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

[Stranger]

Fusions of Consciousness

I think we are witnessing a breakthrough in the science of nature and consciousness. Hoffman was able to demonstrate how the amplituhedron, the recently discovered math structure that explains the fundamental physics of elementary particle interactions beyond space-time, can be derived from interactions of conscious agents. I was skeptical about Hoffman's agenda to derive the laws of physics from his consciousness realism paradigm, but now it looks like he is actually getting there.

Interesting insight at 32-35 min on how higher-order conscious agents are formed by "fusion" of lower-order agents where the new qualia of the higher-order ones are being created from the qualia of the lower-order agents but are not reducible to them. This is a possible solution to the subject combination problem, and it also presents a coherent description of the hierarchical structure of consciousness. So basically, consciousness is a hierarchical structure of interacting conscious agents, where higher-order agents are a result of fusion of the lower-order ones. This fusion process creates conscious agents of ever-increasing hierarchical order with ever-increasing complexity of qualia and conscious processes (conscious experiences, meanings, volitions-actions). But another by-product of this fusion is a natural creation of amplituhedrons, which interactions lead to the emergence of the "physical world" as we experience it. However, there is no "physical world" per se made of matter, but all there is, according to Hoffman's paradigm, is a hierarchical structure of conscious agents creating, exchanging and experiencing qualia of conscious experiences, where the combined actions of amplituhedrons (that are low-order conscious agents themselves) cause the qualia of experiences of the "physical world" in living organisms (that are also only conscious agents of some higher-order hierarchy). Another remarkable thing is that, the first time in the history of natural science, this model is not an abstraction (like previous models of physical reality representing the third-person perspective), since it refers directly to the qualia of the first-person experiences of the conscious agents.

[Cleric K]

I think we are witnessing a breakthrough in the science of nature and consciousness. Hoffman was able to demonstrate how the amplituhedron, the recently discovered math structure that explains the fundamental physics of elementary particle interactions beyond space-time, can be derived from interactions of conscious agents. I was skeptical about Hoffman's agenda to derive the laws of physics from his consciousness realism paradigm, but now it looks like he is actually getting there.

Interesting insight at 32-35 min on how higher-order conscious agents are formed by "fusion" of lower-order agents where the new qualia of the higher-order ones are being created from the qualia of the lower-order agents but are not reducible to them. This is a possible solution to the subject combination problem, and it also presents a coherent description of the hierarchical structure of consciousness. So basically, consciousness is a hierarchical structure of interacting conscious agents, where higher-order agents are a result of fusion of the lower-order ones. This fusion process creates conscious agents of ever-increasing hierarchical order with ever-increasing complexity of qualia and conscious processes (conscious experiences, meanings, volitions-actions). But another by-product of this fusion is a natural creation of amplituhedrons, which interactions lead to the emergence of the "physical world" as we experience it. However, there is no "physical world" per se made of matter, but all there is, according to Hoffman's paradigm, is a hierarchical structure of conscious agents creating, exchanging and experiencing qualia of conscious experiences, where the combined actions of amplituhedrons (that are low-order conscious agents themselves) cause the qualia of experiences of the "physical world" in living organisms (that are also only conscious agents of some higher-order hierarchy). Another remarkable thing is that, the first time in the history of natural science, this model is not an abstraction (like previous models of physical reality representing the third-person perspective), since it refers directly to the qualia of the first-person experiences of the conscious agents.

Eugene, thank you for providing these links! Especially that of Justin Riddle, with whom I'm not familiar. His work is quite interesting to me. I'll spend some time exploring it. The closest thing we have looked into so far is the work of Michael Leven, whose model is based on the nested morphic spaces (covered here).

When I'm saying that it is 'interesting', this has to be understood in the way explained in the linked post. We can never reach the reality of existence by making the thought-model more and more perfect. I agree that it is a huge step forwards that these frameworks model the first-person experience but we should make no mistake that they are not abstract. We can surely model the qualitative states as points in some experiential phase space but the fact remains that if we have the coordinates of some unfamiliar state we can in no way summon from it the qualitative experience. In the same way, by thinking about the frequencies of gamma rays we can in no way experience some color qualia that we have never experienced before.

This is the thing that we have to firmly keep in mind - these models are still the experiences of our intellectual gesticulations which arrange mental images. As such, they can only be taken in non-harmful way if we look on them as Imaginative expressions for the dynamics of our inner stream of becoming. As explained in relation to ML, this attempt to conceive our inner being as the fractal spectrum of the Cosmos, is probably the only way the rigidified scientific intellect of our age can find some wiggle room and awaken to its spiritual nature. This however won't go very far if we focus on abstract mathematical models. These still remain quite cerebral, we still remain in the etheric head. But when we try to imagine livingly that our head space is nested within the Universal, then the act of imagining in itself is a kind of stretching of our spiritual activity beyond the bounds of our skin. Hopefully, these researchers will be able to recognize that the models that they think are really the rigid Imaginative descriptions of what they experience when instinctively stretching their spiritual activity along the spectrum of Time-Consciousness.

