Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 4

[Soupie]

I read something about the recogntion of timing in Buddhist meditation as it relates to consciousness ... may take me a bit to run it down and then we'd have to see if it's relevant ... but I'd been reminded of the idea before and so may have posted it in the past ... and also what it means to locate something in time. It would be very interesting to know if introspection is powerful enough to recognize this phenomena.

I'm also always curious about these experiments and the design and whether they apply to all minds - for example to trained minds, or if some of the fundamental ways that the mind operates are in fact plastic ... and the results of these experiments are then due to cultural factors, etc ... the freshman college student problem, so to speak.

This is it's important to read the original experiment, if at all possible.

These questions are addressed in the full paper.

 

[Soupie]

I've lost this train of thought! What is this referring to - "could be helpful here"? Can you locate that "here" in time and space for me? ;-)

Re at what level of computation might consciousness emerge. Atoms? Microtubuals? Neurons? Neural networks?

 

[smcder]

Just think about it. He's comparing checkers to chess. I assume you've played both games? Only someone seriously lacking in chess experience would claim that, " the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of draughts than by all the elaborate frivolity of chess." I'll tell you what "elaborate frivoloty" is in games: It's action video games, especially first person shooter and driving games. The elaborateness is all the engineering that goes into high-end PCs plus all the hours of game programming and artwork, these days costing millions of dollars. Chess on the other hand only requires two proficient players who each know the rules, though it's common to use a simple board and pieces. Plus chess levels the playing field. Physical strength and chance are excluded. No throw of the dice, luck of the draw, strong arm, or faster GPU can give a player an edge. And as for checkers. It's kid's stuff in comparison. That comment was nothing more than a flame delivered by a different kind of media ... LOL.

I'm not so sure about "kid's stuff" ... here is an interesting break out of chess/checkers and Go:

Calculations as to move permutations will likely show checkers lowest, chess next, and Go after that. I base this on a simple observation: checkers has 32 playing squares and 24 pieces; chess has 64 playing squares and 32 pieces; Go has 361 playing points and up to an equal number of stones.
But in all cases the numbers are large enough to be effectively unlimited in human terms. So instead let's look at how the games are played in practice, with a very revealing note about computer play.
Checkers has been analyzed a great deal over the decades in terms of opening moves and opening move combinations. It is safe to say that these are reasonably well understood for the most part (with notable and very interesting exceptions). To some degree, computer analysis has really accelerated a more complete understand of checkers opening play. The number of opening lines is understandably fewer than in chess, where much analysis has also taken place and the published literature is phenomenal in volume.
In over the board play at a master level, a very good understanding of opening lines in both chess and checkers is an absolute requirement. At a less than master level, a good understanding is useful, more so, it seems, in chess than in checkers. In this respect, we'd say checkers is "simpler" because there are fewer opening lines to learn about.
Go is another matter. There are certainly opening patterns that need to be understood, but the whole feel is different. There isn't the same notion of "the 9-14 variation of the Ipswich" or "the Impossible variation of the King's Gambit Accepted." Go has patterns (joseki) and tactics (fuseki) that need to be learned, but it isn't quite the same.
Does this mean that Go is simpler? Certainly not. The variety of possibilities is so large that deep conceptual understanding is vital. And achieving that depth of understanding takes much time, study, and practice.
What does all of this say about play depth? Checkers has been characterized as narrow and deep; chess as broad and deep; and Go has a depth of its own, very different from checkers or chess. All three games have enough depth of play to last a lifetime. My own experience tells me that checkers is amenable to focused study; chess requires broader study due to increased "width"; while Go requires much patience and dedication.
This is borne out by the relative success of computer programs to play these games. Checkers programs have become extremely strong and play at the very highest levels of skill, and may in fact be the equal or near-equal of the best human players. Chess programs are likewise quite strong, but, despite the celebrated success of "Big Blue" aren't generally as good as the best human players. Go programs are another matter; the best of these is maybe as good as an intermediate human player, but no better. Go playing programs are very far from a master level of play.
This tells us two things: first, there is the obvious statement about depth of play, at least based on permutations of possible positions and moves. Second, it tells us that Go is more about global understanding and comprehension than it is about pure calculation; and this is probably why Go mastery seems (prodigies excepted) to be a longer-term affair than mastery of checkers or chess.

 

[smcder]

These questions are addressed in the full paper.

Can you summarize?

 

[smcder]

Re at what level of computation might consciousness emerge. Atoms? Microtubuals? Neurons? Neural networks?

And if consciousness is fundamental?

 

[smcder]

I see some interesting discussion is going on in the comments:

@Soupie

I hope to read this later - love the term cerebroscopic!

Second, do you have any thoughts about why the specific mindfulness techniques invented by Buddhists thousands of years ago would succeed in revealing to introspection the actual nature of how the human brain works? Did they just get lucky and stumble upon this amazing introspective methodology? What specifically about the discipline they preach and practice makes introspection suddenly so veridical? And why would a historically contingent culture without any understanding of the brain as such develop such an amazing “cerebroscopic” technique?

 

[Soupie]

A few thoughts i want to throw out here, and return to in more detail at some point.

The neurophenomenologist model supports a noncomputational, dynamic systems model of the brain (and mind). Its very powerful and exciting. (Im looking for a beginners intro paper or video to DST. Does anyone know of one?)

I posted an article recently which noted a growing recognition the consciousness seems to correlate to the integrated activity of neurons across the brain. That is, 1st person reports of conscious experience correlate to global brain processes.

I'm reminded of a few studies ive seen in the past year related to this which i will hunt down and share asap.

One was about how anesthesia works (its not fully understood). There was a report that seemed to find it worked by causing too much interaction within the brain. That is, consciousness ceases due to an abundance of neural activity.

Another is about epilepsy, in which the brain gets phase locked into a global pattern of firing from which it cant escape. Id be curious about 1st person experiences of epileptic seisures.

Finally, there was the study that showed during use of certain psychedelic chemicals, the chemicals seemed to promote hallucinations and altered consciousness by way of increasing integration if the brain.

Thus, consciousness and the stream of consciousness does seem to correlate with the various integrations of the entire brain.

 

[Soupie]

Can you summarize?

Yes, there are differences between layman and lifelong meditators.

A thought re the knower/observer:

One of the phenomena described consitently in powerful DMT trips is that while the subject appears to be transported to an alien landscape filled with incredible and indescribable contents, the ego (knower/observer) is said to remain. That has always fascinated me.

Moreover, several people have described how all culture and baggage is stripped away from the ego, presumable only leaving, i presume, one observing.

This seems to be a correlate of the meditative experience. All mental contents are observed "at a distance" and the ego is stripped of all identifiers; all thats left is an experience of observing.

[Its almost as if each individual person is a window which the universe is peering through. The universe can trick itself into believing it is the window, but in these moments, it becomes disrinct from the window.]

 

[smcder]

Two thoughts i want to throw out here, and return to in more detail at some point.

1) The neurophenomenologist model supports a noncomputational, dynamic systems model of the brain (and mind). Its very powerful and exciting. (Im looking for a beginners intro paper or video to DST. Does anyone know of one?)

I posted an article recently which noted a growing recognition the consciousness seems to correlate to the integrated activity of neurons across the brain. That is, 1st person reports of conscious experience correlate to global brain processes.

I'm reminded of two studies ive seen in the past year related to this which i will hunt down and share asap.

One was about how anesthesia works (its not fully understood). There was a report that seemed to find it worked by causing too much interaction within the brain. That is, consciousness ceases due to an abundance of nueral activity.

Another is about epilepsy, in which the brain gets phase locked into a global pattern of firing from which it cant escape. Id be curious about 1st person experiences of epileptic seisures.

Finally, there was the study that showed during use of certain psychedelic chemicals, the chemicals seemed to promote hallucinations and altered consciousness by way of increasing integration if the brain.

Thus, consciousness and the stream of consciousness does seem to correlate with the various integrations of the entire brain.

1. I think it's going to be very difficult to really understand these theories with advanced math, anatomy, some physics, etc.
2. What do you make of the studies that seem to indicate that psychedelics decrease the activity of the brain ... or at least parts of it? Is the overall activity decreasing compatible with "increasing integration"?

In my own experiences, non drug, I've wondered if more of the brain was involved - parts normally out of consciousness anyway ... while at the same time, the sense that very little energy, compared to the waking state, was required. (that info came from my personal cerebroscope! ;-) At least deep physical relaxation seems to be required for these other parts of the brain to come out - exhaustion, post workout or intentional relaxation may all work.

But ... none of these methods reliably work for me. In terms of lucid dreaming, psychic experiences, psychedelic experiences, ... there are no 100% effective methods ... good and bad trips or "meh" trips or almost nothing really happening seem to always be a possibility, indicating we're not aware of all the factors involved.

 

[smcder]

Yes, there are differences between layman and lifelong meditators.

A thought re the knower/observer:

One of the phenomena described consitently in powerful DMT trips is that while the subject appears to be transported to an alien landscape filled with incredible and indescribable contents, the ego (knower/observer) is said to remain. That has always fascinated me.

Moreover, several people have described how all culture and baggage is stripped away from the ego, presumable only leaving, i presume, one observing.

This seems to be a correlate of the meditative experience. All mental contents are observed "at a distance" and the ego is stripped of all identifiers; all thats left is an experience of observing.

[Its almost as if each individual person is a window which the universe is peering through. The universe can trick itself into believing it is the window, but in these moments, it becomes disrinct from the window.]

What are those differences?

Your descriptions accords with my own experiences. I will say this, the universe doesn't do windows, you have to cleanse the doors of perception yourself!

If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.

 

[Soupie]

The other quick thought i want to share is the reality of the mind-body problem, and why i think we need to solve it.

I was at a psych conference this week, and the topic was, among other things, mindset and optimism. These are apparently two of the traits of "successful" people.

Particularly noted was the difference between a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. In brief, the former things iq, talent, and personality are determined by nature, the latter that such things can be influenced by willful behavior such as practice and xperience.

Optimism refers to cognitive framing: when we become consciously aware of a stimulus, what do we think about the stimulus?

If you here a loud noise upstairs in your house, a pessimist—in this model—would think a murderer had broken in and was about to kill the entite family. An optimist would quickly challenge this thought by considering other, less catastrophic, extreme possibilities, such as: maybe a pile of laundry fell and knocked over some books.

The point is this: the presenters indicated that it was such mental contents that caused successful behaviors. I was in a room with several phds and not one of them questioned this.

And yet we have no objective, scientific model of how this could be!

It is well past time for a Nagelian Expantionist model!

 

[smcder]

The other quick thought i want to share is the reality of the mind-body problem, and why i think we need to solve it.

I was at a psych conference this week, and the topic was, among other things, mindset and optimism. These are apparently two of the traits of "successful" people.

Particularly noted was the difference between a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. In brief, the former things iq, talent, and personality are determined by nature, the latter that such things can be influenced by willful behavior such as practice and xperience.

Optimism refers to cognitive framing: when we become consciously aware of a stimulus, what do we think about the stimulus?

If you here a loud noise upstairs in your house, a pessimist—in this model—would think a murderer had broken in and was about to kill the entite family. An optimist would quickly challenge this thought by considering other, less catastrophic, extreme possibilities, such as: maybe a pile of laundry fell and knocked over some books.

The point is this: the presenters indicated that it was such mental contents that caused successful behaviors. I was in a room with several phds and not one of them questioned this.

And yet we have no objective, scientific model of how this could be!

It is well past time for a Nagelian Expantionist model!

I would think there is a substantial correlation between the number of PhDs in a room and the amount of questioning that goes on ... ;-)

Were all the PhDs in psychology?

Remember David Chalmers' survey of philosophy professionals and graduate students:

Free Will
Accept or lean toward: compatibilism 550 / 931 (59.1%)
Other 139 / 931 (14.9%)
Accept or lean toward: libertarianism 128 / 931 (13.7%)
Accept or lean toward: no free will 114 / 931 (12.2%)

And we don't know what others are thinking, at least not based on what they don't do ... it would have been interesting if you had button holed a few and asked them what they think about free will and if they even caught this way of speaking ... that kind of language around mental causation is something we do all the time - and it's certainly open to individual interpretation, someone thinking "sure, but how do we get people to change their mindset" might actually belie their beliefs about free will ... but they may have no reason to go any deeper than that ... quesitoning one's assumptions is pretty tough and takes time, focus on the issue and usually other people's input.

It could also have just been professional courtesy or the mores of the conference, so to speak - and, finally, that way of talking is mostly unquestioned everywhere... and since such questions lead to a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views ... (Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta) it may just be a case of using a limited view for practical purposes. After all, don't the speakers points remain pretty much intact in terms of a working application in the every day world? Did the tools he offer, do you think they will give you something that you can use to help your clients?

The narrative for a literal determinist might run like this:

as my neurons fire, I am having thoughts that indicate I will probably tell and use this technique to my clients ... some percentage of them, through the actions of their neurons, will alter their behavior and experience or report that they have experienced an increased quality of life ... as a result, they will "get better" according to the required clinical criteria that I use and that my supervisor uses to assess my job functioning. Whether or not that will happen is strictly determined of course as is my response and any further cognition on this matter.

It might be kind of fun to re-write certain things, Like Roosevelt's "man in the arena" speech according to the determinist ...

 

[smcder]

The other quick thought i want to share is the reality of the mind-body problem, and why i think we need to solve it.

I was at a psych conference this week, and the topic was, among other things, mindset and optimism. These are apparently two of the traits of "successful" people.

Particularly noted was the difference between a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. In brief, the former things iq, talent, and personality are determined by nature, the latter that such things can be influenced by willful behavior such as practice and xperience.

Optimism refers to cognitive framing: when we become consciously aware of a stimulus, what do we think about the stimulus?

If you here a loud noise upstairs in your house, a pessimist—in this model—would think a murderer had broken in and was about to kill the entite family. An optimist would quickly challenge this thought by considering other, less catastrophic, extreme possibilities, such as: maybe a pile of laundry fell and knocked over some books.

The point is this: the presenters indicated that it was such mental contents that caused successful behaviors. I was in a room with several phds and not one of them questioned this.

And yet we have no objective, scientific model of how this could be!

It is well past time for a Nagelian Expantionist model!

According to McGinn, other types of minds might very easily grasp the hard problem:

'The human mind is a biologically given system with certain powers and limits. As Charles Sanders Peirce argued, "Man's mind has a natural adaptation to imagining correct theories of some kinds....If man had not the gift of a mind adapted to his requirements, he could not have acquired any knowledge". The fact that "admissible hypotheses" are available to this specific biological system accounts for its ability to construct rich and complex explanatory theories. But the same properties of mind that provide admissible hypotheses may well exclude other successful theories as unintelligible to humans. Some theories might simply not be among the admissible hypotheses determined by the specific properties of mind that adapt us "to imagining theories of some kinds," though these theories might be accessible to a differently organised intelligence. Or these theories might be so remote in an accessibility ordering of admissible hypotheses that they cannot be constructed under actual empirical conditions,

though for a differently structured mind they might be easily accessible.'"

He also considers another hypothesis:

"It competes, say, with the hypothesis (never to my knowledge advanced) that in fact humans do have a natural adaptation towards philosophical understanding, comparable to their innate expertise in language, but that this adaptiveness operates only during a 'sensitive period', say from five to eight years old, in which great strides would be made in philosophical inquiry if only we exposed our children to an intensive course in philosophical training during that period. We just don't get them early enough! Presumably this hypothesis, though implausible in the extreme (but why exactly is that?), is not logically excluded, and has never been empirically tested in any systematic way. It is at least among the range of hypotheses about human knowledge that we have learned to take seriously, at least as to its form."

I posted a couple of short and very rough excerpts of a short story exploring these ideas, in particular the idea of a surgical/medical change in the brain that allows children to bridge the hard problem ... I've not decided to what final effect, though.

