Donald Hoffman's search for a mathematical theory of consciousness

[lorenzop]

There are a few issues in this discussion, 1) How closely our perception of the world matches with the actual true world . . . I don't believe there is an actual true world independent of experience (ie there is no dream without the dreamer). A movie can exist as images on a roll of film, but a 'movie' does not exist without a viewer. The 'headset' is a red herring.
However if someone were to ask me how old is the universe, I would answer 13.n billion years as this is the best available answer in the context in which the question is asked.

So just to confirm, would you say your belief matches that of Michael James in this interview (relevant clip below)? When Bernardo asks whether James believes there is something it is like to be Bernardo, he basically says Bernardo probably doesn't have a first-person perspective, it just 'seems that way' within the dreamscape.


[bbvideo]https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxmNQzqXNTbZ ... 67SxQkhWEF[/bbvideo]

I don't claim to have a consistent\persistent philosophy - I am a fool.
Re Bernardo's question, I would say Yes there is something that is Bernardo, and something that is Lorenzo. The context in which the question is asked demands this answer. But Michael James is also correct, depending on the context in which the question is asked. Note: teachers such as Ramana Maharishi will give different even contradictory answers to questions depending on the student and context.

[Anthony66]

Re a simple camera . . . 1) a pinhole camera has no headset, has no design, and, 2) it's extremely unlikely a pinhole camera image is really chaotic and our headset instantly\simultaneously evolved to properly read this camera image nearly the same as we read the actual landscape.
Are you suggesting the camera image on film is patterns of meaning, and requires a human headset to see the landscape - and if we could turn off the headset, and looked at the image, we'd see patterns of meaning?

Lorenzo, let me give another rendition of what Ashvin is pointing out. You walk with your friend along a seashore of very fine moist sand. You observe how your friend leaves footprints as she walks. Then you reason "These footprints look exactly like her feet (inverted of course)! In a way the sand 'sees' the shape of her feet and it is exactly the same as when I look directly at them. Thus I must be seeing her feet as they really are. If it was only a figment of my mind, the footprints would have to look differently. Nature wouldn't need to 'see' the same shape as me when I look at her feet."

Or we can make it even simpler: you look at your friend not directly but at her reflection in a mirror. Then you say "There! We perceive reality as it is because the mirror sees and reflects the same image as what I see when looking directly."

This is really the essence of the camera example. The fact that we're using camera and light makes it only a little bit more convoluted but in its essence there's no difference with what was described above (in a sense, the camera takes the 'footprint' of light as it impresses on the plaque/sensor and is then presented on paper/screen).

Now if DH would have to defend his desktop analogy, he might say something like this:

Reality is objectively real but is completely unlike the contents of our consciousness. Let's denote the true and unknown reality as Z. Our conscious experience is W. Then if we assume that our conscious experience is produced by certain transformation of true reality, we can write W = f(Z) i.e. we take Z, pass it through the transformation denoted as function f and we get our desktop experience W. Now every function is a mapping from one space to another (could also be the same space - then the function only morphs the input).



If the function is continuous then elements of Z which are close together will also be close together in W. For example W + Δ₁ = f(Z + Δ₂) where the deltas represent some very small variation. What does this mean? That the reality of the foot and the footprint in Z, which are very similar (close together in the plane), when transformed by f result into desktop experiences which are also similar (close together in the plane).

This is the explanation. In one case the light phenomenon is directly transformed by f (when we look directly). In the other, it takes a transformative detour. Light gets converted to electricity, then maybe to orientation of magnetic domains on the hard drive, then it is read out and displayed on a computer screen. Yet the whole process is devised in such a way that it produces light phenomenon Z + Δ, which is very close to Z when looking directly. When both are transformed they produce very similar icons W and W + Δ.

What I'm trying to show is that the fact that we see the photograph (or footprint) to be similar to the original doesn't in any way prove that this is how it looks in reality. As shown, what the real camera sees is also a process in the Z space, that is, the camera does not see what we experience in our W space. But when we receive the light from both the real object Z and its transformed light Z + Δ, they both transform into similar icons W and W + Δ.

