consciousness

[scruffy]

In the religion section, someone posted a thread that said science can not explain consciousness.

I countered with a brand new theory, it can be summarized in four words:

"Unfolding of physical time"

I've been pushing this view ever since 1984. And now, someone finally agrees with me! Here it is:

Time-consciousness in computational phenomenology: a temporal analysis of active inference

Abstract. Time plays a significant role in science and everyday life. Despite being experienced as a continuous flow, computational models of consciousness

academic.oup.com

They use these words: "Markov blanket of the present moment".

I've been saying exactly the same thing, using a slightly different vocabulary. But the concept is the same. An internal process "covers" now (in the topological sense).

This unfolding into the blanket, is a NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT condition for consciousness.

It is supported neurally, in every organism north of goldfish.

Discuss?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

 

[scruffy]

View attachment 882388

Yes. "I" being the operative word.

The "I", I call, the "analog self".

The essential component of it, is a change of basis, relative to TIME.

You can look at it like "reciprocal reference frames". In one reference frame (the physical world, "out there"), time is just a long linear sequence of events, and the organism is no different from any other physical entity.

But in the other reference frame (the "analog" frame), time is centered on NOW, the current moment - and there is a future and a past.

You could look at it like, the organism is a "window moving through physical time". The center of the window, is always NOW.

The physics of this, is spectacular. Really, truly. It's the next general relativity, but for psychology.

The thing is, there are physical processes whose evolutions can be predicted with a very high degree of confidence - but in the psychology and neuroscience of consciousness, what matters is the linking of the various levels of resolution. For the organism, this means, for example, mapping earlier memories to the distant past. The "amount of time" that has passed since the event, is encoded. But such memory mapping occurs simultaneously with the physical opening and closing of ion channels - so asking the question "how long has it been" requires an unfolding, that links the information stored in memory with the real time processes occurring at the physical level - thereby making the past seem continuous.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

View attachment 882388

You Are What You Think

Humans are defined by their opportunistic and creative thought processes, which perspective uniquely puts them outside the confines of biological classification. Passive and vegetative academics insist that we are only animals.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the religion section, someone posted a thread that said science can not explain consciousness.

I countered with a brand new theory, it can be summarized in four words:

"Unfolding of physical time"

I've been pushing this view ever since 1984. And now, someone finally agrees with me! Here it is:

Time-consciousness in computational phenomenology: a temporal analysis of active inference

Abstract. Time plays a significant role in science and everyday life. Despite being experienced as a continuous flow, computational models of consciousness

academic.oup.com

They use these words: "Markov blanket of the present moment".

I've been saying exactly the same thing, using a slightly different vocabulary. But the concept is the same. An internal process "covers" now (in the topological sense).

This unfolding into the blanket, is a NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT condition for consciousness.

It is supported neurally, in every organism north of goldfish.

Discuss?

The article in no way even addresses where consciousness comes from. It is a 'scientific' (speculative at best) of how TIME- consciousness works. Two entirely different things.

 

[Nobody911]

In the religion section, someone posted a thread that said science can not explain consciousness.

I countered with a brand new theory, it can be summarized in four words:

"Unfolding of physical time"

I've been pushing this view ever since 1984. And now, someone finally agrees with me! Here it is:

Time-consciousness in computational phenomenology: a temporal analysis of active inference

Abstract. Time plays a significant role in science and everyday life. Despite being experienced as a continuous flow, computational models of consciousness

academic.oup.com

They use these words: "Markov blanket of the present moment".

I've been saying exactly the same thing, using a slightly different vocabulary. But the concept is the same. An internal process "covers" now (in the topological sense).

This unfolding into the blanket, is a NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT condition for consciousness.

It is supported neurally, in every organism north of goldfish.

Discuss?

The unfolding of physical time and the concept of the Markov blanket can provide valuable insights into the workings of consciousness, but they cannot fully explain everything about consciousness for several reasons.

Firstly, consciousness is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that involves a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and subjective experiences. While understanding the physical processes and information processing involved in consciousness is important, it is not sufficient to fully capture the richness and depth of conscious experience.