[Stranger]

This is the thing that we have to firmly keep in mind - these models are still the experiences of our intellectual gesticulations which arrange mental images. As such, they can only be taken in non-harmful way if we look on them as Imaginative expressions for the dynamics of our inner stream of becoming. As explained in relation to ML, this attempt to conceive our inner being as the fractal spectrum of the Cosmos, is probably the only way the rigidified scientific intellect of our age can find some wiggle room and awaken to its spiritual nature. This however won't go very far if we focus on abstract mathematical models. These still remain quite cerebral, we still remain in the etheric head. But when we try to imagine livingly that our head space is nested within the Universal, then the act of imagining in itself is a kind of stretching of our spiritual activity beyond the bounds of our skin. Hopefully, these researchers will be able to recognize that the models that they think are really the rigid Imaginative descriptions of what they experience when instinctively stretching their spiritual activity along the spectrum of Time-Consciousness.

That's right, and Hoffman understands these limitations of math models of reality. As he said, the Goedel's incompleteness theorem places fundamental limitation on the scope of math models: any computable math model is necessarily incomplete and can never describe reality fully. Nevertheless, these models do help us to understand certain aspects of the structures and patterns of reality.

[Federica]

For now I've listened to the intro (first 39 minutes) by Justin Riddle. He has an impressive capacity to explain with clarity. Question: is Riddle's take on Hoffman's model a closing of the circle, an opening towards the idea that the "world at large", the "nested hierarchy of conscious beings" may be currently unknown in its organization and evolution in time, but it is actually knowable from within?
In other words, is the Kantian ghost still there, or is this take getting closer to the recognition that the modeling (thinking) of the will flow is itself a decision-action, flowing through our conscious agency, that is recognized as concentric into the world at large? BK's segragating boundaries between conscious agents seem to have evolved into a network of interacting agents of various complexity and hierarchical magnitude, whose probable experiences-decisions-actions create a continuous flow knowable from any point within the system, without any modeled limits, up to the "platonic world" of consciousness at large.

[AshvinP]

This is the thing that we have to firmly keep in mind - these models are still the experiences of our intellectual gesticulations which arrange mental images. As such, they can only be taken in non-harmful way if we look on them as Imaginative expressions for the dynamics of our inner stream of becoming. As explained in relation to ML, this attempt to conceive our inner being as the fractal spectrum of the Cosmos, is probably the only way the rigidified scientific intellect of our age can find some wiggle room and awaken to its spiritual nature. This however won't go very far if we focus on abstract mathematical models. These still remain quite cerebral, we still remain in the etheric head. But when we try to imagine livingly that our head space is nested within the Universal, then the act of imagining in itself is a kind of stretching of our spiritual activity beyond the bounds of our skin. Hopefully, these researchers will be able to recognize that the models that they think are really the rigid Imaginative descriptions of what they experience when instinctively stretching their spiritual activity along the spectrum of Time-Consciousness.

That's right, and Hoffman understands these limitations of math models of reality. As he said, the Goedel's incompleteness theorem places fundamental limitation on the scope of math models: any computable math model is necessarily incomplete and can never describe reality fully. Nevertheless, these models do help us to understand certain aspects of the structures and patterns of reality.

An issue to watch out for is, when these models are not understood as imaginative expressions of the real-time thinking that is conceiving them, and all the deeper forces embedded within that thinking, they can easily be interpreted according to default intuitions of 'how the world works', or 'how living and conscious beings evolve'. That is problematic in the idea that 'fusing' lower-order conscious agents can result in higher-order agents. The new qualia of the higher-order agents is not actually being created via the models, it is only extrapolated as quantitative data. This extrapolation is in conflict with our living first-person experience of consciousness, for ex. the reality that no combinations of the qualia of instinctive animal consciousness can 'emerge' into reflecting thinking consciousness, or no combinations of dream consciousness qualia can emerge into waking consciousness. When inner activity is further delaminated via spiritual development, this fact becomes even more clear.

We should be clear, the 'subject combination problem' is a real hard problem, just like the hard problem of consciousness. It can't be resolved by intellectual models. It results from our thinking arbitrarily isolating a portion of the whole spectrum of conscious experience and trying to derive another portion from what we selected. These are impossible problems to resolve because the whole spectrum is not actually divided and no part is reducible to any other. Not even a single concept can be reduced to another concept. The combination problem is very similar to the hard problem, in that sense. Efforts to resolve it take 'simple qualia' of the perceptual spectrum - what we observe in colors, sounds, textures, etc. and mechanical reflex behaviors - and try to fuse them to get the 'higher qualia', i.e.the life of desires, feelings, thoughts, and ideas.

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?

[Ben Iscatus]

Stranger said: “Interesting insight at 32-35 min on how higher-order conscious agents are formed by "fusion" of lower-order agents where the new qualia of the higher-order ones are being created from the qualia of the lower-order agents but are not reducible to them. This is a possible solution to the subject combination problem, and it also presents a coherent description of the hierarchical structure of consciousness. So basically, consciousness is a hierarchical structure of interacting conscious agents, where higher-order agents are a result of fusion of the lower-order ones.”

Yes, interesting! Would you say these new qualia are examples of weak emergence or of a magical strong emergence?

The idea of the “amplituhedron” seems like trying to push back the conceptual boundary of physics into maths as if maths is something respectably Platonic but still (breathing a sigh of relief) not quite related to consciousness. I doubt that most physicists would embrace Donald Hoffman’s conscious agents. Do you agree?

Also, are you implying from this bottom up combination idea that there is no Monistic source?

[Stranger]

We should be clear, the 'subject combination problem' is a real hard problem, just like the hard problem of consciousness. It can't be resolved by intellectual models. It results from our thinking arbitrarily isolating a portion of the whole spectrum of conscious experience and trying to derive another portion from what we selected. These are impossible problems to resolve because the whole spectrum is not actually divided and no part is reducible to any other. Not even a single concept can be reduced to another concept. The combination problem is very similar to the hard problem, in that sense. Efforts to resolve it take 'simple qualia' of the perceptual spectrum - what we observe in colors, sounds, textures, etc. and mechanical reflex behaviors - and try to fuse them to get the 'higher qualia', i.e.the life of desires, feelings, thoughts, and ideas.

I agree, sorry, my wording "This is a possible solution to the subject combination problem" was inaccurate, Hoffman's one is not really a "solution", but rather an attempt to mathematically model the combination problem. And I think we are clear that any mathematical modeling of realty is necessarily inaccurate. Hoffman in that interview actually described this mismatch between math models and reality in terms of "computability": the reality of consciousness is incomputable, and therefore can never be adequately described by computable math models. Or phrased in a different way, the reality of consciousness and its qualia is by nature qualitative (hence incomputable), while math can only deal with quantitative (computable) descriptions.

In the same way, the higher-order qualia and meanings cannot be directly computationally derived from (or "reduced to") the lower-order ones. So, in the Hoffman's model, the term "fusion" is simply a mathematical pointer to the mystery of the incomputable inter-relations between higher- and lower-order qualia/meanings.

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".

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).

[Stranger]

Yes, interesting! Would you say these new qualia are examples of weak emergence or of a magical strong emergence?

Nice talking to you again, Ben
Pls see my response to Ashvin. Well, it's definitely not weak emergence as it would imply reducibility. But I think Chalmers used the "strong emergence" as a term for ontological impossibility (as it applies to the "hard problem"), so I think the Hoffman's "fusion" is neither of those.

The idea of the “amplituhedron” seems like trying to push back the conceptual boundary of physics into maths as if maths is something respectably Platonic but still (breathing a sigh of relief) not quite related to consciousness. I doubt that most physicists would embrace Donald Hoffman’s conscious agents. Do you agree?

No, I don't think they will, but they may appreciate the math of Markovian kernels which can turn out to be a very useful tool and approach for them that can bring new insights and more accurate model of the physical world. As Hoffman said, the amplituhedron is a static geometrical structure, it lacks dynamics, while Markovian kernels are dynamic systems. However, if it happens that physicists, for the said pragmatic reasons, will adopt Hoffman's model of Markovian kernels, that will be definitely a strong argument in favor of idealism in the philosophical debate between materialism and idealism.

Also, are you implying from this bottom up combination idea that there is no Monistic source?

That's a good point. It seems that in Hoffman's model the number of agents is infinite, and therefore the highest-order agent ("Monistic source") can only exist as a fusion of the infinite number of agents. Another point is that in this model the higher-order agents do not control the interactions and internal processes (inner life) of lower-order agents in any rigid way, and neither they fully control the Markovian kernels of elementary agents that lead to the appearances of the physical world, so, the higher-order agents are not the "source" or "creators" of apparent worlds or lower-order agents. So you are right, this is a bottom-up paradigm that is incoherent with theistic top-down versions of idealism. Yet, the meanings/qualia of higher-order beings can possibly serve as organizing principles guiding the "curvatures" of interactions and processes of lower-order agents. So, I don't think the term "source" is applicable to such intricate interaction between higher- and lower- order agents.

[Ben Iscatus]

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.

Jonathan - thank you for the snapshot image you provided - but I couldn't help wanting to change WFT to WTF!

[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?