| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Sir Frederick" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2005 06:57:32 AM |
| Object: |
Thomas Metzinger |
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_6.html
THOMAS METZINGER
Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz; Author, Being No One
I believe, but cannot prove, that a First Breakthrough on Consciousness is actually around the corner. "Actually around the
corner" means: less than 50 years away. My intuition is that, roughly, all we need for this first breakthrough are four convincing
stories.
The first story will be about global integration, about the dynamical self-organization of long-range binding operations in
the human brain. It will probably involve something like synchrony in multiple frequency bands, and will let us understand how a
unified model of the world can emerge in our own heads.
The second story will be about "transparency": Why is it that we are unable to consciously experience most of the images our
brain generates as images? The answer to this question will give us a real world. The transparency-tale has to do with not being
able to see earlier processing stages and becoming a naive realist.
The third story will focus on the Now, the emergence of a psychological moment-on a deeper understanding of what William
James' called the "specious present". Experts on short term memory and neural network modelers with tell this story for us. As it
unfolds, it will explain the emergence of a subjective present and let us understand how conscious experience, in its simplest and
most essential form, is the presence of a world.
Interestingly, today almost everybody in the consciousness community already agrees on some version of the fourth story:
Consciousness is directly linked to attentional processing, more precisely, to a hidden mechanism constantly holding information
available for attention. The subjective presence of a world is a clever strategy of making integrated information available for
attention.
I believe, but cannot prove, that this will allow us to find the global neural correlate for consciousness. However, being a
philosopher, I want much more than that-I am also interested in precise concepts. What I will be waiting for is the young
mathematician who then comes along and suddenly allows us to see how all of these four stories were actually only one: The genius
who gives us a formal model describing the information flow in this neural correlate, and in just the right way. She will harvest
the fruits of generations or researchers before her, and this will be the First Breakthrough on Consciousness.
Then three things will happen.
1. The Second Breakthrough on Consciousness will take much longer. Things will get messy and complicated. The philosophy and
neuroscience of consciousness will get bogged down in diabolic details and ugly technical problems. Public attention will soon shift
away from the problem of consciousness per se. Instead, new generations of young researchers will now focus on the nature of self
and social cognition.
2. The overall development will have an unexpectedly strong cultural impact. People will not want to face their own
mortality. There will be fundamentalist and anti-rational counter movements against the scientific image of man. At the same time
crude new ideologies propagating vulgar forms of materialism and primitive forms of hedonism will spring up. Scientists will realize
that one can not reductively explain the human mind and then simply look another way, leaving the consequences for someone else to
deal with.
3. We will be able to influence consciousness in ways we have never dreamt of. There will be a new form of
technology-Consciousness Technology-exclusively focusing on how to manipulate the neural correlate of consciousness in ever more
fine-grained, efficient, and risk-free ways. People will realize that we need some sort of applied ethics for this new type of
technology. And hopefully we will all together start to tell a new story-a story about how to live with these brains and about what
a good state of consciousness actually is.
.
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: Thomas Metzinger |
18 Nov 2005 06:28:58 PM |
|
|
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:9qjrn19bh8udks23ogv2rsutu22f58e4av@4ax.com...
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_6.html
THOMAS METZINGER
Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz; Author, Being No One
I believe, but cannot prove, that a First Breakthrough on
Consciousness is actually around the corner. "Actually around the
corner" means: less than 50 years away. My intuition is that, roughly, all
we need for this first breakthrough are four convincing
stories.
The first story will be about global integration, about the dynamical
self-organization of long-range binding operations in
the human brain. It will probably involve something like synchrony in
multiple frequency bands, and will let us understand how a
unified model of the world can emerge in our own heads.
The second story will be about "transparency": Why is it that we are
unable to consciously experience most of the images our
brain generates as images? The answer to this question will give us a real
world. The transparency-tale has to do with not being
able to see earlier processing stages and becoming a naive realist.
The third story will focus on the Now, the emergence of a
psychological moment-on a deeper understanding of what William
James' called the "specious present". Experts on short term memory and
neural network modelers with tell this story for us. As it
unfolds, it will explain the emergence of a subjective present and let us
understand how conscious experience, in its simplest and
most essential form, is the presence of a world.
Interestingly, today almost everybody in the consciousness community
already agrees on some version of the fourth story:
Consciousness is directly linked to attentional processing, more
precisely, to a hidden mechanism constantly holding information
available for attention. The subjective presence of a world is a clever
strategy of making integrated information available for
attention.
I believe, but cannot prove, that this will allow us to find the
global neural correlate for consciousness. However, being a
philosopher, I want much more than that-I am also interested in precise
concepts. What I will be waiting for is the young
mathematician who then comes along and suddenly allows us to see how all
of these four stories were actually only one: The genius
who gives us a formal model describing the information flow in this neural
correlate, and in just the right way. She will harvest
the fruits of generations or researchers before her, and this will be the
First Breakthrough on Consciousness.
Then three things will happen.
1. The Second Breakthrough on Consciousness will take much longer.
Things will get messy and complicated. The philosophy and
neuroscience of consciousness will get bogged down in diabolic details and
ugly technical problems. Public attention will soon shift
away from the problem of consciousness per se. Instead, new generations of
young researchers will now focus on the nature of self
and social cognition.
2. The overall development will have an unexpectedly strong
cultural impact. People will not want to face their own
mortality. There will be fundamentalist and anti-rational counter
movements against the scientific image of man. At the same time
crude new ideologies propagating vulgar forms of materialism and primitive
forms of hedonism will spring up. Scientists will realize
that one can not reductively explain the human mind and then simply look
another way, leaving the consequences for someone else to
deal with.
3. We will be able to influence consciousness in ways we have never
dreamt of. There will be a new form of
technology-Consciousness Technology-exclusively focusing on how to
manipulate the neural correlate of consciousness in ever more
fine-grained, efficient, and risk-free ways. People will realize that we
need some sort of applied ethics for this new type of
technology. And hopefully we will all together start to tell a new story-a
story about how to live with these brains and about what
a good state of consciousness actually is.
Yeah sure, and Nostradamus predicted 911 right?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "S2" |
|
| Title: Re: Thomas Metzinger |
18 Nov 2005 01:56:11 PM |
|
|
Sir Frederick wrote:
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_6.html
(snip)
2. The overall development will have an unexpectedly strong cultural impact. People will not want to face their own
mortality. There will be fundamentalist and anti-rational counter movements against the scientific image of man. At the same time
crude new ideologies propagating vulgar forms of materialism and primitive forms of hedonism will spring up. Scientists will realize
that one can not reductively explain the human mind and then simply look another way, leaving the consequences for someone else to
deal with.
You don't suppose we are already seeing this backlash in the form of
Evengelical Christians and Al Qaeda?
Ultimately both these movements are resistance against Western
scientific and intellectual achievement.
As for the vulgar materialist and hedonist, isn't that standard
operating mode for society as long as there has been recorded history?
Why would neurobiology have an effect one way or another on this
segment of the population.
Stu
.
|
|
|
| User: "FED UP" |
|
| Title: Re: Thomas Metzinger |
18 Nov 2005 02:44:31 PM |
|
|
This is like a Jackson Pollock painting......throw paint at a canvas
while striking a pose.....say it's "abstract".
Witnesses, fearful of being left out, say "Oh....brilliant, insightful
!"
No....it's gobbly gook.
"What I will be waiting for is the young mathematician who then comes
along and suddenly allows us to see how all of these four stories were
actually only one: The genius who gives us a formal model describing
the information flow in this neural correlate, and in just the right
way."
A sign of gobbly gook.........it requires a "future genius" to realize
the theory. HAHAHAAHHA
I'm guilty myself. I've had some great ideas.....but need a future
genius to get things rolling.
Beware the future genius theory !!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: Thomas Metzinger |
18 Nov 2005 03:48:13 PM |
|
|
"FED UP" <endtraveler@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132346671.671142.194220@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is like a Jackson Pollock painting......throw paint at a canvas
while striking a pose.....say it's "abstract".
Witnesses, fearful of being left out, say "Oh....brilliant, insightful
!"
No....it's gobbly gook.
"What I will be waiting for is the young mathematician who then comes
along and suddenly allows us to see how all of these four stories were
actually only one: The genius who gives us a formal model describing
the information flow in this neural correlate, and in just the right
way."
A sign of gobbly gook.........it requires a "future genius" to realize
the theory. HAHAHAAHHA
I'm guilty myself. I've had some great ideas.....but need a future
genius to get things rolling.
Beware the future genius theory !!!!!
give 'em hell Fed Up. I'm behind you all the way. Pomposity being paraded
as 'enlightened' intellectualism...or 'the King is Naked' and everyone 'bow
to the King'. I keep saying 'everyone' wants to be God, and most would
destroy God's very essence to get there. Let's figure out the brain and
pretend there was no mind to do so.
I read once that anyone 'unholy' looking upon the Israelite tabernacle found
instant death. Unraveling the brain might correspond to just such device as
to make the mind go beserk...the dog chasing it's own tail. Always quite
amusing, say what. [hint: the dog never catches up to his tail; thank God
for the dog's sake].
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Thomas Metzinger |
18 Nov 2005 04:16:10 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:48:13 -0500, "tooly" <rdh11@bellsouth.net> wrote:
give 'em hell Fed Up. I'm behind you all the way. Pomposity being paraded
as 'enlightened' intellectualism...or 'the King is Naked' and everyone 'bow
to the King'. I keep saying 'everyone' wants to be God, and most would
destroy God's very essence to get there. Let's figure out the brain and
pretend there was no mind to do so.
I read once that anyone 'unholy' looking upon the Israelite tabernacle found
instant death. Unraveling the brain might correspond to just such device as
to make the mind go beserk...the dog chasing it's own tail. Always quite
amusing, say what. [hint: the dog never catches up to his tail; thank God
for the dog's sake].
Your "berserker" contention is valid.
Thanks for the neat new word and some of your stories.
As it is, we are all presently berserkers.
A new berserker form will stir the works.
We will see.
Professor Thomas Metzinger is a prophet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tooly" |
|
| Title: Re: Thomas Metzinger |
19 Nov 2005 01:59:58 PM |
|
|
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:41ksn1l0s8m5pm1gki0d08taufi32b669j@4ax.com...
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:48:13 -0500, "tooly" <rdh11@bellsouth.net> wrote:
give 'em hell Fed Up. I'm behind you all the way. Pomposity being
paraded
as 'enlightened' intellectualism...or 'the King is Naked' and everyone
'bow
to the King'. I keep saying 'everyone' wants to be God, and most would
destroy God's very essence to get there. Let's figure out the brain and
pretend there was no mind to do so.
I read once that anyone 'unholy' looking upon the Israelite tabernacle
found
instant death. Unraveling the brain might correspond to just such device
as
to make the mind go beserk...the dog chasing it's own tail. Always quite
amusing, say what. [hint: the dog never catches up to his tail; thank God
for the dog's sake].
Your "berserker" contention is valid.
Thanks for the neat new word and some of your stories.
As it is, we are all presently berserkers.
A new berserker form will stir the works.
We will see.
Professor Thomas Metzinger is a prophet.
He may be a prophet..but I think a bit misdirected.
Instead of 'Being No One', perhaps the more accurate reality is 'BEing
ANYone'. Please consider:
Metzinger does not include 'first person' evidence in dream study. Anyone
who has studied their own dreams must come across the oddness of conscious
self having the ability to take on the physical form of whatever passing
face or body that their brain can refabricate during dreams. I know, as I
have looked, I have been many different people in such dreams, either sex
even, while retaining a certain essence that is ME. I am always ME, no
matter what form I take in my dreams.
In so doing, I think I can see a sense to what Metzinger is saying, but I
think his conclusion that we are No One [but the models that we interchange
with], is more accurate if we explain it more that any one of us exist
within the framework of a 'grand model', a congomerated 'modeling of all
conscious states' that we borrow from as we need, and our own individual
micro universes allow.
Instead of No one being anything, I think more I am you, and you are me, we
are anyone. [uh...sorry to disappoint since I'm part of that particular
equation ,ha].
I think we have strong influences, or perhaps models of large impact, that
can work to provide large aggregations within the whole too. For example, I
have long since realized my own 'role models' were Socrates, Christ, and
Merlin the magician [ha, so, even fictional characterization might be
considered as influential perhaps?...but then, are they created from other
'real life' models in some artist's mind?]. While learning classical guitar
when younger, I entertained myself as Andre Segovia while I played, and in
borrowing from this 'perception', I think I actually was able to 'direct'
my conscious state to be a better guitarist...well, at least as my
perception of Segovia allowed, which was as a great guitar player. We are
all actors on a stage...reading scripts back based upon perception,
borrowing from past acts we have witnessed or are privy to have perception
toward, all struggling to find some sort of 'fit' by which our present
'self' [yes, how else can we deal with our individuality except to call it a
'self'...anything else is nonsensical isn't it?]...by which our present self
hopefully finds some medium for expression.
Each body is perhaps hardwired for some spectrum of expression...based upon
chemistry and neural pathways...for example, I am 'sensitive' [ugh...not as
a silly girly guy...but artistically speaking, or so I have surmised as a
'self' description], therefore, the role models I relate to and borrow from
are the ones I perceive that allow for 'feeling' while exercising
'empowerment' among the whole (just as a possible small example of this
possibility). Someone elses hardwiring might lead to a different need for
expression.
In fact, hasn't human struggle to reach for a certain individual 'glory'
more or less equate to becoming these 'super model' of sorts, within the
various spectrums we innately understand as being relavent to our need for
'hardwired expression'. This is why I stated earlier that I think this is
along the lines that Sarte mentioned isn't it...on how few of us are all
that 'original'...that we borrow from our past 'role models' to create our
own persona, but then follow in 'ruts' of conscious state that make the
ordinary, the mundane, the mass conscious state? Finding our own
'originality' is perhaps the highest reach in our struggles while alive(?).
Esthetics suggests that we need to borrow from past 'roles' to learn
something of those things that have been succssful, before we finally find
where we might express our own originality. Again, like the artist or even
the classical philosopher, we study the masters so that we may someday be a
Master...but that can only be when we discard those past roles to become
whatever originality we can muster 'on our own' someday. As conscious
states, we borrow from 'percieved roles' as we grow, like putting on a
certain outfit for the day, trying to satisfy our needs for expression. Ha,
'Dude, can you see what I mean, Dude'...and youth are so transparent in how
much of this works, using fadism as artificial means to explore their own
individuality within the framework of 'group identity'...ha almost a paradox
perhaps, 'Dude'.
Survival is the base struggle of life, and for intelligence as ourselves,
perhaps that carries over in identifying those conscious states that are
'remembered' [take a moment and let the 'word' sink in..."re-membered"...as
a conscious identity that arises in us across time and across bodies...ergo,
NAMES we remember and attach certain perception to]. Who knows who exactly
Socrates or Christ was, but we can materialize expression in our selves as
we 'percieve' those conscious states to have been. And we all work to be
'remembered'.
I'm sure Metzinger tries to map actual cranial activities with charts and
neurobiology and who knows what. But I still think it is dangerous to reach
the wrong conclusions in such study, and then in the future, begin to design
social systems based upon such powerful insights [drawn to wrong
conclusions]. That we are No One...that could be construed as reason for
'hive existence'...and the erasure of all past human identity as mirages
upon a desert planet's crust. Our role models are important for
establishing not only reasoned behavioral 'scripts' for our own stage plays,
but also to keep alignment of the general struggles from our past, into our
future. I, for one, don't want to become a zombie, no matter how hard you
intellectual guys try.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Thomas Metzinger |
18 Nov 2005 02:32:28 PM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2005 11:56:11 -0800, "S2" <buttsplicer@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir Frederick wrote:
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_6.html
(snip)
2. The overall development will have an unexpectedly strong cultural impact. People will not want to face their own
mortality. There will be fundamentalist and anti-rational counter movements against the scientific image of man. At the same time
crude new ideologies propagating vulgar forms of materialism and primitive forms of hedonism will spring up. Scientists will realize
that one can not reductively explain the human mind and then simply look another way, leaving the consequences for someone else to
deal with.
You don't suppose we are already seeing this backlash in the form of
Evengelical Christians and Al Qaeda?
Ultimately both these movements are resistance against Western
scientific and intellectual achievement.
As for the vulgar materialist and hedonist, isn't that standard
operating mode for society as long as there has been recorded history?
Why would neurobiology have an effect one way or another on this
segment of the population.
Stu
You are probably correct.
In a way the Al Qaeda even state this explicitly, though
the anti Christian and anti Jew aspects appear more than the
anti neuroscience.
I have mentioned this neuroscience stress before as "death by paradigm shift".
IMO we have not yet arrived at that condition. When we do,
the "Singularity" will probably be occurring and the convulsions
will be orders of magnitude greater.
The present conflicts are similar to old ones with modern technology.
Those to come are IMO to be of new orders.
The Western and Eastern cultures both will fail. Self destruction
alone will be more prevalent than terrorism (that includes self and other
destruction).
Humanity at present is
based on deceit and self deceit (a foundation of sand).
Science grinds on, impersonally. Even the personal self
gets a new story.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
http://members.cox.net/fmmcneill
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"Laws too gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe, seldom executed."
- Benjamin Franklin
:-))))Snort!)
**************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Thomas Metzinger |
18 Nov 2005 07:21:38 PM |
|
|
This is the story of the individual , not the society.
Until an individual becomes conscious of the real meaning of "I've
changed my mind", he will be caught up in the future group
dynamics.(which are as predictable as Newtonian interactions).
This has been going on "since Adam was a lad".
Another good example of the testing of individual or perception would
be to replace all references in the above to "they, we, people", with
"I, me" etc, and see how comfortable it feels. A very interesting
exercise. Try it.
Ultimately, the geni'us' is recognised as the geni'I', and doesnt exist
in the future.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Thomas Metzinger |
18 Nov 2005 09:47:11 PM |
|
|
<brianf@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1132363298.340489.250470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
This is the story of the individual , not the society.
Until an individual becomes conscious of the real meaning of "I've
changed my mind", he will be caught up in the future group
dynamics.(which are as predictable as Newtonian interactions).
This has been going on "since Adam was a lad".
Another good example of the testing of individual or perception would
be to replace all references in the above to "they, we, people", with
"I, me" etc, and see how comfortable it feels. A very interesting
exercise. Try it.
Ultimately, the geni'us' is recognised as the geni'I', and doesnt exist
in the future.
BOfL
That is interesting if you actually try it. What is the point though? Are
we limiting our effectiveness in social intercourse by habitually telling
stories using third person pronouns? Oops! I mean, am I limiting my
effectiveness in social intercourse by habitually telling stories using
third person pronouns?
Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Thomas Metzinger |
19 Nov 2005 10:43:34 AM |
|
|
Hey Scott,
It is becoming well established in many of the formal disciplines, that
the power of self dialouge is to be taken seriously.
Many psychologists recognise how we "play others' tapes" until we
replace with our own, that together with the understanding of quantum
science, starts to "join the dots".
I'm sure, now you have taken a look, you will become aware of how
common this habit is. This is far from self limiting, more a step on
the way of self liberating.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Thomas Metzinger |
19 Nov 2005 07:42:07 PM |
|
|
<brianf@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1132418614.704904.83480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hey Scott,
It is becoming well established in many of the formal disciplines, that
the power of self dialouge is to be taken seriously.
Many psychologists recognise how we "play others' tapes" until we
replace with our own, that together with the understanding of quantum
science, starts to "join the dots".
I'm sure, now you have taken a look, you will become aware of how
common this habit is. This is far from self limiting, more a step on
the way of self liberating.
BOfL
I tend to agree. Its ironic, in a way, that the use of "I" and "me" in
communication with others, seems less subjective for some reason. I guess
by making a point of not appearing to project other's opinions, we may
appear as more self-effacing to ourselves.
Scott
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
