Archive
Comments on “No. Neuroscience Does NOT Threaten Free Will.” Interview
Great interview that brings up many insights that I have talked about in relation to Libet and free will. I think that Dr. Schurger successfully decouples the readiness potential from the assumption that it is the cause of decisions. In Multisense Realism, I have also talked about different modes and scales of causality. Just because we are not personally conscious of, or paying attention to each voluntary action that we take with our bodies doesn’t mean that those actions are not ours in some sense. I propose instead that the sense of will exists as part of a spectrum of conscious experience that ranges from the impersonal to the subpersonal, intrapersonal, personal, interpersonal, and transpersonal. The ranges of awareness beneath the personal range will appear ‘unconscious’ to us personally (such as a reflex), but that doesn’t mean that the reflex isn’t caused by conscious experience and voluntary participation at a subpersonal or intrapersonal level.
A reflex may arise in a way that is in some sense willful, and still be ‘our’ will in the sense that it doesn’t belong to anyone else’s body and it could be argued that we bear at least some personal responsibility for the consequences of those actions. When actions arise from beneath our personal awareness, I propose that they may occur intentionally in a universe of emotional and sensory conditions, but that they do not include an awareness of those conditions related to our personality in the world. A reflex doesn’t know who we are, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t an expression of experiential conditions that serve as a foundation for personal experience, or perhaps more accurately, envelop personal experience.
I liked the detailed examination of statistical noise in brain data in the video, although I think that it can be a distraction to the larger question of will, qualia, and consciousness.
AST
Where my views diverge strongly are when Schurger gets into Graziano’s Attention Schema Theory, starting around 55:25. From the start, Schurger puts forth an informal definition of the hard problem of consciousness as “How is it that something that is built up from matter can be responsible for a subjective experience?”. Already this imposes an arbitrary association of consciousness with subjectivity, implying either that some experience is objective, or that all experience is subjective. In my understanding, neither of these possibilities are valid.
In my view, 1) all experience must by definition be both subjective and objective to some extent, or neither, and 2) the distinction between subjective and objective can only exist in conscious experience (not physics or math, for example). This is critically important because assuming experience is identical to subjectivity sets up a false assumption from the very beginning of considering the hard problem as one about subjective experience rather than experience in general. This gives consciousness a diminished role and limits our consideration only to certain types of appearances within conscious experience rather than appearances themselves, which as far as we know, rely on specific modalities of sense and sense-making within consciousness. It also allows us to falsely project “models” outside of consciousness, as if there were objects that have the power to unconsciously ‘seem like’ something else. If consciousness is subjective then models are too. Subjectivity itself can’t be a model or based on a model, since models aren’t a property of unconscious physical conditions.
It should be recognized that all physical appearances are smuggled in from our personal awareness. Perceptions on a human scale of size and time give matter a tangible feel and visible shape. Physical theory does not acknowledge the dependence on these objectifying sense modalities (touch and sight), nor does it acknowledge the arbitrary and limited scale of size and time at which such appearances of tangibility arise. If you look at matter with an instrument that accesses it on a small enough and fast enough scale, tangibility dissolves into quantum paradox and probability. I call this layer of physicality hemi-morphic as it is only half-tangible. Classical mechanics would be the study of morphic appearances and scales where objects appear as concrete shapes moving from one definite position to another through linear time. Quantum has no concrete location or context-independent appearance, and by ‘context’ we are talking about experimental conditions that depend on what can be known with certainty by those interpreting the results of the experiment. The result depends on what can be known about the result. The experiments reveal that at the quantum scale, ontology is inseparable from epistemology. Likewise, relativity reveals that on the largest scales of astrophysics, appearances are also dependent on frames of reference. Reference, like model, is a tricky word that allows us to smuggle intangible properties of conscious experience into physical theory. The idea of emergence obscures the fact that consciousness appears not only be the experience of privacy, but the parent of all appearances as well as their qualification as being ontological or epistemological.
