Relevant threads
- By virtue of reflexive and reflective reasoning then reflexive and reflective thinking?
- FROM SIMPLE ASSOCIATIONS TO SYSTEMATIC REASONING: A Connectionist representation of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony
- The paradigm shifts in our minds
- Handles-tags drag along thoughts from our minds
- "Use-it-or-lose-it" pruning of brain cells. An on-the-fly brain mechanism for dynamic minds?
I read in the paper by Lokendra Shastri and Venkat Ajjanagadde 'From simple associations to systematic reasoning', under the title 'Computational constraints', section 1.2
"Connectionist models (Feldman & Ballard 1982; Rumelhart & McClelland 1986) are intended to emulate the information processing characteristics of the brain — albeit at an abstract computational level — and reflect its strengths and weaknesses. Typically, a node in a connectionist network corresponds to an idealized neuron, and a link corresponds to an idealized synaptic connection.
Let us enumerate some core computational features of connectionist models: i) Nodes compute very simple functions of their inputs, ii) They can only hold limited state information — while a node may maintain a scalar ‘potential’, it cannot store and selectively manipulate bit strings. iii) Node outputs do not have sufficient resolution to encode symbolic names or pointers. iv) There is no central controller that instructs individual nodes to perform specific operations at each step of processing."
A node, in a connectionist or any other kind of network for that matter, corresponds to an idealised neuron, and a link to an idealised synaptic connection? Taking it further, a node corresponds to neural pathways connecting links, pathways which can include one idealised neuron or several idealised neurons? The main point being the passage of the signal from link-to-link? And not just any link, but a certain kind of link? A link, a synaptic connection, that lies within the context, the link-node-link path is attached to? A neurological basis of context? That links are attached by nodes, in link-node-link neural chains abiding to rules (... of context?)
Link-node-link creation, independent of length, namely the number of neurons involved. Independent also of the distance between individual links, or their place in the brain? What only matters is their placement within the contextual link-node-link chains? And one other thought that connects our brain organisation, with chaotic and fractal aspects. It is the potential inherent in such mode of brain organisation that even a remote, unused link, deeply buried, in all sense implied, can instantiate itself, unearth the attributes is attached with, and confer in the meaning of the currently active link-node-link unit.
Take the matter of idealised units, beyond a computational level, and instead talk about idealised units on the basis of context? Providing a simple mechanism for instantiating a thought, a unit of emergent thought, and multiple copies out of the same blueprint interacting, leading to complexity and the emergence of the mind?
The little red riding hood example and the steps in the inferential processing,
"The wolf will approach LRRH (to eat something you have to be near it); LRRH will scream (because a child is scared by an approaching wild animal); upon hearing the scream the wood-cutters will know that a child is in danger (because a child’s screaming suggests that it is in danger); the wood-cutters will go to the child (people want to protect children in danger and in part, this involves determining the source of the danger); the wood-cutters will try to prevent the wolf from attacking LRRH (people want to protect children); in doing so the wood-cutters may hurt the wolf (preventing an animal from attacking may involve physical force ...); so the wolf decides to wait (because an animal does not want to get hurt)."
a link-node-link path, and each link jump adds attributes that amass in the meaning conferred by the link-node-link chain, in a manner that comes out, from what the authors refer to as the “unary or even propositional fixation” problem
"This turns out to be a difficult problem for neurally motivated models. As McCarthy (1988) observed most connectionist systems suffer from the “unary or even propositional fixation” with their representational power restricted to unary predicates applied to a fixed object. Fodor and Pylyshyn (1988) have even questioned the ability of connectionist networks to embody systematicity and compositionality."
as 'unary predicates applied to a fixed object'?
Links thought off as handles or tags that involve their own specific load of attributes and properties, and drag along what is relevant to the context of the active node-link-node chain?
Though their potential surpasses their mere role in providing inferences for instantiating reasoning. By virtue of their associations with other conceived thoughts, that might even belong in other contextual units, can form context to context bridges, can drag along attributes that belong in other contexts, borrowing from context to context, passing from context to context and use that in innovating manners, the hallmark of creativity.
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
By virtue of reflexive and reflective reasoning then reflexive and reflective thinking?
Following up the threads
- Thinking (with)in and (with)out the brain.
- FROM SIMPLE ASSOCIATIONS TO SYSTEMATIC REASONING: A Connectionist representation of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony
- The minds we make overall stupid despite being generated by an underlying remarkable ability to draw inferences?
- Intuitions. Should we be afraid or trust our intuitions? Building up a case for trust.
- Neural processes beat rational thinking.
- Not recommended: frantically seeking escape from a chaotic situation, we find ourselves in.
- Is thinking an automatic process?
- Unconscious knows better ... Indulge yourself.
- Our neurons chart the space we unfold our actions in
- Mind sets and their overriding influence
This paper by Lokendra Shastri and Venkat Ajjanagadde 'From simple associations to systematic reasoning' got me going. I felt that their conclusion, arrived from a somewhat different path, matches what I have arrived using different leads. Or might be simply that I have not wholesomely (systematically) engaged in their views, despite being aired since 1992.
I felt, I have to go through, trod again the path that led me to the views, currently prevalent in my mind, but I am hesitating as I can not decide how to do that. While I am in that process, I recognise the source of my dilemma, given by the authors account of reasoning, as they differentiate it, in reflexive and reflective reasoning.
As the authors stated
"As the above examples suggest, we can draw a variety of inferences rapidly, spontaneously and without conscious effort — as though they were a reflex response of our cognitive apparatus. In view of this let us describe such reasoning as reflexive (Shastri 1990).2 Reflexive reasoning may be contrasted with reflective reasoning which requires reflection, conscious deliberation, and often an overt consideration of alternatives and weighing of possibilities. Reflective reasoning takes takes longer and often requires the use of external props such as a paper and pencil. Some examples of such reasoning are solving logic puzzles, doing cryptarithmetic, or planning a vacation."
Is the clash within me, in choosing the mode of reasoning, I want to use to deal with the notions put forward. Reflexive reasoning or reflective reasoning. Though, to my mind is quite evident that my preferred way is in favour of the reflexive reasoning than reflective reasoning, as I found it to be more productive. Thus stated, I should point out that I do not ignore the significance of reflective reasoning, though I find reflexive reasoning a more suitable way to deal with problems.
By pondering on these thoughts I realize that the case on reasoning, the authors mention, do not include what I have contemplated on the matter. The matter being, that reasoning is only a small part of the brain processes that go under the much wider umbrella concept of thinking. Surpassing the limits and extending the scope by attaching the attributes associated with reasoning, as they are revealed by their findings, to be included in the attribute repertoire of the much wider concept of thinking.
Regarding reasoning the authors mention
" reasoning underlies even the most commonplace intelligent behavior."
which they see as
"One could argue that some of the steps in the above reasoning process are pre-compiled or ‘chunked’, but it would be unreasonable to claim that this entire chain of reasoning can be construed as direct retrieval or even a single step inference!"
not just a matter of retrieving information already stored, but as
"Hence, in addition to accessing lexical items, parsing, and resolving anaphoric reference, some computation similar to the above chain of reasoning must occur when the sentence in question is processed."
computations which make it possible, as in the case of language understanding to
"... language understanding, a task that we usually perform rapidly and effortlessly, depends upon our ability to make predictions, generate explanations, and recognize speaker’s plans."
predict, explain, recognize plans in other individuals minds. And all these are done rapidly and effortlessly.
It is not just reasoning that humans can perform effortlessly, as the authors point out, but even wider aspects of thinking. Adopting the authors terminology for reasoning to this wider view of mental activity, should consider referring to thinking along the same terms as reflexive and reflective thinking.
One ill that plagued me is the use of the words-symbols for attributes and properties amassed as they develop in my mind. The notion of orphan attributes and properties springs forth. Or better, as all these attributes are amassing, mainly by virtue of their associations, converge into something, which to my mind represents the concept. The matter conceived by the amassed orphan attributes.
This thought emanating, by the authors elaboration on the individual's, designated as agent, long-term knowledge base
"... it must include, besides other things, our knowledge of naive physics and naive psychology; facts about ourselves, our family and friends; facts about history and geography; our knowledge of artifacts; sports, art, and music trivia; and our models of social and civic interactions."
naively originated thoughts and in the process, being fleshed up, demand to be acknowledged and respected. Out of the chaos in my mind converging into stable attractors, forming visible structures, entities that need to be dressed up with words to symbolize their existence, and as such to become part either as attributes or any other form along the lines mentioned by the authors
"... hierarchy that represents entities, types (categories), and the super/sub-concept relations between them ..."
entities, types, categories, super/sub-concept hierarchies. To overcome their naive origins to more informed states, towards overarching and lucid meaning. From naive roots seeking out the word, the symbol to denote the converged distinct entity.
Thinking instantiates, using up the brain reflex mechanisms, named as reflex responses of human agents cognitive apparatus, taking advantage their effortless, spontaneous remarkably efficient character, to use the speed of their processing, to arrive to new knowledge quicker. Since reflexively processing the thoughts can produce many more associations than if it was processing the thoughts reflectively.
Advancing from naive, ill-, mis-, under- informed knowledge to more inclusive empowering knowledge, broadening and deepening the long-term knowledge base, towards the empowered state of an individual.
.... not just to reason but to think too.
- Thinking (with)in and (with)out the brain.
- FROM SIMPLE ASSOCIATIONS TO SYSTEMATIC REASONING: A Connectionist representation of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony
- The minds we make overall stupid despite being generated by an underlying remarkable ability to draw inferences?
- Intuitions. Should we be afraid or trust our intuitions? Building up a case for trust.
- Neural processes beat rational thinking.
- Not recommended: frantically seeking escape from a chaotic situation, we find ourselves in.
- Is thinking an automatic process?
- Unconscious knows better ... Indulge yourself.
- Our neurons chart the space we unfold our actions in
- Mind sets and their overriding influence
This paper by Lokendra Shastri and Venkat Ajjanagadde 'From simple associations to systematic reasoning' got me going. I felt that their conclusion, arrived from a somewhat different path, matches what I have arrived using different leads. Or might be simply that I have not wholesomely (systematically) engaged in their views, despite being aired since 1992.
I felt, I have to go through, trod again the path that led me to the views, currently prevalent in my mind, but I am hesitating as I can not decide how to do that. While I am in that process, I recognise the source of my dilemma, given by the authors account of reasoning, as they differentiate it, in reflexive and reflective reasoning.
As the authors stated
"As the above examples suggest, we can draw a variety of inferences rapidly, spontaneously and without conscious effort — as though they were a reflex response of our cognitive apparatus. In view of this let us describe such reasoning as reflexive (Shastri 1990).2 Reflexive reasoning may be contrasted with reflective reasoning which requires reflection, conscious deliberation, and often an overt consideration of alternatives and weighing of possibilities. Reflective reasoning takes takes longer and often requires the use of external props such as a paper and pencil. Some examples of such reasoning are solving logic puzzles, doing cryptarithmetic, or planning a vacation."
Is the clash within me, in choosing the mode of reasoning, I want to use to deal with the notions put forward. Reflexive reasoning or reflective reasoning. Though, to my mind is quite evident that my preferred way is in favour of the reflexive reasoning than reflective reasoning, as I found it to be more productive. Thus stated, I should point out that I do not ignore the significance of reflective reasoning, though I find reflexive reasoning a more suitable way to deal with problems.
By pondering on these thoughts I realize that the case on reasoning, the authors mention, do not include what I have contemplated on the matter. The matter being, that reasoning is only a small part of the brain processes that go under the much wider umbrella concept of thinking. Surpassing the limits and extending the scope by attaching the attributes associated with reasoning, as they are revealed by their findings, to be included in the attribute repertoire of the much wider concept of thinking.
Regarding reasoning the authors mention
" reasoning underlies even the most commonplace intelligent behavior."
which they see as
"One could argue that some of the steps in the above reasoning process are pre-compiled or ‘chunked’, but it would be unreasonable to claim that this entire chain of reasoning can be construed as direct retrieval or even a single step inference!"
not just a matter of retrieving information already stored, but as
"Hence, in addition to accessing lexical items, parsing, and resolving anaphoric reference, some computation similar to the above chain of reasoning must occur when the sentence in question is processed."
computations which make it possible, as in the case of language understanding to
"... language understanding, a task that we usually perform rapidly and effortlessly, depends upon our ability to make predictions, generate explanations, and recognize speaker’s plans."
predict, explain, recognize plans in other individuals minds. And all these are done rapidly and effortlessly.
It is not just reasoning that humans can perform effortlessly, as the authors point out, but even wider aspects of thinking. Adopting the authors terminology for reasoning to this wider view of mental activity, should consider referring to thinking along the same terms as reflexive and reflective thinking.
One ill that plagued me is the use of the words-symbols for attributes and properties amassed as they develop in my mind. The notion of orphan attributes and properties springs forth. Or better, as all these attributes are amassing, mainly by virtue of their associations, converge into something, which to my mind represents the concept. The matter conceived by the amassed orphan attributes.
This thought emanating, by the authors elaboration on the individual's, designated as agent, long-term knowledge base
"... it must include, besides other things, our knowledge of naive physics and naive psychology; facts about ourselves, our family and friends; facts about history and geography; our knowledge of artifacts; sports, art, and music trivia; and our models of social and civic interactions."
naively originated thoughts and in the process, being fleshed up, demand to be acknowledged and respected. Out of the chaos in my mind converging into stable attractors, forming visible structures, entities that need to be dressed up with words to symbolize their existence, and as such to become part either as attributes or any other form along the lines mentioned by the authors
"... hierarchy that represents entities, types (categories), and the super/sub-concept relations between them ..."
entities, types, categories, super/sub-concept hierarchies. To overcome their naive origins to more informed states, towards overarching and lucid meaning. From naive roots seeking out the word, the symbol to denote the converged distinct entity.
Thinking instantiates, using up the brain reflex mechanisms, named as reflex responses of human agents cognitive apparatus, taking advantage their effortless, spontaneous remarkably efficient character, to use the speed of their processing, to arrive to new knowledge quicker. Since reflexively processing the thoughts can produce many more associations than if it was processing the thoughts reflectively.
Advancing from naive, ill-, mis-, under- informed knowledge to more inclusive empowering knowledge, broadening and deepening the long-term knowledge base, towards the empowered state of an individual.
.... not just to reason but to think too.
Monday, 13 October 2008
Knowing the limits consciousness offers to self.
ChaosandOrder
CHAOS AND COSMOS
Knowing the limits consciousness offers to self or attempt to comprehend the range available for consciousness to operate, will give an insight about the significance of consciousness and the role it plays in the life of the organism. As the emergence of self as a survival prerequisite ....
(the emergence of self a survival prerequisite? The human individual identifies self as a separate entity, realises the dangers lurking in its environment, which will jeopardize its integrity, its existence. The rise of self, before or after or along with consciousness),
... a part of consciousness and at the same time the part to which consciousness is attributed to, and arises from, in a loop-like fashion, should be regarded as that ingredient of the machine, we call organism, which gives rise to consciousness.
If we regard the organism as a machine, which performs certain tasks as a single unit of the whole that is the world, the nature of the tasks would be such, that facilitates the assimilation of the unit into the whole. The whole as such undergoes in its own tasks, brought about by the computations dictated by the laws of nature, woven by repeated cycles of organisation and emergence, down from the quantum world up to the macroscopic world, which we, ourselves, experience.
We are part of the world and we are the product of a cycle of organisation and emergence, as all other parts of the world are. The cycle of organisation and emergence down from the quantum level, has given rise to self and consciousness. We attribute with consciousness, those other parts of the world which are similar to us, (namely other individuals?). But if our consciousness arises as a result of the computations undergoing, to sustain our cycle of organisation and emergence, why would it not arise in other parts of the world which by themselves undergo computations to sustain their own level of organisation and emergence. Why our computations give rise to consciousness and theirs don't? Does that line of reasoning help in order to define what consciousness is? Is consciousness a knowledge of self, its placement in the whole? Is consciousness necessary for the sustainability of our cycle of organisation and emergence? No, it is not. There are other mechanisms responsible for that. Our body can sustain itself without the contribution of consciousness. Most of the mechanisms responsible for the sustainability of our body are unconscious and consciousness's involvement is indirect.
Though consciousness is attributed with free will, for free will as such, sustainability is a redundant option. It is only an illusion that by the means of free will, we achieve sustainability. The options available to free will have already been worked out by unconscious processes and the apparent freedom of choice is a matter of whims. Consciousness role has an observer status. It is the recipient of knowledge, the agent of knowledge, the observer and the carrier of our feelings.
CHAOS AND COSMOS
Knowing the limits consciousness offers to self or attempt to comprehend the range available for consciousness to operate, will give an insight about the significance of consciousness and the role it plays in the life of the organism. As the emergence of self as a survival prerequisite ....
(the emergence of self a survival prerequisite? The human individual identifies self as a separate entity, realises the dangers lurking in its environment, which will jeopardize its integrity, its existence. The rise of self, before or after or along with consciousness),
... a part of consciousness and at the same time the part to which consciousness is attributed to, and arises from, in a loop-like fashion, should be regarded as that ingredient of the machine, we call organism, which gives rise to consciousness.
If we regard the organism as a machine, which performs certain tasks as a single unit of the whole that is the world, the nature of the tasks would be such, that facilitates the assimilation of the unit into the whole. The whole as such undergoes in its own tasks, brought about by the computations dictated by the laws of nature, woven by repeated cycles of organisation and emergence, down from the quantum world up to the macroscopic world, which we, ourselves, experience.
We are part of the world and we are the product of a cycle of organisation and emergence, as all other parts of the world are. The cycle of organisation and emergence down from the quantum level, has given rise to self and consciousness. We attribute with consciousness, those other parts of the world which are similar to us, (namely other individuals?). But if our consciousness arises as a result of the computations undergoing, to sustain our cycle of organisation and emergence, why would it not arise in other parts of the world which by themselves undergo computations to sustain their own level of organisation and emergence. Why our computations give rise to consciousness and theirs don't? Does that line of reasoning help in order to define what consciousness is? Is consciousness a knowledge of self, its placement in the whole? Is consciousness necessary for the sustainability of our cycle of organisation and emergence? No, it is not. There are other mechanisms responsible for that. Our body can sustain itself without the contribution of consciousness. Most of the mechanisms responsible for the sustainability of our body are unconscious and consciousness's involvement is indirect.
Though consciousness is attributed with free will, for free will as such, sustainability is a redundant option. It is only an illusion that by the means of free will, we achieve sustainability. The options available to free will have already been worked out by unconscious processes and the apparent freedom of choice is a matter of whims. Consciousness role has an observer status. It is the recipient of knowledge, the agent of knowledge, the observer and the carrier of our feelings.
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
The paradigm shifts in our minds
The line of thoughts that follow, were triggered by reading Brian Greene's book 'The elegant universe'. However, I did not grab the idea coming from the original spark, while it was developing, and I lost it. The inspiration dwindled and gone. But the hot ashes were still there, nurturing the flicker. A subject that while was constantly there, was persistently ignored, overlooked. I did not pay the appropriate attention but now I see it with a different eye, looked from a different perspective, within another context.
So, it was not long before my attention's antennae picked another example, and a much stronger one that depicts the underlying substrate of my developing thought. The haphazard wondering in the internet about Pandora's box, brought me in Luboš Motl blog, the reference frame, which its stated aim,
"The most important events in our and your superstringy Universe as seen from a conservative physicist's viewpoint"
intrigued me. It drew my attention.
My original quest for Pandora's box, a blog I write to, forgotten, took second place, and in a Markov inspired act, in a manner I described before I followed a title that looked promising. Namely, the blog entry titled 'Observables in quantum gravity'
The first paragraph looked promising.
"The goal of every quantum-mechanical theory is to predict the probabilities that particular physical quantities - "observables" - will take one value or another value after some evolution of the system, assuming certain initial conditions."
The last line, 'assuming certain initial conditions', the connotations, as were brought into my mind, with chaos initial conditions and its sensitive dependence, as chaos being there in such a fundamental level, gained my attention and my resolve to dig deeper into Luboš Motl exposition of 'observables'. The name of the original author, Moshe Rozali, propped up and the emanating post, titled likewise as 'Observables in quantum gravity', was right in front of me.
I read the first paragraph
"In quantum mechanics a state is described by a ray in a Hilbert space, and an observable by an Hermitian operator acting on that Hilbert space. After measurement, the state collapses to an eigenstate of the operator representing the measurements. The probability of any outcome is given by the Born rule."
Quantum mechanical states, implicated into my mind with states, trajectories developing in a chaotic fashion and the idea of attractors lurking beneath, and I might find a clue in what these quantum mechanical states are included in, the Hilbert space.
I felt I had to explore what is behind this mysterious Hilbert space, which, I came across, before. The first search result, at WolframMathworld did not offer much, riddled with notations and meaningless names, killing intuition relentlessly. The second in Wikipedia, though along the same lines, offered me a working ground, fodder for future thoughts.
What donned to me is, that I can not grasp the essence in Hilbert spaces, as I do not have the conceptual structures to deal with it. Something along Julian Jaynes structions, the sort of instructions given to my nervous system so that once the materials, the aforementioned descriptions, are given to work on, it will result in the answer automatically, without any conscious thinking or reasoning. And this phenomenon, as Julian Jaynes proclaims, applies to most of our activities, from such simplicities as judging weights to solving problems to scientific and philosophical activity. Consciousness studies a problem and prepares it as a struction, a process which may result in a sudden appearance of the solution as if out of nowhere. Without them I am not able to grasp the meaning Brian Greene, tries to convey or what Hilbert space is.