Additionally, consciousness also involves higher-order cognitive functions such as self-awareness, introspection, and the ability to reflect on one's own mental states. These aspects of consciousness cannot be fully accounted for by physical time and the Markov blanket alone.

Furthermore, consciousness is deeply intertwined with subjective experiences and individual perspectives, which are inherently difficult to capture and explain using purely physical or computational models.

In summary, while the unfolding of physical time and the concept of the Markov blanket can provide valuable insights into consciousness, they cannot fully explain everything about consciousness due to its complex, subjective, and multifaceted nature.

One famous story about the blind and the elephant is an ancient Indian parable. In the story, a group of blind men were asked to describe an elephant. Each man touched a different part of the elephant and then described what they thought the elephant was like based on their limited experience.

One man who touched the elephant's side said it was like a wall, while another who touched the tusk said it was like a spear. Another man who touched the trunk said it was like a snake, and so on.

The moral of the story is that everyone perceives reality based on their limited experiences and perspectives, and that it's important to consider different viewpoints in order to have a more complete understanding of the truth.

This story has been used to illustrate the concept of relativism and the importance of empathy and understanding in various cultural, religious, and philosophical contexts.

 

[scruffy]

The article in no way even addresses where consciousness comes from. It is a 'scientific' (speculative at best) of how TIME- consciousness works. Two entirely different things.

No.

The specific claim is that the "Markov covering" is both necessary and sufficient for consciousness.

Consciousness is, in effect, the reduction of the described window to the smallest possible width, which then equates with real time.

In physics, we would call this width "dt", a tiny tiny increment of time, say for example, the smallest physically measurable increment.

At the moment I'm aware we have femtosecond lasers, I'm not sure if there's anything faster (maybe you can alleviate my ignorance), but let's use that number for convenience. 10^-15 seconds.

So, very few chemical processes are this fast, chemical kinetics are often in the microsecond range - to get down to femtosecond we start talking about electron tunneling and stuff like that. "Quantum" electrodynamics.

So here are two examples of the "covering". In the human brain, sensory evoked potentials can be detected for at least 1 second after an event. So, if your interval is X, how many intervals do you need to cover 1 second? Conversely, what is the fastest interval of time that can be discriminated by a single neuron? Most scientists would equate this with the refractory period, which is usually around 1 msec.

In the human brain, there are 100 billion neurons. So, what is the smallest interval that can be discriminated by TWO neurons, each having a 1 msec refractory period? The answer is HALF the refractory period, because you can stagger them. The more neurons you add, the better your resolution becomes. In the extreme case where you have all 100 billion neurons available at the same time, your best resolution is 1 msec divided by 100 billion. We are in the realm of "computational feasibility".

And here's the fifty cent bonus answer - each of those neurons, when it fires, creates an electromagnetic field that communicates with other neurons, ostensibly at the speed of light although there are other slower processes. The distance from one end our brains to the other is about 10 cm. Do the math. Our brains can predict in advance, information traveling at the speed of light. That's what "consciousness" specifically means. We are "unfolding" physical time.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why does consciousness have to come from anywhere? Why can’t it be a byproduct of awareness based on millions of years of evolution? Think of the brain as a computer, it has several functions that regulate the body, and other functions that are to receive and process stimuli. It’s alive because of those functions (breathing, pumping blood), and it has perception because of receiving input and being able to process that input and rationalize the world around us.

All of that together makes us “alive and aware”

? Maybe?

 

[scruffy]

The unfolding of physical time and the concept of the Markov blanket can provide valuable insights into the workings of consciousness, but they cannot fully explain everything about consciousness for several reasons.

You raise many valuable issues!

Firstly, consciousness is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that involves a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and subjective experiences. While understanding the physical processes and information processing involved in consciousness is important, it is not sufficient to fully capture the richness and depth of conscious experience.

Agreed !

Additionally, consciousness also involves higher-order cognitive functions such as self-awareness, introspection, and the ability to reflect on one's own mental states. These aspects of consciousness cannot be fully accounted for by physical time and the Markov blanket alone.

Yes, agreed also. I'm trying to point to the "underlying mechanism" without which none of the other stuff works.

Furthermore, consciousness is deeply intertwined with subjective experiences and individual perspectives, which are inherently difficult to capture and explain using purely physical or computational models.