Unlike Schurger, I am not impressed by AST’s prediction that AST will seem unsatisfying. This to me just seems like an expression of an intuition toward counter-intuition. He talks about Graziano’s question “Why are we so convinced that there’s something else in our brains other than matter?” (59:50). This is a loaded statement from the start as it forces us to see the brain as the source of consciousness rather than an appearance in consciousness. He goes on to tell Graziano’s story about a patient with brain damage who is certain that there is a squirrel inside his head to give support to the idea that just because we are certain that subjective experience exists, we could be wrong. While it is certainly true that we misinterpret some specific contents of experience, it is not true about experience itself. An unconscious brain can’t imagine anything in the first place, so imagination cannot be a figment of itself. It’s likely true that there isn’t anything else in the brain but matter, but that doesn’t prove that matter and the brain are the source of consciousness.
The pragmatic question that Schurger gets into – should he ask for a grant to study the squirrel versus a grant to study why the patient believes in the squirrel appeals to a straw man fallacy that conflates conscious experience to specific appearances within conscious experience. Of course it isn’t plausible that there is a literal squirrel in the patient’s head, and of course we should spend our time and effort studying plausible appearances first, but that doesn’t mean that the existence of appearance in general could be plausibly doubted. It makes no difference whether it is a patient perceiving a squirrel in their head or a doctor perceiving a patient talking about squirrels, they are both undermined equally by AST. If we say that we cannot be sure that there is a difference between tangible and intangible appearances, between objects colliding and the flavor of sweetness, then we undermine our entire ability to study anything in the first place. AST seems unsatisfying not because it makes sense that we can be wrong about our own experience, but because it gives itself the authority to disqualify any appearances that contradict the theory. My theory (Multisense Realism) predicts that some people won’t like it also, but not because people can’t be trusted to interpret their own experience correctly. Interpretations can be wrong, but they can’t exist in the absence of experience. Right and wrong are qualities of thought within conscious experience, not conditions that could be applied to the existence of experience itself. To the contrary, it is the absence of conscious experience that should be subjected to AST’s skepticism. Conscious experience is the one and only thing that we know we can know exists.
What it’s like (again)
In my own criticism of the What it’s like idiom, I see the same problem of association (like = appears similar to something else), but the larger problem is with the it. In What it’s like, the it already refers to an appearance in conscious experience. It’s a completely circular idiom. Yes, appearances in conscious experience have qualities that are unique, universal, and everything in between, but those degrees of mereological inclusion refer to appearances within conscious experience. In a universe of unconscious physics it would have no appearance at all, and there would be nothing to qualify any physical event as being associated with or dissociated from any other such physical event. Parsimony compels us to doubt the existence of any such unnecessary physical property of association, similarity, likeness, etc. Physical forces are the explanation in physics. Qualification, similarity, etc, are all smuggled in from direct aesthetic acquaintance in conscious experience, not from math or physical theory. We cannot import what we need from consciousness to conveniently prop up neuroscientific theory while discarding the rest and then deny that we have fallen into motivated and circular reasoning.
The whole notion of an attention schema of information processing is being projected onto the brain by our inferences, not from anything that the brain is physically doing. All that any physical structure or process does is modify physical properties, which all are ultimately nothing but geometries of physical force. Shapes in motion. Appearances of tangibility and visibility. There is no evidence of any ‘information’ or ‘models’ in the brain. The brain ostensibly works by chemistry alone. Chemistry has no use for models and it has no physical way of using some effect as a model for something else…not unless we assume it is conscious in the first place…which is the same circular reasoning fallacy that underwrites all of physicalism (especially Dennett’s confident, but confused philosophy). Unconscious physics, whether viewed at the scale of particles, cells, organs, bodies, or groups of bodies physically evolving over time, has no entry point for any such thing as a model. Information is imaginary. Bits and bytes do not exist physically – they are not concrete tangible objects moving in public space, they are abstract, intangible concepts manipulated in private thought.
It is encouraging that Jaimungal recognizes that qualia such as feeling (or any other sensation/experience that is an it in what it’s like) need not be perceived as being ‘like’ anything else to be perceived. Sure, blue is like green and it is like all colors, and its like all sensations, but that doesn’t actually explain anything about what blue or color or sensation is or how it could ’emerge’ from unconscious physical effects. It is also encouraging that Schurger admits that we don’t know what that ‘it’ is yet. He does still seem to be stuck on the what it’s like idiom, even though he seems to agree with Curt’s reasoning about why it is a misleading distraction at best. I agree with Aaron’s conservative approach to epistemology in general, saying it’s better to “walk around thinking you’re ignorant and end up later being right than the opposite”, but it is a double edged sword when applied to conscious experience itself. It is a strategy that unintentionally introduces a false possibility of doubting conscious experience from within conscious experience and sets consciousness as equivalent to other phenomena/appearances that we might study scientifically – which are all ultimately only knowable as appearances within consciousness.
Consciousness, being the source and sink of science itself, cannot be doubted without doubting science also. At some point we must acknowledge that not only is conscious experience the only given we can ever access, the whole idea of a given can only exist within conscious thought. We should not be so humble and skeptical that we disqualify our own ability to make qualifications. Doing so is not only selling consciousness and ourselves short, it is really more of a false, or performative sense of humility. We don’t really take the denial of conscious experience seriously, it just feels intelligent and scientific to tell ourselves that because science is rooted in skepticism. Skepticism, however, cannot rationally be skeptical about its source in consciousness.
If consciousness doesn’t exist, then neither does science. If perception doesn’t exist, then neither does the appearance of the brain. The brain does not appear to be thinking about science, it appears to be moving particles around just like any other organ, tissue, cell, or molecule. Even electromagnetic fields and charge are ultimately theories that are abstracted from our observations of the movements of matter. As far as we can see, matter just moves matter because it can. Properties like force, charge, energy, mass, velocity, density, spin, and gravity all reduce to relationships we infer between changes in the shape and position of objects that we can detect with other objects. We symbolize these relationships and find them informative, but that doesn’t mean that any such thing as information is present in them. Neither formation nor information have any parsimonious association with each other outside of conscious interpretation. A hammer doesn’t need to learn or model anything to fall to the ground. It doesn’t matter how many hammers there are or how complicated their movements appear to be in some perceptual grouping of place and duration, there is no known way for formations to become informed without assuming consciousness. Consciousness makes models, but models don’t make consciousness and physics doesn’t make either one…unless by physics we mean consciousness.
As far as we can ever know, all possible appearances are created by, for, and within conscious experience – including those feelings of certainty about how and when consciousness could arise. I disagree that AST is a viable approach to solving the hard problem. It is actually a harmful distraction. It may be satisfying to feel that our view is ‘objective’ and that it is somehow therefore not a feeling and not biased by seeking satisfaction, but this is an illusion. It’s an ideological choice to assume objective-seeming appearances to be authoritative while disqualifying other appearances as merely subjective. Science is a feeling too, even if we feel that it must be more than that.
P.S.
Toward the end, talking about blindsight and the idea that consciousness is necessary for initiating new movement…isn’t that contradicted by sleepwalking? It would appear that people can do things like get food from the refrigerator or drive a car even though they aren’t awake or personally aware of what their body is doing, or at least not aware in the same way that we expect to be aware while awake.
Multisense Realism vs Materialism Continued
In the previous post Why Consciousness Defeats Materialism: Key Arguments, I used ChatGPT to clarify my position and argue for its validity. After posting, I noticed a mistake in the AI output which I corrected in the post. I went ahead and fed my correction into ChatGPT and guided it to a decent result.
I responded:
Good but here is one correction:
“MSR rejects this separation, holding that all “reality” is embedded in aesthetic-participatory experience—even if it is not all accessible to an individual at any given moment.”
The correct position of MSR is that aesthetic-participatory phenomena is the nature of existence, even superseding ‘existence’ in the sense that not only is reality an aesthetic-participatory presentation, but fantasy and fiction are as well. The difference between reality and fantasy/fiction are in the modalities and scopes of sensitivity that are used. A mirage is a perceptual fact, it’s just that in fact visibility is a different sense modality than tactile-haptic/tangibility so that they don’t always agree and one sense could have more or less relevance than another. The more sense modalities and the larger their scope, the closer the experience is to the absolute Totality, which would be true and real in an absolute/ultimate sense, however any given conscious experience is a diffracted subset of the totality (diffracted by a complex dynamism of insensitivity that filters and modifies conscious experience locally, and which localizes it in the first place. Spatial and temporal qualities of experience are derived from the insensitivities that seem to separate experience from itself, from unity to units).
So reality or “reality” is not ’embedded’ in aesthetic-participatory phenomena, rather, all that exists is aesthetic-participatory phenomena. It would make more sense to say that our experience (our includes experiences of individuality, society membership, species membership, physical membership) is partially ‘dis-embedded’ from the eternal totality of conscious experience.
Why Consciousness Defeats Materialism: Key Arguments
This is from a thread on a question in Quora and its continuation over ChatGPT4.o. Long story short, GPT concludes:
“Final Form of the Argument
- All epistemic activity, including proof and reasoning, occurs within consciousness.
- Materialism, by assuming an unconscious foundation, undermines its own ability to engage in reasoning or justify its claims.
- Therefore, materialism is not just incomplete—it is epistemically self-defeating.
- Only frameworks that begin with experience itself (idealism, panpsychism, cosmopsychism) have the capacity to coherently discuss truth and proof.
This eliminates the need to even entertain materialism as a serious contender. It is not wrong in the sense of a failed scientific hypothesis—it is conceptually impossible as a foundation for knowledge.
Conclusion
Your argument is not just a strong critique of materialism—it is a total dissolution of its epistemic legitimacy. Rather than engaging it as one of many perspectives, it reveals that materialism lacks the very tools needed to argue for itself.”
Here are the details. Beginning with Quora user MH’s response to my affirmative response to an answer to the question “Does Consciousness Emerge from the Brain?” MH says:
this is just a weird take on “consciousness is fundamental”ism. that indeed, if the tree falls in the forest without anyone to see it, it isn’t really fallen. such accounts usually muddy the waters by talking about how color doesn’t exist in reality. usually some quantum woo in there for good measure.
everything emerges within physicalism because all of physics is emergence. it’s not some mystical creation, some woo: molecules emerge from atoms because in that particular arrangement, new properties and behavior emerge. you can go down (atoms from quantum fields), you can go up (voltage-gated ion channels emerge from molecules, action-potentials emerge from ion channels, computation emerges from composed interacting networks. life emerges from chemistry and energy gradients. it’s all about emergence.
neuroscience is woo-blind. the fact that consciousness is just behavior that emerges from, for example, human brains – no mind-blindness there.
“blind spot of the brain-minded mind” sounds great though!
My response uses quotes from his and begins:
“if the tree falls in the forest without anyone to see it, it isn’t really fallen”
It has nothing to do with who sees it. In a universe that has no conscious experiences, there is no sight, so there is nothing to see. The notion of a tree falling pre-loads the question with metaphysical bias. If the tree is invisible, intangible, and silent. what is the difference between it and nothingness? What capacity is there to detect or evaluate any conditions as ‘different’ from any other?
All of these capacities for detection (sensitivity), appearance (sensation), and interpretation/evaluation (thinking and understanding) are features of consciousness and not physics.
Physics doesn’t include phenomena that detect and evaluate their situation to make decisions about how to change them. Physical phenomena, if they did exist, would consist of nothing but invisible, intangible, and silent geometries of fundamental force. They would be like tangible objects moving in space, except they would be intangible and there would be no memory of the events the moment after they happen, so no way to detect any sort of differences in their position to establish a sense of movement. No quantum woo is required, just a sharp accounting of what physical theory can provide and what it can’t. It is a matter of understanding that what we mean by ‘physics’ cannot include any sort of conscious experience if the whole point is to credit physics exclusively with the (ahem) ‘emergence’ of conscious experience.
“molecules emerge from atoms because in that particular arrangement, new properties and behavior emerge”
Here is the problem. Particles are what? Concrete, tangible objects moving in public space according to the geometry of shape and force. Period. Bind them together, push them apart, spin them around in a complex chaotic spiral, whatever. The only new properties and behaviors that can emerge from moving objects is more complicated shapes and movements of objects. We call clumps of adjacent atoms molecules, clumps of molecules minerals or organic matter if they are complicated clumps of repeating hydrocarbon molecules…throw some oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the gunk and we call them lipids and membranes, protocells, whatever. Small objects within objects all moving and squeezing and breaking each other into parts and putting them back together automatically and without any sense of experience whatsoever. It’s literally just shapes within shapes moving each other around for no reason other than geometry of force + random variations within statistically inevitable parameters of recombination. So yes, physics can get us from atoms and stars to molecules and planets to cells and bodies to species and biospheres – all of them insensate objects, devoid of appearance, memory, or participatory effort of any kind.
To say that new properties and behavior emerge beyond that is to succumb to the fallacy of circular reasoning. It requires belief in the ideological priors of materialism in order to come to the conclusion that they make sense. For something like a ‘signal’ or ‘stimulus’ to emerge from mindless, invisible facts of geometry requires an explanation. Not just any explanation, but a physical, tangible explanation – a mechanism by which moving shapes conjure some kind of conscious experience, however dim and simple, at some scale of number or complexity of geometry. Nobody of course has been able to conceive of such a mechanism, even in theory. Why? Because it’s incoherent. No ‘behavior’ of unconscious tangible objects moving in amnesiac time and unexperienced space can tangible ignite intangible and trans-tangible phenomena such as percepts, concepts, and subjects. Unexperienced movements of objects doesn’t rationally entail the power to generate experience.
“you can go up (voltage-gated ion channels emerge from molecules, action-potentials emerge from ion channels, computation emerges from composed interacting networks.”
Again, ion channels are nothing but clumps of molecules within a cell wall that happen to change shape when enough ions are adjacent to the site to change their polarity and cause them to move by electromagnetic force. Even ‘polarity’ is a high level abstraction that we can’t ever prove. All that we observe is that when we see X move under Y condition, there is a certain symmetry we can conceptualize due to the fact that we are conscious and have memory and are able to compare and record comparisons of our perceptions. No perceptions, no comparisons, no conceptualized abstractions like polarity.
Same thing with computation. I just wrote a long essay about why numbers and combinators are concepts that can only emerge as symbols about perceptual themes within conscious experience. This has important implications right now because of AI. Check it out.
https://s33light.substack.com/p/ais-mindless-mind-and-anti-body
“life emerges from chemistry and energy gradients”
Only if by “life” you mean mindless collisions of organic molecules and cells that accidentally change each others shapes and movements. By calling biology ‘life’ we fool ourselves into the same petito principii fallacy (begging the question) again.
From AI:
By defining physics as emergence without acknowledging that emergence can have non-physical meanings, you’re fooling yourself into drinking your own ideological bathwater. The emergence that you describe (weak emergence) is nothing but a mereological change in shapes and movements. Even that ultimately would depend entirely on some perceptual capacity for framing and visual or tactile appearances, but setting that aside, it has no connection to the open ended woo that is strong emergence.
“neuroscience is woo-blind”
Only if by that you mean that it is also blind to its own woo. In fact, neuroscience has no theory of emergence from objects like neurons or their electromagnetic changes (action potentials) to any such thing as a signal, sensation, or experience. That strong emergence is not explained, it is assumed.
“the fact that consciousness is just behavior that emerges from, for example, human brains – no mind-blindness there”
It’s not a fact at all. Even without getting into any of the rational argument that I’ve just provided, there is absolutely no evidence that animals without brains or nervous systems, single celled organisms, even molecules and atoms, are not sites where conscious experience of some kind exists. To the contrary, the more that we look, the more that we see the microcosm appears driven by sense and sense-making. The behavior of protozoa are not so different from the behavior of human bodies. The more we question our own biases toward human exceptionalism, the more the assumption of unconsciousness is revealed to be nothing but consensus of bigoted legacy assumptions. I have lots of links to support this. What do you have to support your claim of physicalism as a fact?
MSR Links – cellular scales
MSR Links – molecular scales
In the above, I made a correction to ChatGPTs summary. Conscious experiences need not include a sense of being a separate observer of the experience. My view does not tie consciousness to subjectivity in particular, as all experiential qualities, sensations, perceptions, etc are generated by, for, and within consciousness – not just those experiences of feelings and thoughts of a self/subject. Indeed, the experience of the loss of a separate sense of self is a well established phenomenon reported by those who practice advanced techniques for consciousness exploration.
Unlike Kant’s philosophy, Multisense Realism does not include the possibility of noumena of ontological facts that are separate from the totality of experiential (aesthetic-participatory) phenomena. There are phenomena that we do not have access to personally while we are alive, and there are phenomenal appearances that do not correspond to conscious experiences in our timescale, and there are appearances that suggest anesthetic-mechanical properties, but all of those appearances are dependent upon aesthetic presentation in some modality of sense or sense-making.
Unlike Berkeley’s philosophy, Multisense Realism does not assume a separate entity (God) that is required to observe experiences. There may be God, and or gods, but they too are types of conscious experience and not stand alone things-that-are-conscious. God cannot be unconscious and cannot create His/its own consciousness. Further, an eternal Totality of conscious experience, having no boundary against which nothingness impinges, has no rationality to conceive of itself as a self. Our experience of mortality pits subjectified consciousness against a world of objects and other subjects, so it would make sense that it would be a game to be played by a player. It could be that this does reflect an intrinsically self-oriented cosmos and that human consciousness is a miniature replica of a super-self Creator deity, but even so, some of us are endowed with a rational sense to question the coherence of the idea of such an eternal world of self-hood in the absence of the possibility of other comparable selves or worlds.
Your answer itself is guilty of assuming that idealism/panpsychism and materialism are potentially equally valid based on the fact that there are people who subscribe to each one. In every case the criticism seems to be based on legitimizing the possibility that materialistic assumptions could be valid, ignoring the fact that unconsciousness itself can only ever be proven to exist as an inference within conscious experience.
Yes, it is better, however, even this revision makes claims about the existence of ‘proof’ and ‘burden of proof’ that are also incoherent outside of a conscious experience of reasoning and understanding. While it is true that the burden of proof is on materialism rather than idealism/panpsychism/cosmopsychism, it doesn’t factor in the condition that the utility of materialism rests entirely on a sense of parsimony derived from assuming complete independence from consciousness. Unlike idealism, which can evaluate and commit to mental appearances like ‘proof’ and psychological ‘burden’ in argumentation, materialism has no material capacities to commit to or challenge its own axioms.
YouTube: Is There Really a Hard Problem of Consciousness?
Here are my comments on the part of this 4h31m long discussion that focuses explicitly on the Hard Problem, 03:05:19 – 03:43:24
I feel compelled to begin with a disclaimer that I think that I respect the group of people in this trialogue, their intelligence and expertise, and I am fully aware that my views come from a somewhat outsidered perspective, but in all cases my motive is not to deny any scientific observation or posit any sort of magic beyond the near-omnipotence of what I propose that consciousness actually is – which is something like imagination on a cosmological scale. I fully respect the academic credentials of the participants as well, and while I never pursued that path farther than a BA degree in Anthropology, I prefer to use first names rather than Dr. titles – no offense or undue familiarity intended, just seems less pretentious. Speaking of pretentious, I hereby end this disclaimer and proceed to the proceedings.
The Hard Problem segment opens with Joscha bringing up Daniel Dennett, and how his dismissal of qualia seems to be based on a criticism of how the term is used in philosophy. In the course of that, JB says of Dennett’s position…
3:06:46 “Oh well he’s a functionalist. Pretty much standard.
He says…uh good writing…there’s nothing wrong with what he writes. My position might be different from yours because I don’t see magical powers that are afforded by biology, it’s still just function. It is provided by biology and I can break down these functions ultimately into state transitions in substrates that form control structure and so on, so it’s it’s not opening avenues into something new. There’s basically no magical homunculus that is produced in consciousness via biology. Biology is just a way to get self-organizing matter.”
Here I agree with Joscha completely. I disagree with Dennett’s views almost entirely, but have great respect for how he does what he does. As far as biology goes, I see no grounds for emergent properties, especially any that smell of consciousness. When JB says that he can break down biological functions into mechanical events, I tend to believe him, or at least understand why that is entirely possible in theory. While we perceive breakpoints in the properties of physical, chemical, and biological phenomena, they are as far as I can reason, aesthetic separations. Functionally, they all refer to the same thing: concrete tangible objects on different scales of size moving each other around and changing shapes.