I have not created the reverberated cell assemblies to deal with that problem, the reverberated cell assemblies, representing the concepts with their constituent properties, to provide a lucid framework for meaning to come out. Reverberated cell assemblies ever ready, their indefinite nature proclaim, to make understanding possible and therefore I am unable to understand what is going on.
Further on in page 111 of Brian Greene's book, I read
"At this point your classical upbringing is balking."
it stops short and refuse to go on. We are what the concepts we carry within, allows us to be, our limits, self-imposed (in almost everything, as I could think about it now), are determined by their amount, their accuracy, whether adequate or inadequate, correct or incorrect. All that it matters to us, comes out of the concepts we have amassed and continue to (the smart thing to do), through our lives.
If we do not continuously brush off the content of our concepts, in girth and in depth, then stalemate. All sorts of problems follow, which basically is translated in, that we get trapped, caged, the concepts we carry our very own prison guards, our jailers, self-imposed limits, bringing forth anxiety, helplessness, boredom. We are in desperate need of paradigm shifts, our very own personal paradigm shifts, remodeling our worldviews and our ways of living.
It is what is mentioned in this website
"The new paradigm would replace old assumptions, values, goals, beliefs, expectations, theories, and the like with its own."
or even more drastically, in an even more powerful way, as it is mentioned in the same website, attributed to Thomas Kuhn,
"a new theory or model is proposed which requires understanding traditional scientific concepts in new ways, and which rejects old assumptions and replaces them with new ones."
our goal is constantly to rejuvenate, in every way possible,
The paradigm shifts of our minds, our own individual paradigm shifts which as the concept defines, once achieved, we will never look back.
So, it was not long before my attention's antennae picked another example, and a much stronger one that depicts the underlying substrate of my developing thought. The haphazard wondering in the internet about Pandora's box, brought me in Luboš Motl blog, the reference frame, which its stated aim,
"The most important events in our and your superstringy Universe as seen from a conservative physicist's viewpoint"
intrigued me. It drew my attention.
My original quest for Pandora's box, a blog I write to, forgotten, took second place, and in a Markov inspired act, in a manner I described before I followed a title that looked promising. Namely, the blog entry titled 'Observables in quantum gravity'
The first paragraph looked promising.
"The goal of every quantum-mechanical theory is to predict the probabilities that particular physical quantities - "observables" - will take one value or another value after some evolution of the system, assuming certain initial conditions."
The last line, 'assuming certain initial conditions', the connotations, as were brought into my mind, with chaos initial conditions and its sensitive dependence, as chaos being there in such a fundamental level, gained my attention and my resolve to dig deeper into Luboš Motl exposition of 'observables'. The name of the original author, Moshe Rozali, propped up and the emanating post, titled likewise as 'Observables in quantum gravity', was right in front of me.
I read the first paragraph
"In quantum mechanics a state is described by a ray in a Hilbert space, and an observable by an Hermitian operator acting on that Hilbert space. After measurement, the state collapses to an eigenstate of the operator representing the measurements. The probability of any outcome is given by the Born rule."
Quantum mechanical states, implicated into my mind with states, trajectories developing in a chaotic fashion and the idea of attractors lurking beneath, and I might find a clue in what these quantum mechanical states are included in, the Hilbert space.
I felt I had to explore what is behind this mysterious Hilbert space, which, I came across, before. The first search result, at WolframMathworld did not offer much, riddled with notations and meaningless names, killing intuition relentlessly. The second in Wikipedia, though along the same lines, offered me a working ground, fodder for future thoughts.
What donned to me is, that I can not grasp the essence in Hilbert spaces, as I do not have the conceptual structures to deal with it. Something along Julian Jaynes structions, the sort of instructions given to my nervous system so that once the materials, the aforementioned descriptions, are given to work on, it will result in the answer automatically, without any conscious thinking or reasoning. And this phenomenon, as Julian Jaynes proclaims, applies to most of our activities, from such simplicities as judging weights to solving problems to scientific and philosophical activity. Consciousness studies a problem and prepares it as a struction, a process which may result in a sudden appearance of the solution as if out of nowhere. Without them I am not able to grasp the meaning Brian Greene, tries to convey or what Hilbert space is.
I have not created the reverberated cell assemblies to deal with that problem, the reverberated cell assemblies, representing the concepts with their constituent properties, to provide a lucid framework for meaning to come out. Reverberated cell assemblies ever ready, their indefinite nature proclaim, to make understanding possible and therefore I am unable to understand what is going on.
Further on in page 111 of Brian Greene's book, I read
"At this point your classical upbringing is balking."
it stops short and refuse to go on. We are what the concepts we carry within, allows us to be, our limits, self-imposed (in almost everything, as I could think about it now), are determined by their amount, their accuracy, whether adequate or inadequate, correct or incorrect. All that it matters to us, comes out of the concepts we have amassed and continue to (the smart thing to do), through our lives.
If we do not continuously brush off the content of our concepts, in girth and in depth, then stalemate. All sorts of problems follow, which basically is translated in, that we get trapped, caged, the concepts we carry our very own prison guards, our jailers, self-imposed limits, bringing forth anxiety, helplessness, boredom. We are in desperate need of paradigm shifts, our very own personal paradigm shifts, remodeling our worldviews and our ways of living.
It is what is mentioned in this website
"The new paradigm would replace old assumptions, values, goals, beliefs, expectations, theories, and the like with its own."
or even more drastically, in an even more powerful way, as it is mentioned in the same website, attributed to Thomas Kuhn,
"a new theory or model is proposed which requires understanding traditional scientific concepts in new ways, and which rejects old assumptions and replaces them with new ones."
our goal is constantly to rejuvenate, in every way possible,
The paradigm shifts of our minds, our own individual paradigm shifts which as the concept defines, once achieved, we will never look back.
Saturday, 20 September 2008
Consciousness arises in consciousness-experience molecular groups? Similar to photosynthetic photoactive systems?
A thought struck me while I read through the report from SOFTPEDIA on 'Quantum Physics Explains Photosynthesis' and I grabbed it. My mind connected their findings with what is mentioned in the paper by Jonathan CW Edwards of 'Is Consciousness Only a Property of Individual Cells?'
I read in Jonathan CW Edwards thesis that single neurones are responsible for bringing about consciousness,
"Integration of signals inside cells is complex and can mimic multiplication. It may involve patterns. Thus although it might be argued that binding in a cell poses the same problem as in a net of cells, it does not have to. What we know of the brain indicates that binding could not occur between cells linked by discrete signals but might occur in a cell. A sophisticated substrate might be needed in the cellular 'black box' but if patterns are involved at all, this would need to be the place."
and
" ... consciousness is a basic correlate of function, but a function that only certain fundamental physical substrates can subserve. To know the true function is to know the substrate."
Binding all the elements of information to bring about experience and consciousness is not a task performed by the brain as a unit, but by single neurones? Each neurone creates a version of consciousness? And this is due to a sophisticated substrate? To know the true function is to know the substrate, Jonathan CW Edwards declares.
What can this substrate be? Something similar to the photoactive systems in photosynthesis? As it is mentioned in the SOFTPEDIA entry on the quantum physics explanation of photosynthesis
I read there
"The 2-D electronic spectroscopy can detect the energy transfer between molecules that are grouped in photoactive systems, due to their similar electronic and vibrational states."
Molecules grouped in photoactive systems on the basis of similar electronic and vibrational states? Like the Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) molecular complex, the team investigated?
"The team investigated the Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) photosynthetic protein, a molecular complex in green sulphur bacteria. FMO is preferred in photosynthesis researches because of its simplicity: it is made of just seven pigment molecules."
A molecular complex of a number of molecules embedded in the cytoplasm of a neurone cell with the task of creating experience and consciousness? In the same way that is referred to about energy transfer processes in photosynthesis?
"We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis," said Graham Fleming, the main researcher and professor of chemistry at UC Berkeley. "This wavelike characteristic can explain the extreme efficiency of the energy transfer because it enables the system to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one."
A system that is extremely efficient in energy transfer as it simultaneously samples all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one? Simultaneity required by consciousness as Jonathan CW Edwards, mentions
"Thus, the key functional requirement of consciousness, as I see it, is that something has simultaneous (cotemporal) access to many elements (of information) in defined inter-relationships (SAMEDI), i.e. access to a pattern".
referred to as the information problem
"The information problem is how to find a neurophysiological unit in the brain that could have access to many elements of information as a pattern; perhaps 1000 elements in a single experience."
Simultaneity incorporated in
"The team detected "quantum beating" signals, coherent electronic oscillations in both donor and acceptor molecules, induced by light energy excitations."
coherent electronic oscillations in a consciousness-experience molecular groups between donor and acceptor molecules, that as it has been detected in photosynthesis
"Two-dimensional electronic spectroscopy detected on a femtosecond (1/1000 000 000 000 000 of a second) time-scale these oscillations meeting and how they interfered, building wavelike motions of energy (superposition states) that can experience all possible energy pathways at a time and reversibly, so that they can go back from incorrect pathways with no penalty."
by an ensuing superposition of states and by the interference of coherent oscillations instantiates consciousness-experience? The non-bitwise mode of integration? Mentioned by Jonathan CW Edwards.
"A non-bitwise mode of integration within cells is probably already supported by experimental evidence."
Wave-like coherence in the oscillations as mentioned by Gregory Engel in 'Quantum Physics Explains Photosynthesis' report,
"In these spectra, the lowest-energy exciton (a bound electron-hole pair formed when an incoming photon boosts an electron out of the valence energy band into the conduction band) gives rise to a diagonal peak near 825 nanometers that clearly oscillates. The associated cross-peak amplitude also appears to oscillate. Surprisingly, this quantum beating lasted the entire 660 femtoseconds."
"The duration of the quantum beating signals was unexpected because the general scientific assumption had been that the electronic coherences responsible for such oscillations are rapidly destroyed. For this reason, the transfer of electronic coherence between excitons during relaxation has usually been ignored," Engel said. "By demonstrating that the energy transfer process does involve electronic coherence and that this coherence is much stronger than we would ever have expected, we have shown that the process can be much more efficient than the classical view could explain."
I read in Jonathan CW Edwards thesis that single neurones are responsible for bringing about consciousness,
"Integration of signals inside cells is complex and can mimic multiplication. It may involve patterns. Thus although it might be argued that binding in a cell poses the same problem as in a net of cells, it does not have to. What we know of the brain indicates that binding could not occur between cells linked by discrete signals but might occur in a cell. A sophisticated substrate might be needed in the cellular 'black box' but if patterns are involved at all, this would need to be the place."
and
" ... consciousness is a basic correlate of function, but a function that only certain fundamental physical substrates can subserve. To know the true function is to know the substrate."
Binding all the elements of information to bring about experience and consciousness is not a task performed by the brain as a unit, but by single neurones? Each neurone creates a version of consciousness? And this is due to a sophisticated substrate? To know the true function is to know the substrate, Jonathan CW Edwards declares.
What can this substrate be? Something similar to the photoactive systems in photosynthesis? As it is mentioned in the SOFTPEDIA entry on the quantum physics explanation of photosynthesis
I read there
"The 2-D electronic spectroscopy can detect the energy transfer between molecules that are grouped in photoactive systems, due to their similar electronic and vibrational states."
Molecules grouped in photoactive systems on the basis of similar electronic and vibrational states? Like the Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) molecular complex, the team investigated?
"The team investigated the Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) photosynthetic protein, a molecular complex in green sulphur bacteria. FMO is preferred in photosynthesis researches because of its simplicity: it is made of just seven pigment molecules."
A molecular complex of a number of molecules embedded in the cytoplasm of a neurone cell with the task of creating experience and consciousness? In the same way that is referred to about energy transfer processes in photosynthesis?
"We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis," said Graham Fleming, the main researcher and professor of chemistry at UC Berkeley. "This wavelike characteristic can explain the extreme efficiency of the energy transfer because it enables the system to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one."
A system that is extremely efficient in energy transfer as it simultaneously samples all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one? Simultaneity required by consciousness as Jonathan CW Edwards, mentions
"Thus, the key functional requirement of consciousness, as I see it, is that something has simultaneous (cotemporal) access to many elements (of information) in defined inter-relationships (SAMEDI), i.e. access to a pattern".
referred to as the information problem
"The information problem is how to find a neurophysiological unit in the brain that could have access to many elements of information as a pattern; perhaps 1000 elements in a single experience."
Simultaneity incorporated in
"The team detected "quantum beating" signals, coherent electronic oscillations in both donor and acceptor molecules, induced by light energy excitations."
coherent electronic oscillations in a consciousness-experience molecular groups between donor and acceptor molecules, that as it has been detected in photosynthesis
"Two-dimensional electronic spectroscopy detected on a femtosecond (1/1000 000 000 000 000 of a second) time-scale these oscillations meeting and how they interfered, building wavelike motions of energy (superposition states) that can experience all possible energy pathways at a time and reversibly, so that they can go back from incorrect pathways with no penalty."
by an ensuing superposition of states and by the interference of coherent oscillations instantiates consciousness-experience? The non-bitwise mode of integration? Mentioned by Jonathan CW Edwards.
"A non-bitwise mode of integration within cells is probably already supported by experimental evidence."
Wave-like coherence in the oscillations as mentioned by Gregory Engel in 'Quantum Physics Explains Photosynthesis' report,
"In these spectra, the lowest-energy exciton (a bound electron-hole pair formed when an incoming photon boosts an electron out of the valence energy band into the conduction band) gives rise to a diagonal peak near 825 nanometers that clearly oscillates. The associated cross-peak amplitude also appears to oscillate. Surprisingly, this quantum beating lasted the entire 660 femtoseconds."
"The duration of the quantum beating signals was unexpected because the general scientific assumption had been that the electronic coherences responsible for such oscillations are rapidly destroyed. For this reason, the transfer of electronic coherence between excitons during relaxation has usually been ignored," Engel said. "By demonstrating that the energy transfer process does involve electronic coherence and that this coherence is much stronger than we would ever have expected, we have shown that the process can be much more efficient than the classical view could explain."
Saturday, 13 September 2008
Consciousness whole pattern processing regime?
Patterns. You bring along the whole pattern for consciousness to process. In units as it is mentioned in, 'Is consciousness only a property of individual cells?', by Jonathan CW Edwards,
"The second, which I will call the physical substrate, is that of finding a substrate at the fundamental physical level which might support a subjective experience in which many elements are bound into a seamless whole."
Many elements bound into a seamless whole! Each element is, in its turn and for its own accord, a seamless whole made out of or bound from its own specific elements, downscale as far as it is permitted by the granularity (?) of the physical world. Granules, as a general term referring to the size of the physical units possible? Up to quanta or strings?
As a seamless whole is presented to our consciousness as whole patterns and processed as such. All the information elements bound in the pattern, are dragged along, no matter how relevant they appear to be. Even if they are seemingly incompatible or contradict with one another.
Emergence? And its incompatibility pre-requisite for emergent properties to rise? The consciousness whole pattern processing allowing emergence to appear? Working towards achieving that goal?
"The second, which I will call the physical substrate, is that of finding a substrate at the fundamental physical level which might support a subjective experience in which many elements are bound into a seamless whole."
Many elements bound into a seamless whole! Each element is, in its turn and for its own accord, a seamless whole made out of or bound from its own specific elements, downscale as far as it is permitted by the granularity (?) of the physical world. Granules, as a general term referring to the size of the physical units possible? Up to quanta or strings?
As a seamless whole is presented to our consciousness as whole patterns and processed as such. All the information elements bound in the pattern, are dragged along, no matter how relevant they appear to be. Even if they are seemingly incompatible or contradict with one another.
Emergence? And its incompatibility pre-requisite for emergent properties to rise? The consciousness whole pattern processing allowing emergence to appear? Working towards achieving that goal?
Sunday, 7 September 2008
A storm in my brain ?!!!
There is something there which I need to explore. More than explore, what I require to do, is elucidate further the thoughts triggered. I wonder how should I put it. It is about the mind's ability to quickly assess a situation, a state presented in front of you, and requires a fast and reliable solution. Though it is not strictly a problem, as much as a situation that requires a ready-made solution.
I am going around circling the matter I want to deal with, a brain-storm in anticipation of providing the solution and the words to describe it. In an attempt to generalize before even accessing the substance of the matter as such. States presented to us constantly requiring to be handled. Furtive states, in need for instantaneous solutions. You can not pause to think how to handle the situation, you have to act fast which brings it down to reflex actions. Reflex actions built by the accumulation of experience over the years. It is intrinsic within the solution necessary to calculate the movements needed to tackle the situation. Calculations done by using the raw power of your brain cells. No conscious handling. It takes too much time. Not counting one by one but in hundreds. Non-linear? Why the non-linear came to my mind? Does that mean anything? Gearing perhaps? Getting more from very little? Some sort of function where the output far exceeds the input?
It brings into my mind thoughts I expressed on the matter of nerve cells charting our surrounding space. And regarding the raw solving power our neurons possess.
....
I am going around circling the matter I want to deal with, a brain-storm in anticipation of providing the solution and the words to describe it. In an attempt to generalize before even accessing the substance of the matter as such. States presented to us constantly requiring to be handled. Furtive states, in need for instantaneous solutions. You can not pause to think how to handle the situation, you have to act fast which brings it down to reflex actions. Reflex actions built by the accumulation of experience over the years. It is intrinsic within the solution necessary to calculate the movements needed to tackle the situation. Calculations done by using the raw power of your brain cells. No conscious handling. It takes too much time. Not counting one by one but in hundreds. Non-linear? Why the non-linear came to my mind? Does that mean anything? Gearing perhaps? Getting more from very little? Some sort of function where the output far exceeds the input?
It brings into my mind thoughts I expressed on the matter of nerve cells charting our surrounding space. And regarding the raw solving power our neurons possess.
....
Sunday, 6 April 2008
The brain, as a quantum computer?
"A quantum computer is any device for computation that makes direct use of distinctively quantum mechanical phenomena, such as superposition and entanglement, to perform operations on data. In a classical (or conventional) computer, information is stored as bits; in a quantum computer, it is stored as qubits (quantum bits). The basic principle of quantum computation is that the quantum properties can be used to represent and structure data, and that quantum mechanisms can be devised and built to perform operations with this data."
If we assume that line, what are the possible configurations of information storage? The qubit equivalent? What are the quantum mechanisms that perform operations with this data? That the brain makes direct use of the distinct quantum mechanical phenomenon of superposition is evident as it is required to operate within a framework of multiple potential states, simultaneously existing, without any distinct preference or indication of any, out of these states, being prevalent, superposed one upon the other, before the collapse of its wavefunction by an observer, which singles out one particular state, which acts as an effector in the actions an individual undertakes and thus determines the individual's behaviour.
What about entanglement? How can it be visualised? Entanglement of particles. Quantum particles. Quantum particles can be interpreted from the point of view of chaotically driven processes as attractors. Chaotic mechanisms, the brain is involved, produces attractors which direct an individual's behaviour. These attractors can be assumed equivalent to quantum particles, and these presumably would represent the entities engaged in entanglement. Entanglement represents non-local, (oh hell!), interactions between similar quantum particles with instantaneous sharing of information. Acting like pairs, entangled pairs. Likewise, attractors developed in the brain of human individuals interact non-locally with attractors developed in the brains of other individuals? A candidate explanation of ESP phenomena? Extra sensory perception effected by entanglement?
If we assume that line, what are the possible configurations of information storage? The qubit equivalent? What are the quantum mechanisms that perform operations with this data? That the brain makes direct use of the distinct quantum mechanical phenomenon of superposition is evident as it is required to operate within a framework of multiple potential states, simultaneously existing, without any distinct preference or indication of any, out of these states, being prevalent, superposed one upon the other, before the collapse of its wavefunction by an observer, which singles out one particular state, which acts as an effector in the actions an individual undertakes and thus determines the individual's behaviour.
What about entanglement? How can it be visualised? Entanglement of particles. Quantum particles. Quantum particles can be interpreted from the point of view of chaotically driven processes as attractors. Chaotic mechanisms, the brain is involved, produces attractors which direct an individual's behaviour. These attractors can be assumed equivalent to quantum particles, and these presumably would represent the entities engaged in entanglement. Entanglement represents non-local, (oh hell!), interactions between similar quantum particles with instantaneous sharing of information. Acting like pairs, entangled pairs. Likewise, attractors developed in the brain of human individuals interact non-locally with attractors developed in the brains of other individuals? A candidate explanation of ESP phenomena? Extra sensory perception effected by entanglement?
Human individual, a quantum mechanical entity?
Human individual to be regarded as a quantum mechanical entity? The embodiment of a quantum mechanical entity its superposition of states. States in which the individual finds itself in, a multitude of states and the collapse of its wave function into a single state, become determining in the life of the individual, by effecting actions when it is required. Followed up, by its entry into a new superposition of states till another collapse will bring about the emergence of another single state to deal again with the multitude of situations, any individual finds itself in, in the course of its daily life.
