Consciousness creates physics
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Evgenii Rudnyi
Apr 26, 2015, 4:23:03 AM4/26/15
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Enjoy. Evgenii
Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of consciousness,
Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, N 00577, 2014.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full
“We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study how
the perception of objects and space-time can emerge from such dynamics.
We show that one particular object, the quantum free particle, has a
wave function that is identical in form to the harmonic functions that
characterize the asymptotic dynamics of conscious agents; particles are
vibrations not of strings but of interacting conscious agents. This
allows us to reinterpret physical properties such as position, momentum,
and energy as properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as
preexisting physical truths.”
Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of consciousness,
Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, N 00577, 2014.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full
“We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study how
the perception of objects and space-time can emerge from such dynamics.
We show that one particular object, the quantum free particle, has a
wave function that is identical in form to the harmonic functions that
characterize the asymptotic dynamics of conscious agents; particles are
vibrations not of strings but of interacting conscious agents. This
allows us to reinterpret physical properties such as position, momentum,
and energy as properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as
preexisting physical truths.”
meekerdb
Apr 26, 2015, 3:35:02 PM4/26/15
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I think the authors are more interested
in being provocative than in being clear. For example:
The interface theory entails that these first two steps were mere warm up. The next step in the intellectual history of H. sapiens is a big one. We must recognize that all of our perceptions of space, time and objects no more reflect reality than does our perception of a flat earth. It's not just this or that aspect of our perceptions that must be corrected, it is the entire framework of a space-time containing objects, the fundamental organization of our perceptual systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific mode of perception rather than an insight into objective reality.
By this time it should be clear that, if the arguments given here are sound, then the current Bayesian models of object perception need more than tinkering around the edges, they need fundamental transformation. And this transformation will necessarily have ramifications for scientific questions well-beyond the confines of computational models of object perception.
There's no justification for the "mere". Our perception has gone well beyond what biology provided. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the transformation they propose will be THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH either.
Similarly, most of my mental processes are not directly conscious to me, but that does not entail that they are unconscious.
This just seems to make of muddle of what is meant by "conscious".
Anyway, I'll finish reading it. I think an explanation of consciousness based on evolution is one useful approach.
Brent
The interface theory entails that these first two steps were mere warm up. The next step in the intellectual history of H. sapiens is a big one. We must recognize that all of our perceptions of space, time and objects no more reflect reality than does our perception of a flat earth. It's not just this or that aspect of our perceptions that must be corrected, it is the entire framework of a space-time containing objects, the fundamental organization of our perceptual systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific mode of perception rather than an insight into objective reality.
By this time it should be clear that, if the arguments given here are sound, then the current Bayesian models of object perception need more than tinkering around the edges, they need fundamental transformation. And this transformation will necessarily have ramifications for scientific questions well-beyond the confines of computational models of object perception.
There's no justification for the "mere". Our perception has gone well beyond what biology provided. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the transformation they propose will be THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH either.
Similarly, most of my mental processes are not directly conscious to me, but that does not entail that they are unconscious.
This just seems to make of muddle of what is meant by "conscious".
Anyway, I'll finish reading it. I think an explanation of consciousness based on evolution is one useful approach.
Brent
Evgenii Rudnyi
Apr 26, 2015, 4:01:36 PM4/26/15
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Dear Brent,
I would agree that it is unclear what conscious agents introduced in the
paper have to do with human consciousness.
For me it was interesting to see that the cognitive science is close to
Kantian revolution (space and time are created by the mind) and that
Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived" (esse est percipi) is still actual.
The next natural step for the cognitive science would be radical
constructivism.
Evgenii
Am 26.04.2015 um 21:35 schrieb meekerdb:
> I think the authors are more interested in being provocative than in
> being clear. For example:
>
> /The interface theory entails that these first two steps were mere
I would agree that it is unclear what conscious agents introduced in the
paper have to do with human consciousness.
For me it was interesting to see that the cognitive science is close to
Kantian revolution (space and time are created by the mind) and that
Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived" (esse est percipi) is still actual.
The next natural step for the cognitive science would be radical
constructivism.
Evgenii
Am 26.04.2015 um 21:35 schrieb meekerdb:
> I think the authors are more interested in being provocative than in
> being clear. For example:
>
> warm up. The next step in the intellectual history of H. sapiens is a
> big one. We must recognize that all of our perceptions of space, time
> and objects no more reflect reality than does our perception of a
> flat earth. It's not just this or that aspect of our perceptions that
> must be corrected, it is the entire framework of a space-time
> containing objects, the fundamental organization of our perceptual
> systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific mode of
> perception rather than an insight into objective reality./ / //By
> big one. We must recognize that all of our perceptions of space, time
> and objects no more reflect reality than does our perception of a
> flat earth. It's not just this or that aspect of our perceptions that
> must be corrected, it is the entire framework of a space-time
> containing objects, the fundamental organization of our perceptual
> systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific mode of
> this time it should be clear that, if the arguments given here are
> sound, then the current Bayesian models of object perception need
> more than tinkering around the edges, they need fundamental
> transformation. And this transformation will necessarily have
> ramifications for scientific questions well-beyond the confines of
> computational models of object perception./
> sound, then the current Bayesian models of object perception need
> more than tinkering around the edges, they need fundamental
> transformation. And this transformation will necessarily have
> ramifications for scientific questions well-beyond the confines of
>
> There's no justification for the "mere". Our perception has gone
> well beyond what biology provided. Nor is there any reason to
> suppose that the transformation they propose will be THE OBJECTIVE
> TRUTH either. / //Similarly, most of my mental processes are not
> There's no justification for the "mere". Our perception has gone
> well beyond what biology provided. Nor is there any reason to
> suppose that the transformation they propose will be THE OBJECTIVE
> directly conscious to me, but that does not entail that they are
> unconscious./
John Mikes
Apr 26, 2015, 4:44:40 PM4/26/15
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Evgeniy, I, for one, like your approach on the Hoffmann-Prokosh idea.