All this is mentioned just as a fun exercise. The whole thing is that DH and others, assume that there's unbridgeable chasm between Z and W. We can never have conscious experience of Z or at least not while we're in the Earthly headset. And this is what we must challenge because otherwise we reach nothing but dead ends. Simply stated, the investigation of the depth dimension of our being, explores the conscious states and the forms of spiritual activity all along the transformation f - if we imagine that it consists of vast number of intermediate transformations. Something like:



We can take Z and W to be as extremes. Z is the fountainhead of ideal potential, while W is the collapsed perception. The whole idea is that we can find the modes of consciousness along these blocks and experience the Cosmos at its various stages of concretization, so to speak. Of course, the blocks are not connected in a simple unidirectional way - they also have feedbacks.

Anyway, I got carried away with this example. Obviously all this is an oversimplification and shouldn't be taken as literal model of reality.

What we have gathered is:
1. No, the camera example doesn't show that we perceive reality as it is (explained above)
2. There's no reason to conclude that Z and W are completely separate realms, just because we don't have consciousness of Z bestowed on us without any effort on our side.
3. When the appropriate effort is exercised we can indeed find that consciousness lives also along the gradient of f.

Re 'patterns of meaning', I can't say for sure I know what you are talking about, or believe these exist . . . but let's say they do exist . . . if we could explore them, perhaps harvest a more splendid pattern of meaning, it's this just a higher class of enslavement, as I've referred to this in the past - an exalted pursuit of a Golden Calf.

I think you purposefully want to see 'patterns of meaning' as nothing but a leisure time amusement of seeing faces in the clouds. If that was the case - sure, finding random patterns and trying to convince others that they are something real, is indeed a disturbing endeavor.

But to this day I'm not sure what your position is. From the way you speak, I would say that you see reality as inherently random. Any lawfulness that we observe is just coincidental temporary swirling of otherwise uncorrelated ripples. In that case, it is understandable that any interest in higher order patterns (resulting from intuitive intents at higher scales) is just a cloud face in our personal mind. Does this capture your philosophical outlook?

Cleric,

One can parse your decomposition of function f() in one of two ways:
1. From the perspective of the natural scientist and the likes of DH who are using their intellectual cognition to seek more fundamental models with greater and greater explanatory power who might view the functionally decomposed path backwards akin to atoms -> sub-atomic particles -> quantum fields -> amplituhedrons -> DH conscious agents (CAs).
2. For the spiritual scientist, the path backwards is revealed through the development of higher levels of consciousness which in turn reveals the activity of CAs. But unlike DH's CAs, my understanding is that the further one goes back (or higher if you like), the more complex, and all-encompassing are the CAs under SS.

DH's CAs are atomistic at base, with complex CAs an aggregate of simpler CAs. Spiritual science and many spiritual traditions are complex at base. Why this discrepancy? Is it that DH has swallowed the reductionist spirit of the age, or is it that I'm misunderstand one or both of DH and SS?

[Cleric K]

Cleric,

One can parse your decomposition of function f() in one of two ways:
1. From the perspective of the natural scientist and the likes of DH who are using their intellectual cognition to seek more fundamental models with greater and greater explanatory power who might view the functionally decomposed path backwards akin to atoms -> sub-atomic particles -> quantum fields -> amplituhedrons -> DH conscious agents (CAs).
2. For the spiritual scientist, the path backwards is revealed through the development of higher levels of consciousness which in turn reveals the activity of CAs. But unlike DH's CAs, my understanding is that the further one goes back (or higher if you like), the more complex, and all-encompassing are the CAs under SS.

DH's CAs are atomistic at base, with complex CAs an aggregate of simpler CAs. Spiritual science and many spiritual traditions are complex at base. Why this discrepancy? Is it that DH has swallowed the reductionist spirit of the age, or is it that I'm misunderstand one or both of DH and SS?

Anthony, this is a very good question and one that we should elucidate for ourselves if we are not to have fantastic ideas of the higher worlds. There’s something justified in the reductionist’s perspective: that it makes no sense for some God to exist who is all intelligent, powerful and so on. This objection comes because one attempts to imagine this God as the most complicated machine in existence, with the most advanced brain. This clearly makes no sense. How chould such a complicated machine form spontaneously? It’s much more plausible that the basic units are fundamental and they only gradually grow in complexity.

The difficulty here comes because in our modern consciousness it’s habitual to imagine that things are made of parts. We have used this Escher painting many times to illustrate this polarity.



In that view we take the blackness to be the mystery of the world out there. The whiteness is our consciousness but it is considered only virtual. Thus in our imagination everything is made of combinations of black birds. Anything more intelligent and encompassing should be constructed only through ever more complicated arrangements of black birds. The black birds are considered the building blocks of reality, whether they are particles or CAs. Yet it was attempted many times to show that we can look at things also from the other side. The white Whole of the Spirit is also simple, yet it is not something that we can point at and encompass within our mind. Instead, every state of being can be thought of as if this first-person unlimited potential is gradually hollowed out, filtered as it were (the blackness).

A limited analogy can be made with semiconductors:



We know that in P-type (positive) semiconductors there’s lack of free electrons, thus the free orbitals are called acceptors. The empty egg hole in the above animation is such an acceptor. Now when electric field is applied, the negative electrons begin to move towards the positive pole. But if we see it in the other way, it is as if the hole is moving. Interestingly, when the mathematics is applied, these holes can be treated like actual positive charges. The math just works. The positive hole seems as if it is attracted by the negative pole. That’s why the mathematical models of semiconductors work with two types of charges – negative electrons and positive holes – even though physically there are only electrons.

Well, as we have often mentioned, all that we grasp in our intellect and try to imagine as fundamental building blocks can be thought of precisely as the holes. We are trying to build the fullness of our inner life by combining the elements – the holes – where in fact the spirit sinks and disappears, so to speak.

When we see things in this way, it should be conceivable that the higher orders of being are actually those that experience the One Potential in a much more integrated way. Thus, like everything in life, there’s a tradeoff. The higher orders of being have vastly richer consciousness, they grasp the flow of reality in greater depth, yet at the same time the conscious life is simpler. They are more intelligent not because they have processors with more transistors and more complicated algorithms but because they have clearer intuition of the flow – their consciousness lives in that flow.

There are many more things that can be said here but hopefully I’ll be able to share some of them in the coming weeks.

[AshvinP]

There are a few issues in this discussion, 1) How closely our perception of the world matches with the actual true world . . . I don't believe there is an actual true world independent of experience (ie there is no dream without the dreamer). A movie can exist as images on a roll of film, but a 'movie' does not exist without a viewer. The 'headset' is a red herring.
However if someone were to ask me how old is the universe, I would answer 13.n billion years as this is the best available answer in the context in which the question is asked.

So just to confirm, would you say your belief matches that of Michael James in this interview (relevant clip below)? When Bernardo asks whether James believes there is something it is like to be Bernardo, he basically says Bernardo probably doesn't have a first-person perspective, it just 'seems that way' within the dreamscape.


[bbvideo]https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxmNQzqXNTbZ ... 67SxQkhWEF[/bbvideo]

I don't claim to have a consistent\persistent philosophy - I am a fool.
Re Bernardo's question, I would say Yes there is something that is Bernardo, and something that is Lorenzo. The context in which the question is asked demands this answer. But Michael James is also correct, depending on the context in which the question is asked. Note: teachers such as Ramana Maharishi will give different even contradictory answers to questions depending on the student and context.

You sound like a bonified spiritual scientist here, Lorenzo Seriously, it is emphasized often how we need to be fluid in our thinking and pay close attention to the context in which questions are posed and answers are sought. We should seek to adopt the standpoint of others and discern from what angle they are experiencing the World and condensing those experiences into thoughts. It is unavoidable that certain angles will seem contradictory to other ones on the intellectual plane. That is why we shouldn't be too hasty to judge angles we are unfamiliar with as being 'folly' while our personal angle alone is 'wise'. "For the Wisdom of God is foolishness in the eyes of men."

All these conceptions of the world that I have described and written down for you really exist, and they can be maintained. And it is possible to bring forward the most ingenious reasons for each of them; it is possible to adopt any one of them and with ingenious reasons to refute the others. In between these conceptions of the world one can think out yet others, but they differ only in degree from the leading types I have described, and can be traced back to them. If one wishes to learn about the web and woof of the world, then one must know that the way to it is through these twelve points of entry. There is not merely one conception of the world that can be defended, or justified, but there are twelve. And one must admit that just as many good reasons can be adduced for each and all of them as for any particular one. The world cannot be rightly considered from the one-sided standpoint of one single conception, one single mode of thought; the world discloses itself only to someone who knows that one must look at it from all sides. Just as the sun — if we go by the Copernican conception of the universe — passes through the signs of the Zodiac in order to illuminate the earth from twelve different points, so we must not adopt one standpoint, the standpoint of Idealism, or Sensationalism, or Phenomenalism, or any other conception of the world with a name of this kind; we must be in a position to go all round the world and accustom ourselves to the twelve different standpoints from which it can be contemplated. In terms of thought, all twelve standpoints are fully justifiable. For a thinker who can penetrate into the nature of thought, there is not one single conception of the world, but twelve that can be equally justified — so far justified as to permit of equally good reasons being thought out for each of them. There are twelve such justified conceptions of the world.

