Our local field theory of consciousness

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Francis Heylighen

unread,
Feb 6, 2023, 1:22:09 PM2/6/23
to evol...@listserv.vub.ac.be, Global Brain Discussion, cyb...@googlegroups.com
As several CLEA people have already heard us report enthusiastically, Shima and I have made a real breakthrough in our research, which potentially could make us famous :-). Before we start writing the paper, here is already a quick summary, for which we hope to get your feedback...

Francis



The local field theory of subjective experience:
a soft solution to the hard problem of consciousness

Francis  Heylighen and Shima Beigi

After years of study, reflection and discussion, we have recently made a breakthrough in our understanding of consciousness, which we want to report here in an initial short form. This breakthrough in particular proposes a solution to the so-called "hard problem of consciousness", which by some is considered to be the most difficult problem in the whole of science. Our objective is twofold: to demystify consciousness, and to promote a more open-minded way of relating to the world.
The question of what constitutes consciousness can be subdivided in two questions:

1) the level of consciousness: what distinguishes conscious mental processes (e.g. thinking, observing, acting) from non-conscious ones (e.g. sleep, anesthesia, subliminal perception, subconscious intuitions)

2) the content of consciousness: what precisely constitutes a subjective experience (also known as "phenomenal consciousness" or  "quale")?

For (1), we assume that a plausible answer is provided by the global neuronal workspace theory of consciousness (Dehaene, Baars, ChangeuxŠ), which is supported by a growing amount of empirical evidence. This theory posits that conscious experiences are "broadcasted" across a global, interconnecting network of neurons in the brain, so that they can be examined, monitored and redirected by different more specialized modules in the brain.

This broadcasting requires a strong, recurrent or resonant pattern of activation, thus maintaining the experience for a while in working memory, giving other processes the time to examine and redirect the experience. Subconscious processes, on the other hand, just move directly or automatically through the respective specialized neural networks (e.g. for visual recognition) in a "feedforward" manner, thus leaving no time for other modules to intervene.
For (2), our "local field theory" explains what subjective experience is, why we have it, and how it can be expanded. It thus provides a "soft" solution to the "hard" problem. The theory is based on two insights:

a) experience is intrinsically meaningful or affective: it touches us deeply, at an embodied level, pushing us towards or away from respectively good or bad things

b) consciousness provides us with a choice, i.e. with a range of possible thoughts, actions, or things to pay attention to.

a) The meaning aspect refers to the fact that subjective experiences are not just neutral observations: we feel them; we are "moved", "touched" or "affected" by them. This "raw feeling" can be understood as an implicit tension, drive or force, which pushes or pulls us in a certain direction. At the most primitive level of organisms such as bacteria or sea anemones, sensations trigger movement that is directed towards a goal, i.e. a fit state. That means away from dangers (aversive behavior) and/or towards opportunities (appetitive behavior).

But the tension does not need to result in movement: perhaps the feeling is one of pleasure or contentment that pressures you to stay in the same place, i.e. continue doing whatever you were doing rather than change course. What is important is that sensed conditions are evaluated or interpreted with respect to the organism's value system. They need to be made sense of, so that the organism knows how to react adequately.
For primitive organisms, there is only one possible reaction for each sensed condition: the reaction is deterministic: stimulus -> response, or condition -> action. This could be modeled as a dynamic system, where for each state there is just a single next state. While such an organism can "sense" conditions in the cybernetic sense, we would not call it "conscious" in the human sense of the word. It behaves rather like an automaton, or perhaps like a "philosophical zombie" that is supposed to lack subjective experience. For true consciousness, we need a higher level of control, where the organism can consider different potential reactions, and choose between them. That brings us to the next core idea of the local field theory: choice or freedom.

b) The choice aspect is what distinguishes conscious from subconscious processes. The latter happen automatically, in the background, so that you cannot examine, consider or intervene in them. Consciousness is what gives a person some degree of control over their thoughts and actions, so that they can decide to pursue one path rather than another. This is the aspect of consciousness that underlies what is known as agency, volition, or free will. To achieve such control, the person must not only make sense of the situation at hand, but also conceive a range of potential developments or courses of action (which we call a "prospect"). That prospect then guides the decision about which course of action to pursue.

Rather than as a deterministic dynamic system, such a prospect could be modeled as a local field of potential happenings weighted by their subjective probability and value. The weighting means that potential events or actions that are more likely, desirable or undesirable receive more attention or activation. Thus, they are primed for becoming the next focus of attention. Whether they actually become the focus depends on what happens next, in perception, action or thought: is the potential actualized or not?

The process of actualizing one of the potential happenings can be modeled by analogy with the "collapse of the wave function" in quantum mechanics. The local field of prospect is similar to a wave or probability distribution, centered on the present focus of attention, while diffusing away from it in the directions of highest probability or desirability. The collapse recenters it on a new focus, determined by the last event that affected the conscious state. From there, it immediately starts diffusing again towards the most strongly associated potential developments, until a new event collapses it around that new focus of attention.

The collapse does not need to be discontinuous, like in quantum mechanics, although it can be. An example of a discontinuous collapse could be a Gestalt switch, an "Aha!" experience, or the appearance of a new phenomenon. A continuous "collapse" is more like the fast, but continuous, focusing of a camera on a particular object within its field of vision, or the narrowing of the beam of a flashlight from a wide angle to a more focused one.


Neural dynamics

On the neural level, the local field or wave may be realized as a "resonant" or "reverberating" pattern of activation circulating across an assembly of neurons. That means that the process of circulating activation is self-maintaining, providing it with sufficient stability to maintain for a short while in working memory or in the "global neuronal workspace". That allows other parts of the brain (e.g. incoming perceptions) to add their own activation (interpretation) to it. These perturbations will shift the self-maintaining pattern somewhat. This shifting could be modeled using our simulations in the Templeton project of how chemical organizations change under the influence of perturbations. The "collapse" then corresponds to the settling of a shifting pattern into a new attractor (resonance, self-maintaining organization). In between attractors, the shift is continuous.

Given that the overall dynamics is highly non-linear, and that "perturbations" come from a wide variety of independently functioning brain circuits, the result of the collapse is in general unpredictable, yet far from random or arbitrary. This looks like a realistic model of "free will", in the sense of a mechanism that makes non-deterministic, yet meaningful or intelligent, decisions. Note that in spite of the "quantum" character of unpredictable collapses, the process does not actually require quantum effects at the subatomic level: the chaotic dynamics inherent in the brain is sufficient to explain this kind of dynamics.


Qualia inversion

As a concrete illustration of how the local field theory resolves the hard problem of consciousness, we will look at the thought experiment known as "spectrum inversion". If the zombie argument would be correct, then subjective experience is not necessary for acting in a human-like way. That would mean that two different people could in principle have completely different subjective experiences of the phenomena they encounter, and still behave in the same way.

For a simple version of the thought experiment, imagine that whenever I see the quale of "blue", you actually see a different quale, which is equivalent to my quale of "red". Vice versa, when I see "red" then you see "blue". As long as we agree about which things we designate as "blue", respectively as "red", it would seem that we can never find out that our subjective experiences are actually different.

In contradiction with this assumption, the local field theory says that the experience of "red" is not just an independent quale, but a field of associations that point towards a range of implications, expectations and actions. The field of "blue" is very different from the field of "red". For example, we interpret red as a warm (and therefore attractive) color, which however may signal a danger (and in that aspect aversive). Blue, on the other hand, we associate with cold (aversive), but also with calmness or serenity (attractive). Therefore, we are likely to react differently to red or blue qualia. Inverting these qualia would make an observable different in behavior, in contradiction with the zombie assumption.

As a fun illustration, below are two poems generated by ChatGPT about each color, listing some of these common associations that are clearly pointing in different directions:

Red, the color of passion and fire,
A hue that inspires both love and desire.
It's the shade of a rose, in bloom and alive,
A symbol of beauty, that will always survive.

Red, the color of blood, a reminder of life,
A symbol of courage, in the face of strife.
It's the tint of a sunset, at the end of the day,
A reminder of beauty, that will never fade away.

Red, the color of danger, a warning to heed,
A signal to stop, before we proceed.
It's the tint of a flame, burning bright and hot,
A reminder of power, that should be respected a lot.

Blue, the color of the sky and the sea,
A hue that brings peace and tranquility.
It's the shade of a sapphire, shining bright,
A symbol of wisdom, that guides us through the night.

Blue, the color of sadness, a feeling we all know,
A reminder that sometimes, we need to let go.
It's the tint of a bruise, a sign of healing pain,
A reminder that we're alive, to feel again.

