What, Why & How do we Know ?
Me that is. Jeez.
I’ve just found to my horror that I’ve been conflating and confusing Anil Seth and Yuval Noah Harari. Seth is a Cognitive and Computational Neuroscientist of Indian heritage, author of “Being You”. Harari is an Israeli Historian, author of “Sapiens”. Problem is I’ve been conflating my impressions of their work based on their media appearances.
Sorry guys, won’t do it again.
Mentioned very recently – this Solms / Fields / Levin discussion – that Chris Fields is someone I don’t really know much about, but keeps cropping-up in significant references. (Particularly with Levenchuk and AII.)
[Note: this post is a stub to which I’m adding thoughts as I read and listen …]
This paper … :-
Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2021, 7(2)
Special Issue: Consciousness science and its theories.
doi: 10.1093/nc/niab013“Minimal physicalism as a scale-free substrate for cognition and consciousness.” (2021)
by Chris Fields, James F. Glazebrook and Michael Levin
… is one I’ve linked to in readiness to research Fields a little more.
Also
“A Free Energy Principle for Generic Quantum Systems”
by Fields, Friston, Glazebrook and Levin (2019)
And
“A Mosaic of Chu Spaces and Channel Theory II: Applications to Object Identification and Mereological Complexity”
by Fields and Glazebrook (2018)
Note that’s
Fields & Glazebrook (2018) >>
Fields & Glazebrook & Friston & Levin (2019) >>
Fields & Glazebrook & Levin (2021)
[Friston being the link to Solms]
That 2021 paper (without Friston or Solms)
[Aside – watching this AII presentation with Mark Solms, from exactly a year ago – I’m near the end of this first part, around 1h40m – and he’s emphasising a higher take on consciousness – animals “down to” cephalopods say but also inserting different levels / axes – arousal, awareness aspects of “experience” … phenomenal consciousness vs reflective cognition “access” consciousness, awareness of what we’re aware of. Arousal entails awareness. And I’m now on part 2 (AII#016.2)]
Consciousness is at root “affect” (feeling felt) and “awareness” is intrinsic to it – in fact my summary of the central point of his book:
Consciousness “is” affect.
It’s feeling all the way down.
“How do I feel
about what I know
and what, if anything,
should I do about it?”
Chalmers: “There is no cognitive function such that we can say in advance that explanation of that function will explain experience.” Obviously! because experience is affective not cognitive.
“Something it is like to be” – after Nagel’s (1974) bat – is a construction I struggle with, but Solms uses it a lot. To be like – is a feeling.
Additional references also “getting” the affective angle – Manos Tsakiris and Aikatarini Fotopoulou and Ryan Smith and Casper Hesp and Maxwell Ramstead (folk psychology). Already following the latter on Twitter. Quite a few joint papers with Friston et all in Google Scholar. Stephen Sillett on the original call.
As we know, affective / feeling “beyond-autonomic” homeostasis based on Panksepp and Damasio – 25 year ago – Good vs Bad value system choice. Massive evolutionary survival advantage – choosing by feeling in unexpected “surprise” situations – and then learning. (Anil Seth gets several positive mentions – noted a discussion between Seth and Solms previously).
Awareness – as “a-whereness” (Daniel) – distributed not localised?
In fact the 4-hours of presentation is basically the full thesis of Solms’ book.
End Aside.]
Continuing with the Fields/Glazebrook/Levin(2021) paper:
…
“I write to find out what I think.”
Hanif Kureshi – 1996
Loving the hippy, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, Bowie school trajectory.
I’m reading David Chalmers’s “Reality+”
My Prejudice
It wasn’t on my list but I received it as a Christmas present. For me Chalmers is to philosophy as Brian Cox is to science; a rock star that gets everyone waving their knickers in the front row, which I admit may cultivate interest in the previously ignorant, but which adds more sound-and-light-show than enlightenment to the subject itself. So it’s a struggle. For me.
Obviously, I’ve been following his virtual worlds – Matrix – pronouncements for decades, along with the Zombie thought experiments and his infamous “Hard Problem” of consciousness, long since debunked as a confusion – like Cartesian duality – that is itself “part of the problem”. Part of the problem of “science” taking a too naive – limited, autistic – view of reality and (like Pat Churchland, one of his early references) in danger of condemning swathes of philosophy to the same limitations. Scientism.
If ever there was a “footnote to Plato” this is it. He famously uses his image of users in a VR suite as his 21st C version of the cave. Easy to find. It only adds to Plato’s understanding if you understand his take on VR, which to be fair is the point of his book.
Philosophy and science regularly use simulations to test theories, and test cases which are incidentally or deliberately limited versions of normal reality. Neuroscience and consciousness (science and philosophy) would be nowhere without the #LesionLiterature in its widest sense. A real subject with some missing or artificial feature. Artificial – as in not naturally evolved – is already the stuff of science and philosophy (and indeed engineering in our real world “built environment”). What’s “new” to Chalmers is the technology, VR in the ICT technology sense. Technophilosophy as he would have us call it. New as in 30+ years old. And we get his life history as a gamer kid. He seems also to have discovered virtual meetings during Covid times. In the real world we’ve been doing these for the same 2 or 3 decades?
Anyway, prejudice aside 🙂 How do we know we’re not living in a virtual reality, a simulation, the matrix?
The Value of Virtual Worlds
Sure, the virtual worlds we create are in – part of – the real world, they are additions to our world, but each VR world – even a complex connected system of systems of VR worlds – is a limited version of some part of the whole real world(*).
My summation:
World plus VR = The Reality+plus (creates a new piece of reality)
Each VR = A Reality-minus (is something less than reality)
“Today’s VR & AR systems are primitive […] Virtual environments offer immersive vision and sound, but you can’t touch a virtual surface, smell a virtual flower, or taste a virtual glass of wine when you drink it.”
Indeed, and you can’t get food poisoning from Mazviita’s Lobster either, let alone the pleasure and nutrition from tasting and consuming it. (Excretion? – let’s not go there.) The point is not that they’re technologically primitive, relative to future versions. They surely are. The point is accepted models of physics and sentience don’t support each other – yet(*). People are going to spend a lot of time and money, having a lot of fun in the process of building deeper and better VR & AR experiences. Like most science, failure to achieve a solution to the subjective sentience aspect and the “reality” of others – like the bacteria and toxins in that lobster – will be empirical evidence of a lesson learned. Negative results are always valuable to science. Anyway:
“The central thesis of this book is:
Virtual reality is genuine reality,
or at least, virtual realities are genuine realities.Virtual worlds need not be second-class realities.
[And we can’t rule out the possibility we might already be living in a virtual – simulated – reality.]”
Sure, they’re “real” but (see my own summary above) inevitably limited versions of other realities – different classes – we’re setting up a taxonomy of realities. And we’re back to the same fundamental problem as the many worlds / multiple universes speculations. The root of both ontology and epistemology – what do we mean by existence in this – the/our – world? Illusions are real too. We run out of meanings for the words we have. Chalmers prefixes his “realities” with “genuine” – genuinely real. This is never ending race to the grounding of physics itself. Properly, genuinely, in actual fact, physically, real – anyone? I’m with Deutsch – everything we can conceive of is – in some sense – real, part of the real world. It’s the sense we’re lacking.
As my prejudiced position said above, without properly understood, properly modelled, living sentience in ourselves and others, AI / VR / AR will fall short of expectations.
Chalmers thought experiments will make you think if you’ve not thought them before, and by promoting VR & AR for experimentation in real world applications will expose more people to more of the possibilities as well as the limitations. I will skim later chapters to see what’s new, but I’m sceptical, so please alert me if you find anything I’ve missed.
=====
(*) Which isn’t to say I don’t believe artificial life and sentience cannot be engineered, they can and will be (see previous post), but they will be real life and sentience – artificially evolved – when that happens.
=====
Chris Fields and Mark Solms clearly seem to be aware of each other’s work even if this is the first time they’ve communicated. As the tweet says it’s a very informal chat facilitated by Mike Levin (interesting Tufts connection with Dan Dennett in my context.)
Here is an informal conversation I had this week with two *very interesting* scientists — Mike Levin and Chris Fieds — about artificial consciousness …https://t.co/0suzRVGLWQ
— Mark Solms (@Mark_Solms) January 17, 2023
Mark is someone I’ve already talked about a lot – proper “neuro-psychological” (systems & Friston-free-energy) understanding of consciousness – building on where I’d got to with Iain McGilchrist and all the #LesionLiterature before that.
Chris Fields is of interest for all the references [29][31][32] by Anatoly Levenchuk and others in the #UpperOntology field. I didn’t actually know much about him until this exchange. (And of course I am reminded now that Chris, like Anatoly and Karl Friston, are scientific advisory board members of AII – ever convergent “systems” world!)
So far just rough notes on the informal dialogue
(apparently the first of two):
Looking forward to Part 2 !!!
Listening to Rawls Theory of Justice on @BBCR4 #iot It’s in my library of unread books. I was gifted it back ~1974ish and it didn’t grab me then. Guessing a wiser me should maybe read it 🙂 https://t.co/tJGv0LHnfG
— Ian Glendinning (@psybertron) January 19, 2023
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001h4bz
Utilitarianism vs Intuitionism – the latter tells us the former is unfair, but is not the solution. The rest is about fair procedures to achieve justice.
A new form of Social Contract. Nothing better since J.S.Mill or since despite many practical disagreements.
Key thought experiment – Original Position / Veil of Ignorance – which isn’t to say we plan and execute in ignorance, obviously. (eg historical injustice – class/ race etc specifics)
Placing yourself as competitor / opponent / enemy would
(Children slicing the cake)
Fairness as Justice
Mutually disinterested
We’re not all maximally altruistic
Despite my “STEM” core, avoiding anything remotely supernatural despite strong human spiritual interests, I’ve always been sympathetic to theists and theologists. (Full statement of my “Sacred Naturalism” stance here.) As thinkers, and carers for humanity, smart theists are at least as impressive – generally more so – as any public scientist / atheist types, when it comes to deep and thoughtful concerns for reality. That started with my friend Sam Norton (@Elizaphanian) and our early shared philosophical interest in Robert Pirsig and probably reached its zenith with Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Along the way I count Liz Oldfield among their number, having met her when she was running the Theos think-tank. Although her role has changed, she still hosts The Sacred Podcast.
Part of my human spiritual connection is musical and in the poetry of the bards who write the songs. Mentions are dotted incidentally about these pages and my specific interests here are too many to mention. There’s a common thread of blues inspired genres from the solo trad & singer-songwriter folk artists to the heaviest of rock, with all varieties of Americana and Punk in between. With some wannabee aspirations, I am under some pressure this very moment (from four different directions!) to actually take the plunge into performance, but I’m currently restricted to “getting into it” any way I can short of that. A release from intellectual to embodied engagement anyhoo.
Strangely, Nick Cave (and his Bad Seeds) ought to be in that mix. Someone I’ve been aware of at a distance. I might recognise a song or two and I’ve certainly noticed the plaudits for his intelligent & thoughtful creations, but through circumstances of timing and opportunity, I’ve never really gotten into him. (Until his death a few years ago the same was true of – say – Leonard Cohen.)
I had detected in recent years both his Christian religious commitment and that the upheaval of death had greatly affected his musical trajectory. Anyway I added “Faith, Hope and Carnage” to my book list during 2022 and as I mentioned previously, it was the only book from that list I received as a Christmas present. So I’ve been reading it and making surprisingly copious notes. Whether I finish it or not I’ve recorded my notes below.
And the reason I was motivated to post them today is because The Sacred Podcast has just published a discussion with Nick Cave and his co-author of “Faith, Hope and Carnage” Sean O’Hagan hosted by Liz Oldfield.
(And, there’s a full transcript there too.)
My notes/quotes from “Faith Hope and Carnage”
“[I] try to lead a life that has moral [and religious] value, and try to look at [all] other people as if they are valuable. […] I guess what I’m saying is – we mean something. Our actions mean something. We are of value.”
“[T]he numinous and shocking beauty of the everyday is something I try to remain alert to, if only as an antidote to the chronic cynicism and disenchantment that seems to surround everything these days.”
“[R]ational truth may not be the only game in town. I am more inclined to accept the idea of poetic truth, or the idea that something can be “true enough”. To me that’s such a humane expression.”
“Sometimes you need to say out loud what you think or talk to someone else about the ideas you hold, just in order to see if they are valid. […] This is the essential value of conversation, that it can serve as a kind of corrective.”
“[S]adly, organised religion can be atheism’s greatest gift.”
“[M]y rational self seems less assured these days. Things happen in your life, terrible things, great obliterating events, where the need for spiritual consolation can be immense, and your sense of what is rational is less coherent and can suddenly find itself on shaky ground. We are supposed to put our faith in the rational world, yet when the world stops making sense, perhaps your need for some greater meaning can override reason. […] I’ve grown increasingly impatient with my own scepticism; it feels obtuse and counter-productive, something that’s simply standing in the way of a better-lived life […] happier if I stopped window-shopping and just stepped through the door.”
“[Attending to yearning …] maybe the search is the religious experience – the desire to believe and the longing for meaning, the moving toward the ineffable. […] When it comes down to it maybe faith is just a decision like any other.”
“Before knowing – is good, I like that.”
“[Doubt is part of your belief system?] Doubt is an energy for sure and perhaps I’ll never be the person who completely surrenders to the idea of God [.] [Intrinsically human to doubt?] Yes. And the rigid and self-righteous certainty of some religious people – and some atheists for that matter – is something I find disagreeable. The hubris of it. The sanctimoniousness. It leaves me cold. [… attitude of moral superiority.] The belligerent dogmatism of the current cultural moment is a case in point. A bit of humility wouldn’t go astray.”
“[Was your Mum religious in any way?] No. She actually told me she envied those who were religious, but she just couldn’t bring herself to fully believe.
[A bit like you then?] Oh no, I believe. Especially today.”“[Last time in Australia with my mother before she died – listening to the album written after my son Arthur died] she would be sitting in her chair listening to it, lost to it, really moved. It was as if it was speaking to her, not just about Arthur, whose death hurt her very deeply, but all the many people a woman of ninety-three has inevitably lost. And at that age, that’s essentially everybody. I was very affected by that. Those were beautiful moments.”
Affected me too, reading that just last week, my 93 year-old mother’s birthday and accompanying her to the funeral of an old friend.
“Doubt and wonder. Yes, well put. […] [S]ince when has belief in God had anything to do with logic? For me it’s the unreasonableness of the notion, its counterfactual aspect that make the experience of belief compelling.” [The rationality of the irrational.]
“Our lives are, in fact, of enormous consequence, and our actions reverberate in ways we hardly know. [Many atheists would agree with that.]”
“There’s an attempt to find meaning in places where it is ultimately unsustainable – in politics, identity and so on. [Are you saying atheism – or secularism – is an affliction?] Not saying they’re an affliction … I just don’t think they’ve done a very good job of addressing questions that religion is well practiced at answering.” … “The upshot of that is a kind of callousness towards humanity in general.” … “Increasingly they are finding [religion and meaning] in tribalism and the politics of division.”
“The decline of organised religion took with it a regard for the sacredness of things, for the value of humanity in and of itself. This regard is rooted in a humility towards one’s place in the world – an understanding of our flawed nature. We are losing that […] and it’s often replaced by self-righteousness and hostility.”
“[Drugs as sacrament] Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. [Absolution from his home-town audience is response to his apology for dissing the town years earlier.]”
“[Contrasting organised life now with chaotic drugs and rock’n’roll years.] Impressive to be surrounded by efficiency, dedication and competence … It’s a kind of bliss! … Personally, I have found that a disciplined and structured workplace encourages a certain kind of free-range creativity that chaos is just not conducive to … A beautiful freedom.” {Ed. Cf Neil Hannon – You must go and I must set you free. ‘Cos only that will bring you back to me. (Freedom’s two-way perversity).}
[Infamous 1987 NME interview with Cave, Shane McGowan and Mark E Smith.] That was just after my first time in rehab. I had just come out the day before. What could possibly go wrong … I’m clean and sober an they’re like ‘What the fuck? You can’t be serious’ as they sat there chucking down drugs and drinking themselves into oblivion. They were hardly sympathetic to my situation.”
And so much more – an insightful read. Recommended.
This is just a riff – obviously prompted by the Deutsch debate – to lay out my original point – “I don’t buy Many Worlds”.
Many worlds thought of as the Everettian interpretation of quantum theory has (had) an easy to visualise metaphor, even if it might also be easy to discount it as a world-view of what really exists. The idea that every quantum event – each wave-function collapse – creates a bifurcation in the universe(s) into one where what actually happened happens and (an)other(s) where what was possible didn’t happen here but (maybe) did happen there. Without any deep understanding of the maths and mechanisms of such theory(ies) it is a simple way to visualise that somehow the statistical distribution of possibilities existed in this world up to that point and then didn’t. Where did they go?
It’s nevertheless almost impossible to hold in your minds-eye world-view that all these gazillions of alternate worlds really exist in any meaningful way? To even entertain that thought is also mentally related to what we hold in mind as the world, the cosmos, the / a universe in the first place. And whilst Many Worlds is completely unrelated physically to The Multiverse(s) – the idea of a whole universe evolving out of a (near-)singularity suffers from the same credulity problems.
Now what’s actually going on here is very close to the most fundamental question of philosophy, let alone physics. Why / how-come something out of nothing? So any physical answer is going to be dubious, even if we manage to establish a mental picture of what we might believe. If that something – seed – existed before this universe, where did it exist and where is that (time &) place now? What does “now” even mean? (also part of Deutsch’s video essay).
One of my “priors” is that “The Universe” is unitary – it is the entire cosmos of possibility and reality. That’s what we mean by “the”. As soon as we entertain the idea of multiple universes we need different names for different things. The entire super-(multi-uni)-verse idea must contain any subsidiary universes, if they really exist. If we open up thought of time itself, not just now, as having no beginning or end – and that “The” (super) universe has always existed, it is not difficult to imagine “This” (current) universe – and other subsidiary universe(s) – evolving from there.
No less credible than the big-bang idea itself, anyway.
The crucial idea that makes this credible is that of an horizon. Whether a tiny compressed “black hole” of a cosmic seed, or the furthest reaches of a universe in time and space, they have a horizon beyond which no information can pass. The contents of a black hole or a a complete universe can never be known to another “region” of space-time the other side of such a horizon. A seed forming a new universe may inherit some information from the existing region in which it formed, but after that – incommunicado. That’s it.
So we may “imagine” the reality of multiple universes and/or many worlds in our thought experiments – different thought experiments, in different unrelated parts of physics, remember – but never have to treat them as part of reality in the universe we inhabit. They can never have any meaning in this universe.
Not quite right, but close enough for now. “True enough” to use Nick Cave / Sean O’Hagan’s humane “Irish” expression.
Need to relate this to my point about Deutsch and his Everettian “World View”.
Had an exchange with David Deutsch earlier today. I didn’t have the full context of the original question that prompted him to post a 9 minute video essay on YouTube, but it was in defence of the Everettian Many Worlds Interpretation being seen as part of the “concensus” in 21st C physics.
[My gloss on his argument in the video] His emphasis from the off is on “the reality of Many Worlds being as uncontroversial as the reality of dinosaurs and their evolution” seen by future historians of science.
(He also notes that even proponents of the theory will have / had disagreements and distinct interpretations – visible even from history.)
(IF) we agree it describes reality – not just that observations confirm predictions of the formal theory according to limits in confidence and knowledge – but we disagree about that reality described. Does that “function” describe reality or is it reality? [Lots of technical quantum detail still open to disagreement.]
We don’t have the “Many Dinosaurs” interpretation of evolution, it’s just evolution. It’s just Everettian (true) Quantum Physics, not an interpretation.
Explanatory theory split into formalism and interpretation(s) is wrong. It’s just another interpretation. Institutionalised casuistry – unsound sophistry.
Mistaken about what the world is actually like (in reality). What exactly were the unpersuaded, unpersuaded of.
Physicists incorporate accepted new physics (eg Einsteinian relativity) into their worldviews (or not – quantum theory). People stuck in Kuhnian paradigms are probably those that believe in paradigms (implying we shouldn’t).
Apply the theory, test it, note what that tells us about the world and let that inform your worldview.