[AshvinP]

DH's CAs are atomistic at base, with complex CAs an aggregate of simpler CAs. Spiritual science and many spiritual traditions are complex at base. Why this discrepancy? Is it that DH has swallowed the reductionist spirit of the age, or is it that I'm misunderstand one or both of DH and SS?

Anthony,

We could also look at the discrepancy from a more psychological angle. As Cleric indicated, "The white Whole of the Spirit is also simple, yet it is not something that we can point at and encompass within our mind." I noticed in the interview that DH mentioned at the end that his team was going to use the CA mathematical model to project into the 'headset' and get the momentum distributions of a proton exactly right (within several decimal places). As DH would probably admit, this is the low-hanging fruit - from here they will eventually work their way to the neural correlates of consciousness. Don't get me wrong -  I have great admiration that DH is actually exercising his spiritual activity to advance knowledge in this domain, which is more than we can say for most spiritualists and idealists. He is making a real effort and that is the only way the inherent contradictions in his approach could ever come to light. 

At the same time, reaching for this low-hanging fruit can be seen as a way to prolong the intellectual can-kicking, to keep reaching for that "theory of everything" through only a shuffling around of concepts. I suspect there will be some success in modeling the proton behavior for the reasons discussed in this post. That success will keep the game going - the intellect will kick a field goal at the last minute to tie the game and send it to 'overtime'.  

Here as a side note I would like to add my personal understanding. Actually Steiner himself hints at this a little below in the lecture where he says that there’s no force that is entirely central. Thus we shouldn’t imagine some ontological separation between living and purely mechanical forces. What I can add is based on our understanding that the lowest is at the same time the image of the most universal. We have mentioned this on several occasions. Just as we reach more universal archetypes as we go higher, all the way to the Trinity, so the deeper we go in sub-nature, the more things become the same, as if the highest Universal has been multiplied. In that sense we can conceive that a single particle is still the working of the whole Cosmic periphery. Yet the particles are images of the universal and effectively the whole periphery works in them in a very similar way. This gives the effect that we can take that particle in isolation and study its dynamics as if proceeding from its center. What we find in this way will more or less be applicable to all other particles of this kind too.

When however, particles are entangled in more complicated ensembles, this builds the physical hierarchy of molecules, organelles, cells, organs, organisms. Within these the various beings of the lesser hierarchies work in more specific ways. For example, a liver cell is animated by a different constellation of peripheral forces than, say, a brain cell. The organelles and proteins in these cells could be similar. They could be similar even among different species. These are influenced by more universal beings, usually the Spirits of Form. When we reach the particles, they are even more universal.

So this is my understanding why simple particles more or less lend themselves to calculation – because they seem to be universally the same everywhere and affect each other in the same way.

In this way, what you pointed to when mentioning the top-down CA structure (which is not necessarily more 'complex' for the reasons Cleric mentioned) can be ignored for longer since the most Universal that lends itself to our intellectual calculations also reflects in the most fragmented. It will likely seem as if the CA theory is bearing fruit, giving back DH and his team some of the 'best science' in particle physics. Hopefully, they don't linger too long in this particle domain and push further to 'get back' the behavior of living structures, since that should clearly reveal the inherent contradiction of dead concepts - materialist or idealist - trying to reconstruct the forces of life. Then who knows what will happen - probably the Kantian veil will be firmly reasserted and DH will say BK was right all along that these efforts are a waste of time. Everyone can continue on their way with books, talks, etc. about the 'limits of knowledge'. 

And it's important for me to add here that the blame should not be put on DH or his team alone. It is the rest of us who want to see the game go into overtime and be entertained for a little while longer as well. Think what would happen if JP and DH really investigated these things inwardly, remembering their thinking perspective is always in the middle of the One Potential imploding through the torus, being hollowed into the perceptual landscape. Then I suspect we wouldn't hear from them for quite some time. The books and interviews would be put on pause for a long time because such an inner reorientation also comes with a cold bath of humility. We start to question what we are doing in our lives and in our work that we previously thought was unquestionable, especially if our work involves exploring and discussing the spiritual fabric of reality. Few of us want to see these excellent thinkers disappear from public life. So I think it is important to always keep in mind the ways we are all concretely complicit in this intellectual game of existential musical chairs.