Conclusion

We have proposed a new theory of subjective experience that starts from its functional aspect: why it is good for biological organisms and for human individuals not only to have consciousness, but also to deepen and expand it as much possible. The more accurately and intensely you sense, feel and evaluate phenomena, the better you will know which reaction may be appropriate. And the wider the range of potential reactions you are able to consider, the better the eventual choice you will make. Therefore, we can expect that consciousness will expand, both over the evolutionary history of life, and over the personal history of individual development. In further research, we plan to apply our theory in order to help people expand their consciousness in the most effective way.

--

Prof. Francis Heylighen     
Director Center Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
https://clea.research.vub.be/en/FrancisHeylighen

Bernard C E Scott

unread,
Feb 6, 2023, 5:04:54 PM2/6/23
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, evol...@listserv.vub.ac.be, Global Brain Discussion
Dear Francis, 

Thank you for your heads-up. I see an interesting synthesis of ideas, some of which have been around for a while, some not. I also note that you have bravely stepped into a world of controversy and conceptual confusion. I look forward to seeing your full paper in due course.

My own short take on a cybernetic approach to 'consciousness' can be found in Chapter 8 of my book Cybernetics for the Social Sciences (Brill, 2021). 

In that chapter, I refer to the work of philosopher, Peter Hacker. I recommend him to you. 

For convenience, I attach one of Hacker's papers: "THE SAD AND SORRY HISTORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS: BEING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, A CHALLENGE TO THE ‘CONSCIOUSNESS-STUDIES COMMUNITY’",

Best wishes,

Bernard


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/p06240823e006f2227af9%40%5B134.184.131.111%5D.
ConsciousnessAChallenge Hacker.pdf

Jason Hu

unread,
Feb 23, 2023, 10:22:05 PM2/23/23
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, evol...@listserv.vub.ac.be, Global Brain Discussion
Dear Francis,

I have been thinking about your project here and consider it very important if, by "localness" in your local field theory, you meant something I expressed in a recent Club of Remy discussion as "a local observer observing a limited (thus incomplete) amount of information reaching to imperfect knowledge what's and why's and producing a non-optimized plan of how's for his/her action that sometimes does work but most of the times leading to unintended consequences." 

The tongue-twister style of this funny expression is targeting a widespread original sin of academics, i.e., assuming there exists ideal global "truth" that their ivory-tower thinking can eventually nail down, their construction of fancy theories and models that could attain "globality" and thus save the world. My perception of your brief introduction to your local field theory is that you and Shima Beiji might also be chasing the same rabbit that I have been hunting from a different path. If this is correct, let's talk more or arrange a Zoom meeting to chat more about it; then, I would like to join your team to work on this. If this is incorrect, please send me more of your writings on this line so I can find the distinctions. 

Many thanks! - Jason
-----------------------------------
Jason Jixuan Hu, Ph.D.
Independent Research Scholar
Organizer: Club of REMY:  www.clubofremy.org 
General Partner: Wintop Group: www.wintopgroup.com 
---------------------------------------------------

Francis Heylighen

unread,
Mar 6, 2023, 6:43:28 AM3/6/23
to cyb...@googlegroups.com, shima...@gmail.com
Dear Jason,

You are correct that our "local field" theory of consciousness is based on the assumption that we can be aware of only a rather narrow range of phenomena, and this in an intrinsically subjective way colored by personal values and feelings.

I am even a bit hesitant to use the term "field", since many people inspired by New Age ideas seem to believe that individual, human consciousness is just a part of a global field of consciousness that pervades the cosmos. That, however, is incompatible with the locality principle in physics, which notes that no communication between different parts of the cosmos can go faster than the speed of light.

Many people wrongly assume that quantum non-locality has proven otherwise. But quantum entanglement is not sufficient for information transmission: it only allows "correlation", not "communication". That is why quantum mechanics and relativity theory are perfectly compatible. Quantum field theory, being relativistic, makes clear that nothing can travel faster than light. Therefore, a consciousness that would extend from here to the Andromeda galaxy, would need millions of years to grasp that something happened simultaneously here and in Andromeda. Not quite the thinking speed you would expect from a cosmic consciousness ;-)

Let's then indeed talk a bit more about this and arrange a zoom with me and Shima...


Best,


Francis

I have been thinking about your project here and consider it very important if, by "localness" in your local field theory, you meant something I expressed in a recent Club of Remy discussion as "a local observer observing a limited (thus incomplete) amount of information reaching to imperfect knowledge what's and why's and producing a non-optimized plan of how's for his/her action that sometimes does work but most of the times leading to unintended consequences." 

The tongue-twister style of this funny expression is targeting a widespread original sin of academics, i.e., assuming there exists ideal global "truth" that their ivory-tower thinking can eventually nail down, their construction of fancy theories and models that could attain "globality" and thus save the world. My perception of your brief introduction to your local field theory is that you and Shima Beiji might also be chasing the same rabbit that I have been hunting from a different path. If this is correct, let's talk more or arrange a Zoom meeting to chat more about it; then, I would like to join your team to work on this. If this is incorrect, please send me more of your writings on this line so I can find the distinctions.

Many thanks! - Jason
-----------------------------------
Jason Jixuan Hu, Ph.D.
Independent Research Scholar
Organizer: Club of REMY:  www.clubofremy.org 
General Partner: Wintop Group: www.wintopgroup.com 
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJumBT3J15xhAoNs9CnrSVg/videos 
office: j...@wintopgroup.com
mobile: jasonth...@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 11:22 AM Francis Heylighen <fhey...@vub.ac.be> wrote:
As several CLEA people have already heard us report enthusiastically, Shima and I have made a real breakthrough in our research, which potentially could make us famous :-). Before we start writing the paper, here is already a quick summary, for which we hope to get your feedback...

Francis



The local field theory of subjective experience:
a soft solution to the hard problem of consciousness

Francis  Heylighen and Shima Beigi

After years of study, reflection and discussion, we have recently made a breakthrough in our understanding of consciousness, which we want to report here in an initial short form. This breakthrough in particular proposes a solution to the so-called "hard problem of consciousness", which by some is considered to be the most difficult problem in the whole of science. Our objective is twofold: to demystify consciousness, and to promote a more open-minded way of relating to the world.

The question of what constitutes consciousness can be subdivided in two questions:

1) the level of consciousness: what distinguishes conscious mental processes (e.g. thinking, observing, acting) from non-conscious ones (e.g. sleep, anesthesia, subliminal perception, subconscious intuitions)

2) the content of consciousness: what precisely constitutes a subjective experience (also known as "phenomenal consciousness" or  "quale")?

For (1), we assume that a plausible answer is provided by the global neuronal workspace theory of consciousness (Dehaene, Baars, Changeux·), which is supported by a growing amount of empirical evidence. This theory posits that conscious experiences are "broadcasted" across a global, interconnecting network of neurons in the brain, so that they can be examined, monitored and redirected by different more specialized modules in the brain.

Jason Hu

unread,
Mar 6, 2023, 8:23:16 AM3/6/23
to Francis Heylighen, shima...@gmail.com, cyb...@googlegroups.com
Dear Francis,

It's great that my conjecture is agreed by you! How about that we schedule a Club of Remy discussion session with you, Shima, and me being discussants? (We schedule a session whenever we have three discussants focusing on the same topic - which needs to be "important and urgent" as a club criteria.) This topic certainly qualifies! I think we are targeting a principle as fundamental as Godel's Law - if you're hesitant to use the term "field" - and I agree with your hesitancy since "field" implies infinity reach, which contradicts the concept of "locality." I think we are actually targeting a fundamental human limit, which might previously be addressed or noted by Hayek, Popper, Godel, etc., from different cognitive lenses (economics, philosophy of science, mathematics). Still, we focus on basic and general human cognitive activities of knowing-thinking-doing.  (I had suggested in several different meetings with colleagues that we should change the term "observer" to "OTA" - Observer-Thinker-Actioner all integrated.)  Clarifying the limitation of human OTA in a new Theory of Locality of Cognition helps to avoid "the Fatal Conceit" (per Hayek) and to practice "Piecemeal Engineering" (per Popper), and serves as a vaccine against "Abuse of Value"(per myself.)

If you agree, then each of us prepares seven slides to present our key points (see "Magic Seven Slides Rule" at clubofremy.org first page) that we want to bring to a Zoom discussion. We need to agree on a date. We have our regular topic discussions on Wednesdays and book-reading sessions on Fridays. Our regular meeting time (before the summer-time change) is the following. We relatively fix the timeslots for the convenience of our members who are interested in attending our sessions.
-   7 AM US West Coast

-   8 AM Phoenix 

-   9 AM Chicago

-   10 AM US East Coast

-   3 PM London, Lisbon

-   4 PM Amsterdam, Madrid, Rome, Paris, Maribor, Ljubljana

-   6 PM Moscow

Please let me know what date you would like to do this session ASAP since I'll be sending out our next meeting reminders to CoR members; some of them might be interested in this too.