Quantum mechanics and chaos do not exclude one another. Whereas quantum mechanics draws attention in the states and the description of these states, chaos refers to the processes which are responsible for these states. It is interesting this mixture of quantum mechanics and chaos, and above all this transference of the quantum mechanics adherents to describe situations of macroscopic environments.
Analysing each particular feature of quantum mechanical models and applying the doctrines to other systems and examine these systems from that particular prism, it would probably produce insights which will elucidate further the phenomena observed.
By talking about superposition of states, should bear in mind that the states are defined by their constituent variables and parametres, therefore multiple states existing simultaneously refer to the values of variables and parametres. The values of variables and parametres are not fixed, but rather fluctuate. As a superposition itself does not imply infinite states, simply multiple states, therefore the values of variables and parametres would not have infinite range, simply ranges which will ensure multiple states. This agrees with the parametric development of chaotic states.
Oh heck! What is that thought that entered my mind. Observation as the reason for the collapse of the wave function of the quantum mechanical superposition of states of a human individual. Observation, the act to effect the collapse comes from other individuals. As a human individual is observed by other individuals, this observation brings the collapse into its single state. Now this single state, out of the superposed multiple states, is determined by the observer. The observed individual collapses its wave function to that of the observing individual. This can explain the overriding effect of acting as expected by the observing individual. It goes along with the observer influences the observed. This should be counteracted by a subsequent observation from the observed individual, the observed becomes the observer and therefore affects the wave function collapse of the initial observer. These actions must provide grounds for explaining rules of conduct.
The individual can not help but act according to what is expected by the individual who have effected the collapse of its wavefunction in the first place? Therefore we act as it is expected? The single state out of the superposition of states that the wavefunction collapses to is the state that the observer determines?
Quantum mechanics and chaos do not exclude one another. Whereas quantum mechanics draws attention in the states and the description of these states, chaos refers to the processes which are responsible for these states. It is interesting this mixture of quantum mechanics and chaos, and above all this transference of the quantum mechanics adherents to describe situations of macroscopic environments.
Analysing each particular feature of quantum mechanical models and applying the doctrines to other systems and examine these systems from that particular prism, it would probably produce insights which will elucidate further the phenomena observed.
By talking about superposition of states, should bear in mind that the states are defined by their constituent variables and parametres, therefore multiple states existing simultaneously refer to the values of variables and parametres. The values of variables and parametres are not fixed, but rather fluctuate. As a superposition itself does not imply infinite states, simply multiple states, therefore the values of variables and parametres would not have infinite range, simply ranges which will ensure multiple states. This agrees with the parametric development of chaotic states.
Oh heck! What is that thought that entered my mind. Observation as the reason for the collapse of the wave function of the quantum mechanical superposition of states of a human individual. Observation, the act to effect the collapse comes from other individuals. As a human individual is observed by other individuals, this observation brings the collapse into its single state. Now this single state, out of the superposed multiple states, is determined by the observer. The observed individual collapses its wave function to that of the observing individual. This can explain the overriding effect of acting as expected by the observing individual. It goes along with the observer influences the observed. This should be counteracted by a subsequent observation from the observed individual, the observed becomes the observer and therefore affects the wave function collapse of the initial observer. These actions must provide grounds for explaining rules of conduct.
The individual can not help but act according to what is expected by the individual who have effected the collapse of its wavefunction in the first place? Therefore we act as it is expected? The single state out of the superposition of states that the wavefunction collapses to is the state that the observer determines?
Saturday, 5 April 2008
Would the mind know but would not tell?
The right questions asked and the answers are given. The mind works regardless whether the individual is aware of it or not. So therefore the mind as it is proclaimed here:
"Popper and Eccles (1977) and Margenau (1984) have also discussed the possibility of quantum reduction being dependent on the mind of the observer, leading to the paradox of Wigner's friend in which an observer's friend splits the wave function, and reports on the result."
reduce the wave packet and the information gained is used to effect things happening in the environs of the individual that splits the wave function. To achieve knowledge about the processes involved, a mind has to assault the item to be known, armed with an arsenal of ever more detailed concepts, probe deep, analyze minute processes, put forward questions, in structured sentences, in seek for an answer. And the mind provides the answer. The mind makes use of the brain's quantum machinery.
The collective human mind, in collaboration, managed to accumulate a lot of information. It has constructed models of the way nature works, as well as, how the mind works. Constructed attractors act like a magnet's poles, to thoughts and ideas in the minds of individuals, in a similar manner as the same authors mention here:
"An excitable cell or neurosystem which evolved initially to achieve constrained optimization through chaotic fluctuation, could thus also display a new type of predictive modeling through non-local quantum interactions. Predictive optimization may thus have driven the evolution of the excitable cell and subsequently a structurally-unstable chaotic brain in which consciousness and free-will become direct manifestations of the quantum non-locality underlying membrane and brain-function."
The individual coaxed towards achieving deeper understanding. Of its mind's inner workings? Our consciousness a wave front wandering amidst the swirl of intertwining folds of processes, becomes trapped in isolated regions oblivious of all other regions. Its location determined by a handful of thoughts and ideas it aspires to. A matter of will, but will which is largely determined by the prevalent ideas in the social environment it finds itself in.
The idea of observation and collapse in our daily lives. In the anticipation of forthcoming events. Representing the unknown factor. The indeterminate nature of things to come, in a superposition of states. A macroscopic equivalent mirroring the microscopic events unraveling in the quantum realm.
Is there a genetic predisposition to the things we draw our attention to? There is a lot of hubris in the lives of individuals, which affects what we draw our attention to, from what actually should pay attention to. Certainly, an individual's sensory apparatus can not sense everything that lies around us, exacerbated by lack of detailed knowledge, of information, for what lies around us. What determines that we would actually pay attention to, from all the possibilities presented to us, is strongly connected with emotions and feelings. Interdependent and bi-directional pathways, either influence emotions or our emotional make-up influence what we will pay attention to.
"Popper and Eccles (1977) and Margenau (1984) have also discussed the possibility of quantum reduction being dependent on the mind of the observer, leading to the paradox of Wigner's friend in which an observer's friend splits the wave function, and reports on the result."
reduce the wave packet and the information gained is used to effect things happening in the environs of the individual that splits the wave function. To achieve knowledge about the processes involved, a mind has to assault the item to be known, armed with an arsenal of ever more detailed concepts, probe deep, analyze minute processes, put forward questions, in structured sentences, in seek for an answer. And the mind provides the answer. The mind makes use of the brain's quantum machinery.
The collective human mind, in collaboration, managed to accumulate a lot of information. It has constructed models of the way nature works, as well as, how the mind works. Constructed attractors act like a magnet's poles, to thoughts and ideas in the minds of individuals, in a similar manner as the same authors mention here:
"An excitable cell or neurosystem which evolved initially to achieve constrained optimization through chaotic fluctuation, could thus also display a new type of predictive modeling through non-local quantum interactions. Predictive optimization may thus have driven the evolution of the excitable cell and subsequently a structurally-unstable chaotic brain in which consciousness and free-will become direct manifestations of the quantum non-locality underlying membrane and brain-function."
The individual coaxed towards achieving deeper understanding. Of its mind's inner workings? Our consciousness a wave front wandering amidst the swirl of intertwining folds of processes, becomes trapped in isolated regions oblivious of all other regions. Its location determined by a handful of thoughts and ideas it aspires to. A matter of will, but will which is largely determined by the prevalent ideas in the social environment it finds itself in.
The idea of observation and collapse in our daily lives. In the anticipation of forthcoming events. Representing the unknown factor. The indeterminate nature of things to come, in a superposition of states. A macroscopic equivalent mirroring the microscopic events unraveling in the quantum realm.
Is there a genetic predisposition to the things we draw our attention to? There is a lot of hubris in the lives of individuals, which affects what we draw our attention to, from what actually should pay attention to. Certainly, an individual's sensory apparatus can not sense everything that lies around us, exacerbated by lack of detailed knowledge, of information, for what lies around us. What determines that we would actually pay attention to, from all the possibilities presented to us, is strongly connected with emotions and feelings. Interdependent and bi-directional pathways, either influence emotions or our emotional make-up influence what we will pay attention to.
Sunday, 23 March 2008
Tractable and intractable computations human individuals are faced with.
In an uncanny manifestation, as I would call it for the lack of a better word available in my mind right now, sources unraveled before me, without a consciously prepared plan, only to lead me, almost effortlessly, to a sought after solution of a nagging problem. One seemingly intractable problem, in personal terms, on the grounds of the unyielding amount of operations in the process of arriving to a satisfactory solution.
Similar with what I mentioned in that post, the anticipation built-in in the firing sequences of neuron groups, with the additional element of intractable problems. Does that go beyond a simple immediate future anticipation? To processes connected to situations where ever ready, constantly on standby, lingering bifurcations sweep away the thoughts toward new, concluding attractors or falling under the influence of powerful trajectories of all-surpassing, universal attractors? As for example the attractor-notion of knowledge already there, awaiting your mind's arrival? Severely cutting down the number, by-passing unyielding operations? Arriving to a solution sooner?
Computational problems can be "efficiently solvable" or "tractable" or "intractable" as they would require a huge amount of operations, at least n^1000000 (n to the power of 1 million), as it is mentioned here,
"P is often taken to be the class of computational problems which are "efficiently solvable" or "tractable", although there are potentially larger classes that are also considered tractable such as RP and BPP. Also, there exist problems in P which are intractable in practical terms; for example, some require at least n^1000000 (n to the power of 1 million) operations."
These are the kind of problems human individuals face in life situations as it is mentioned in "Fractal Neurodynamics and Quantum Chaos: Resolving the Mind-Brain Paradox Through Novel Biophysics", in Chapter 6.1, The Computational Intractability of Survival in the Open Environment.,
"The principal task of the brain is to compute the survival strategy most likely to enable the organism to evade death and produce viable offspring. A computational problem is intractable if the number of computational steps required grows super-exponentially with the complexity of the problem. The traveling salesman problem (Bern & Graham 1989), finding the shortest route round n cities illustrates this, growing with (n-1)! A problem may also be formally undecidable in the sense of Gödel. Many adaption-survival problems in the open environment share the characteristics of intractable problems, because each strategy tends to be matched by a competing strategy in another organism and the number of options rapidly exponentiates. An active organism must also complete a processing task within 0.1-1 second if it is going to have survival utility, regardless of its complexity. Such arguments make it clear why parallel processing is an integral feature of vertebrate nervous systems."
In each step in our modern lives, though no different in real terms with the lives of human individuals in any era in human history for that matter, we are required to make decisions about effectively intractable problems. The human individual has largely managed to tackle successfully the computational problems associated with survival, and it did so by utilising our brain's chaotic potential. Thanks to our innate ability to engage and utilise chaotic processes led to the establishment of numerous attractors, providing solutions for many problems. Attractors manifesting in numerous forms and shapes, tangible and intangible, matter-transforming or social and mental constructions, tools in the constant grappling with nature, while at the same time continuously transforming into new shapes and forms.
Similar with what I mentioned in that post, the anticipation built-in in the firing sequences of neuron groups, with the additional element of intractable problems. Does that go beyond a simple immediate future anticipation? To processes connected to situations where ever ready, constantly on standby, lingering bifurcations sweep away the thoughts toward new, concluding attractors or falling under the influence of powerful trajectories of all-surpassing, universal attractors? As for example the attractor-notion of knowledge already there, awaiting your mind's arrival? Severely cutting down the number, by-passing unyielding operations? Arriving to a solution sooner?
Computational problems can be "efficiently solvable" or "tractable" or "intractable" as they would require a huge amount of operations, at least n^1000000 (n to the power of 1 million), as it is mentioned here,
"P is often taken to be the class of computational problems which are "efficiently solvable" or "tractable", although there are potentially larger classes that are also considered tractable such as RP and BPP. Also, there exist problems in P which are intractable in practical terms; for example, some require at least n^1000000 (n to the power of 1 million) operations."
These are the kind of problems human individuals face in life situations as it is mentioned in "Fractal Neurodynamics and Quantum Chaos: Resolving the Mind-Brain Paradox Through Novel Biophysics", in Chapter 6.1, The Computational Intractability of Survival in the Open Environment.,
"The principal task of the brain is to compute the survival strategy most likely to enable the organism to evade death and produce viable offspring. A computational problem is intractable if the number of computational steps required grows super-exponentially with the complexity of the problem. The traveling salesman problem (Bern & Graham 1989), finding the shortest route round n cities illustrates this, growing with (n-1)! A problem may also be formally undecidable in the sense of Gödel. Many adaption-survival problems in the open environment share the characteristics of intractable problems, because each strategy tends to be matched by a competing strategy in another organism and the number of options rapidly exponentiates. An active organism must also complete a processing task within 0.1-1 second if it is going to have survival utility, regardless of its complexity. Such arguments make it clear why parallel processing is an integral feature of vertebrate nervous systems."
In each step in our modern lives, though no different in real terms with the lives of human individuals in any era in human history for that matter, we are required to make decisions about effectively intractable problems. The human individual has largely managed to tackle successfully the computational problems associated with survival, and it did so by utilising our brain's chaotic potential. Thanks to our innate ability to engage and utilise chaotic processes led to the establishment of numerous attractors, providing solutions for many problems. Attractors manifesting in numerous forms and shapes, tangible and intangible, matter-transforming or social and mental constructions, tools in the constant grappling with nature, while at the same time continuously transforming into new shapes and forms.
Thursday, 6 March 2008
Thinking (with)in and (with)out the brain.
New thoughts:
A distinction between thinking as it occurs in the brain and thinking as it is done by the use of language and logic combined.
The brain has the ability to provide solutions to problems as long as the relevant concepts are provided. The concepts provided must confer meaning to the individual otherwise the brain would not process them in an efficient manner
The thinking which is done by the use of language uses external tools and its efficiency, in most of the cases, is doubtful. It is done 'outside' the brain and its strength barely approaches the actual potential of the human brain. Of course I can not deny that most of the thinking it has been done outside the brain, and has produced the breadth and length of the knowledge humanity possess now. But it kickstarted by thinking done 'inside' the brain. It was and is heavily geared by the intuitive resilience of the individuals that produced and produce the foundations of largely all fields of knowledge.
Other individuals took the thoughts intuitive spurts produced, made further alterations, added more concepts, primarily by thinking 'outside' the thought mechanisms of the human brain.
The human brain's understanding of reality, has an uncanny capability to provide solutions that no language techniques can match. This is because it works in the same way nature works. What drives nature is dictated by chaos, and the same goes for the brain. Built out of the same blueprint. It works in ways that the conscious mind can not fathom, and unable to follow. To talk about gaining knowledge of what underlies the intricate fabric of nature, this can only be revealed by utilising the intuitive powers of the human brain. All knowledge that exists is already there and our brain knows 'where', we should let our brain to take us there. Each individual has this knowledge within grasp. Let our brain guide us.
Alongside an intuitive knowledge gained explaining nature's workings, there is another body of knowledge accumulated, with very little use. A drawback, an obstacle and baggage which hinders our goal in understanding nature's phenomena. It is not only that it does not assist us, but it throws us away, it misleads us. We should pick and choose the concepts which we need, identify and subsequently ignore concepts that bear no relevance in what is needed to know reality.
A distinction between thinking as it occurs in the brain and thinking as it is done by the use of language and logic combined.
The brain has the ability to provide solutions to problems as long as the relevant concepts are provided. The concepts provided must confer meaning to the individual otherwise the brain would not process them in an efficient manner
The thinking which is done by the use of language uses external tools and its efficiency, in most of the cases, is doubtful. It is done 'outside' the brain and its strength barely approaches the actual potential of the human brain. Of course I can not deny that most of the thinking it has been done outside the brain, and has produced the breadth and length of the knowledge humanity possess now. But it kickstarted by thinking done 'inside' the brain. It was and is heavily geared by the intuitive resilience of the individuals that produced and produce the foundations of largely all fields of knowledge.
Other individuals took the thoughts intuitive spurts produced, made further alterations, added more concepts, primarily by thinking 'outside' the thought mechanisms of the human brain.
The human brain's understanding of reality, has an uncanny capability to provide solutions that no language techniques can match. This is because it works in the same way nature works. What drives nature is dictated by chaos, and the same goes for the brain. Built out of the same blueprint. It works in ways that the conscious mind can not fathom, and unable to follow. To talk about gaining knowledge of what underlies the intricate fabric of nature, this can only be revealed by utilising the intuitive powers of the human brain. All knowledge that exists is already there and our brain knows 'where', we should let our brain to take us there. Each individual has this knowledge within grasp. Let our brain guide us.
Alongside an intuitive knowledge gained explaining nature's workings, there is another body of knowledge accumulated, with very little use. A drawback, an obstacle and baggage which hinders our goal in understanding nature's phenomena. It is not only that it does not assist us, but it throws us away, it misleads us. We should pick and choose the concepts which we need, identify and subsequently ignore concepts that bear no relevance in what is needed to know reality.
Monday, 25 February 2008
The mind and chaotic attractors?
I read in this website of student.fizika.org an interesting account of mind chaos and I will let it flow into my own chaotic mind and see what will bring out.
"In this model, low level chaos is lifted into a higher energy state by olfactory input. Chaos in this state enables the system to explore its phase space, falling into an existing attractor in the case of a recognised odour, but bifurcating to form a new attractor in the case of a newly learned stimulus."
Admitting of the existence of low level chaos before the presence of a stimulus provides a picture of the state of the mind before the stimulation. It brings into my mind the noise existing into our brain, Erich Harth's penumbrae, what is needed for some random sparkle to build upon. By referring at that state as chaos, it reflects its random character. And as the stimulus results in a flurry of activity, in a process similar to Erich Harth's Alopex optimisation algorithm, lifted into a higher energy state by the sensory input. And once, in that higher energy state the system explores its phase space. Phase space? An abstract space. The 'space' in which all possible states of a system are represented. Can phase space be visualised? All possible states? Regardless of being visualised exploring phase space, the system explores all possible states and the states focuses upon are the states that belong in an attractor. An attractor the set of states (points in the phase space), invariant under the dynamics, towards which neighboring states in a given basin of attraction asymptotically approach in the course of dynamic evolution. And the including basin of attraction, the set of points in the space of system variables such that initial conditions chosen in this set dynamically evolve to a particular attractor.
The chosen attractor. Chosen? What criteria is a choice identified with? Based on system variables. Variables that have been analysed by sense detectors. The values of the variables chemicals present, represent the initial conditions and dynamically evolve to a particular attractor. An existing attractor if the chemical and its odour has already presented itself, along with the word, the symbol associated with or bifurcating to form a new attractor if the chemical and its odour has not presented itself as yet, and duly assigned with another word, another symbol which it will make it easier, later on to convey information to other individuals about the new chemical and its odour.
Building up attractors by engaging into chaos. Why? Is there not any other way? Because it is fast? Or is it because it emerges out of noise, unstructured states? Out of nothing? And what would that noise be, the unstructured states found in the deepest level of organised matter. Quantum froth? Quantum noise? Our very own entanglement with the quantum world?
Or is it because
"The transition into chaos thus provides sensitive dependence on input, ergodic 'randomizing' phase space exploration, parametric bifurcation to form new symbols, and possible quantum amplification. Return from chaos in turn fixes stability structures from the fractal dynamics."
Chaos processes make it possible to take into consideration minute differences in the presented conditions as they are sensitively dependent upon and thus increase human analytical powers discriminating between finer and finer features. Minute details noticed multiply, a plethora of features swamp the human intellect. Each individual with a unique view of the world? A reason that explains the diversity of human endeavour?
"In this model, low level chaos is lifted into a higher energy state by olfactory input. Chaos in this state enables the system to explore its phase space, falling into an existing attractor in the case of a recognised odour, but bifurcating to form a new attractor in the case of a newly learned stimulus."
Admitting of the existence of low level chaos before the presence of a stimulus provides a picture of the state of the mind before the stimulation. It brings into my mind the noise existing into our brain, Erich Harth's penumbrae, what is needed for some random sparkle to build upon. By referring at that state as chaos, it reflects its random character. And as the stimulus results in a flurry of activity, in a process similar to Erich Harth's Alopex optimisation algorithm, lifted into a higher energy state by the sensory input. And once, in that higher energy state the system explores its phase space. Phase space? An abstract space. The 'space' in which all possible states of a system are represented. Can phase space be visualised? All possible states? Regardless of being visualised exploring phase space, the system explores all possible states and the states focuses upon are the states that belong in an attractor. An attractor the set of states (points in the phase space), invariant under the dynamics, towards which neighboring states in a given basin of attraction asymptotically approach in the course of dynamic evolution. And the including basin of attraction, the set of points in the space of system variables such that initial conditions chosen in this set dynamically evolve to a particular attractor.
The chosen attractor. Chosen? What criteria is a choice identified with? Based on system variables. Variables that have been analysed by sense detectors. The values of the variables chemicals present, represent the initial conditions and dynamically evolve to a particular attractor. An existing attractor if the chemical and its odour has already presented itself, along with the word, the symbol associated with or bifurcating to form a new attractor if the chemical and its odour has not presented itself as yet, and duly assigned with another word, another symbol which it will make it easier, later on to convey information to other individuals about the new chemical and its odour.
Building up attractors by engaging into chaos. Why? Is there not any other way? Because it is fast? Or is it because it emerges out of noise, unstructured states? Out of nothing? And what would that noise be, the unstructured states found in the deepest level of organised matter. Quantum froth? Quantum noise? Our very own entanglement with the quantum world?
Or is it because
"The transition into chaos thus provides sensitive dependence on input, ergodic 'randomizing' phase space exploration, parametric bifurcation to form new symbols, and possible quantum amplification. Return from chaos in turn fixes stability structures from the fractal dynamics."
Chaos processes make it possible to take into consideration minute differences in the presented conditions as they are sensitively dependent upon and thus increase human analytical powers discriminating between finer and finer features. Minute details noticed multiply, a plethora of features swamp the human intellect. Each individual with a unique view of the world? A reason that explains the diversity of human endeavour?
Thursday, 7 February 2008
Thoughts about stream of consciousness
A stream of consciousness rushed through me, almost out of nowhere and it kept me thinking. It struck me, as I pondered on thoughts unraveled a few hours ago. What impressed me most, it was how easy one thought followed another, effortlessly, without pause. A continuous unbiased flow following, I dare say, a predetermined path.
It brought into my mind, the first time I heard something profound about consciousness, that left me puzzled and astonished. It was at the time, I was pondering about a seat of consciousness and struggling to get in terms with the consciousness concept. A colleague of mine, being overtaken by the event he was describing, a person who he admired, and mentioned this individual's expressive power, designating it as "a stream of consciousness". The analogy struck me as alien. I was grappling and contemplating about the concept of consciousness from a different angle and his approach impressed me, though unfamiliar at the time, but I did not dismiss it. My own exposition the other night, reminded me of his remarks. I felt, I experienced what he described a stream of consciousness, as he described it.
What is the significance of this? How can it be explained? How can it become possible? Is it an illusion? A furtive sensation not worth to grapple upon? But its results stared back at me. A feeling of disbelief. Surely, there must be something here. Can it have a physical explanation? To that effect, I feel the answer might lie in Richard Feynman's retarded and advanced waves. What I came across, for the first time, in John Gribbin's book, "Q is for Quantum. Particle physics from A to Z".
Richard Feynman along with John Archibald Wheeler grappled with the idea of 'action at a distance', the idea that interactions between objects occur instantaneously, regardless of the distance involved. It is referred primarily to gravitational interaction such as between the sun and the earth and it operates without any intervening mechanism. They provided a version of the idea, which was used later on by John Cramer, to build the model of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.
As John Gribbin states in his dictionary under Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory,
"When a charged particle jiggles, it radiates both into the past and into the future. This causes another charged particle to jiggle in the future. The jiggling of that particle sends another wave both into the future and into the past. The two sets of waves cancel out everywhere except in the region between the two charged particles. But because one wave goes forwards in time and the other travels backwards in time, the connection is made instantaneously."
The two sets of waves that a source simultaneously radiates, were called retarded and advanced waves. The retarded waves, sent to the future, are moving outwards from their source and forwards in time, and they arrive somewhere, their destination, at a later time than they set out on their journey. The advanced waves, sent to the past, are moving towards their source and backwards in time, so they arrive to their destination, their source, before they set out on their journey.
As is pointed out further, clarifying the notion stated before,
"The half retarded wave goes out from the first electron forwards in time, while the half advanced wave goes out backwards in time. When the second electron shakes in response, it produces another half retarded, which is exactly out of step with the first wave and so precisely cancels out the remaining half retarded wave for all later times; and a half advanced wave, which goes back down the track of the first wave to the original electron, in step with that wave, reinforcing the original half-wave to make a full wave, ...
This half advanced wave arrives at the first electron, of course, at the moment it started to shake, ... Then it continues back into the past, canceling out the original half advanced wave from the first electron. The result is that between the two electrons there is a single wave .., but everywhere else the wave cancels out, ..."
In my mind the transactional interpretation John Cramer proposed, provides a way to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Each transaction represent an instant of consciousness, and all the instants put together become a stream, a stream of consciousness.
The atemporal view might be used to explain the vastness of our consciousness as there are no limits either spatial or temporal for each transaction. The objects interacting in each instant of consciousness can be anywhere in space and time and their interaction takes place instantaneously thanks to the advanced waves that travel backwards in time. This could explain how our imagination can have no bounds as well as our consciousness being boundless.
Further, the acceptance that the retarded and advanced waves sent in each transaction travel at the speed of light, it likewise gives a measure of how long it takes for an instant of consciousness to take place as well as the collation of all the instants in a stream of consciousness and by that give a measure of the speed mental events can take place. This notion is inherent in each individual and can explain the impatience an individual expresses, when it complains about how slow computers can be, oblivious to the fact that the huge number of calculations a computer performs, are beyond the individual's conscious abilities.
It brought into my mind, the first time I heard something profound about consciousness, that left me puzzled and astonished. It was at the time, I was pondering about a seat of consciousness and struggling to get in terms with the consciousness concept. A colleague of mine, being overtaken by the event he was describing, a person who he admired, and mentioned this individual's expressive power, designating it as "a stream of consciousness". The analogy struck me as alien. I was grappling and contemplating about the concept of consciousness from a different angle and his approach impressed me, though unfamiliar at the time, but I did not dismiss it. My own exposition the other night, reminded me of his remarks. I felt, I experienced what he described a stream of consciousness, as he described it.
What is the significance of this? How can it be explained? How can it become possible? Is it an illusion? A furtive sensation not worth to grapple upon? But its results stared back at me. A feeling of disbelief. Surely, there must be something here. Can it have a physical explanation? To that effect, I feel the answer might lie in Richard Feynman's retarded and advanced waves. What I came across, for the first time, in John Gribbin's book, "Q is for Quantum. Particle physics from A to Z".
Richard Feynman along with John Archibald Wheeler grappled with the idea of 'action at a distance', the idea that interactions between objects occur instantaneously, regardless of the distance involved. It is referred primarily to gravitational interaction such as between the sun and the earth and it operates without any intervening mechanism. They provided a version of the idea, which was used later on by John Cramer, to build the model of the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics.
As John Gribbin states in his dictionary under Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory,
"When a charged particle jiggles, it radiates both into the past and into the future. This causes another charged particle to jiggle in the future. The jiggling of that particle sends another wave both into the future and into the past. The two sets of waves cancel out everywhere except in the region between the two charged particles. But because one wave goes forwards in time and the other travels backwards in time, the connection is made instantaneously."
The two sets of waves that a source simultaneously radiates, were called retarded and advanced waves. The retarded waves, sent to the future, are moving outwards from their source and forwards in time, and they arrive somewhere, their destination, at a later time than they set out on their journey. The advanced waves, sent to the past, are moving towards their source and backwards in time, so they arrive to their destination, their source, before they set out on their journey.
As is pointed out further, clarifying the notion stated before,
"The half retarded wave goes out from the first electron forwards in time, while the half advanced wave goes out backwards in time. When the second electron shakes in response, it produces another half retarded, which is exactly out of step with the first wave and so precisely cancels out the remaining half retarded wave for all later times; and a half advanced wave, which goes back down the track of the first wave to the original electron, in step with that wave, reinforcing the original half-wave to make a full wave, ...
This half advanced wave arrives at the first electron, of course, at the moment it started to shake, ... Then it continues back into the past, canceling out the original half advanced wave from the first electron. The result is that between the two electrons there is a single wave .., but everywhere else the wave cancels out, ..."
In my mind the transactional interpretation John Cramer proposed, provides a way to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Each transaction represent an instant of consciousness, and all the instants put together become a stream, a stream of consciousness.
The atemporal view might be used to explain the vastness of our consciousness as there are no limits either spatial or temporal for each transaction. The objects interacting in each instant of consciousness can be anywhere in space and time and their interaction takes place instantaneously thanks to the advanced waves that travel backwards in time. This could explain how our imagination can have no bounds as well as our consciousness being boundless.
Further, the acceptance that the retarded and advanced waves sent in each transaction travel at the speed of light, it likewise gives a measure of how long it takes for an instant of consciousness to take place as well as the collation of all the instants in a stream of consciousness and by that give a measure of the speed mental events can take place. This notion is inherent in each individual and can explain the impatience an individual expresses, when it complains about how slow computers can be, oblivious to the fact that the huge number of calculations a computer performs, are beyond the individual's conscious abilities.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Man is a unified whole of mind-body. In search for the parts that make up the whole.
"The whole is more than the sum of its parts"
The above mentioned quote has been around since the time of Aristotle and is used to explain emergence, as these quotes, suggest, attributed to the pioneer psychologist G. H. Lewes,:
"Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same -- their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference." (Lewes 1875, p. 412)(Blitz 1992)"
Emergence was further defined as:
"the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems."(Corning 2002)
and elaborated, to describe the qualities of emergence by this definition in more detail:
"The common characteristics are: (1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness"); (4) it is the product of a dynamical process (it evolves); and (5) it is "ostensive" - it can be perceived. For good measure, Goldstein throws in supervenience -- downward causation." (Corning 2002)"
The ideas mentioned can be used to think further in matters concerned with the ongoing monism vs dualism dispute. The connection of mind and body as it is evident by the following quote:
"Corliss Lamont rightly contends that the fundamental issue is the relationship of personality to body, and divides the various positions into two broad categories: monism, which asserts that body and personality are bound together and cannot exist apart; and dualism, which asserts that body and personality are separable entities which may exist apart. Lamont is convinced that the facts of modern science weigh heavily in favor of monism, and offers the following as scientific evidence that the mind depends upon the body:
- in the evolutionary process the versatility of living forms increases with the development and complexity of their nervous systems
- the mind matures and ages with the growth and decay of the body
- alcohol, caffeine, and other drugs can affect the mind
- destruction of brain tissue by disease, or by a severe blow to the head, can impair normal mental activity; the functions of seeing, hearing and speech are correlated with specific areas of the brain.
- thinking and memory depend upon the cortex of the brain, and so ‘it is difficult beyond measure to understand how they could survive after the dissolution, decay or destruction of the living brain in which they had their original locus.’ (page 76)
These considerations lead Lamont to the conclusion that the connection between mind and body “is so exceedingly intimate that it becomes inconceivable how one could function without the other … man is a unified whole of mind-body or personality-body so closely and completely integrated that dividing him up into two separate and more or less independent parts becomes impermissible and unintelligible.”[1]"
The idea of the individual as being a unified whole of mind-body or personality-body has to looked at, from the perspective of 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts' concept, as both modes of inquiry, reductionist and holistic, in collaboration will provide answers to the ongoing problem.
Though science has built up a case of hard facts to defend its stance than the dualist side, however is short-sighted and downright ignorant to dismiss whatever has been with us, in individual and collective level, since the dawn of humanity and continues to be with us all along. Certainly what is for science to examine is not tangible and hard to configure but there is bound to be something to work on.
Ways of approach can be provided by following the perspective of strong emergence, as someone can surmise by reading the following quotes:
"Mark A. Bedau observes:
"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)
However,
"the debate about whether or not the whole can be predicted from the properties of the parts misses the point. Wholes produce unique combined effects, but many of these effects may be co-determined by the context and the interactions between the whole and its environment(s)." (Corning 2002)"
Along that same thought, Arthur Koestler stated,
"it is the synergistic effects produced by wholes that are the very cause of the evolution of complexity in nature" and used the metaphor of Janus to illustrate how the two perspectives (strong or holistic vs. weak or reductionistic) should be treated as perspectives, not exclusives, and should work together to address the issues of emergence.(Koestler 1969)"
Further,
"The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe..The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts."(Anderson 1972)"
The above mentioned quote has been around since the time of Aristotle and is used to explain emergence, as these quotes, suggest, attributed to the pioneer psychologist G. H. Lewes,:
"Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same -- their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference." (Lewes 1875, p. 412)(Blitz 1992)"
Emergence was further defined as:
"the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems."(Corning 2002)
and elaborated, to describe the qualities of emergence by this definition in more detail:
"The common characteristics are: (1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness"); (4) it is the product of a dynamical process (it evolves); and (5) it is "ostensive" - it can be perceived. For good measure, Goldstein throws in supervenience -- downward causation." (Corning 2002)"
The ideas mentioned can be used to think further in matters concerned with the ongoing monism vs dualism dispute. The connection of mind and body as it is evident by the following quote:
"Corliss Lamont rightly contends that the fundamental issue is the relationship of personality to body, and divides the various positions into two broad categories: monism, which asserts that body and personality are bound together and cannot exist apart; and dualism, which asserts that body and personality are separable entities which may exist apart. Lamont is convinced that the facts of modern science weigh heavily in favor of monism, and offers the following as scientific evidence that the mind depends upon the body:
- in the evolutionary process the versatility of living forms increases with the development and complexity of their nervous systems
- the mind matures and ages with the growth and decay of the body
- alcohol, caffeine, and other drugs can affect the mind
- destruction of brain tissue by disease, or by a severe blow to the head, can impair normal mental activity; the functions of seeing, hearing and speech are correlated with specific areas of the brain.
- thinking and memory depend upon the cortex of the brain, and so ‘it is difficult beyond measure to understand how they could survive after the dissolution, decay or destruction of the living brain in which they had their original locus.’ (page 76)
These considerations lead Lamont to the conclusion that the connection between mind and body “is so exceedingly intimate that it becomes inconceivable how one could function without the other … man is a unified whole of mind-body or personality-body so closely and completely integrated that dividing him up into two separate and more or less independent parts becomes impermissible and unintelligible.”[1]"
The idea of the individual as being a unified whole of mind-body or personality-body has to looked at, from the perspective of 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts' concept, as both modes of inquiry, reductionist and holistic, in collaboration will provide answers to the ongoing problem.
Though science has built up a case of hard facts to defend its stance than the dualist side, however is short-sighted and downright ignorant to dismiss whatever has been with us, in individual and collective level, since the dawn of humanity and continues to be with us all along. Certainly what is for science to examine is not tangible and hard to configure but there is bound to be something to work on.
Ways of approach can be provided by following the perspective of strong emergence, as someone can surmise by reading the following quotes:
"Mark A. Bedau observes:
"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)
However,
"the debate about whether or not the whole can be predicted from the properties of the parts misses the point. Wholes produce unique combined effects, but many of these effects may be co-determined by the context and the interactions between the whole and its environment(s)." (Corning 2002)"
Along that same thought, Arthur Koestler stated,
"it is the synergistic effects produced by wholes that are the very cause of the evolution of complexity in nature" and used the metaphor of Janus to illustrate how the two perspectives (strong or holistic vs. weak or reductionistic) should be treated as perspectives, not exclusives, and should work together to address the issues of emergence.(Koestler 1969)"
Further,
"The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe..The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts."(Anderson 1972)"
Consciousness, a force?
Consciousness manifests something that is going on. Something that stirs up and creates states, world states. A force that materialises by attentive brain function. Brain function an operation that involve processes. Processes are dynamic, they continuously develop and evolve. They are driven as physical quantities constantly take up new values. Varying within ranges, they are variables and as they drive processes along are considered as forces.
Mental processes are dynamic driven by physical quantities acting on brain mechanisms identified by neuroscientists, but not only. Is consciousness, the outcome of mental processes, a force, at par with the other fundamental forces in nature, or derived by a fundamental force or a pseudo-force, a fictitious force?
It is well documented in quantum physics that:
"While the spin of an electron is always up or down when you measure it, it does more adventurous things when you don't."
Measurement an application of our observing powers, a mental activity, a thinking process, the projection of our thoughts, our consciousness to the external world.
Are these not the traces of force? Does this not implicate consciousness? Consciousness can therefore be regarded as a force. Taking that stance we might be able to explain a lot of related and unrelated problems seeking solutions. And not only the fundamentals of reality, the quantum and classical worlds, but even problems that each individual faces in its everyday life course and even exotic problems which stand detached from the concept of reality we know and accept. Find it acceptable.
Mental processes are dynamic driven by physical quantities acting on brain mechanisms identified by neuroscientists, but not only. Is consciousness, the outcome of mental processes, a force, at par with the other fundamental forces in nature, or derived by a fundamental force or a pseudo-force, a fictitious force?
It is well documented in quantum physics that:
"While the spin of an electron is always up or down when you measure it, it does more adventurous things when you don't."
Measurement an application of our observing powers, a mental activity, a thinking process, the projection of our thoughts, our consciousness to the external world.
Are these not the traces of force? Does this not implicate consciousness? Consciousness can therefore be regarded as a force. Taking that stance we might be able to explain a lot of related and unrelated problems seeking solutions. And not only the fundamentals of reality, the quantum and classical worlds, but even problems that each individual faces in its everyday life course and even exotic problems which stand detached from the concept of reality we know and accept. Find it acceptable.
Monday, 7 January 2008
'Holistic' programming? Is it a base to make sense how our brain and mind work?
"Is the brain 'massively parallel'? Is the brain a computer? Is the self an illusion? Some ideas have an appeal that gets them widely adopted in spite of their inherent unlikeliness."
Triggered by 'surely not?' website.
The brain is a processor. It processes events in the world. Processor or processors irrelevant at the moment as well as parallel, massively parallel or serial.
Quoting from the contents of the website:
"Each processor typically has its own memory and operating system; where the activities of the different processors overlap, the relationship is carefully managed so that they do not have to remain in step, and this requires careful prior programming."
Can we , in any way possible, talk about programming in the brain? Right now, a 'programming' I could think of, is the 'holistic'; some sort of programming based on the holistic approach.
"This does not seem to me even remotely like the way the brain is organised, so far as we understand it. There do not seem to be any good candidates within the brain for the role of processor (neurons are surely too simple) ..."
It is simplistic as an argument as well, in the attempt to build a case against the thought to treat the brain as a computer. The feeling of abhorrence in entertaining such a vile thought takes over, muddles up thinking and deters a more sober approach to the whole issue.
With regards to the neurons and their function in the brain, we should take into account their organisation as reverberated cell assemblies mentioned by John Holland. At the moment there is no need to elaborate of what the processor might be. It suffices to say that components of a brain processor might be the reverberated cell assemblies or groups of them.
Our brain sees the whole, our mind makes a whole while using our 'in-control' consciousness. We always assume that we see the whole picture since both our brain and our mind follow the same 'holistic' programming albeit our 'in-control' consciousness is not as efficient as our brain as it does not have direct access to the brain mechanisms, its access is only indirect via our 'out-of-control' consciousness, and its efforts to emulate brain operations are clumsy. Treats disparate parts as a whole, oblivious to the fact that there are either parts still missing, or parts falsely attributed to the whole, and in the process is making a fool of its carrier.
How can we fathom the holistic premise? Are there any maths which attempt to explain how 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts'? Any such maths might provide the base for elucidating the rules of how 'holistic' programming works. A start would be, by looking at John Holland's mechanisms in agent based systems. How simple rules by being endlessly repeated create enormous complexity. The constrained generating procedures a result of simple mechanisms.
In my mind the holistic premise is what makes the difference and it works in ways I can not explain. But I do abide to the idea that my brain knows better than me, and I follow its cues. It is why I made a copy of this web page to have at hand as what it contains it fitted a (or the) whole. It is part of. It did not happen by chance, it happened because it fitted a whole.
What 'whole' or to what effect still to be decided.
Triggered by 'surely not?' website.
The brain is a processor. It processes events in the world. Processor or processors irrelevant at the moment as well as parallel, massively parallel or serial.
Quoting from the contents of the website:
"Each processor typically has its own memory and operating system; where the activities of the different processors overlap, the relationship is carefully managed so that they do not have to remain in step, and this requires careful prior programming."
Can we , in any way possible, talk about programming in the brain? Right now, a 'programming' I could think of, is the 'holistic'; some sort of programming based on the holistic approach.
"This does not seem to me even remotely like the way the brain is organised, so far as we understand it. There do not seem to be any good candidates within the brain for the role of processor (neurons are surely too simple) ..."
It is simplistic as an argument as well, in the attempt to build a case against the thought to treat the brain as a computer. The feeling of abhorrence in entertaining such a vile thought takes over, muddles up thinking and deters a more sober approach to the whole issue.
With regards to the neurons and their function in the brain, we should take into account their organisation as reverberated cell assemblies mentioned by John Holland. At the moment there is no need to elaborate of what the processor might be. It suffices to say that components of a brain processor might be the reverberated cell assemblies or groups of them.
Our brain sees the whole, our mind makes a whole while using our 'in-control' consciousness. We always assume that we see the whole picture since both our brain and our mind follow the same 'holistic' programming albeit our 'in-control' consciousness is not as efficient as our brain as it does not have direct access to the brain mechanisms, its access is only indirect via our 'out-of-control' consciousness, and its efforts to emulate brain operations are clumsy. Treats disparate parts as a whole, oblivious to the fact that there are either parts still missing, or parts falsely attributed to the whole, and in the process is making a fool of its carrier.
How can we fathom the holistic premise? Are there any maths which attempt to explain how 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts'? Any such maths might provide the base for elucidating the rules of how 'holistic' programming works. A start would be, by looking at John Holland's mechanisms in agent based systems. How simple rules by being endlessly repeated create enormous complexity. The constrained generating procedures a result of simple mechanisms.
In my mind the holistic premise is what makes the difference and it works in ways I can not explain. But I do abide to the idea that my brain knows better than me, and I follow its cues. It is why I made a copy of this web page to have at hand as what it contains it fitted a (or the) whole. It is part of. It did not happen by chance, it happened because it fitted a whole.
What 'whole' or to what effect still to be decided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)