On 03 Jun 2015, at 14:58, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 28 May 2015, at 20:12, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 28 May 2015, at 05:16, Terren Suydam wrote:
Language starts to get in the way here, but what you're suggesting
is akin to someone who is blind-drunk - they will have no memory
of their experience, but I think most would say a blind-drunk is
conscious.
But I think the driving scenario is different in that my conscious
attention is elsewhere... there's competition for the resource of
attention. I don't really think I'm conscious of the feeling of
the floor pressing my feet until I pay attention to it.
My thinking on this is that human consciousness involves a unified/
global dynamic, and the unifying thread is the self-model or ego.
This allows for top-down control of attention. When parts of the
sensorium (and other aspects of the mind) are not involved or
included in this global dynamic, there is a significant sense in
which it does not participate in that human consciousness. This is
not to say that there is no other consciousness - just that it is
perhaps of a lower form in a hierarchy of consciousness.
I would highlight that human consciousness is somewhat unique in
that the ego - a cultural innovation dependent on the development
of language - is not present in animals. Without that unifying
thread of ego, I suggest that animal consciousness is not unlike
our dream consciousness, which is an arena of awareness when the
thread of our ego dissolves. A visual I have is that in the waking
state, the ego is a bag that encapsulates all the parts that make
up our psyche. In dreamtime, the drawstring on the bag loosens and
the parts float out, and get activated according to whatever
seemingly random processes that constitute dreams.
In lucid dreams, the ego is restored (i.e. we say to ourselves, "I
am dreaming") - and we "regain" consciousness.
We regain the ego (perhaps the ego illusion), but as you say
yourself above, we are conscious in the non-lucid dream too.
Lucidity might be a relative notion, as we can never be sure to be
awaken. The false-awakening, very frequent for people trained in
lucid dreaming, illustrate somehow this phenomena.
Right. My point is not that we aren't conscious in non-lucid dream
states, but that there is a qualitative difference in consciousness
between those two states, and that lucid-dream consciousness is
much closer to waking consciousness than to dream consciousness,
almost by definition. It's this fact I'm trying to explain by
proposing the role of the ego in human consciousness.
OK. usually I make that difference between simple universality
(conscious, but not necessarily self-conscious), and Löbianity (self-
conscious). It is the difference between Robinson Arithmetic and
Peano Arithmetic (= RA + the induction axioms).
It is an open problem for me if RA is more or less conscious than
PA. PA has much stronger cognitive abilities, but this can filter
more consciousness and leads to more delusion, notably that "ego".
I don't insist too much on this, as I am not yet quite sure. It
leads to the idea that brains filter consciousness, by hallucinating
the person.
I'm not so sure that "filtering" is the best analogy, by itself
anyway. No doubt that there is filtering going on, but I think the
forms constructed by the brain may also have a transforming or
focusing effect as well. It may not the case, in other words, that
consciousness is merely, destructively, filtered by our egos, but
there is a sense too in which the consciousness we experience is
made "sharper" by virtue of being shaped or transformed,
particularly by this adaptation of reifying the self-model.
I am OK with this. Brain does not just filter, they do a lot of
information processing which adds a lot to the filtering, including
the angles or points of view.
I make this remark because most of the time I use "consciousness"
in its rough general sense, in which animals, dreamers, ... are
conscious.
Of course... my points are about what kinds of aspects of being
human might privilege our consciousness, in an attempt to
understand consciousness better.
OK. I understand.
Then, I am not sure higher mammals have not yet already some ego,
and self-consciousness, well before language. Language just put the
ego in evidence, and that allows further reflexive loops, which can
lead to further illusions and "soul falling situation".
Right, one could argue that even insects have some kind of self-
model. There is no doubt a spectrum of sophistication of self-
models, but I would distinguish all of them from the human ego. I
guess I was too quick before when I equated the two. The key
distinction between a self-model and an ego is the ability to refer
to oneself as an object - this, and the ability to identify with
that object, reifies the self model in a way that appears to me to
be crucial to human consciousness. I don't think this is really
possible without language.
Probably. But that identification is already a sort of "illusion".
It is very useful in practice, to survive, when being alive. But the
truth, including possible afterlives is more complex.
I think the word illusion in this context adds more confusion than
clarity.
That is a dangerous word indeed, and that was why I use quotes. The
illusion are reals, and are the basic things from which the rest
proceed, except arithmetic, which must be assumed to give sense to
computations and illusions.
Yes, there is definitely a sense in which the self is an illusion,
in that it is constructed.
I was more thinking of the little ego. The one we can kill and feel
better after. It is well approximated by the "man" in Plotinus, and
thus the beweisbar of Gödel. It is open for me if that participate or
not in the rise of the "little ego". In fact the little ego is an
illusion due to a confusion between the "inner god" ([]p & p) and
("[]p"), but I am not quite sure if this works.
In this sense though, everything we experience is an illusion. While
that may be true, casting the ego as an illusion misses the
important idea that the self produces a form of self-reflective
consciousness that is not available otherwise.
It constructs the self-consciousness, but not consciousness itself.
I never used "illusion" as a dismiss, given that everything (but the
numbers) is an illusion, but it is the only thing we have, and it is
very important. That is why I use the term hypostases, usually, or
"points of view". It is phenomenological. But all words have some
defect here.
It would be like saying that bats' echolocation is an illusion. Not
a perfect analogy, because a bat's facility for echolocation is
rooted in its physiology, not constructed, but the point is that
with both the ego and echolocation, the experiencer's consciousness
is provided with a particular character it would not otherwise have
been able to experience.
I usually distinguish 8 forms of ego (the eight hypostases). Each time
it is the sigma_1 reality, but viewed from a different angle. The
illusion (with the negative connotations) are more in the confusion
between two hypostases, than each hypostase per se.
I am not sure we disagree, except on some choice of words.
Bruno
Terren
Nor am I sure that our ego dissolves in non-lucid dream, although
it seems to disappear in the non-REM dreams, and other sleep states.
For me, the key insight I had in trying to describe the difference
between lucid and non-lucid dreams is the ability to say "I am
dreaming", which is an ego statement. What other explanations could
account for the difference between lucid and non-lucid dreams?
No problem with this. I made this remark only because I know people
who confuse awakeness and consciousness. Some, like Malcolm deny any
consciousness in the sleeping state (nor in any machine).
Note that we can know that we are dreaming, but we can never know
"for sure" that we are awake, and indeed with comp, the QM weirdness
can be interpreted as symptoms that we belong to a collective, first
person sharable, sort of dream.
Bruno
Terren
Bruno
Terren
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Jason Resch
<[email protected]> wrote:
Are we any less conscious of as it happens, or perhaps our brains
are simply not forming as many memories of usual/uneventful tasks.
Jason
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:06 PM, Terren Suydam <[email protected]
> wrote:
In the driving scenario it is clear that computation is involved,
because all sorts of contingent things can be going on (e.g.
dynamics of driving among other cars), yet this occurs without
crossing the threshold of consciousness. Relying on some kind of
caching mechanism under such circumstances would quickly fail one
way or another.
Terren
On May 27, 2015 7:38 PM, "Pierz" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6:06:22 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote:
On 5/26/2015 10:31 PM, Pierz wrote:
Where I see lookup tables fail is that they seem to operate above
the probable necessary substation level. (Despite having the same
inputs/outputs at the higher levels).
But your memoization example still makes a good point - namely
that some computations can be bypassed in favour of recordings,
yet presumably this doesn't lead to fading qualia. We don't need
anything as silly as a gigantic lookup table of all possible
responses. We only need to acknowledge that we can store the
results of recordings of computations we've already completed,
and that this should not result in any strange degradation of
consciousness.
Isn't that what allows me to drive home from work without being
conscious of it?
People keep making this point, which is one that I myself made in
the past - and I believe you argued with me at the time, saying
that it's not clear that the mechanism for automating brain
functions is anything like the same as caching the results of a
computation. I think that objection is actually fair enough. With
automated actions it's not clear that the computations aren't
being carried out any more, just that they no longer require
conscious attention because the neuronal pathways for those
computations have become sufficiently reinforced that they no
longer require concentration. I think this model (automated
computation rather than cached computation) fits our experience of
this phenomenon. Sometimes I suspect we're really talking out of
our proverbial arses with these speculations as we still have so
little idea about how the brain works. It may be a computer in the
sense that it is Turing emulable, but then we talk as if it were
squishy laptop or something, and that analogy can be misleading in
many ways. For example, our memories are nothing like RAM. They
are distributed like a hologram, constructive and fuzzy, whereas
computer memory is localised, passive and accurate to the bit. I'm
probably guilty of the same over-zealous computationalism with my
lookup table analogy above, but I was thinking more of an AI and
the in-principle point that cached computation results may be
employed at a fine grained level. I would continue to insist that
it is meaningless to say that a "brain" that employs cached
results of computations is a zombie to the extent that it does so,
because it is meaningless to speak of the "when" of qualia. (You
never replied to my argument about poking a recorded Einstein with
a stick, which I think makes a compelling case for this.) We have
to rigorously divide the subjective and the objective.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