 

[smcder]

Personally, im finding I prefer the language of thr neuro-phenomenologist because their language and terms bridge 1st person experience and 3rd person, brain/body processes.

The Eastern and pure phenomenological traditions seemed to be based only on 1st person experience, which as we know, may differ between individuals. Connecting 1st person experience to 3rd person brain processes—when possible—is ideal imo.

But isn't that where the neuro-phenomenologist gets some of their experience and language from? Google Evan Thompson and Buddhism, for example.

 

[smcder]

A few thoughts i want to throw out here, and return to in more detail at some point.

The neurophenomenologist model supports a noncomputational, dynamic systems model of the brain (and mind). Its very powerful and exciting. (Im looking for a beginners intro paper or video to DST. Does anyone know of one?)

I posted an article recently which noted a growing recognition the consciousness seems to correlate to the integrated activity of neurons across the brain. That is, 1st person reports of conscious experience correlate to global brain processes.

I'm reminded of a few studies ive seen in the past year related to this which i will hunt down and share asap.

One was about how anesthesia works (its not fully understood). There was a report that seemed to find it worked by causing too much interaction within the brain. That is, consciousness ceases due to an abundance of neural activity.

Another is about epilepsy, in which the brain gets phase locked into a global pattern of firing from which it cant escape. Id be curious about 1st person experiences of epileptic seisures.

Finally, there was the study that showed during use of certain psychedelic chemicals, the chemicals seemed to promote hallucinations and altered consciousness by way of increasing integration if the brain.

Thus, consciousness and the stream of consciousness does seem to correlate with the various integrations of the entire brain.

The neurophenomenologist model supports a noncomputational, dynamic systems model of the brain (and mind). Its very powerful and exciting. (Im looking for a beginners intro paper or video to DST. Does anyone know of one?)

Have you checked Quora and Stack Exchange?

this query:

dynamic systems model of the brain

on Quora brought up several interesting results.

 

[smcder]

@Soupie

You have what I think of as "puppy dog" mind ... which is a wonderful thing! As an older model, I am becoming aware of increasing reliance on crystallized knowledge and the need to keep the crystal polished - but cutting new facets (not pruning) is an arduous task - so time begins to get you two ways ... I actually notice delays in my cognition and find when I rely on speed, I make more and more mistakes ... but if I simply wait quietly for a beat or two, my mind still comes up with the answer ... the kids I work with outrun me in circles when it comes to the day to day tasks of fluid intelligence, but fall away completely when the more challenging questions come up (normally in terms of customer service). Old age and guile as they say ... so from the biological point of view, you could argue this to the point of the aging brain ... but I think a counter-case could be made that more and more "information" (whatever that is) is being taken into account at nearly every step - and when it comes to something that requires a degree of mastery, I'm faster than ever.

 

[Randall]

I'm not so sure about "kid's stuff" ... here is an interesting break out of chess/checkers and Go:

Calculations as to move permutations will likely show checkers lowest, chess next, and Go after that. I base this on a simple observation: checkers has 32 playing squares and 24 pieces; chess has 64 playing squares and 32 pieces; Go has 361 playing points and up to an equal number of stones.
But in all cases the numbers are large enough to be effectively unlimited in human terms. So instead let's look at how the games are played in practice, with a very revealing note about computer play.
Checkers has been analyzed a great deal over the decades in terms of opening moves and opening move combinations. It is safe to say that these are reasonably well understood for the most part (with notable and very interesting exceptions). To some degree, computer analysis has really accelerated a more complete understand of checkers opening play. The number of opening lines is understandably fewer than in chess, where much analysis has also taken place and the published literature is phenomenal in volume.
In over the board play at a master level, a very good understanding of opening lines in both chess and checkers is an absolute requirement. At a less than master level, a good understanding is useful, more so, it seems, in chess than in checkers. In this respect, we'd say checkers is "simpler" because there are fewer opening lines to learn about.
Go is another matter. There are certainly opening patterns that need to be understood, but the whole feel is different. There isn't the same notion of "the 9-14 variation of the Ipswich" or "the Impossible variation of the King's Gambit Accepted." Go has patterns (joseki) and tactics (fuseki) that need to be learned, but it isn't quite the same.
Does this mean that Go is simpler? Certainly not. The variety of possibilities is so large that deep conceptual understanding is vital. And achieving that depth of understanding takes much time, study, and practice.
What does all of this say about play depth? Checkers has been characterized as narrow and deep; chess as broad and deep; and Go has a depth of its own, very different from checkers or chess. All three games have enough depth of play to last a lifetime. My own experience tells me that checkers is amenable to focused study; chess requires broader study due to increased "width"; while Go requires much patience and dedication.
This is borne out by the relative success of computer programs to play these games. Checkers programs have become extremely strong and play at the very highest levels of skill, and may in fact be the equal or near-equal of the best human players. Chess programs are likewise quite strong, but, despite the celebrated success of "Big Blue" aren't generally as good as the best human players. Go programs are another matter; the best of these is maybe as good as an intermediate human player, but no better. Go playing programs are very far from a master level of play.
This tells us two things: first, there is the obvious statement about depth of play, at least based on permutations of possible positions and moves. Second, it tells us that Go is more about global understanding and comprehension than it is about pure calculation; and this is probably why Go mastery seems (prodigies excepted) to be a longer-term affair than mastery of checkers or chess.

Go, which I've only played a few times, is another matter altogether. It's deceptively simple, but definitely not child's play.

 

[smcder]

Go, which I've only played a few times, is another matter altogether. It's deceptively simple and definitely not child's play.

And yet ... children play it!

 

[smcder]

Go, which I've only played a few times, is another matter altogether. It's deceptively simple, but definitely not child's play.

the most interesting thing to me was his discussion of Whist ... Go prodigies seem to be maybe early teens at the youngest, chess as early as 5-6 years ... but the youngest WSOP player was 24 ... and is there even such a thing as a child prodigy in terms of writing a novel? early 20s seems to be the youngest I can find ... Poe was getting at the fact that a different kind of intelligence, involving knowing the other players is at work here ... know when to hold em and knowing when to fold em is definitely not child's play

 

[Constance]

What term, constance, would you recommend to refer to all facets of consciousness?

Consciousness, self-awareness, phenomenal consciousness, subjectivity, mind, feeling, affectivity, etc.

Consciousness as a complex, layered, and unified phenomenon is that which we are attempting to comprehend.

{The word 'consciousness' is also used less rigorously to refer to 'being awake' as opposed to being asleep or in a coma, but that state is not what Consciousness Studies seeks to understand.}

Consciousness is influenced in its activities not only by the physical and cultural worlds in which it arises but by the subconscious mind, which includes the collective unconscious and its store of species' memories. It remains active in dreams and, as Thompson has recently discovered, even in non-dreaming sleep. It includes affectivity, feeling, subjectivity, and self-reference, and enables orientation to and experience in and of the world beyond itself. It maintains biographical memory and a moving panorama of sensed knowledge about others, about nature, about being, and it enables reflective thought about all of the above, producing what we call mind.

One of its most significant powers is the power of imagination in which aspects of the experienced world are changed, extended in thought, expressed in works of art, philosophy, social theory, and so forth. MP writes that "imagination is present in the first human perception," by which he means that imagination is required in the first place to recognize three-dimensional depth in the actual physical mileau in which primordial consciousness (whether that of early man or of infants) first locates itself. Withal, one's consciousness {except for cases of psychosis or neurological breakdown) is a unified phenomenon. That's all just scratching the surface. We still need to address, beyond the functioning of consciousness in its ordinary spatio-temporal mileau, those aspects of consciousness that involve nonlocal connections, spirituality, and the discovery (in disciplined meditation but also in non-meditative states of focus on various ideas) of a level of impersonal consciousness existing within us and perhaps placing us in touch with an extended consciousness that is global, cosmological, or something beyond either. And no doubt there is much more to be said about consciousness.