Subjective = "analog" in my vocabulary

I can not tell you what a feeling is, or why red is "red".

In summary, while the unfolding of physical time and the concept of the Markov blanket can provide valuable insights into consciousness, they cannot fully explain everything about consciousness due to its complex, subjective, and multifaceted nature.

One famous story about the blind and the elephant is an ancient Indian parable. In the story, a group of blind men were asked to describe an elephant. Each man touched a different part of the elephant and then described what they thought the elephant was like based on their limited experience.

One man who touched the elephant's side said it was like a wall, while another who touched the tusk said it was like a spear. Another man who touched the trunk said it was like a snake, and so on.

The moral of the story is that everyone perceives reality based on their limited experiences and perspectives, and that it's important to consider different viewpoints in order to have a more complete understanding of the truth.

This story has been used to illustrate the concept of relativism and the importance of empathy and understanding in various cultural, religious, and philosophical contexts.

Very good. You raise great points. The physics is only a tiny part of it.

If we understand the physics though, maybe it'll help us investigate and understand the other stuff.

 

[scruffy]

Why does consciousness have to come from anywhere? Why can’t it be a byproduct of awareness based on millions of years of evolution? Think of the brain as a computer, it has several functions that regulate the body, and other functions that are to receive and process stimuli. It’s alive because of those functions (breathing, pumping blood), and it has perception because of receiving input and being able to process that input and rationalize the world around us.

All of that together makes us “alive and aware”

? Maybe?

"Aware" is a hundred dollar word.

I will agree that consciousness is based on awareness. And again, we are aware "of" something, yes?

Sure, I agree, layers upon layers of awareness. The idea that all that coalesces into a unified "self" is pretty amazing, isn't it?

Here's a question about consciousness - are babies conscious of words "before" they babble, or do they babble and then become conscious?

 

[Lemmi]

Even cockroaches have self awareness. Ever see one of those things take off in a zigzag pattern at over 1000 mph once they've been spotted?

 

[ThisIsMe]

"Aware" is a hundred dollar word.

I will agree that consciousness is based on awareness. And again, we are aware "of" something, yes?

Sure, I agree, layers upon layers of awareness. The idea that all that coalesces into a unified "self" is pretty amazing, isn't it?

Here's a question about consciousness - are babies conscious of words "before" they babble, or do they babble and then become conscious?

I think before. They say babies pick up on things while they are in the womb, which is why babies tend to do better if parent read to them while the mother is pregnant, or so it’s said.

 

[scruffy]

In case anyone cares, here's a cool thing:

Meet Netron: A Visualizer for Neural Network, Deep Learning and Machine Learning Models

Exploring pre-trained models for research often poses a challenge in Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL). Visualizing the architecture of these models usually demands setting up the specific framework they were trained on, which can be quite laborious. Without this framework...

www.marktechpost.com

"Visualization" of results is one of the hardest things. I work with artificial neural networks, I have actually modeled the architecture described in this thread. Unsurprisingly, the results depend very much on your choice of dt.

Python has a nice math library called TensorFlow that you can use for free if you're interested in this kind of thing.

 

[ReinyDays]

Interesting questions ... and interesting answers ...

What's missing is the relevance to reproduction ... however we model consciousness, ToE demands this improves the amount and quality of offspring ... OTOP, if consciousness interferes with reproduction ... then evolution will see to it's demise ...

Let's talk blue-green algae .. my favorite ... their consciousness involves "inside" the cell and "outside" the cell ... nothing else ... and "time" is meaningless except for "work performed" ... their entire existence is to gather food, grow and divide ... how long this takes depends solely on available food, completely independent from what the physicist would call "time" ...

That's assuming the universe is smooth, which it isn't ... so everybody's wrong anyway ... all of us are planning to get laid, just what humans do, just what any living thing does, that's the only purpose of consciousness ... starting with blue-green algae (aka cyanobacteria) ...

 

[scruffy]

I think before. They say babies pick up on things while they are in the womb, which is why babies tend to do better if parent read to them while the mother is pregnant, or so it’s said.