[Andromeda / Time / Now / Self – who am I? Self-Identity even in computation theories – more nonsense. Unreasonable gullibility. Ada Lovelace denying that computers could think. Positivism as a poison.]
It has become accepted in science education that learning science doesn’t require you to change your world-view. Shut-up and calculate, toe the party line. Sneer at reality.
What’s noticeable is that there is nothing about “Many Worlds” in there – as a reality or otherwise – just dropping it from the naming of quantum theory or any interpretation of it? But there is lots about what we hold as reality in our world-view.
It was a standing joke that few (if any) quantum physicists actually behaved as if QT were a reality, however they actually described or interpreted it. Obviously one factor might be that at the human living and decision-making scale no quantum effects are observable anyway – even if they / we do hold it as part of our world-view.
Anyway my comment was purely about the Many Worlds interpretation / metaphor and any reality to reality held in a worldview.
I don’t buy Everettian many worlds – so far as I understand it – but I do buy the ontological commitment.
You’re right to point out the reality<>model<>interpretation fudge and the institutional biases in maintaining the “right” interpretation.
— Ian Glendinning (@psybertron) January 11, 2023
Now do dinosaurs.
— David Deutsch (@DavidDeutschOxf) January 11, 2023
Insofar as we build models of them from archeological evidence, but don’t allow interpretations of these to fudge our thinking that these things really did exist.
— Ian Glendinning (@psybertron) January 11, 2023
So you buy the theory that dinosaurs existed in reality?
— David Deutsch (@DavidDeutschOxf) January 11, 2023
Yes.
— Ian Glendinning (@psybertron) January 11, 2023
Even though none of the archaeological evidence from which we build our models of past dinosaurs consists of observations of one? And even though our very theory of them implies that no one has ever seen one, nor could ever go there and see one, nor could do an experiment on one?
— David Deutsch (@DavidDeutschOxf) January 11, 2023
Yes.
— Ian Glendinning (@psybertron) January 11, 2023
And this is where it took a weird turn:
So since we can’t do an experiment on dinosaurs, how can we refute the position of a creationist who doesn’t buy the theory of their existence because of precisely the above reasons?
— David Deutsch (@DavidDeutschOxf) January 11, 2023
We have indirect / partial evidence and chains of logic and processes & models of how all that works – which are themselves well evidenced. Same with any scientific “facts” that can’t be directly observed. (I think this is spurious to my “ontological commitment” to “the model”?)
— Ian Glendinning (@psybertron) January 11, 2023
And there it ended, but I thought I’d elaborate here, on the ontological commitment.
[Metaphors / Thought experiments >>> Accepted as reality?]
[Goldstein / ontological commitment / Einstein’s rubber sheets / quarks and their properties.]
[And capture the tweet contents more directly. Matt Segall’s tweets too.]
[Hold – Stub for longer piece.]
I signed-off from the GC vs TRA “debate” a couple of years ago, after 7 or 8 years of getting in quite deep, because I though the right side of history was winning. I had stoppped following many popular GC commentators to make space for attention to other issues – by sticking with a reduced few, I’d always see retweets and replies from the others if new stories emerged. GCvTRA was always an example of a wider woke/anti-woke polarisation around individual identity and class definitions – #GoodFences for me. However in that time several of those were banned from Twitter and re-instated a la Musk and several other sceptic commentators I interact with began taking an interest in the “Trans debate” (at last). So I need to dust off an update.
START
This Twitter exchange (and GC’s coming to Helen’s defence) is as good as any to lay out my position:
Missing good faith here. While this is a campaign between “GC’s” and “TRA’s” (of which you identify as one) language is used in ways that suit the current argument. No-one, least of all Helen, is denying the existence and rights of such people as people. It’s the TW as Women …
— Ian Glendinning (@psybertron) January 12, 2023
And quite independently James needs to be part of this too:
People sometimes ask me why I’m so ‘anti-woke’. Well, I’m not anti woke individuals, per say. It often starts with honest & sincere intentions. BUT, when they mass together & dictate policies anywhere, it ALWAYS escalates to utter insanity. Example… https://t.co/jmp5BA5Zrf
— James Dreyfus (@DreyfusJames) January 12, 2023
… [More later]