^^
I’ll get to that video and the Somatic markers later, though I’n not sure how they impact the discuss we were having.
incoming sense signals are real physical inputs, how they get relayed is finely tuned.
No the input to the brain has nothing to do with the exterior reality. It is a stream of electro-chemical bits of data that have nothing to do with say, pixels which make up a picture. It’s not like that at all.
I see that as a red herring dead-end. - There are physical inputs that your senses pick up and there are signals your body relays. To imply that is a non-experience is contrived.
I did not say or imply that the data is a non-experience. I said it is not a direct pixilated experience and therein lies the separation between the sensory reception and the transmission into the brain. There is no “direct” connection between the brain and the exterior.
The brain has to guess what the data means and it does so against data in memory.
Memory in the brain does not store pixels either, like a picture file in a computer.
How Human Memory Works - Science | HowStuffWorks
Are memories stored chemically or electrically?
Although a memory begins with perception, it is **encoded and stored using the language of electricity and chemicals
The interior connections of homeostasis control mechanism is subconscious altogether. You don’t even know what goes on unless it goes badly.
You are right, everything in the body is connected by the neural network. But there is no thing as direct observation of anything by the brain . In fact when we look at a scene we only “see” a small portion and we scan the scene to make a composite of its entirety.
That is how we can construct a visual picture inside our brain that is much larger than our brain itself.
Think about that.
Here is a little example of “selective attention”
And for all you claiming that physical reality is acknowledged it really isn’t. If that where the case why does that dialogue end in flights of fancy, such as Hoffman’s outside Conscious Agents zinging around interpreting reality for us?
I am not claiming that, I heard them all say that reality exists independent of observation. It is those patterns that help us survive that are selected by the brain for scrutiny. It is called selective attention as you have witnessed in the above clip.
But I never heard Hoffman say anything about an outside conscious agency. The agency always belongs to the brain but may acquire a certain independence from the body. After all it is completely isolated except for the neural connections.
Are you sure you are not skimming the literature or listening with an open mind to each word?
Each of these scientists is basically saying the same thing but from a slightly different perspective.
As Roger Antonsen says; “when you are able to see a thing from several different perspectives it makes for deeper understanding”.
All very interesting, and I admit I’m not pausing on every word and trying to fully absorb them. Here’s a question, or a thought; our brains didn’t pop into existence and then try to perceive reality. They were much simpler, barely a neuro system at all, when the bodies they inhabited started forming spots on them that could detect photons. Movement began before that, and some form of sensing things were in the way or bumping into those bodies. So, the two evolved together.
So, the thought experiment of “if you were a brain, how would you figure out where you were” doesn’t make sense to me. Nor does your ‘brain perceiving your conscious reality’, that seems like a meta ability of our higher brains, knowing that we can know things, but we can’t get outside of our brains and then perceive ourselves. That would be awesome, and gurus and such say they do it, but I don’t think they do.
Movement began before that, and some form of sensing things were in the way or bumping into those bodies. So, the two evolved together.
I agree. Natural selection selected for best adapted sensory abilities and the brain evolved along with the refined senses providing more detailed data. Although I still believe that that the fusion of chromosome 2 is the beneficial mutation that caused the enormous leap of brain complexity and abilities.
So, the thought experiment of “if you were a brain, how would you figure out where you were” doesn’t make sense to me.
Well, we know the brain is inside the skull. That is an empirical truth. And when we get a head ache it interferes with thinking. The are clues that tell us where the "me " lives.
We can lose a lot of parts, but not our head…
As to identifying “self”, I believe this is explained by our ability to ask the question.
And of course Descartes answered this question with ; “I think, therefore I am”.
A statement by the seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes. “I think; therefore I am” was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted . He found that he could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place.
Nor does your ‘brain perceiving your conscious reality’, that seems like a meta ability of our higher brains, knowing that we can know things, but we can’t get outside of our brains and then perceive ourselves.
Actually, we can. Roger Antonsen demonstrates that we can mentally place ourselves on top of the bookcase and look down at ourselves sitting typing. It takes imagination but that is the very answer to the question. We can also look in a mirror and observe ourselves from outside the body.
The brain is able to place itself outside the skull and have a somewhat independent existence. It is part of the emergent quality of an individual’s consciousness. It is able to make objective observations as well as self-referential subjective observations.
And we come back to Seth’s “controlled hallucinations”, and the “fake hand experiment”, where the brain can be trained to hallucinate that fake hand as the real hand.
IMO, this is also the foundation of creating a Tulpa. All this ability to have imagination is related and I believe only humans have this remarkable ability, because it begs the question if it is required for survival or just a naturally endowed luxury.
“has to guess”
To dismiss the process as a “guess” is appalling, but oh so human.
So it isn’t a direct pixilated experience, the brain is not a digital computer either!
Can you define what you mean “Not a direct pixelated” experience ?
Why do you think our brain is different, or should I say inferior, to your “pixelated” model?
Actually we do see the whole scene, we select what’s important to focus on and become aware of that. Like the difference between looking at my neighbors front yard and looking at a picture of it.
But to make that the essence of the profundity is contrived, to me it sounds like just a word game since how else could any complex life exist?
It’s impossible for anything to take in everything, so information filtering mechanisms were the first order of business when animal life started evolving -
since how else could it have been - now it’s being contrived into some magical feat.
Gotcha. Why aren’t you, they, saying: the observer exists independent of the reality.
Well, all I can guess is that you never cracked open Hoffman’s book.
DH: “Perhaps the universe itself is a massive social network of conscious agents that experience, decide and act. If so, consciousness does not arise from matter and spacetime: …
Instead, matter and spacetime arise from consciousness - as a perceptual interface” (¶26 of Preface)**
Completely isolated. How does one completely isolate themselves from the environments they exist within? The terminology is crazy making.
I really like Lausten’s first paragraph in his following comment
That’s where these discussion should start - rather than trying to imagine the origins of our mind through studying our modern Madison Avenue brain’s interactions with the world.
To dismiss the process as a “guess” is appalling, but oh so human.
Exactly, you identified the source; we are human and our observational abilities are limited and must be taught from childhood on up. If you don’t “know” what it is, you cannot recognize it. “Knowing” comes from memory of prior experience or learning.
IMO, this is the hardest part of understanding the thought process.
So it isn’t a direct pixilated experience, the brain is not a digital computer either!
Again, you hit the nail on the head. The brain is NOT a purely digital computer.
That is why it can only make best guesses as to the “meaning” of incoming data. It does so by comparing against prior memory. But not data is always exactly the same.
This is how the experts are now talking about the brain integration data from various different cues (tokens).
But there is always the fact that the brain does not have a direct connection with the real world outside. It must rely on the accuracy of the senses.
When the senses are damaged or altered we become deaf, or blind, or more subtly, color blind. Some people cannot feel pain, a terrible and dangerous affliction. These sensory deficits can be caused by faulty senses, a damaged neural network, or a glitch in the brain itself.
Regardless, the brain is wholly dependent on secondary data. It must make a best guess of what it is asked to process and then make a internal prediction of what it is looking, or hearing.
All those visual and auditory example clearly demonstrates the limitations, as well as the “associative” strengths of the brain.
The approach you believe in is a top down exercise in reverse engineering. That is only natural for brilliant philosophers.
I belong to observe and act and work and survive and work and work caste, perhaps that’s why I take a bottom up approach, through evolution and biology, starting with the origins and their day to days that eventually became today.
Funny memory came to mind.
Imagine a thousand dollar a plate gala with the governor and other movers and doers.
The fat cats walking into that finished room to sit down and party. Have a totally different perception of the preceding that the workers, who set up, served, cleaned up.
Who’s going to have a more accurate appreciation for what went on in that room that night. Of course, what did go on in that room that night? Was it only that event unfolding, or did other things happen that had much bigger consequences in other sectors?
There’s nothing under this sun we can’t slice and dice endlessly. But after a while we ought to wonder what we are slicing and dicing for? Or not. It’s all a dream we dreamed on afternoon long ago.
Wow, conversing with you takes me through all the highs and low and self-doubt, then you come around and have a way bring me back to what I believe and why I keep trying to enunciate.
I can’t believe there aren’t others looking for something more grounded than variations on the western tradition of Abrahamic and humanistic self-adulation. We are the center, without ever acknowledging what ‘framing’ we “are the center of”.
I skimmed through Kiahdaj’s Absolute Guide to Tulpas, sure there’s a kernel of truth in what he’s describing, but what he actually writes devolves ramblings. Besides, some of these deep inner matters simply need to be experienced personally, not read about.
I back to my mantra. What needed is a deeper awareness and appreciation for the fundamental fact of our human condition: the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide.
So simple, yet amazingly deep, each to discover for themselves. In our discussions and in my watching these folks you’ve mention, especially during that year of doing homework and writing my, Hoffman playing basketball in zero-gravity project
Over the past days there are a number of times I’ve suggest subtle revisions to your wording. They seem to get glanced over and passed on by. Still they show you very specifically, this difference between the Abrahamic intellectual echos and shackles, and a physical reality based evolutionary, dare I say Earth Centrist perspective.
I imagine we disagree over semantics and framing much more than we do over actual body/mind itself.
I gotta run, but here we have that framing example. I don’t discount anything you say. I suggest it’s nestled within much more. Now get to back to reading (or listening or both) those two books. Maddy awaits impatiently, she’s become quite the imperious little bi… oh but I’ve come to love her so. Women lordie, lordie, it never ends, now my daughter and hubby have been sending warning shot across my bow and I’ve silenced myself on the new baby thing, live is nothing if not interesting …
Ouch, just got scratched, gotta go.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:25, topic:6005”]
That’s where these discussion should start - rather than trying to imagine the origins of our mind through studying our modern Madison Avenue brain’s interactions with the world.
WOW, I have had extensive discussion and information sharing about the unconscious intelligence of bacteria. Quorum sensing is one of those fundamental languages of single celled bacteria, the insect hive mind, and more recently GPT3 AI.
I have posited that microtubules are the single common denominator information processor in ALL Eukaryotic organisms, as well as proto models in earlier Prokaryotic orgaisms.
The self-assembling microtubule has been around since abiogenesis itself. It is one of the fundamental organelles without which the neural network would never have evolved.
IOW, any organism that contains microtubules is able to process date coming from its environment.
The flagella (controlled by microtubules) is both a sensory organ as well as a propulsion motor. Microtubule spindle is responsible for mitosis (cell division) as well as the scaffolding of the cytoskeleton.
I have proposed that consciousness emerges from the interaction of microtubules and their bundled synaptic patterns . There is no other candidate that offers the numbers and inherent functional potential of microtubules.
The human brain alone contains a trillion MT and 125 trillion synapses (switches).
# The Role of the Microtubule Cytoskeleton in Neurodevelopmental Disorders
## Introduction
The development of the central nervous system (CNS) and wiring of the brain is an extremely complex process, governed by the communication and careful coordination of the neuronal cytoskeleton, comprised of microtubule (MT), actin and intermediate filament networks ([Menon and Gupton, 2016].
Newly formed neurons face many challenges as they undergo dramatic changes in shape and migrate their way through the extracellular terrain in order to establish connections with other cells.
Specifically, dynamic MTs play pivotal roles in creating cell polarity, as well as aiding in neural migration in order to establish appropriate neural connectivity throughout development and into adulthood. The elaborate MT network is integral to facilitate numerous morphological and functional processes during neurodevelopment, including cell proliferation, differentiation and migration, as well as accurate axon guidance and dendrite arborization.
The organization and remodeling of the MT network is also essential for developing neurons to form axons, dendrites and assemble synapses. Moreover, in mature neurons, MTs continue to maintain the structure of axons and dendrites, and serve as tracks for intracellular trafficking, allowing motor proteins to deliver specific cargoes within the cell.
## Regulators of the Neuronal Microtubule Network
The essential remodeling and organization of the MT cytoskeleton during neuronal morphogenesis relies on a vast array of MT-regulating proteins that have been identified over the last few decades (Figure [2]
These proteins carry out specific functions to control MT dynamicity, fragmentation, stabilization, and intracellular transport. Many act directly on MTs to affect their nucleation, assembly, or stability, while others act indirectly by modulating tubulin levels or intracellular transport, producing downstream effects on neuronal differentiation.
The combined efforts of MT-regulating proteins such as MT associated proteins (MAPs), +TIPs and MT motor proteins, provide the mechanisms by which the MT network reshapes its architecture during neuronal development. Here, we highlight several groups of MT regulators and their respective functions that control the assembly of new MTs and their dynamicity, as well as how they regulate MT stability, fragmentation and intracellular trafficking within neurons.
Figure 2 . MT organization and MT-associated proteins (MAPs) in axons and dendrites. In axons, MTs form stable, polarized bundles, which provide structural integrity and serve as tracks to guide MT-dependent motor proteins. Axonal MTs are stabilized by several MAPs including Tau, MAP1B and DCX. The growth cone contains an array of both stable and dynamic MTs, which prompt growth cone advancement and turning. Various +TIPs accumulate at the growing MT plus ends in the growth cone, where they regulate MT dynamics during axon outgrowth and guidance. MTs of mixed polarity are located within dendrites where MAP1A and MAP2 aid in MT stabilization. The MT-severing proteins, katanin and spastin, are critical for reorganizing the MT network in both axons and dendrites.
p.s. CC make no mistake. I am a hard Atheist and hard Materialist, with one proviso.
Patterns may acquire emergent properties over and above the individual properties of the constituent parts. Hydrogen and Oxygen are “dry particles”. Mix a bunch together and when a certain density is achieved, the pattern acquires an emergent property of a wet fluid (water), or a dry solid (ice), or a moist gas (vapor), without any additional ingredients other than temperature shaping pattern density.
There is no difference between a live beetle and a dead beetle, other than the pattern of the beetles’ costituent parts arranged as a dynamic or static microtubule cytoskeleton.
I wasn’t referring to you in particular. I was referring to those lofty philosophical discussions I keep getting encouraged to listen to. Read what Hoffman writes, if you think I’m exaggerating.
Also you’ve side stepped my complaint about using the planetary atomic model to set up these discussions. It’s an act of misdirection to prep the audience for mind candy.
Focusing on visual “illusions” as a key to consciousness is focusing on the Madison Avenue perspective. I’ve yet to hear any of these philosophers considering consciousness as multi-generational development that needs to be understood by consider the simplest of creatures and how they interacted with there environments.
If you know of any please share. As for your microtubules I’ve been trying to read up a little more and much of what you present as settled fact is still well within the conjecture realm.
Although I’m not disputing microtubules aren’t fascinating and probably hold some big surprises for us, but once we figure that out, even if it’s all as exciting as Stuart Hameroff suggests (but others dispute), it’ll be back to answering a mechanistic question, but it’ll still leave us with the same fundamental philosophical questions about the meaning of it all.
Now that’s ironic, I was under the impression that’s what those folks are trying to do when some of them promise profound breakthroughs, once recognize their other realities?
Beyond that, don’t be coy, finding meaning in things is one of human’s major drivers. I imagine it could even be the foundation for the primal seek instinct, that most all of life displays.
Why are you so dedicated to learning about and defending the mathematical explanation?
and I likewise with my evolutionary bottom up explanation?
Isn’t all this about finding some meaning that helps us put the whole into a perspective we can understand and feel confident in?
Why are you so dedicated to learning about and defending the mathematical explanation?
and I likewise with my evolutionary bottom up explanation?
Because they are not incompatible!
Isn’t all this about finding some meaning that helps us put the whole into a perspective we can understand and feel confident in?
I agree, we seek meaning because sometime in the mist of history, during a monsoon storm, a hominid looked up into the sky and shook his fist at that unseen enemy that was making loud noises and was throwing fire and water at him and his little family.
And the first generation of Gods were born.
First generation Gods;
Chaos (Void)
Gaia (Earth)
Uranus (Sky)
Ourea (Mountains)
Pontus (Sea)
Tartarus (Underworld)
Erebus (Darkness)
Nyx (Night)
Aether (Light)
Hemera (Day)
Eros (Love) (in later myths, the name of Aphrodite and Ares’ son)
Why are you dismissing an evolutionary bottom up approach?
I said they are NOT incompatible.
I am not dismissing evolution at all. I am giving them equality.
I see evolution and natural selection as mathematical functions.
IMO, anything to do with probability is mathematical in essence.
Probability
MATHEMATICS
Probability is the branch of mathematics concerning numerical descriptions of how likely an event is to occur, or how likely it is that a proposition is true. The probability of an event is a number between 0 and 1, where, roughly speaking, 0 indicates impossibility of the event and 1 indicates certainty.[note 1][1][2] The higher the probability of an event, the more likely it is that the event will occur
These concepts have been given an axiomatic mathematical formalization in probability theory, which is used widely in areas of study such as statistics, mathematics, science, finance, gambling, artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer science, game theory, and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the expected frequency of events. Probability theory is also used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.[3]
Objectivists assign numbers to describe some objective or physical state of affairs. The most popular version of objective probability is frequentist probability, which claims that the probability of a random event denotes the relative frequency of occurrence of an experiment’s outcome when the experiment is repeated indefinitely. This interpretation considers probability to be the relative frequency “in the long run” of outcomes.[5] A modification of this is propensity probability, which interprets probability as the tendency of some experiment to yield a certain outcome, even if it is performed only once.
