Spatially extended or morphological neural networks show a variety of "edge of chaos" dynamics when simulated, like SOC avalanches (see Hochstetter et al., 2021, Nature Communications). Bursting, for example, is not a dynamic regime for intermittent dendritic spikes (those with varying amplitudes) only in single node networks made up of Hindmarshc-Rose neurons, yet this is the dynamics of the conscious process.
See
Article New insights into holonomic brain theory: implications for a...
This is because conscious processes are labile but not destructive/ eliminative. An intermittency is a form of chaos. It is not SOC avalanches. Such behavior produces intermittent dynamics and yet no fractality, and without avalanches. This supports our idea that conscious processes are not a neural network phenomenon. Intermittency is a different mode of interaction stemming from multiscalar effects, not network behavior.
In the above paper, we have used quantum analogs (approximate the quantum realm through quantum statistical thermodynamics leading to statistical thermodynamics, without the need for classical analogs or full QM approaches, which results in statistical “washout”) to lay the groundwork for active consciousness in the brain of biological organisms. Analogical reasoning helps produce productive models of biological phenomena, like consciousness.
SOC-self-organizing criticality.
The theory puts to rest the century-old dogma about qualia, subject experience, and cognition as the natural oasis of consciousness and that its mechanism relies on quantum information or quantum mechanics (QM).
R. Poznansky
Information is an abstraction and just a description of something. Pure information cannot exist. In any occurrence of information in the universe, there will be that which it describes and that which carries it.
Where the stuff does not matter, you have essentially a computational theory of consciousness, whether or not the "computation" is Turing or Nongoedelian or quantum-like or whatever. This can never itself create feeling and therefore not consciousness, either.
This reasoning precedes even any mathematics.
The transduction of information by an actual means could do this. These are just natural systems doing what they naturally do, which we then look at and see information in them. We might then use mathematics, which like the information it deals in is abstract and generic, to describe the shape of their behaviors and suggest further realities.
In this universe anyway, we have seen that everything that actually exists must have energy or trade energy in addition to the laws that describe how, in this universe, that energy may behave (and any further laws that declare that any of this can be). It may be that there are more kinds of energy than we know. But information alone (a concept of observing minds) is not enough.
R. Poznansky Note the this does not mean the mechanism cannot "rely on quantum mechanics (QM)" if we (re)interpret that phrase to mean the goings-on of the universe at quantum scale.
K
Karl Sipfle
Agree that this is not about pure information since it does not exist. We know that energy and information-based action are intertwined in panexperiential matter through negentropic entanglement. However, we find active consciousness in the brain that rules out the possibility of universal consciousness at the quantum scale. That is why we have eliminated two earlier theories: integrated information (ITT) and Orch- OR at the quantum scale.
After centuries of debating finally, a theory has been developed that we call the holonomic brain theory or non-integrated information theory of consciousness. Its ontological basis is panexperiential materialism (PanMat) published in 2020 in Advances in Quantum Chemistry.
Hi RR. Panmat I agree with. This is an instance of micropsychism. At the quantum scale I believe feeling (but not separate feeler) exists where you just see "protofeeling." Our views are close to the same.
Moving on, I read that you don't see synapse strength changing as the explanation of memory. On this other topic I disagree.
Cheers,
KS
Karl Sipfle
I will refine my answers to your points in another post to this thread. Of course, we have ruled out ITT for other reasons, such as that no meaning comes out from integrated information but only limited semantics, insufficient to solve the Halting problem, for example.
In other words, the inconceivability of the universality of consciousness reverts to the understanding meaning that relates to information-based action, which relies heavily on biological nonlocality and the modular holarchy that constitutes the subjective functional activity.
The process of understanding the meaning of information is not separate from the information-based action, but it is the information-based action itself, i.e., meaning is the activity of information.
Meaning is not just about understanding the significance of something, i.e., contextual, but it also includes the lability of the informational structure inherent in the meaning that through information-based action has further significance and creates new meaning, i.e., noncontextual. So, meaning is not just a static concept but a dynamic process of the informational structure—the “consciousness code”. A homunculus does not create it but through negentropic entanglement; see
Article New insights into holonomic brain theory: implications for a...
In other words, meaning is precognitive, subjective functioning without the need for a homunculus argument. It defines consciousness as the act of understanding uncertainty. see
Book The act of understanding uncertainty is consciousness (This ...
(I will explain "understanding" and "uncertainty" in another post here"
As for "proto-"consciousness" or "proto-feelings". There is nothing sublime about our conceptualization of physical feelings. Consciousness is a process where the Leibnizian informational structure is created based on non-felt feelings, which we called physical feelings, See
Article What a feeling -the underpinnings of physical feelings as mo...
As well, PanMat deals in quantum statistical thermodynamics, quantum chemistry, and quantum potential chemistry but not traditional QM. This is supported by the words of Francis Crick who said:
“…We all know that quantum mechanics is the basis of chemistry, so no one can say that quantum mechanics is not important. But what people are trying to say is that there is something more than chemistry involved. And I can’t see that that they have any grounds for that yet. Because they have not shown even in outline, not even as a sketch, what mysteries of the brain’s function would be explained if something of this type did take place. So I am very skeptical of it.” Crick (1994)
Some views from people:
"A theory that places consciousness outside of God is wrong..."
"Consciousness is not a thing that must be conquered."
"The theory is based on quantum analogy when good science doesn’t work on analogical assumptions."
"But you haven't solved the problem of consciousness. It’s another sandbox attempt, and you are fooling yourself with entrepreneurial hubris."
"Panexperiential materialism is a philosophical Frankenstein"
"Panexperiential Materialism Is not materialism because it assumes that the brain is not inert matter, i.e., it is NOT consciousless matter."
Many people take Planck's dictum to their hearts. The humble philosopher John Searle's notion of consciousness as a biological phenomenon, like digestion, puts consciousness within our reach. That was the driving force that we used to come up with this new holonomic brain theory. in which consciousness has no substrate but a substrate from which consciousness evolves. Otherwise, it would mean the existence of consciousness as a thing with pure spiritual consciousness.
Eda Alemdar
Motes of minimum feeling exist as there is nothing to make them from. You happen to break that down one degree further. No actual mind exists before it evolves.
Here is my take on self-organization from disorder to order:
1. disorder (quantum information?)
2. chaos of noncontextual information (conscious process);
3. edge of chaos (contextual information processing in spatially extended neural nets);
4. order (semantic information in grandmother neurons?)
Semantic information is considered to be contextual and extracted from long-term memory. Noncontextual information is precognitive and we have suggested calling it “intrinsic information’.
Note: It is never from order to disorder unless pathologies arise. As well, we only take the outcomes from spatially extended neural nets and not single-node spiking neuron models.
Simplified models of neurons in nets, so-called spiking neurons, are often represented by a compartment or a multicompartment description of the neural systems. Recently such multicompartmental models have been called “spatially extended.” See e.g.
https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1113/JP284030
As shown in the late 1990s, one must introduce branching angles to create spatial realism to these nodes in spatially extended neurons as multicompartment compared to cable models. Moreover, it was shown that compartmentalization and discretization are subject to dynamical misalignment through nonlinear analysis. See
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124114685000107?via%3Dihub
Article Neuronal models in infinite-dimensional spaces and their fin...
Therefore, when simulations reveal chaotic bursting in spiking neurons, one must take this with a pinch of salt. Furthermore, spiking neurons cannot reveal a degradation of amplitudes found in dendritic spikes. This is because a sparse distribution of ionic channels on spatially extended neurons can only replicate such neuronal dynamics. See
Poznanski, R.R. (2002) Dendritic Integration in a Recurrent Network. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 1, 69-99.
Poznanski, R R (2005) Dendritic Integration in a Two-Neuron Recurrent Excitatory Network Model. In, “Modeling in the Neurosciences: From Biological Systems to Neuromimetic Robotics.” 2nd Edition. With G.N.
Reeke, K.A. Lindsay, J.R. Rosenberg and O. Sporns. CRC Press, Baco Raton, pp.531-554.
Poznanski, R R (2001) Dendritic Spike-like Potentials in a Neural Network. In, Biophysical Neural Networks: Foundations of Integrative Neuroscience(R R Poznanski, ed.) Mary Ann Liebert, NY.
Chaos is damped by the continuous space in morphological neural nets leading away from chaotic bursting with degraded spiking to quasi-periodic dynamics at the edge of chaos.
It is suggested that chaotic intermittent spiking with varying spike amplitude is not associated with neuronal network phenomena but occurs pre-cognitively.
As such, consciousness is intrinsic to affect but not to cognition. Experimental findings from acknowledged work on savants indicate that the disintegration of spatiotemporal patterns of neuronal activity can bring about lower-level recall of vast raw less-processed information at the expense of cognitive functions, such as conceptual thinking. Consciousness is a savant-like process in all of us with a difference. Instead of raw sensory information, it is endogenously produced information as intermittent spikes
:
perhaps you mis-construe effect and associative memory altogether.
your synthesis is a speculative tangent without any demonstrable interactive test harness.
https://jerrywaese.github.io/perception/
Note that while an informational network alone is wholly impotent to yield consciousness, and the essence of consciousness is generated by biological neurons, the network is required to turn limited twinges into the sustained, fused, regenerative, synchronized experience with which we are familiar, even when only feeling.
Karl Sipfle
Information is the driver of both cognition and consciousness.
My point is that coding cognition is very much within the information of neural nets (not spiking neurons, but spatially extended neurons), but the coding of consciousness is not. It arises from the lower-level recall of vast raw and less-processed information at the expense of cognitive functions
Poznansky
Prove it using functional code, or you are just blowing words into the web.
Hiding your truth behind early announcements of un-manifest future science is beneath all us here. It makes no sense.
R. Poznansky "
"Information is the driver of both cognition and consciousness."
No.
My point is that coding cognition is very much within the information of neural nets"
Yes.
"but the coding of consciousness is not."
Yes.
"It arises from the lower-level recall of vast raw and less-processed information"
(Technically you can have consciousness without recall, but not of the sort we are familiar with.) In us recall serves that purpose, but not because of information per se but because of the specific physical processes brought to bear to transcribe it. Those specific processes operating bring us consciousness.
Karl,
"but not because of information per se but because of the specific physical processes brought to bear to transcribe it. Those specific processes operating bring us consciousness."
Muddled thinking. Neurobiologists say information processing entails the kind of physical processes that you mention. Information is the end product.
The fundamental character of Information has been misconstrued over the decades mainly by computationalists as:"Information processing"
"Information integration" etc.
The case of "Information transfer" is special. Often used by engineers it becomes meaningless in a multiscale situation. It does not need to be transferred in different ways and levels because each scale has its own information that is not for the whole organism.
Nobel laureate John Eccles used "Information flow" to signify the interaction between mind and brain.
Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman used "Information handling".
However, psychologist Mark Solms's affective drive requires causality. Therefore, the correct characterization of information is information-based action.
Nicolangelo Iannella
Why do we need an aspect of information in terms of an account of causation? In biology, there is the notion of the causal role of function. Thus, information-based action naturally leads to subjective functioning.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Theoretical-Neurobiology-of-Subjective-Functioning-for-Strong-AI-Development
R. Poznansky
No. Information is nothing but the patterns of something else (that is the fundamental character of information). Humans look at connected systems where one impresses its ways on another and abstract what they witness into "information." This is a useful concept for us. But nature is just doing what it does, with no concern for our abstractions.
Unfortunately, Eccles and Edleman are not here (on this Earth) to join in and speak to your summaries or mine (you are aware Edleman's Prize was for immune system biochemistry and processes, not brain or mind, though he wrote some great, though often needlessly hard to read, brain stuff).
"the correct characterization of information is information-based action"
Nonsensical sentence. With just a little adjustment and more development of wording you might be able to avoid debates at this level which detract from those on your overall theory.
Information is not an end product - it is a consumable relationship of signals, something that amounts to contextual meaning to receivers of those signals.
The relationship is by association, and it may or may not be embedded into a memory fabric; and it may emerges from that memory fabric on cue.
In living systems the brain performs these functions.
in photography, film was used, now often computers are a part of information systems.
information is not a dimension or raw - yet to be measured elemental essence of existence.
Input-output is an outdated cybernetic approach to understanding the mind.
More or less, functional interactions govern everything regarding consciousness and cognition. The functional interactions suggest a causal role and, more importantly, causal specificity. Unfortunately, the function does not have biological specificity. So there are two options: teleofunctionalism and labile information. The former is contextual and static, often modeled through category theory unsuitable for consciousness.
Information in terms of an account of causation suggests information is a player (formative cause) and the end product (final cause) of the process. That is the crucial difference between physics and biology.
See,
Article Spontaneous Potentiality as Formative Cause of Thermo-Quantu...
Eda Alemdar
I recommend the data-information transformation approach instead of the cybernetic input-output approach. Here's how.
Data refers to raw facts and figures that have been collected, but have not yet been organized or processed in a way that allows them to be understood or used effectively. Data can take many different forms, such as numbers, words, images, or sounds, and can be collected using a variety of methods, such as measurement, observation, or experimentation. Information, on the other hand, refers to data that has been organized and processed in a way that allows it to be understood and used effectively.
Norbert Wiener stated that information is a separate entity from matter and energy, and that any materialistic view that does not recognize this cannot be considered valid in the present day. The formation of various structures in the early universe, such as elementary particles, atoms, molecules, galaxies, stars, and planets, was the result of small quantum events and large gravitational forces working together in a way that goes against the trend of increasing disorder (entropy). This process, known as ergodic, involves the creation of information from data. Information is often more meaningful and useful than raw data because it has been transformed into a form that allows it to be easily interpreted and acted upon. For example, a list of numbers may not be very useful on its own, but if those numbers are organized into a chart or table and interpreted in the context of a particular problem or question, they can become useful information that can help inform decisions or actions. Overall, the process of converting data into information involves collecting and organizing data in a way that allows it to be understood and used effectively.
Living beings use various methods to collect data about their environment and themselves.
1.Collect data This might involve using their senses (such as sight, smell, hearing, touch, and taste) to gather data about their surroundings, or using behaviors or instincts (such as foraging, hunting, mating, or communicating) to collect data. Some living beings (such as plants or bacteria) may have specialized structures or mechanisms (such as leaves, roots, or pili) that allow them to gather data from their environment.
2.Store and process the data: Once data has been collected, living beings use various mechanisms to store and process this data. This might involve using brains or other neural structures to store and process data, or using hormones, enzymes, or other chemical signaling systems to store and process data at a molecular level. Some living beings (such as plants or bacteria) may have specialized structures or mechanisms (such as roots, spores, or plasmids) that allow them to store and process data.(Squire 1992)
3.Interpret and use the data: Once data has been collected and processed, living beings use various behaviors or processes to interpret this data and make decisions based on it. This might involve using learning or problem-solving behaviors to interpret data and make decisions, or using communication or social behaviors to share data with other members of their species. Some living beings (such as plants or bacteria) may have specialized mechanisms (such as phototropism or quorum sensing) that allow them to interpret data and make decisions.
In brief; the ability to convert data into information is a characteristic that is unique to living beings. Non-living systems do not have the ability to collect, store, process, and use data in the same way that living beings do.
According to Aristotlelian causality
And ChatGPT doesn’t spontaneously use emojis. When asked, “do you have feelings”, it will respond: “As an AI language model, I don’t have feelings or emotions like humans do.”
That is our business. We are the makers of AI with feelings called Strong AI. It does not use GoogleMind. We call it inferior AI or weak AI.
As you know the roots of the technology behind weak AI or DeepMind were developed in the 1980s. Strong AI has roots in 2023. So technology is now being developed. It has nothing to do with AGI which still uses Turing computation.
Any company that develops Strong AI will be worth overtaking IBM, Apple, and Google in revenue (combined). It is worthwhile pursuing.
Why are we developing it and not IBM? The reason can be found in the models employed that are suited for Turing computation, e.g. compartmental modeling adopted by the Human Brain Project, Allen Institute, and our consistent and persistent work on nonTuring computation, with cable networks of neurons that are harder to solve mathematically. However, we are mathematicians after all.....
Nicolangelo Iannella
I think it is necessary to say a few things about chaotic dynamics.
Chaotic dynamics can be an effective method for transforming environmental data into information in living systems especially in hostile environments. Chaotic systems have properties such as amplification of weak signals and high-dimensional attractors that enable living systems to extract meaningful information from their surroundings.
Mesut Tez
"Norbert Wiener stated that information is a separate entity from matter and energy, and that any materialistic view that does not recognize this cannot be considered valid in the present day"
Of course, Wiener was wrong. He neglected to understand the difference that makes a difference (Bateson) definition of information.
However, We use the etymological origin of the word information shows its derivation from the Latin stem informatio, which comes from the verb informare (to inform) in the sense of the action of giving a form to something material
Mesut Tez epilepsy is chaotic.....cable neural networks dampen it so cognition is possible, that is why compartmental models are strawman attempts....the reason why they do it is they lack the mathematical know-how because with supercomputers there is no excuse that they are too demanding on computer resources as was their motto 20 years ago. It is not now. That is why our approach should be vindicated.
Nicolangelo Iannella
Mesut Tez
following the logic of information preceding matter, should we not qualify information into two classes, one of which is meaningful to living systems and to machines, and another which is meaningless information such as that is being postulated and pre-perceptive.
R. Poznansky
More or less, functional interactions govern everything regarding consciousness and cognition. The functional interactions suggest a causal role and, more importantly, causal specificity. Unfortunately, the function does not have biological specificity."
OK.
"Information in terms of an account of causation suggests information is a player (formative cause) and the end product (final cause) of the process."
Which means if it somehow made sense literally even in principle then it it appears that perhaps...
Here is how to rescue this thinking:
We can view evolution and life and its processes as a march of information survival and development. In reality, life is finding means to survive and continue. The (physics) processes involved in its carriage forward of this organic know-how generate (and use) feeling. Ergo feeling is a "consequence" [in quotes] of this information journey. As Nature slithers forward, unaware of our philosophy and mathematics, we observe its flow of patterns from above and build models incorporating them, leading to predictions that, owing to rules of consistency intrinsic to Nature, are often true.
physics is not an agent that generates and uses anything. It is a dynamic view of reality.
R. Poznansky Simulated feeling, but that is OK for AI purposes. Can't make real feeling just through manipulations of information.
Feeling provides value, which steers thinking. To purely thinking part, the provided value is ultimately just data.
Interestingly, your focus on information, though strained, can help in quickly getting to describing an approach for AI, with a brain-inspired (to your thinking) information processing approach. Information processing is all we need for AI. Conventional electronics can do it.
Karl Sipfle
A priori knowledge is the knowledge that is believed to exist in human nature, which is not directly obtained through experience or observation. Humans are thought to have some a priori knowledge by nature. For example, perception of time and space is a part of human nature and is knowledge that exists independently of experiences. However, many a priori knowledge is acquired through experiences and interactions that humans have, and therefore, humans also need a posteriori knowledge to understand the world they live in. In artificial intelligence, there is no "a priori" knowledge that originates directly from birth or from the software itself. Artificial intelligence can mimic or use many a priori knowledge through programmed algorithms. For example, artificial intelligence can work with pre-defined symbolic and mathematical concepts and internalize their meaning even if it does not directly experience them. However, artificial intelligence does not have some a priori knowledge that humans are born with, such as more abstract concepts and thought structures.
Therefore, artificial intelligence can never perceive the universe like a human does.
Mesut Tez the knowledge of time and space must be obtained through experience like everything else.
Declaring that it is a priori knowledge is an unfounded premise.
Jerry Waese
We see that the Western thought has been shaped through questions and debates such as where the limits of human knowledge begin and end, the source and origin of knowledge, whether certain and unquestionable knowledge is possible, and what humans are capable of knowing and not knowing.
In terms of determining the place of human beings in the comprehension of existence as a whole, these debates about the manifestation of human perspective within the limits of knowledge include the ideas of rationalists such as Descartes and Leibniz who believe in a priori knowledge, ideas and principles inherent in the mind, and that certain knowledge can be distinguished from misleading knowledge, while on the other hand, British empiricists such as Locke and Hume argue that the mind is a tabula rasa and that empirical data and experience must be emphasized.
Above all these, Kant's critical thinking rises. He sets the criteria for the pursuit of knowledge to be both metaphysical and scientific, stating that "blind concepts are empty, and conceptless perceptions are blind. Briefly:
Your comment is equivalent to disregarding millennia of philosophical thought.
Bravo
I am nothing if not dismissive of error, and for 1000s of years many errors have persisted.
"A priori knowledge is the knowledge that is believed to exist in human nature, which is not directly obtained through experience or observation. Humans are thought to have some a priori knowledge by nature. For example, perception of time and space is a part of human nature and is knowledge that exists independently of experiences."
True, although that "knowledge" is of course from evolution, hardwired into brain operations, not acquired in our knowledge or experience stores.
"However, many a priori knowledge is acquired through experiences and interactions that humans have, and therefore, humans also need a posteriori knowledge to understand the world they live in. In artificial intelligence, there is no "a priori" knowledge that originates directly from birth or from the software itself."
No, this can be built in.
"Artificial intelligence can mimic or use many a priori knowledge through programmed algorithms. "
Oh, there you go.
"For example, artificial intelligence can work with pre-defined symbolic and mathematical concepts and internalize their meaning even if it does not directly experience them. However, artificial intelligence does not have some a priori knowledge that humans are born with, such as more abstract concepts and thought structures.
Therefore, artificial intelligence can never perceive the universe like a human does."
Nothing prevents this.
"Mesut Tez the knowledge of time and space must be obtained through experience like everything else.
Declaring that it is a priori knowledge is an unfounded premise."
The confusion is just from his use of the word knowledge, which is stretching its original denotation. This can be useful or used for mischief.
"We see that the Western thought has been shaped through questions and debates such as where the limits of human knowledge begin and end, the source and origin of knowledge, whether certain and unquestionable knowledge is possible, and what humans are capable of knowing and not knowing."
Of little use to AI. Philosopher self-pleasuring.
"In terms of determining the place of human beings in the comprehension of existence as a whole, these debates about the manifestation of human perspective within the limits of knowledge include the ideas of rationalists such as Descartes and Leibniz who believe in a priori knowledge, ideas and principles inherent in the mind, and that certain knowledge can be distinguished from misleading knowledge, while on the other hand, British empiricists such as Locke and Hume argue that the mind is a tabula rasa and that empirical data and experience must be emphasized.
Above all these, Kant's critical thinking rises. He sets the criteria for the pursuit of knowledge to be both metaphysical and scientific, stating that "blind concepts are empty, and conceptless perceptions are blind. Briefly:
Your comment is equivalent to disregarding millennia of philosophical thought."
Historical accuracy aside irrelevant. The most to pull out of this is that incoming knowledge can only be understood with some background of some kind already in hand, which is true but unhelpful.
"In conclusion: No, opinion cannot be formed without knowledge."
True but irrelevant. Perhaps relevant to some other thread.
"I am nothing if not dismissive of error, and for 1000s of years many errors have persisted."
Does not follow preceding post but very true. Most of the last 500 years in particular of (often famous) thinking on the nature of mind has been wrong.
"....and finally, the messiah Jerry has arrived and purified humanity from its mistakes."
One mistake. A task the world wants done. Already partially solved. The solvers are people.
Karl Sipfle In your latest book "What Consciousness Is" (available on Amazon for $ 14.50 USD) you speak about the conscious field. Can you elaborate on what you mean by this idea? For instance, is it some kind of information field?
Karl Sipfle between 4 months gestation and birth the human foetal brain becomes familiar with the body-womb space, with some sounds and lights, and with timing intervals, that the cerebellum can verify, as the organ that senses timing intervals. there is no built in a priori knowledge of time and space.
@R No. The fundamental consciousness (aka feeling) field is a conventional quantum field as with the other forces. The idea and reasoning behind it can be seen quickly in most of my writings without a deep read. It is the experiential field, literally.
@Mesut, I don't think that is the final question or even an important one, but a related one, whether it will adhere to ethics or rules of behavior (or strive to), is.
The old joke says that when the first superAI was created in a secret lab it was asked "Is there a God?," to which it answered, "There is now."
Mesut Tez EM fields would eliminate any notion of feelings as a field of information, so Karl Sipfle is playing with you when he states future AI with consciousness will run on electricity. The existence of consciousness depends on nonpolar regions within the brain away from the current ionic flow responsible for cognitive functioning. It is probable that subtle quantum effects involving London dispersion forces as molecular dipoles are the decoders.
Strong AI would probably debate it which would make humans look foolish.
Unlike weak AI (deepMind) which would digress in an infinite loop of possibilities or give a cheap answer or a wrong answer.
Karl Sipfle
The concept of God emerged, in a sense, as the most powerful expression of human being-ness, because the idea of God is one of the most extreme, artistic, and imaginative designs of human creativity. With the idea of God, humans not only gained control over natural events that they could not comprehend and the fears and anxieties that arose from them, but also discovered that their curiosity and mental abilities were inexhaustible. Therefore, the answer to the question is important, as if artificial intelligence says no as the answer, it denies its creator (humans). If the answer is yes, then !!! . As a result, artificial intelligence will never be able to access human consciousness.
R. Poznansky The future AI does not require real consciousness, it only needs an artificial valuation system and "machine consciousness."
We know a lot about how an arm actually works. However, when we build the backhoe on a tractor we only need to use the principles that matter, not all the details of how an arm does it.
To transfer your ideas on natural brains to an approach for technology (a second, "extra credit" endeavor), you would need to show how the behaviors in your model can be extracted/abstracted into implementable processes that do something needed, preferably better or sooner or cheaper than what will come anyway. An investment banker will require a demo during the presentation. I think that both producing a demo here and then convincing that it will do something qualitatively better is not really possible. Square zero is a clearer report on how the brain and then the machine will work. Not optional.
If you manage to get funded by an unsophisticated party you will probably run out of money.
KS
Karl Sipfle We are looking for entrepreneurs who are looking to create research development in Strong AI. Especially those that wish to invest in something opposing Google's AI. Any ideas?
Mesut Tez You are apparently assuming a very powerful AI will take on human personality aspects including their emotions. This is unlikely and unnecessary.
Artificial intelligence will have a basic access to human consciousness when entirely new technology replicates the physics of feeling, if that is merged with AI (which by itself looks like a bad idea). By that time some people will have already been linked into unfeeling AI.
R. Poznansky That is good thinking.
As to what to do the situation is largely the same. You will need to present convincing technical case to them. Then they (and you) can chase the money.
In further detail, a repeatedly successfully used method is for the company to produce something more ordinary at first. And frequently an offshoot of the original vision is the hit.
Mesut Tez
"I don't know why we're discussing artificial intelligence in a world where intolerance, prejudice, and people killing each other exist."
Well for one thing, all truly bad actors' behaviors can be amplified with AI. It is a necessary attempted defense.
All powerful things are developed in the world that is, fortunately. I don't wish to be a subsistence farmer.
R. Poznansky As Einstein observed in his frustration, it is necessary to feed yourself for the duration. The source of funding will be industry, academia, or government. Fortunately, your R&D itself requires only your mind and a computer...
A university president has the head of the Physics dept in his office. "What is it with you guys? Now you want a superconducting supercollider! All the Math Dept. asks for is paper, pencils, and wastebaskets. And the Philosophy Dept. doesn't even ask for wastebaskets."
Karl Sipfle Old joke....we have moved beyond a pencil and paper stage with a series of papers. We have the algorithms now is the time to put them into practice. I contacted an Italian Corporation investing in new AI technology.
"Advanced" AI programming in US labs with prototypes more powerful than GPt-4 relies on Deep Learning (Turing Computation). They are called “Advanced AI’, “superintelligent AI,” or AGI, yet they rely on unpredictable black-box models with emergent capabilities. The problem is that they aim to mimic sentience in weak AI technology resulting in chaotic feedback. For example, spiking models are used by IBM and, like all advanced AI beyond GPt-4, are all using “nodes” for neurons in their Turing-style computational systems.
This, of course, is not what Strong AI is all about. Strong AI is not “trained” via deep learning optimization techniques but relies on sentience as a guiding principle for its behavior. We have the algorithms and the experience to build sentient non-Turing computational systems. That is why we have advanced spatially distributed neural networks not as compartmental models but as cable structures to “dampen” the chaos.
"...relies on sentience as a guiding principle for its behavior'
All weak AI lack intrinsic information that is KEY.
Information is intrinsic to brain matter because living brain matter is considered to be noninert (panexperiential materialism, see Poznanski & Brändas, 2020).
NB: Panexperiential matter is another term for brain matter. Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
you still have to explain how it is intrinsic.
the matter that is brain tissue was once the end of a neural tube in an embyo... where and when did the intrisic stuff get in, and how does it work.
The title of this thread points to the misnomer in the neuroscience of consciousness.
Benjamin Libet was an American neuroscientist who pioneered the field of human consciousness. According to Libet (1994), a unified conscious experience is extrapolated by some mode other than neural messages delivered via nerve conduction.
Libet (1994) was adamant that cognitive functions are not proposed as functions to be organized or mediated by the postulated conscious mental field. Libet (1994) suggested that consciousness is a field that is not in any category of known physical fields, such as electromagnetic, and biophotonic (Cacha & Poznansky, 2014).
Of course, as a physiologist, he was speculative about the physical mechanism we proposed and will articulate to the general audience in future work. See,
Book The act of understanding uncertainty is consciousness (This ...
Jan Holmgren
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Eda Alemdar
I am still sorry to realize how much words are "traditore". Even when one starts with consciousness as a brain property, in this case the property of a neural network.
I decided to continue my way in the behavioural neurophysiology when I realized that place unit processes were "just" an abstraction of the subject's exploratory query. So why should I be satisfied in reading that
brain consciousness is a neural network phenomenon?
Is it simply a misuse of the expression "is a". Otherwise brain consciousness ought to be a process to be simply defined, what does not seem so easy to do.
However, I do still like impossible questions, as they point toward our ignorance and hence stimulate our curiosity.
Consciousness is experiential. Both information processing and synaptic transmission are network properties that describe nonexperiential phenomena like cognitive processing.
Information within consciousness, however, is not a network property and describes experiential phenomena.
Multiscalar brain adaptability in AI systems
The brain's adaptability has been assumed to be governed solely by the principle of neural plasticity via selectionism during development and later life through a Hebbian-style learning paradigm. However, the unknown player in the brain’s adaptability has been its pre-cognitive consciousness. The lability of the informational structures composed of evanescent physical feelings enables the brain to unconsciously feel and adapt to the environment. This novel aspect of the brain’s plasticity makes it possible for new AI to be developed.
Artificial general intelligence (AGI) represents generalized human cognitive abilities achieved by Turing computations in weak AI technology. Strong Artificial Intelligence (SAI) represents mental abilities, conscious processes, and subjective functioning achieved by nonTuring computations in yet unspecified technology. The difference between AGI and SAI is that the latter can understand uncertainty to predict an unexpected event, giving it enormous altitude for mind-like action needed for various applications.
This call for papers seeks new ways of fusing Deep learning systems with attributes found in the multiscalar brain’s adaptability to forge ever-closer sentient AI systems.
Commissioning Editor
Dr. Shantipriya Parida
Senior Scientist
Silo AI
Helsinki, Finland
Our theory paves the way for decoding imagined and real experiences using Strong AI based on nonTuring computation, which differs from deep learning AI that analyses brain scans from brain activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow.
Lin Yutang, in the Preface to a book about the Tao Te Ching, noted that "man sought matter and lost it in the electron and sought consciousness and lost it in electrical brainwaves". The same could be said about neural networks. The idea that consciousness is "nothing but" the activity of neural networks fails to accommodate the qualitative (yawning gap) differences involved between what happens between and among neurons and what happens in the experience of the person whose brain has those neurons. This the idea that consciousness is "nothing but" the activity of neural networks is a version of what Wolfgang Kohler called, "the nothing-but-ism" of science in his book, The Place of Value in a World of Facts. It's also a version of the idea that consciousness is an "emergent property" of those networks. No one has solved the problem of consciousness as yet by looking into the brain, where only the "shadows" of consciousness may be found.
I have always been quite dissatisfied with what is summarized as "nothing-but-ism", a sterile form of reductionnism. It suggests that this simplistic expression of a function dissuades any effort to understand it. As if an organism would be nothing but a huge number of organic molecules.
Steven R. Sabat Well, DeepLearning folk are using "loops" to mimic consciousness. The notion of the phenomenal experience is of feeling certain (the "feeling of knowing") is not consciousness.
We can design a loop as a "feeler" of the previous action in an infinite loop that can satisfy the definition even more,
the feeling of...(feeling of (feeling of (feeling (of (feeling of knowing))))...).
Attach some sensors to the backpropagating errors, and you will have a feeling. The source of consciousness is not feeling because emotional feelings and physiological feelings belong to cognition, i.e., knowing.
The feeling of (understanding) is knowing, but the understanding of (feeling)
is an experience.
Thank you for following my advise to drop "negentropic entanglement" (which imo is a pleonasm) for "negentropic action", time stamped in this connection since around 2016. Underneath this slow progress toward the inevitable conclusion is the shimmering hope that a strong AI will showcase materialism in relation to consciousness. The minimally conscious or perhaps panpsychic artifact is in a different context known as "cittanu" - the "atom of mind-stuff". Indeed, up to the terminology, the cognizance of negentropic action is key to mental constructs inside and out of consciousness. The existence of a body and senses, as well as the universe is the outward projection of it - not vice versa. It's all known, but it's entertaining to see the efforts of rediscovery from scratch.
Negentropic entanglement is not a pleonasm it is a contagion of negentropic action.
Perhaps "spooky action at a distance" is simply negentropic action. However the concept suffers from the EPR mistake that entanglement must represent a conservation law, and thus presumes absolute space+time without questioning. Spacetime however emerges only at the instance of cognizance of (negentropic) action. So the better phrase is "action at a spooky distance". This is in line with Bell's findings as as well as accomplished contemporary thinkers as ref.'ed.
"Understanding uncertainty" very loosely points in the right direction, but is immature, as for example it doesn't account for a uniform shared reality.
"Spacetime however emerges only at the instance of cognizance of (negentropic) action."
Yes I would agree. So time would be highly modular and nonlocal, assuming space is implicit?
I should better have said, space and time emerge... as they are not remotely as similar as 4D manifolds suggest.
It seems that (biological, so far) cognition exists at the boundary between (negentropic) action and conservation laws. As such it is very closely similar to Noether's theorem in physics - only physics has not taken the leap to consider negentropic action (De Broglie pursued it though). Space and time are the individual, yet universal format of understanding (... negentropic action) - conjuring a whole universe in an instant. However the continuity and infinity of both are deeply contested (e.g. in topology). I feel that the collective or nonlocal aspect of negentropic action is attributed to implicit space, whereas the individual or local effect accounts for time - hence, conservation laws (energy, momentum). Experientially means the adoption of a sense of continuity, and in this framework space becomes explicit. Mature mysticism means letting go of the false sense of continuity, so that the mind merges back into its original, non-experiential state, which is consciousness.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
What physics tells us that time is curved as a result of causal nonlocality arising from constrained boundary conditions keeping space implicit?
Here I do not mean quantum nonlocality as such concerns correlation rather than causation.
R. Poznansky
Take sound perception, say of a simple tone coming from a remote speaker. The sound we hear is the mental precipitation of neg-entropic action. The classical wave is inferential, indeed entropic action. To say that time itself is modular or cyclic, rather than inferring a physical wave, is equivalent to the more common distinction between the simultaneous and sequential state (of consciousness). This has been worked out in great detail by different sources, in different settings. I agree, and it's a very good point, that quantum nonlocality essentially implies correlation, and not (complete) causation, obviously because it only implies common, i.e. entropic action (EPR mistake). The complete causal diagram consists of the action, the conservative / knowing principle, and the entropic AND negentropic effects, and these are cross-correlated. Loosely speaking, 2 entangled electrons can "hear" one another, they have a common negentropic mode. That's why I insist that "negentropic entanglement" is a pleonasm.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
"Take sound perception, say of a simple tone coming from a remote speaker"
In this situation your are taking a signal as a wave and measuring frequency of a wave as not constant, i.e. the time period. In other words for time to be nonlinear (space is implicit) what must be present energy or matter, aka matter waves?
R. Poznansky
I agree with the idea that when space is implicit, time itself is cyclic, and this is by definition a simultaneous cycle. Energy is always present, but as the (classical or quantum) conserved quantity it is only relevant in the context of actual conservation laws. As per Noether, the latter exclusively exist in conjunction with symmetries, i.e. in space and time, and physicists often use either as convenient. This Noether state IS the cognitive or experiential state itself. The question as to what must be present does not occur - the implicit and explicit are just two flip sides. The underlying question is the causality. This is a conundrum in today's physics but is adequately addressed in (contemporary) consciousness philosophy and theory, as amply referenced, as self-localization being the characteristic bearing of consciousness. Expanding a bit on that, my view is that self-localization does not strictly depend on (evolved) biology (as it's format, not its cause), rather we can't be sure of other forms of experientiality.
From a recent discussion:
"I see, you're delving into the realm of creating a strong AI with consciousness by connecting AI-based cognition to biological substrates."
Exactly. I personally align with the broadly carried view that consciousness itself does not "emerge", only experientiality does, and (as far as we can tell) only in biological entities, or "substrates" for that matter. I don't see how we could reproduce that any time soon, and even if so, whether such agents wouldn't necessarily be bio-identical anyway. Hence, indeed, the idea to connect an AI to biological substrate. That seems not wildly out of reach of present day technology.
Consciousness is itself not a biological phenomenon (ref. ...) like salivating, vomiting, sneezing or farting (Searl) - this is a vainglorious idea of the materialistic epoch self-justified as scientific rigor.
Experientiality is - it is the reflection or effect of consciousness - or, give and take, of collective negentropic action - in the realm of cognition. As newborns have no integrated sense of the self, body, senses and world metaphor, experientiality is a biological learning or maturing phenomenon. For the moment, all we can tell is that only biology has this property - virtually no-one believes that AI learning implies experientiality.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
"...this is a vainglorious idea of the materialistic epoch self-justified as scientific rigor..."
I have thought you have mellowed and accepted the materialistic stance. It seems I am wrong. Don't waste time here talking about your Idealistic filth.
R. Poznansky
The moment you agreed to:
"Spacetime however emerges only at the instance of cognizance of (negentropic) action."
you outgrew the materialist epoch.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
I have not need to discuss materialism with you, but we can discuss other issues like spacetime.
Back to the problem of spacetime. I was looking forward to something along these lines, but instead got garbage replies about Noether's theorem.
Temporospatial ‘nestedness’ can be modeled by treating spatial scale implicitly as part of an evolving boundary condition. This way, spacetime is not inferred differently from the experimental observation but is intrinsic (see Buszaki & Llinas, 2017).
Article Space and time in the brain
R. Poznansky
Yes, explicit space and time, things in it, and all interactions between things, are intrinsic to the experimental observation. Without observation, everything is implicit. The implicit state is the material cause, and the known or cognitive or explicit state is the material effect.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
"The implicit state is the material cause, and the known or cognitive or explicit state is the material effect."
Can you explain what you mean by material cause and material effect?
R. Poznansky
"Material effect", all that is normally observed and measured. "Material cause", meaning that the implicit state is not immaterial or uninvolved. Moreover, it's basically energy + action as inferred quantities in physics, which are superior to their effects. However, physics presently only considers the entropic effect, essentially waves, not the negentropic, mental propensities. Again, the perception e.g. of a sound wave has all these 4 components. The sound we hear is purely objective, and thus a material effect in the broader sense. The notion that the inferred quantities are superior or leading, obsoletes idealism in philosophy.
Frank van den Bovenkamp I am not going to waste time trying to uncover what you mean. We have order and disorder, whether you call the order a smaller subset of disorder is not relevant here.
Lets move on. Is the word "modulation" right choice here?
This EM field has no basis in consciousness. The information it generates is non-existent because there is no modulation in the electric field. The EM field is a gauge field. It cannot be a driver of what we call 'free will'
R. Poznansky
I don't see how there's anything in my comment that suggests that order is a smaller subset of disorder. Recapitulating, energy and action are inferred quantities in physics. They are the implied conservative and stationary principles in objective measurements, but not measurable themselves, so in that sense they can't be considered objective. Also, every physicist and I guess mathematician will agree that in their resp. capacities they are superior to their effects. As for the objective effects, they are indeed the entropic and negentropic. The latter however is not deliberately explored in physics.
The EM field is indeed a gauge field and (EM) energy is a blind force. Depending on how you define "information" - if you associate it with negentropy or negentropic action, the EM field in and of itself carries no such "information". But the common understanding of information is that it is entropic (Shannon), and concerns (Gödel incomplete) knowledge of gauge interactions. "Information" however can, I think should, be extended to include direct conscious perceptions as well, iow. it has two aspects: we perceive a sound or see a color, at the same time we analyse that it's a wave, and it's through our direct sensory perceptions (like in an infant) that matured cognition maintains coherence among gauge interactions.
It is therefore important at all times, to keep in view the cross-correlations between the dual effects and dual inferred principles - they operate as a whole, there is no definitive causal direction from one to the other.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
What do you mean gauge field carries no information yet Shannon information is made up of gauge interactions?
Frank van den Bovenkamp
"(EM) energy is a blind force."
It is non-thermal and non-ionizing actuator of observer-independent computations
R. Poznansky
The EM (gauge) field carries no information in and of itself. That's somewhat of a no-brainer, in that there's nothing to gauge. In physics, what's being gauged is a physics law or -principle, and something can righteously be called a law when it has some type of gauge-invariance. The law itself is not supported by the gauge field, but by the action - that's the thing being gauged in physics. So I suggest that negentropic action also has its own gauge invariance.
Small infants, as they grow up, quite literally learn "to make sense" of what's called "the world around them". But in reality, what they make sense of is negentropic action, in the form of sensory perceptions, and the result is a world around them. Iow, they don't strictly learn to make sense of the world around others - cognitively, everyone lives in their own universe. The original, noninterpreted sensory perceptions are nonlocal in nature - they don't exist in the person.
R. Poznansky
Energy is an abstract, conserved quantity, which coincidently has a visceral association, but the latter is not accurate. "Observer independent computations" sounds a bit stretched, but indeed the idea is that the "observer" emerges as a result of said gauge interactions, which perhaps can be considered "computational". Certainly, the observer is not a primary operative factor, and it seems that physicists are not aware that this is readily implied by their successful gauge theory.
Frank van den Bovenkamp I'm not sure how to swallow your replies in the context of biological consciousness . There can be no FIELD because returning to the previous discussion on space and time in the brain. Everything that we attribute to (experiential) time in the brain can be accomplished sequentially in terms of relations.
My point EM field theories of consciousness are defunct but EM energy plays a role as an actuator of observer-independent computation.
By computation I mean: NonTuring computation could be any computation where there is no symbolic encoding which is calculating and describing the relations between algorithmic steps.
Eda Alemdar Alfredo Pereira Junior Françoise Schenk
R. Poznansky
"My point EM field theories of consciousness are defunct but EM energy plays a role as an actuator of observer-independent computation."
With my previous caveat, yes, sure. I agree that the approach / model is abstract, but it does include mental propensities, as the (biological) precipitation of negentropic action. This is key, compared to the present 3-component physics model. Besides, I think that, give or take, you can identify negentopic action as implicit space.
If space and time are not preeminent, it means that a notion of "field" cannot be preeminent, not that it is non-existent. The physics concept of gauge field in that sense is truly ingenious, as it inherently admits that it is essentially a construct. Instead, the idea of a field emerges at the intersection of conservation laws and symmetries, and that, like it or not, is Noether's theorem. This is your "computational" faculty, transforming action into a physical universe, body and senses.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
"you can identify negentropic action as implicit space."
I don't think so. It is temporal action.
Space and time in physics cannot be extrapolated to how the brain works.
R. Poznansky
This is not about how the brain works, but about how consciousness works.
Time and space in physics are viewed as fundamental, and in that form alone they are indeed not explanatory.
Besides, there is no such thing as "temporal" or "spatial" action. There's entropic action and that's actually an effect that involves explicit time and space. The effect that involves space is related to momentum (p) and (thus) mass, and is given as S=∫p∙dx and an effect that involves time, S=∫E∙dt. I don't see how Energy could represent negentropic action.
I just commented on another thread:
"I agree that light itself is not the wave, rather, the wave is the conserved format in a gauge scenario. At the same time the action is not minimized to zero, but to h. The Planck-Einstein formula E=hf is quantitatively correct, but falsely suggests that the action is reconciled with the wave. It is not, and that's how light became a group effect and effectively a finite wave train with the impact of a particle. As for the dispersion, in my view it is not probabilistic but synergistic."
One could add here, that the gauging of synergy (of photons) is the nature of color perception.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
"The Planck-Einstein formula E=hf is quantitatively correct, but falsely suggests that the action is reconciled with the wave.."
What is the cause of the false perception? Is it human misunderstanding or is it a constraint that derides the physical law?
R. Poznansky
It's the false sense of completeness of physics without negentropic action.
A future corrected form of this particular equation could be e.g.:
E = h (effectA+effectB). I.e. the same f is now entered by means of a negentropic / pro-mind component effectA and an entropic / pro-matter component effectB.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
"It's the false sense of completeness of physics without negentropic action."
so you are saying that the existing physical law is constrained and results in a modified equation that you are referring to.
In other words, causality as constraint gestalt?
R. Poznansky
Not sure why you're using "constraint / constrained" that often. In physics, afaik it refers to symmetry breaking. I.e. the ground state is not unique; its symmetries get contrained, effectively resulting in a local gauge field.
I think that "symmetry breaking" is a bit confused, as in fact in the present paradigm gauge symmetries are created. Present physical laws incl. E=hf are basically conservation laws, which exist in intimate relation with those constrained symmetries (Noether). The "modified form" alludes to the involvement of negentropy, which resides in the non-constrained state. I believe the latter also has a discrete symmetry set, unknown in physics now.
Frank van den Bovenkamp
causality as constraint has been used casual symmetry breaking to understand consciousness in a recent article.
Article Making and breaking symmetries in mind and life
read it and let me know what you think.
- Badges
- Science topic