Yes, true. My take is, simple awareness precedes consciousness. Let's review - the Markov blanket creates a "cloud" that hovers over the current moment. This cloud has dimensionality in time, because of conduction delays. The cloud by itself has no defined "center", because now is a singularity. What happens instead is, the cloud is "anchored" in place by the neural timeline defined by evoked potentials and pre-motor potentials - which then allows an optimization to take place around the singularity. That optimization, is consciousness. Its most important property is that it requires the intersection of two reciprocal reference frames, one egocentric and the other allocentric. The egocentric frame is called "I" (otherwise known as, the "analog self").

In our brains there are "mirror neurons". There are cells that fire when we wave our hands, but the mirror neurons fire when the subject sees OTHER people wave their hands. The ability to relate what's "in here" to what's "out there" is fundamental to consciousness. And also foundational for social behaviors, like empathy.

I would claim the baby is "aware of" sounds long before it becomes "conscious of" how to use them. The babbling process is the linkage of sounds emitted to sounds received. Once the sounds are mastered, then the grammar and so on. There are several layers between "I am hungry" and "therefore I must ask for food". Prior to language development, hunger might result in simple crying, and my take is that early on, the baby may be uncomfortable without knowing anything specific about the nature of the discomfort or its source.

 

[Nobody911]

You raise many valuable issues!




Agreed !




Yes, agreed also. I'm trying to point to the "underlying mechanism" without which none of the other stuff works.




Subjective = "analog" in my vocabulary

I can not tell you what a feeling is, or why red is "red".



Very good. You raise great points. The physics is only a tiny part of it.

If we understand the physics though, maybe it'll help us investigate and understand the other stuff.

A feeling is an emotional state or reaction that is experienced by an individual. It can be a result of external stimuli or internal thoughts and can manifest in various ways such as happiness, sadness, anger, fear, etc.

Color vision is the result of the way our eyes perceive and interpret different wavelengths of light. The presence of color in an object or a person is due to the way light is reflected off of or absorbed by their surfaces.The color of an object or person is determined by the wavelengths of light that are reflected off of their surfaces.

For example, an object appears red because it reflects red light and absorbs other wavelengths, while an object appears black because it absorbs all wavelengths of light and reflects very little. Similarly, an object appears white because it reflects all wavelengths of light.

In the case of people, the color of their skin is determined by the amount of melanin in their skin, which affects how light is absorbed and reflected. This is why people have different skin tones, ranging from very light to very dark.

So, actually black people are not black and white people are not white. Wavelengths of light are the real actors causing colors. The perception of color is a result of the wavelengths of light that are reflected off of an object and then captured by the photoreceptors in our eyes.

The terms "black" and "white" are used to describe the appearance of different skin tones, but they do not accurately reflect the range of colors and tones that make up human skin. Similarly, the terms "black" and "white" are also used to describe racial identities, but they are not accurate descriptions of the range of skin tones within different racial groups.( racists don't know, probably )

In summary, the perception of color in objects and people is a result of the way light interacts with their surfaces, and the specific wavelengths of light that are reflected or absorbed.

 

[scruffy]

A feeling is an emotional state or reaction that is experienced by an individual. It can be a result of external stimuli or internal thoughts and can manifest in various ways such as happiness, sadness, anger, fear, etc.

Color vision is the result of the way our eyes perceive and interpret different wavelengths of light. The presence of color in an object or a person is due to the way light is reflected off of or absorbed by their surfaces.The color of an object or person is determined by the wavelengths of light that are reflected off of their surfaces.

For example, an object appears red because it reflects red light and absorbs other wavelengths, while an object appears black because it absorbs all wavelengths of light and reflects very little. Similarly, an object appears white because it reflects all wavelengths of light.

In the case of people, the color of their skin is determined by the amount of melanin in their skin, which affects how light is absorbed and reflected. This is why people have different skin tones, ranging from very light to very dark.

So, actually black people are not black and white people are not white. Wavelengths of light are the real actors causing colors. The perception of color is a result of the wavelengths of light that are reflected off of an object and then captured by the photoreceptors in our eyes.

The terms "black" and "white" are used to describe the appearance of different skin tones, but they do not accurately reflect the range of colors and tones that make up human skin. Similarly, the terms "black" and "white" are also used to describe racial identities, but they are not accurate descriptions of the range of skin tones within different racial groups.( racists don't know, probably )

In summary, the perception of color in objects and people is a result of the way light interacts with their surfaces, and the specific wavelengths of light that are reflected or absorbed.

But why is it RED though?

All that mumbo jumbo about wavelengths doesn't answer the question.

It's red because we SEE it that way, not because of any inherent physics. The same wavelength could be perceived as red by one organism and yellow by another.

 

[scruffy]

A feeling is an emotional state or reaction that is experienced by an individual. It can be a result of external stimuli or internal thoughts and can manifest in various ways such as happiness, sadness, anger, fear, etc.

Color vision is the result of the way our eyes perceive and interpret different wavelengths of light. The presence of color in an object or a person is due to the way light is reflected off of or absorbed by their surfaces.The color of an object or person is determined by the wavelengths of light that are reflected off of their surfaces.

For example, an object appears red because it reflects red light and absorbs other wavelengths, while an object appears black because it absorbs all wavelengths of light and reflects very little. Similarly, an object appears white because it reflects all wavelengths of light.

In the case of people, the color of their skin is determined by the amount of melanin in their skin, which affects how light is absorbed and reflected. This is why people have different skin tones, ranging from very light to very dark.

So, actually black people are not black and white people are not white. Wavelengths of light are the real actors causing colors. The perception of color is a result of the wavelengths of light that are reflected off of an object and then captured by the photoreceptors in our eyes.

The terms "black" and "white" are used to describe the appearance of different skin tones, but they do not accurately reflect the range of colors and tones that make up human skin. Similarly, the terms "black" and "white" are also used to describe racial identities, but they are not accurate descriptions of the range of skin tones within different racial groups.( racists don't know, probably )

In summary, the perception of color in objects and people is a result of the way light interacts with their surfaces, and the specific wavelengths of light that are reflected or absorbed.

Let's be bold.

This is the math you need to know.

First of all, fiber bundle

Fiber bundle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And, "covering space", which is how you can build a bundle from slices.

Covering space - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The important point is, the covering space doesn't have to be regular - the pancakes can be staggered.

However the base model fits neatly with a lattice structure, so is fully amenable to neural networks. To describe the covering, one only needs the centers of the pancakes and their shapes. The covering can be "parametrized" this way.

The whole deal with consciousness is, it requires "extent" in time. It has to "cover" the singularity around "now". Without that, there is no consciousness, because the use of the words "then" and "therefore" can not be instantiated.

We're talking about a window that's at most some tens of msec wide, in real time. However it must be linked with processes that make the future and past seem continuous.

So here is a totally stunning piece of the design: the distant future and the distant past, are one and the same. Both infinities map to the same place - a reality which is also reflected in brain wiring. In physics they call this "compactification", and its result is that the linear timeline changes into a Riemann sphere.

 

[scruffy]

Here's an interesting one.

A new theory says, what distinguishes our consciousness from animals, is not so much the amount of it, but rather it's smoothness and continuity.

According to this view, the consciousness of, say, birds, "stutters". It is not continuous. The bird only gets "flashes" of awareness.

Which is kind of interesting, because you can actually observe the stuttering in bird behavior. It's pretty fast, but it's definitely periodic.

 

[Libby von H]

In the religion section, someone posted a thread that said science can not explain consciousness.

I countered with a brand new theory, it can be summarized in four words:

"Unfolding of physical time"

I've been pushing this view ever since 1984. And now, someone finally agrees with me! Here it is:

Time-consciousness in computational phenomenology: a temporal analysis of active inference

Abstract. Time plays a significant role in science and everyday life. Despite being experienced as a continuous flow, computational models of consciousness

academic.oup.com

They use these words: "Markov blanket of the present moment".

I've been saying exactly the same thing, using a slightly different vocabulary. But the concept is the same. An internal process "covers" now (in the topological sense).

This unfolding into the blanket, is a NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT condition for consciousness.

It is supported neurally, in every organism north of goldfish.

Discuss?

I only remark that you make the most basic of all mistakes, explaining a transcendental , a given of creation.
You are like the person trying to simplify what Truth , Beauty , or Goodness is.
What if consciousness is start and not a result.