All best - Jason


On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 4:43 AM Francis Heylighen <fhey...@vub.ac.be> wrote:
Dear Jason,

You are correct that our "local field" theory of consciousness is based on the assumption that we can be aware of only a rather narrow range of phenomena, and this in an intrinsically subjective way colored by personal values and feelings.

I am even a bit hesitant to use the term "field", since many people inspired by New Age ideas seem to believe that individual, human consciousness is just a part of a global field of consciousness that pervades the cosmos. That, however, is incompatible with the locality principle in physics, which notes that no communication between different parts of the cosmos can go faster than the speed of light.

Many people wrongly assume that quantum non-locality has proven otherwise. But quantum entanglement is not sufficient for information transmission: it only allows "correlation", not "communication". That is why quantum mechanics and relativity theory are perfectly compatible. Quantum field theory, being relativistic, makes clear that nothing can travel faster than light. Therefore, a consciousness that would extend from here to the Andromeda galaxy, would need millions of years to grasp that something happened simultaneously here and in Andromeda. Not quite the thinking speed you would expect from a cosmic consciousness ;-)

Let's then indeed talk a bit more about this and arrange a zoom with me and Shima...


Best,


Francis

I have been thinking about your project here and consider it very important if, by "localness" in your local field theory, you meant something I expressed in a recent Club of Remy discussion as "a local observer observing a limited (thus incomplete) amount of information reaching to imperfect knowledge what's and why's and producing a non-optimized plan of how's for his/her action that sometimes does work but most of the times leading to unintended consequences." 

The tongue-twister style of this funny expression is targeting a widespread original sin of academics, i.e., assuming there exists ideal global "truth" that their ivory-tower thinking can eventually nail down, their construction of fancy theories and models that could attain "globality" and thus save the world. My perception of your brief introduction to your local field theory is that you and Shima Beiji might also be chasing the same rabbit that I have been hunting from a different path. If this is correct, let's talk more or arrange a Zoom meeting to chat more about it; then, I would like to join your team to work on this. If this is incorrect, please send me more of your writings on this line so I can find the distinctions.

Many thanks! - Jason
-----------------------------------
Jason Jixuan Hu, Ph.D.
Independent Research Scholar
Organizer: Club of REMY:  www.clubofremy.org 
General Partner: Wintop Group: www.wintopgroup.com 
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJumBT3J15xhAoNs9CnrSVg/videos 
office: j...@wintopgroup.com
mobile: jasonth...@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 11:22 AM Francis Heylighen <fhey...@vub.ac.be> wrote:
As several CLEA people have already heard us report enthusiastically, Shima and I have made a real breakthrough in our research, which potentially could make us famous :-). Before we start writing the paper, here is already a quick summary, for which we hope to get your feedback...

Francis



The local field theory of subjective experience:
a soft solution to the hard problem of consciousness

Francis  Heylighen and Shima Beigi

After years of study, reflection and discussion, we have recently made a breakthrough in our understanding of consciousness, which we want to report here in an initial short form. This breakthrough in particular proposes a solution to the so-called "hard problem of consciousness", which by some is considered to be the most difficult problem in the whole of science. Our objective is twofold: to demystify consciousness, and to promote a more open-minded way of relating to the world.

The question of what constitutes consciousness can be subdivided in two questions:

1) the level of consciousness: what distinguishes conscious mental processes (e.g. thinking, observing, acting) from non-conscious ones (e.g. sleep, anesthesia, subliminal perception, subconscious intuitions)

2) the content of consciousness: what precisely constitutes a subjective experience (also known as "phenomenal consciousness" or  "quale")?

For (1), we assume that a plausible answer is provided by the global neuronal workspace theory of consciousness (Dehaene, Baars, Changeux·), which is supported by a growing amount of empirical evidence. This theory posits that conscious experiences are "broadcasted" across a global, interconnecting network of neurons in the brain, so that they can be examined, monitored and redirected by different more specialized modules in the brain.


--

Prof. Francis Heylighen     
Director Center Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
https://clea.research.vub.be/en/FrancisHeylighen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages