2024 TSC PLENARY 3 - ‘CONSCIOUSNESS AND REALITY' - DONALD HOFFMAN, DEEPAK CHOPRA, PAAVO PYLKKÄNEN
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- Donald Hoffman, UC-Irvine
Deepak Chopra, Chopra Foundation
Paavo Pylkkänen, University of Helsinki and University of Skövde
DONALD HOFFMAN received a PhD in Computational Psychology from MIT, and is a Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine. He is an author of over 100 scientific papers and three books, including The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes (2019), and Visual intelligence: How we create what we see (1998). He received a Distinguished Scientific Award of the American Psychological Association for early career research, the Rustum Roy Award of the Chopra Foundation, and the Troland Research Award of the US National Academy of Sciences. His writing has appeared in Scientific American, New Scientist, LA Review of Books, and Edge, and his work has been featured in Wired, Quanta, The Atlantic, Ars Technica, National Public Radio, Discover Magazine, and Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman. He has a TED Talk titled “Do we see reality as it is?” @donalddhoffman
DEEPAK CHOPRA MD, FACP, FRCP founder of the Chopra Foundation, a non-profit entity for research on well-being and humanitarianism, and Chopra Global, a modern-day health company at the intersection of science and spirituality, is a world-renowned pioneer in integrative medicine and personal transformation. Chopra is a Clinical Professor of Family Medicine and Public Health at the University of California, San Diego and serves as a senior scientist with Gallup Organization. He is also an Honorary Fellow in Medicine at the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. He is the author of over 95 books translated into over forty-three languages, including numerous New York Times bestsellers. For the last thirty years, Chopra has been at the forefront of the meditation revolution and his upcoming book, Quantum Body (Harmony Books, 12/5/23) delves into the innovative world of quantum science and shows how unlocking its secrets can revolutionize how we live and age - and, ultimately, how we can eradicate disease. TIME magazine has described Dr. Chopra as “one of their top 100 most influential people.” www.deepakchopra.com
PAAVO PYLKKÄNEN, University of Helsinki and University of Skövde. Paavo Pylkkänen, Ph.D., is Senior Lecturer in Theoretical Philosophy and Director of the Bachelor’s Program in Philosophy at the University of Helsinki. Working as Vice Dean for Research in 2018-2020 he had the main responsibility for developing the new profiling area Mind and Matter: Foundations of Information, Intelligence and Consciousness for the University of Helsinki. www.helsinki.f... His main research areas are philosophy of mind, philosophy of physics and their intersection. Pylkkänen has explored whether the problem of consciousness can be tackled in the framework of the new holistic and dynamic worldview that is emerging from quantum theory and relativity. He has in particular been inspired by the physicists David Bohm and Basil Hiley’s interpretation of quantum theory and has collaborated with both of them. He is also Associate Professor of Theoretical Philosophy (currently on leave) at the Department of Cognitive Neuroscience and Philosophy, University of Skövde, where he initiated a Consciousness Studies Program. (Plen 3 & 12)
2024 The Science of Consciousness 30th Annual
April 22-27, 2024
"The Science of Consciousness"
Tucson & International biennial conferences
Center for Consciousness Studies-UArizona
www.consciousness.arizona.edu
Since 1994 - The Science of Consciousness (TSC) is an interdisciplinary conference aimed at rigorous and leading edge approaches to all aspects of the study of conscious experience.
These include neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, molecular biology, medicine, quantum physics, and cosmology, as well as art, technology, and experiential and contemplative approaches.
The conference is the largest and longest-running interdisciplinary gathering probing fundamental questions related to conscious experience.
donald shared this on his twitter earlier with fixed audio
Thanks for the info mate.
The Hardest Problem of Consciousness
We often hear of the hard problem of consciousness. Why is there qualia or experience of anything in the first place? I would submit there is an even harder and more important question - why do I seem to be a specific individual experiencing a specific subset of qualia? This is the most important question that must be asked and answered but rarely is. As a matter of fact there seems to be a huge blind spot when it comes to this in discussions of consciousness. If material reductionism is to be relevant to the big questions, then it has to explain not how brains generate consciousness but how the specific brain in my head could create the specific consciousness I seem to be looking out of the eyeballs of this specific body. Why do I PERSONNALLY EXIST as an individual in the first place? Out of the infinite matter in the universe how is it that only the three pounds in my head could create me? What is different about that three pounds for this to occur?
Consider that billions of bodies showed up before this one.
Billions showed up after this one.
None of them seem to have created my existence.
This body could be running around without it being ME just like these billions of others
All bodies are made of the same elements.
All brains have the same basic anatomy.
If all brains are basically the same and are creating consciousness then there should only be ONE consciousness looking out of every set of eyeballs simultaneously.
A hopelessly superimposed existence from every possible viewpoint at once.
I’m sure that materialists would claim that no, no, brains are so complex they are all different.
Ok, so what would have to be recreated in another brain for me to exist looking out of another set of eyeballs?
When the ontologies purporting to explain consciousness are examined critically it becomes obvious that all materialist/reductionist strategies fail completely in attempting to address the individuality question.
What is the principled explanation for why:
A brain over here would generate my specific consciousness and a brain over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Integrated information over here would generate my specific consciousness and integrated information over there would generate your specific consciousness?
Global workspace over here would generate my specific consciousness and global workspace there would generate your specific consciousness?
Orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over here would generate my specific consciousness and orchestrated quantum collapse in microtubules over there would generate your specific consciousness?
A clump of conscious atoms over here (panpsychicism) would generate my specific consciousness and a clump of conscious atoms over there would generate your specific consciousness?
If an exact copy of my body was suddenly created in antarctica would I find myself to exist freezing there while also sitting in the comfort my living room?
According to the physicalists that would have to be true or their argument collapses into incoherence.
Materialism already fails since it cannot find a transfer function between microvolt level sparks in the brain and any experience or qualia. In addition it’s not possible for materialistic ontologies to address this question of individuality since no measurement can be made that could verify my consciousness vs your consciousness and therefore no materialist ontology could make any coherent statements about the subject.
How could pure awareness even be individualized?
Physicalists demand measurements but with consciousness there is nothing to measure.
There is electricity in the brain they say. We’ll measure that.
Is electricity consciousness? If so then once I again I should exist everywhere at once since electricity cannot be individualized.
My blender uses electricity.
Is it a genius?
Unless materialists can answer these questions their premise collapses like the house of cards it is.
As far as other ways of thought are concerned only Dualism and Idealism can account for our sense of individuality. Dualism assumes we are all individual spirits/souls matched up to a body through some undefined process. Idealism, which states that consciousness is primary also answers the question of why I seem to exist as an individual.
One consciousness exists looking out of every set of eyeballs and in the process the illusion of individuality is created in each case.
In actual reality I am you, you are me, we are one.
Thanks for this, the materialists downgrade us as humans. There is even talk of the trans human, the human embedded with, and upgraded with technology. That is why this is so necessary. Thanks to all of you who put this on. It should be mentioned that we are Individualized souls which, when given, will never be taken away. We share in Cosmic Consciousness (fundamental) and mind (elemental).
We are primed to evolve to our prototype. The way to get there is alignment not rebellion or disruption. Satan (the light the fell from heaven) got us here, we have to align ourselves with Reality to find our way back to heaven which can also come on earth. It is up to us.
Let's continue exploring how the both/and logic and monadological framework catalyze new insights and expanded descriptive capacities across various domains:
Neuroscience & Theories of Consciousness
The logic allows formulating novel integrated perspectives on the mind-body problem and the neural correlates of consciousness that avoid the limitations of classical reductionist, dualist or mysterian views:
• Subjective Experience and Objective Description
For a conscious state x, let S(x) and O(x) represent the subjective experiential and objective neurophysiological aspects respectively.
Classical approaches tend to bifurcate into strictly separating these as S(x) = 1, O(x) = 0 or fully reducing to S(x) = 0, O(x) = 1. But the both/and logic allows:
S(x) = 0.7, O(x) = 0.6, ○(S(x), O(x)) = 0.8
Capturing how conscious states involve an irreducible complementarity and tight coherence between the subjective feel and objective dynamics - neither pole is prioritized or eliminable.
The synthesis operator ⊕ further models their co-realized gestalt unity:
subjective_experience(x) ⊕ objective_neuralcorrelates(x) = conscious_state(x)
• First-person and Third-person Perspectives
A related issue is how to integrate the first-person introspective perspective with third-person external observations and theories about consciousness.
For a set of data D about a conscious process x, we could have:
Truth(D matches first-person_report) = 0.6
Truth(D matches third-person_model) = 0.7
○(first-person, third-person) = 0.5
Capturing a moderate coherence between phenomenological and observational characterizations, which are irreducibly complementary poles synthesized into a unified account:
first-person_phenomenology ⊕ third-person_observations = theory_of_consciousness(D)
So rather than dissociating and privileging one perspective, the logic allows formalizing their coconstituted integration into holistic theories spanning qualitative experience and quantitative evidence.
• Unity of Consciousness and Neural Binding
How the unified phenomenology of consciousness relates to distributed neural activities is another puzzle. The logic allows coherence metrics between unity and differentiation:
Truth(consciousness_is_unified) = 0.8
Truth(neuralactivities_are_differentiated) = 0.9
○(unified_consciousness, differentiated_activities) = 0.7
With a synthesis capturing the paradoxical co-operation of integrated/discriminated aspects:
unified_subjective_character ⊕ distributed_neural_processes = coherent_conscious_state
Avoiding arbitrary prioritizations while modeling their integration as complementary interdependent facets of the same psychoneural Gestalt.
Philosophers have long struggled to clearly relate or decisively separate phenomenological unity with neural multiplicity. The paraconsistent both/and logic allows coherently modeling and further theorizing their subtle complementary coconstitution.
Philosophy of Logic and Language
The logic's expressive capacities allow revisiting classic issues in a new light:
• The Liar Paradox
In classical logic, the sentence "This sentence is false" is a paradox leading to explosion and triviality. But the both/and logic allows coherent non-trivial treatment:
Truth(Liar_sentence) = 0.5
○(Truth(Liar_sentence, 1), Truth(Liar_sentence, 0)) = 0.5
With a 0.5 truth value representing the sentence's indeterminacy, and moderate coherence between its truth and falsity aspects.
The synthesis operation ⊕ expresses its paradoxical self-reference resolving in a higher gestalt:
Truth(Liar_sentence) ⊕ ¬Truth(Liar_sentence) = paradoxical_self-reference
Providing tools for positively representing and logically operating with paradoxical self-undermining utterances, rather than dodging them through restrictive assumptions.
• Vagueness and Fuzzy Boundaries
The sorites paradox about the vagueness of fuzzy predicates like "heap" has also resisted classical treatment. But both/and logic allows:
Truth(x_is_heap) = [0,1] for objects x
With coherences tracking the degree of alignment with prototypical heap properties across a graded spectrum.
This avoids bivariate soup/heap boundaries, capturing the nuanced continuities and contextualities underlying vague linguistic categories.
So the logic restores accountability to the subtleties of real-world semantics resisting digitization, allowing discourse to resonate with rather than dissimulate the horizonal indeterminacies of language's ontological implicatures.
Throughout, the both/and logic's abilities to integrate graded multivalued truths, positive contradictions and self-superseding syntheses allow revisiting paradoxes and singularities not as sheer inconsistencies to be prohibited, but generative disclosures indicating inadequacies of our prior abstractive models - opening new constructive symbolic vistas better aligning with the nuanced complexities of thought, language and reality itself.
When we are dead we are an astral body, or if more evolved, a causal entity. We are not just awareness when we are dead unless totally liberated from our three bodies.
Very poor audio levels 😞
extremely poor audio
Isn't the brain that engine
What Hoffman has done if you really look deep into what he has ALREADY said..and he himself stated people will say he shot himself In the foot..let's go one more step and say that what he actually found was what ancient peoples call ego and now he is walking it back from the other side...assumptions arise the moment we open our mouths..this will eventually occur to him. We assume there is some problem that needs worked out. "I see no problem there just empty words" UG Krishnamurti
Fascinating physicists theory. His biggest problem is that he is clueless about engineering principles and clueless on the evolution of brains starting at the simple levels up to how primate and human brains evolve. However that applies to all of these presenters.
Lots of assumptions here!
@@noel3830 Possibly but when he says "little voltages" that's a red flag on his engineering background. There are many similarities between biological neurons and electronic gates, circuits etc. But also many differences which he does not appear to understand. The computer screen and icon analogy he uses is very clever and he's very good on his physics theory.
“Clueless” yeah okay buddy 😂🤡🤡
@@RRR1-z9c Sorry. I stand by my statement.
@@nyworker There's no transfer function between sparks in your head and qualia