In my terms (Ccness = REPLY (reflection?) to RELATIONS definitely points to the Berkeley wisdom (to accept as existing one must perceive the item, in concise Latin: ESSE (to include into our worldview) est PERCIPI. Difference may be in faith-based religion where ACCEPTANCE is also good enough.
It may be an extension for the Kantian 'revolution': our entire image of the WORLD (the Everything, Nature, you name it) is the product of our mind.
(And please, do not ask what I mean by 'mind').
All our 'knowledge' about the WORLD(?) is the reflection of the human mind on phenomena (items, processes) perceived in adjusted formats available to the mind. No justification and no formatting to any 'reality'.
That includes the Hoffmann-Prakash Psychology as well.
(I did not read the paper).
JM
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Bruno Marchal
Apr 27, 2015, 11:46:30 AM4/27/15
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Dear Evgenii,
On 26 Apr 2015, at 22:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> Dear Brent,
>
> I would agree that it is unclear what conscious agents introduced in
> the paper have to do with human consciousness.
>
> For me it was interesting to see that the cognitive science is close
> to Kantian revolution (space and time are created by the mind) and
> that Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived" (esse est percipi) is
> still actual.
I can appreciate this conclusion, although if that is true, that does
not yet make mind into the fundamental thing, as it can emerge from a
neutral ontology, like arithmetic.
>
> The next natural step for the cognitive science would be radical
> constructivism.
That would be like focusing on the first person, or the third
hypostases. But theology, and theoretical computer science, and
general mathematics, contains necessarily non-constructive
propositions, and radical constructivism would eliminate them. Radical
constructivism put the others, and the unknown, under the rug, I would
say.
Bruno
On 26 Apr 2015, at 22:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> Dear Brent,
>
> I would agree that it is unclear what conscious agents introduced in
> the paper have to do with human consciousness.
>
> For me it was interesting to see that the cognitive science is close
> to Kantian revolution (space and time are created by the mind) and
> that Berkeley's "to be is to be perceived" (esse est percipi) is
> still actual.
not yet make mind into the fundamental thing, as it can emerge from a
neutral ontology, like arithmetic.
>
> The next natural step for the cognitive science would be radical
> constructivism.
hypostases. But theology, and theoretical computer science, and
general mathematics, contains necessarily non-constructive
propositions, and radical constructivism would eliminate them. Radical
constructivism put the others, and the unknown, under the rug, I would
say.
Bruno
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Evgenii Rudnyi
Apr 27, 2015, 3:41:32 PM4/27/15
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Dear John,
Recently I have found a nice statement from David Hume, one of the
greatest skeptics. Interestingly enough that Hume has declared that
"Nature is always too strong for principle", see below this statement in
the context:
"But a Pyrrhonian cannot expect, that his philosophy will have any
constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would
be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he
will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his
principles universally and steadily to prevail. All discourse, all
action would immediately cease; and men remain in a total lethargy, till
the necessities of nature, unsatisfied, put an end to their miserable
existence. It is true; so fatal an event is very little to be dreaded.
Nature is always too strong for principle. And though a Pyrrhonian may
throw himself or others into a momentary amazement and confusion by his
profound reasonings; the first and most trivial event in life will put
to flight all his doubts and scruples, and leave him the same, in every
point of action and speculation, with the philosophers of every other
sect, or with those who never concerned themselves in any philosophical
researches. When he awakes from his dream, he will be the first to join
in the laugh against himself, and to confess, that all his objections
are mere amusement, and can have no other tendency than to show the
whimsical condition of mankind, who must act and reason and believe;
though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy
themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove
the objections, which may be raised against them."
Evgenii
Am 26.04.2015 um 22:44 schrieb John Mikes:
> Evgeniy, I, for one, like your approach on the Hoffmann-Prokosh
> idea. In my terms (Ccness = REPLY (reflection?) to RELATIONS
> definitely points to the Berkeley wisdom (to accept as existing one
> must perceive the item, in concise Latin: *ESSE* (to include into our
> worldview) *est PERCIPI*. Difference may be in faith-based religion
Recently I have found a nice statement from David Hume, one of the
greatest skeptics. Interestingly enough that Hume has declared that
"Nature is always too strong for principle", see below this statement in
the context:
"But a Pyrrhonian cannot expect, that his philosophy will have any
constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would
be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he
will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his
principles universally and steadily to prevail. All discourse, all
action would immediately cease; and men remain in a total lethargy, till
the necessities of nature, unsatisfied, put an end to their miserable
existence. It is true; so fatal an event is very little to be dreaded.
Nature is always too strong for principle. And though a Pyrrhonian may
throw himself or others into a momentary amazement and confusion by his
profound reasonings; the first and most trivial event in life will put
to flight all his doubts and scruples, and leave him the same, in every
point of action and speculation, with the philosophers of every other
sect, or with those who never concerned themselves in any philosophical
researches. When he awakes from his dream, he will be the first to join
in the laugh against himself, and to confess, that all his objections
are mere amusement, and can have no other tendency than to show the
whimsical condition of mankind, who must act and reason and believe;
though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy
themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove
the objections, which may be raised against them."
Evgenii
Am 26.04.2015 um 22:44 schrieb John Mikes:
> Evgeniy, I, for one, like your approach on the Hoffmann-Prokosh
> idea. In my terms (Ccness = REPLY (reflection?) to RELATIONS
> definitely points to the Berkeley wisdom (to accept as existing one
> worldview) *est PERCIPI*. Difference may be in faith-based religion
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages