TSC Notes

TSC Comments

 

Attending TSC this year and in 2012 has played a critical role, and continues to play a role in inspiring me to develop Multisense Realism. David Chalmers work in particular, with his elucidation of the various forms of panpsychism in his recent papers Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism and The Combination Problem for Panpsychism has been invaluable.

From the former paper :

“Panpsychism is sometimes dismissed as a crazy view, but this reaction on its own is not a serious objection. While the view is counterintuitive to some, there is good reason to think that any view of consciousness must embrace some counterintuitive conclusions. Furthermore, intuitions about panpsychism seem to vary heavily with culture and with historical period. The view has a long history in both Eastern and Western philosophy, and many of the greatest philosophers have taken it seriously. It is true that we do not have much direct evidence for panpsychism, but we also do not have much direct evidence against it, given the difficulties of detecting the presence or absence of consciousness in other systems. And there are indirect reasons, of a broadly theoretical character, for taking the view seriously.”

In the latter paper, Chalmers offers a rigorous account of The Combination Problem. Multisense Realism begins as a proposed solution to the Combination Problem in which the explanatory gap between physical and phenomenal states are bridged by a continuum/spectrum of relativistic qualities of sensitivity.

From the macro to the micro, physical to phenomenal, under MSR, every perspective contributes its own frame of reference to what could be considered a totality of reference. Through this super-monad, not only are physics and phenomenology reconciled, but ontology itself. ‘Isness’ and ‘Aboutness’ are reconsidered as ‘Seems’ and ‘Seems like’.

It is the aim of MSR to begin to characterize and document this spectrum of meta-ontology, in which definition itself is created, preserved, and dissolved…even while, in another sense, not creating, preserving, or dissolving anything. Amidst all of this relativism and paraconsistent logic, it is proposed that within every frame of reference there is also the potential to access unambiguous clarity, simplicity, and wholeness. At the center of every center, there is a default experience – a reflection of the totality; home, safe, within or ‘in here’. This anchoring should not be presumed to be the exclusive province of human consciousness or even zoology or biology. All of physics and mathematics contains implicit vantage points from which objects are defined. In this way at least, sense should be seen to pre-figure all figures and forms, all objects and subjects.

What PIP suggests is that even relativity is relative. There “is” an Absolute frame of reference, consisting of the capacity to orient sensibly. From that foundation, it becomes possible to ‘make sense’. Existence is suggested, not as a facile axiom, but as a concrete presentation of here and now that is a‘living’ coordination of aesthetic encounters. This view of the cosmos is one in which divergence and disentanglement of privacies precedes an emergence of spacetime, nucleated in the now.

The work of Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose have also inspired my thinking as well. MSR introduces a kind of perceptual relativity at every level of scale (named Eigenmorphism), and a Lorentz-style complementarity to the Orchestrated Objective Reduction called Subjective Inflation (i.e. Orch OR+SI). The publicity of quantum mechanics finds a kind of twin realization in the privacy of qualitative gestalts. Wave-function collapse is reflected as a figurative bolt of lightning from the totality into locality.

Like a lightning bolt, a uniquely jagged path traces its route from vector to vector, describing not only a generic/recombinatory state change, but a proprietary and unrepeatable address. This path can be imagined to strike through what might be described as an ‘improbability space’ – a top-down complement to the bottom-up view of quantum theory.

Through this influx of novelty, the present moment of here and now is inflated to superlative significance which recapitulates the inflation as well, so that eternity is reflected in each moment. This idea owes a lot to Eastern concepts such as the Net of Indra and Akashic Records. The idea is that each moment’s route to the present from the Absolute is preserved within it. This is quite an abstruse concept, and requires much deeper consideration than can be expressed here, but let this be at least a premonition of the potential for a productive if not testable form of ‘private physics’.

I have very much appreciated the contributions of Deepak Chopra, Giulio Tononi, and Donald Hoffman as well, each of whom present important pieces to the puzzle. Where I diverge from their views is only in particular details that arise from my premises. I do not see the world as a simulation or illusion, but rather, in any given frame of reference, the exterior world is as real as anything could possibly be…more ‘real’ in a way, than individual subjectivity. In my view, it is only from the Absolute frame of reference that matter is ‘unreal’ and subjective-like phenomena are the firmament. I see our subjective experience as both more-than-real and less-than-real, but not as the only arbiter of realism. MSR is not solipsism, but perhaps more of a holopsism.

Where Tononi’s IIT models a topological qualia space, I imagine a stratified but contiguous medium of sedimented experience from which qualia is carved out subtractively. There is simply no space in the universe that is not qualia already, nowhere to build it up from scratch. Instead, qualia is etched out of the local surface to the depths toward its source in the Absolute frame (beneath and beyond).

The flavor of strawberries for example, under MSR, is a kind of gestalt which traces a likeness of all the experience of animals eating fruit, of all fruit bearing plants, etc going back to indefinitely. Qualia is *not* a simple translation from molecular code to phenomenal effect. As humans, we are highly elaborated, so our divided senses can conflict, but this does not mean, in my view, that it is evidence of a faulty and solipsistic simulation. Illusions and misperceptions reveal more, not less, about the full reality of objective and subjective relation, even if the content is incompatible with the local frame of reference. The flavor of strawberries really is the flavor of the actual fruit, not simply a computation of indirectly generated data. One does not cause the other, they reflect different perceptual frame of reference. For this reason I reject all contemporary Strong AI approaches as implausible, since producing a mechanism capable of simulating expected outputs from a given input would be doing so based on mathematical contingencies rather than the kind of hyper-physics of sedimented experience that I suggest.

Donald Hoffman’s Conscious Realism seems to overlap with MSR very closely however here too I propose that even the idea of conscious agents are figments of the interface. If we drop the requirement of ‘agents’ to consciousness, the notion of panpsychism becomes more palatable, and the Combination Problem is eased if not completely transcended. If we see self-ness as the ‘king of qualia’ rather than the price of entry to consciousness, then we open the door to a profoundly interesting universe of ‘dark qualia’ which would, (as it contains the content of both past and future relative to any nested frame) dwarf the scale of dark energy. It seems possible that dark energy is the local footprint of this eternal continuity of experience.

Thanks also to my ideological adversaries in this as well. Susan Blackmore’s no-nonsense approach and commitment to empirical evidence is a welcome influence, as well as Daniel Dennett’s humor and uncompromising cynicism. In many ways, my own view is informed by turning the tables on doubt so that in addition to being skeptical of our interior experience, in favor of exterior scientific evidence, I would add that we must introduce a new skepticism of the presumption of the universality and completeness of even those scientific descriptions. What is true on one level may not be true on another, and each level has its own fundamental truth independent of every other.

 

Thanks to Jody Weiss and everyone else that I have met here at the conference too, who have also contributed to this ongoing development, both directly and indirectly.

 

Yours in Consciousness,
Craig Weinberg, @s33light
Multisenserealism.com

Advertisements
  1. Joe Rouse
    April 23, 2014 at 9:20 pm

    Is it a coincidence that we both talked about “seeming”? Me in my post to the previous thread, and you in this one.

  2. Joe Rouse
    April 24, 2014 at 2:49 pm

    We are sense, experiencing.

  3. Ixl
    May 8, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    Wow, great stuff, very thought-provoking. I have a bunch of questions!

    First, will you ever write a book dealing with this theory in a way which is incredibly clear and builds up basic definitions and concepts into a progressively more complex structure? I understand most of what you’re saying but I feel it presupposes an acquaintance with a lot of the other things you’ve written. Or maybe I’m not reading carefully enough. Anyway, it’s exciting to see these kinds of theories being significantly developed from various angles and by various people… it’ll be funny when the scientific mainstream wakes up and realizes the primacy of sense, starts making their theories only to realise they’re years behind! One day, one day… so, that spawns another question to my mind; what do you think it would take to convince a highly sceptical but open-minded scientist of some version of panpsychism?

    Also, I like this idea a lot;
    “Where Tononi’s IIT models a topological qualia space, I imagine a stratified but contiguous medium of sedimented experience from which qualia is carved out subtractively. There is simply no space in the universe that is not qualia already, nowhere to build it up from scratch. Instead, qualia is etched out of the local surface to the depths toward its source in the Absolute frame (beneath and beyond).”

    If I have interpreted this correctly then the Absolute frame is something like the totality of all possible sense-configurations, although it goes beyond these because it can never be exhausted. What I want to get clear on is ‘qualia being carved out subtractively’. The way I picture it is something like a progressive diffraction of the transcendent/infinite sense-node into progressively increasingly complex sense-configurations with correspondingly more complex physical structures. As an analogy, something like a white light which gets diffracted through a stained glass window, first with two panes of separate colours, then four separate colours layered on top of these etc, so increasingly complex diffractions of the source manifest at higher levels of physical complexity.

    What is your take on how these layers of sense are nested? Are the pockets of sense which combine to form higher self-reflective sense such as we ordinarily conceive ourselves subsumed entirely in the larger structures, or do they retain some degree of independent sense-configurations on their level, and the progressively lower levels ie brain, cells, compounds, atoms, subatomics etc? And if so, what does this imply ontologically with regard to levels of emergence?

    How can the universe be an infinite, boundaryless, atemporal reference frame while simultaneously being composed of locally bound, temporal frames? Is it simultaneously both, or do they nest on different levels?

    Aaaand final question, how do you think spiritual enlightenment would fit into this framework?

    By the way, I think you would very much like the work of quantum physicist Amit Goswami, if you aren’t already familiar with him. Although he has the unfortunate tendency to call transcendent quantum consciousness ‘God’, his ideas fit neatly with yours, as well as having a highly developed quantum-consciousness ontology.

    • May 8, 2014 at 9:30 pm

      Thanks, I’m glad you like it!

      “will you ever write a book dealing with this theory in a way which is incredibly clear and builds up basic definitions and concepts into a progressively more complex structure?”

      I’m open to that, but every time that I try to do something like that I end up going off on new tangents. There may be at least an edited version of it coming out as a book later on this year.

      “what do you think it would take to convince a highly sceptical but open-minded scientist of some version of panpsychism?”

      It’s been my experience so far that philosophy of mind is like handedness or gender orientation. There is not necessarily any way to convince anyone to change their position, because to them it feels intrinsically wrong so that they will not even be able to locate what it is that panpsychism is about. It will look to them like solipsism and solipsism looks like the absolute apex of magical thinking. All that I can do is try to describe what makes sense to me, and why. Unlike the scientific revolution, this revolution in thought requires a more personal commitment to understanding. We can’t just stand with our arms folded and demand to be convinced by evidence of consciousness…instead we have to understand what evidence actually is and why it supervenes on awareness.

      “If I have interpreted this correctly then the Absolute frame is something like the totality of all possible sense-configurations”

      I would say sense experience rather than configurations, since configuration implies a finite set of possibilities. Because sense is primordial, even the difference between finite and infinite, or novelty and combination break down in the absolute frame.

      “As an analogy, something like a white light which gets diffracted through a stained glass window, first with two panes of separate colours, then four separate colours layered on top of these etc, so increasingly complex diffractions of the source manifest at higher levels of physical complexity.”

      Yes, very close to what I have in mind, except that the first two colors would each be the entire spectrum only in the opposite order/emphasis. All of it is white/spectrum, depending on which frame of reference is used.

      “What is your take on how these layers of sense are nested? ”

      I propose that they are nested by perceptual inertia and scale/frequency. It’s hard to speculate on the quality of awareness on lower or higher levels, and to what degree our experience of them masks their true nature, but I suspect that the nesting is like a Russian doll with the outermost shell being both the largest-slowest and smallest-fastest kinds of phenomena. That we find ourselves in the middle of the middle surely is not an accident, but at the same time, there may be some truth to our perception beyond anthropic reflexivity.

      “Are the pockets of sense which combine to form higher self-reflective sense such as we ordinarily conceive ourselves…”

      I think there is an interplay between emergence and divergence, so that because we are evolving from the center-out rather than only bottom up or top down, our human qualities are not only combined from simpler experiences, but detached from greater-than-human experience. Time is ambiguous from the absolute perspective, so in one sense, it is being brought into existence and in another it already exists and is drawing us to reunite with ‘it’.

      “How can the universe be an infinite, boundaryless, atemporal reference frame while simultaneously being composed of locally bound, temporal frames? Is it simultaneously both, or do they nest on different levels?”

      I think it’s all modulated by the diffraction of sense. As human beings, we are ‘contracted’ if you will to a constrained range of sensory modalities/encounters. On one level, the whole thing is simultaneous – even less than a single moment. With each nesting and diffraction, that moment is expanded relativistically to become an eternity, and then different kinds of eternity multiplexed together…

      “Aaaand final question, how do you think spiritual enlightenment would fit into this framework?”

      What I like about this model is that it is ambi-theistic. Enlightenment is optional. For those who want to explore that, MSR can add orienting concepts through language and metaphor to help integrate phenomenal and meta-phenomenal influences. For those who are interested in more terrestrial uses, MSR can treat those higher levels in terms of amplitudes of sensory significance and time frequencies. It provides an idea of how these phenomena relate, so that increased amplitude of significance has an inverse co-variance with frequency, making the most meaningful experiences more likely to be the most private and therefore least ‘real’.

      “Amit Goswami”

      Thanks, I have definitely seen the name before but will have to look him up and find out more. Unfortunately ‘God’ is so ingrained in our history that it is hard to update the concept without seeming either sacrilegious or pseudoscientific. I don’t mind if people want to think of it as God, but to me it carries too much baggage for expectations about being taken care of by a super-person. In my experience, the super-personal is about synchronicity and intuition, archetypes, etc, rather than a literal super-person. There are themes which seem to carry us back to the absolute, such as love, salvation, perfection, etc but they say to me that the ‘de-fault’ condition of nature is these types of sensations and feelings, not that there is a guiding personality who oversees all experiences.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

I can't believe it!

Problems of today, Ideas for tomorrow

Rationalising The Universe

one post at a time

Conscience and Consciousness

Academic Philosophy for a General Audience

yhousenyc.wordpress.com/

Exploring the Origins and Nature of Awareness

DNA OF GOD

BRAINSTORM- An Evolving and propitious Synergy Mode~!

Musings and Thoughts on the Universe, Personal Development and Current Topics

This is a blog where I explore spiritual and personal development themes and ideas. © JAMES MICHAEL J. LOVELL, MUSINGS AND THOUGHTS ON THE UNIVERSE, PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CURRENT TOPICS, 2016-2020, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Paul's Bench

Ruminations on philosophy, psychology, life

This is not Yet-Another-Paradox, This is just How-Things-Really-Are...

For all dangerous minds, your own, or ours, but not the tv shows'... ... ... ... ... ... ... How to hack human consciousness, How to defend against human-hackers, and anything in between... ... ... ... ... ...this may be regarded as a sort of dialogue for peace and plenty for a hungry planet, with no one left behind, ever... ... ... ... please note: It may behoove you more to try to prove to yourselves how we may really be a time-traveler, than to try to disprove it... ... ... ... ... ... ...Enjoy!

Creativity✒📃😍✌

“Don’t try to be different. Just be Creative. To be creative is different enough.”

absolutephilosophy

An idealistic blog where those who are searching/wandering/questioning can find an absolute qualia.

zumpoems

Zumwalt Poems Online

The Traditionalist

Revolt Against The Modern World

dhamma footsteps

postcards from the present moment

chandleur

Bagatelle

OthmanMUT

Observational Tranquillity.

Gray Matters

Traversing the blood-brain-barrier.

Writings By Ender

The Writer's Adventure

%d bloggers like this: