Donald Hoffman - Fusing agents and qualia: a formal solution to the combination problem

[AshvinP]

Yet, this does not exclude the usefulness of math modeling of conscious processes, because, for some mysterious reasons, the patterns that we experience in our direct conscious experience, while being qualitative by nature, still follow certain regular patterns and form certain structures that can be well described by mathematical models. I would think that mathematical meanings/ideas, even though being quantitative and computable, are still important part of the incomputable and qualitative reality of consciousness, because these math meanings are what brings the structure to the ever-unfolding activity of consciousness. This is why, if we want to understand consciousness, while fully appreciating the fundamentally qualitative aspect of it, we cannot also ignore its quantitative and computable aspects.

However, that being said about all limitations of computable models, it is still a remarkable scientific breakthrough that the fundamental laws of physics can be shown to emerge from (reduced to) the interactions of elementary conscious agents. It was a missing link in the idealist paradigm so far and one of the main arguments of physicalists against idealism: "yeah right, but you have to show how exactly the appearance of the physical world emerges from the activity of consciousness that you claim to be fundamental".

Thanks for the response, Eugene. The reason that our mathematical meanings can apply to our direct conscious experience is not too mysterious

It is because our mathematical meanings reflect thinking-states and the latter structure the quantitative outer perceptions. When we study the mathematical models and their uncanny usefulness, we are really studying the dynamics of our own thinking. That doesn't mean our personal intellect is responsible for the sensory spectrum or the creator of mathematical relations, not at all. It means 'thinking' is necessarily something transpersonal that links us into resonance with the Divine intents that structure the metamorphosing stream of our experience. How that happens and what the Divine intents are, in their native habitat, is indeed mysterious (yet can be gradually explored). In that sense, the 'amplituhedron' is simply an imaginative symbol for the depths of Intuitive activity - the higher hierarchies and their symphonic activity which is the cohering source of what we experience in our imagination and intellect as 'mathematical relations'.

I don't really understand the bold sentence. How can it be a scientific breakthrough if we know the laws of physics cannot be reduced to anything else? I wonder if you had a chance to visit the link that Cleric shared in his initial response. In that post, he discussed Levin's research of morphic spaces, which is based on direct observation and contemplation of the intelligent agency implicit in living processes, even those we experience as being 'mechanistic' ones. The dynamics of any given morphic space cannot be reduced to another - for ex. biological processes cannot be reduced to the laws of physics, and neither can the laws of physics be reduced to biological (etheric) laws or the laws of simple conscious agents. Mathematical models are only useful to the extent they overlap with our first-person living experience, such as Levin investigates. Otherwise, they are floating into assumptions that are not warranted by that experience and inevitably lead to irresolvable hard problems.

With that said, from the video, it sounds like the model takes a unique approach in that, rather than combining the lower-order qualia agents to try and get a higher-order agent, it takes two poles of agents already in existence, like an instinctive agent and a reflective thinking agent, and sees how new agents emerge along the gradient of that interactive spectrum. Does that sound right?

Correct, but again, take it with a grain of salt since it is an attempt to develop a computable math model of incomputable reality. Still, this model seems to suggest that:
- New higher-order conscious agents can "emerge" by fusing a number of lower-order agents.
- The new higher-order agents have qualia "fused" from the qualia of the lower-order agents.

But it's important to note that such "emergence by fusing" of new agents and new qualia does not suggest reducibility (of both agents and qualia).

Got it. I am still pretty unclear on what DH imagines "fusing" to be - is it simply our way of understanding the hierarchical relations of agents already in existence, i.e. the qualitative states of being of higher-order agents provide the 'fields of potential' in which lower-order agents exist and unfold their states of being, or does he think we can derive an understanding of the evolutionary process in this way, i.e. we can explain how thinking consciousness emerged from lower-order instinctive consciousness?

[Stranger]

Thanks for your insights, Eugene!
On the subject of top-down, bottom-up, I guess there may be a way round it: Top down has minimal "understanding" so goes with simple structures it evolves (almost by chance or by repeated iterations trying to make sense out of chaos), then builds these up as different combinations of independent (dissociated) structures. I suppose there would need to be some kind of combinatory power which produces an ego - the "executive control" structure, with an extra level of dissociation, which provides a being with its unitary sense of personal identity and makes no reference to elements of its own structure that interfere with that.

Yes, that makes sense. I think the ego does not just randomly develop, there is also a component of biological evolution here: once there becomes a structure that enables competition for limited resources and survival, then it inevitably leads to the development of ego and dualistic mechanism of perception in the dissociated beings (partitioning the perceived world into separate subjects and objects), since these perceptional structures are crucial for biological survival.

[Stranger]

I don't really understand the bold sentence. How can it be a scientific breakthrough if we know the laws of physics cannot be reduced to anything else? I wonder if you had a chance to visit the link that Cleric shared in his initial response. In that post, he discussed Levin's research of morphic spaces, which is based on direct observation and contemplation of the intelligent agency implicit in living processes, even those we experience as being 'mechanistic' ones. The dynamics of any given morphic space cannot be reduced to another - for ex. biological processes cannot be reduced to the laws of physics, and neither can the laws of physics be reduced to biological (etheric) laws or the laws of simple conscious agents. Mathematical models are only useful to the extent they overlap with our first-person living experience, such as Levin investigates. Otherwise, they are floating into assumptions that are not warranted by that experience and inevitably lead to irresolvable hard problems.

I used the word "reduced" here in a sense that the physical laws can be "mapped" to the dynamics of conscious processes in a certain morphic space. This closes the explanatory gap in idealism between the fundamental reality of consciousness and apparent reality of the physical world. But I agree with you on the irreducibility of different morphic spaces, more on it below.

Got it. I am still pretty unclear on what DH imagines "fusing" to be - is it simply our way of understanding the hierarchical relations of agents already in existence, i.e. the qualitative states of being of higher-order agents provide the 'fields of potential' in which lower-order agents exist and unfold their states of being, or does he think we can derive an understanding of the evolutionary process in this way, i.e. we can explain how thinking consciousness emerged from lower-order instinctive consciousness?

I don't know what DH thinks about it, but I don't believe such "fusion" can automatically explain the formation of higher-order qualia and meanings from instinctive lower-order ones. There is still a mystery here (at least to me), I'm convinced that the higher-order intuitive/imaginary meanings are in principle irreducible to lower order ones, and one of the reasons for that is that they are incomputable and qualitative by nature (and therefore no computable mathematically-describable process such as "fusion" can ever explain it). This is also the reason why any kind of AI, no matter how powerful it is, will never be able to understand these higher-order meanings, even though it can almost perfectly mimic such understanding.

[AshvinP]

I don't really understand the bold sentence. How can it be a scientific breakthrough if we know the laws of physics cannot be reduced to anything else? I wonder if you had a chance to visit the link that Cleric shared in his initial response. In that post, he discussed Levin's research of morphic spaces, which is based on direct observation and contemplation of the intelligent agency implicit in living processes, even those we experience as being 'mechanistic' ones. The dynamics of any given morphic space cannot be reduced to another - for ex. biological processes cannot be reduced to the laws of physics, and neither can the laws of physics be reduced to biological (etheric) laws or the laws of simple conscious agents. Mathematical models are only useful to the extent they overlap with our first-person living experience, such as Levin investigates. Otherwise, they are floating into assumptions that are not warranted by that experience and inevitably lead to irresolvable hard problems.

I used the word "reduced" here in a sense that the physical laws can be "mapped" to the dynamics of conscious processes in a certain morphic space. This closes the explanatory gap in idealism between the fundamental reality of consciousness and apparent reality of the physical world. But I agree with you on the irreducibility of different morphic spaces, more on it below.

Got it. I am still pretty unclear on what DH imagines "fusing" to be - is it simply our way of understanding the hierarchical relations of agents already in existence, i.e. the qualitative states of being of higher-order agents provide the 'fields of potential' in which lower-order agents exist and unfold their states of being, or does he think we can derive an understanding of the evolutionary process in this way, i.e. we can explain how thinking consciousness emerged from lower-order instinctive consciousness?

I don't know what DH thinks about it, but I don't believe such "fusion" can automatically explain the formation of higher-order qualia and meanings from instinctive lower-order ones. There is still a mystery here (at least to me), I'm convinced that the higher-order intuitive/imaginary meanings are in principle irreducible to lower order ones, and one of the reasons for that is that they are incomputable and qualitative by nature (and therefore no computable mathematically-describable process such as "fusion" can ever explain it). This is also the reason why any kind of AI, no matter how powerful it is, will never be able to understand these higher-order meanings, even though it can almost perfectly mimic such understanding.

Upon watching the interview with Riddle, I noticed DH makes a key point here (based on Penrose):





"A person who understands Godel's theorem is understanding something beyond the formal system." In other words, in our understanding, we have already transcended Godel's theorem that applies to the logical systems produced through our understanding. The theorem is only a limit for those who want to theoretically encapsulate the qualitative dynamics of the morphic spaces in formal mathematical systems. For those who seek to understand the spaces and our participation within them through imaginative symbols (which can be expressed in lucid concepts), there is no such limit. How could it be otherwise if our intelligence is continuous with the higher-order intelligence that structures our flow of thinking experience?

This is the seed point of modern initiation through the portal of thinking. It is the recognition of 'true time' (T) in the experience of thinking that intuitively knows how its perceptions transform. DH often mentions how 'we need to beyond spacetime' to explore the intelligent architecture that projects into our normal consciousness as spacetime and its perceptual transformations. Actually, we go beyond spacetime every time we sleep and the astral-ego radiates outwards from the physical-etheric. All we need to do is awaken within our sleeping states to be consciously present in the movements beyond spacetime. Then we come to know, in full lucidity, the source of our intuitions and inspirations that allow us to understand Godel's theorem and all mathematical models and relate them to the underlying structure of ideal reality.

[Stranger]

"A person who understands Godel's theorem is understanding something beyond the formal system." In other words, in our understanding, we have already transcended Godel's theorem that applies to the logical systems produced through our understanding. The theorem is only a limit for those who want to theoretically encapsulate the qualitative dynamics of the morphic spaces in formal mathematical systems. For those who seek to understand the spaces and our participation within them through imaginative symbols (which can be expressed in lucid concepts), there is no such limit. How could it be otherwise if our intelligence is continuous with the higher-order intelligence that structures our flow of thinking experience?

Right, I agree.

[Stranger]

Therefore, my question to you is what exactly are the above mentioned quantitative and computable aspects of consciousness?
Please, list as many of them as you remember, or revisit your sources, please.

When you think a mathematical thought, for ex. "2+2=4", your thought itself is qualitative by nature (as it is a first-person qualitative cosncious experience). However, the mathematical structure in the content of the thought is still quantitative. So, quantitative-qualitative is not an opposition/contradiction, but it is an inclusion: the quantitative/computable is a limited subset of qualitative, or we can say, a limited aspect of it. Therefore, reality can never be fully described by quantitative, yet quantitative (being an aspect of qualitative) can still describe certain aspects of reality, in particular, its certain structural and quantitative properties and aspects.

[lorenzop]

"A person who understands Godel's theorem is understanding something beyond the formal system." In other words, in our understanding, we have already transcended Godel's theorem that applies to the logical systems produced through our understanding. The theorem is only a limit for those who want to theoretically encapsulate the qualitative dynamics of the morphic spaces in formal mathematical systems. For those who seek to understand the spaces and our participation within them through imaginative symbols (which can be expressed in lucid concepts), there is no such limit. How could it be otherwise if our intelligence is continuous with the higher-order intelligence that structures our flow of thinking experience?

Right, I agree.

I'm not sure what is meant by 'imaginative symbols', but I would guess that the Yin/Yang symbol and idea is an example. Obviously no one such symbol can completely describe reality, and I can't imagine you'd think that the body of 'imaginative symbols', even as a whole, can explain\describe or be a substitute for reality.
Perhaps I don't understand your point.
I think what we are learning is no positive claim about the nature of reality can withstand scrutiny - there will always be conflicting data and or contradictions built in to any theory or 'imaginative symbol'.

[AshvinP]

Dear Ashvin,

I would like to respectfully ask you for your opinion, please.

Would you like to be so kind and tell me, please,
if you completely agree with everything
that Cleric wrote in the following post of his:

viewtopic.php?p=22991#p22991

Respectfully, Jon, I will answer your questions once you intelligently respond to Cleric's several posts to you on that thread. So far the substance of everything he wrote to you about the nature of Ahayuasca-fueled visions of the etheric spectrum (confused for 'spiritual reality'), which do nothing to elucidate the meaningful structure of our normal experience, has been completely ignored.

[AshvinP]

Respectfully, Jon, I will answer your questions once you intelligently respond to Cleric's several posts to you on that thread. So far the substance of everything he wrote to you about the nature of Ahayuasca-fueled visions of the etheric spectrum (confused for 'spiritual reality'), which do nothing to elucidate the meaningful structure of our normal experience, has been completely ignored.

Ashvin, thank you. I would like you to know that I have carefully studied all the posts of Cleric that were addressed to me, and after meditating on their meaning, I have come to completely agree with everything that Cleric wrote, except his speculations about what might be happening inside my mind, because I know it first-hand that he wasn't correct.

Ok, so for instance, if we look at this part of the post:

Now what you call spiritual reality is really the impression taken from an altered state of consciousness. Think about it: in what ways your intuition of existence has expanded after you beheld the etheric landscape? Do you understand better how life originated? Did you see why there are stars and planets? Why there are mineral, plant, animal and human kingdoms? Did you see what the place of man is within the Cosmic mystery? What is the direction worth pursuing? Did you see what happens with the soul after death? Whether it returns back in the sensory spectrum?

You agree the brain-tweaked altered state does not elucidate our intuitive orientation to these questions out of itself? If you agree, do you think it's important to gain an intuitive orientation to such questions?

[Stranger]

"A person who understands Godel's theorem is understanding something beyond the formal system." In other words, in our understanding, we have already transcended Godel's theorem that applies to the logical systems produced through our understanding. The theorem is only a limit for those who want to theoretically encapsulate the qualitative dynamics of the morphic spaces in formal mathematical systems. For those who seek to understand the spaces and our participation within them through imaginative symbols (which can be expressed in lucid concepts), there is no such limit. How could it be otherwise if our intelligence is continuous with the higher-order intelligence that structures our flow of thinking experience?

Right, I agree.

I'm not sure what is meant by 'imaginative symbols', but I would guess that the Yin/Yang symbol and idea is an example. Obviously no one such symbol can completely describe reality, and I can't imagine you'd think that the body of 'imaginative symbols', even as a whole, can explain\describe or be a substitute for reality.
Perhaps I don't understand your point.
I think what we are learning is no positive claim about the nature of reality can withstand scrutiny - there will always be conflicting data and or contradictions built in to any theory or 'imaginative symbol'.

You are right, the imaginative symbols cannot fully describe reality, they only apply and can describe thinking and structures created by it. However, there are other (nondual) aspects of reality that cannot be fully described by symbols and ideas of thinking, yet they can be experientially known through direct first-person experience. So, comprehending certain aspects of reality by higher-order thinking definitely has its place, but it we limit ourselves only to the path of thinking, our knowledge of reality will necessarily be limited. However, the same limitation applies to another extreme if we neglect the thinking path and only approach reality through direct nonconceptual experience. So, both of these extremes have their limitations, it's only their integration and understanding their limitations that brings us to the most comprehensive path to the knowledge of reality.