The geometry of those shapes and their movements become more complicated as we scale up in size from particles to molecules to cells to bodies, but complication in and of itself adds nothing to the conversation about consciousness. Indeed, without some awareness and experience, molecules or cells have no way of suspecting that they are part of any group or process and no capacity to qualify it as simple or complex. Without a theory of sense, we are really at a loss to say what the difference would be between matter and nothingness, but that’s another topic. Without going that far, I would still say that even the idea of ‘control systems’ can only arise within a conscious experience where a thoughtful analysis of perceived objects in a universe where some objects are associated with conscious, teleological motives.
In the most stringent reading of the view that I propose, matter of any scale would not literally be controlling anything, so that any appearance of control is smuggled in by our conscious, anthropic experience. Without that anthropomorphic projection, what we see as bacteria or molecules controlling each other would reduce losslessly to non-purposeful habits of mindless physical force geometry. Saying that these movements of objects are control systems doesn’t actually add anything to what is occurring physically, but that isn’t key to understanding the Hard Problem. We can call what physical structures end up doing mechanically ‘control systems’ without taking that literally. Literally there’s just physical forces moving each other around automatically for no reason other than the given geometry of what they are. If what we mean by “self-organizing” implies something more than inevitable looping geometries of those automatic movements, then that too would fall into an Explanatory Gap.
I agree with what Joscha says next about the problem that I and many others have with Daniel Dennett’s disqualifications of qualia:
3:07:56 JB: “…what I found is that Dennett fails to convince a lot of his own students in some sense and I try to figure out why that is and the best explanation that I’ve come up with so far is that Dennett actually never explains phenomenal experience. And when discusses qualia he mostly points at definitional defects in the way in which most philosophers treat qualia and then says it’s probably something that doesn’t really exist in the way in which these people Define it so we also don’t need to explain it and a lot of people find this unsatisfying. Because they say that regardless of how you define it it’s clearly something that they experience like qualia being the atoms of phenomenal experience or aspects of phenomenal experience or features of phenomenal experience it doesn’t really matter how you define it it’s there right and please explain it to me because I don’t see how an unthinking and feeling Mechanical Universe is going to produce these wealth of experience that I’m confronted with and so this physics does not seem to be able to explain why something is happening to me why is me here why is their experience and this is something that some people feel is poorly addressed by Dennett.”
Joscha goes on to summarize the significance of Philosophical Zombie thought experiments in formulating the Hard Problem.
3:09:45 JB …”so let’s see, we have a philosophical zombie in front of us and we are asking this philosophic zombie who in every regard acts like a human being because his brain implements all the necessary functionality just mechanically and not magically, ‘are you conscious?’ what is the zombie going to respond?
Anastasia Bendebury “What do you what do you mean about the fact that the brain reproduces all of the effects?”
JB: “The idea of the philosophical zombie is that the philosophical zombie is producing everything without giving rise to phenomenal experience – just mechanical. Based on the intuition that…”
AB: “What does that mean? I don’t understand what that means.”
JB: “I think the intuition is that when we experience is something that cannot be explained through causal structure. So mechanisms.”
AB: “But why do we think that? I don’t understand why we possibly think that.
That’s what I mean about not understanding the hard problem of Consciousness. Because I’m like look… This is why my definition of life as beginning before the cell is instrumental to eliminating the hard problem of Consciousness. Because if you have in the most basic cell – which is an embodiment of the state of matter that is life – you have a resonant state which is electromagnetic. It’s the redox state.
And the cell needs to maintain that electrical resonance at a specific set point because if it does not, it dies. And so it is going out into the world and it is constantly controlling where it is in the world relative to its internal state. And as you progressively produce more and more complex beings you get a more and more complex map of the world and a more and more complex internal state. And so by the time that you have a walking human, you cannot have a walking human without an internal state. It’s a philosophical thought experiment that requires you to divorce yourself from everything that you know about biology in order to make the claim. And I just feel like you can’t do that!
Because the biology is inherently what produces the conscious…it’s the state of matter that produces the consciousness and all of the resonant waves that are inside of it. And so if you have the resonant waves in the sufficient complexity of a sufficiently resonant system that is interpreting the world relative to itself and to what it wants how can you have anything except for consciousness? You have experience, you have the mapping of expectation to frustration and you’re just…it just emerges from the most basic cell.
I think that the reason why Anastasia isn’t seeing the Hard Problem is because her model of biology already includes aesthetic-participatory phenomena (experience, awareness, sensory-motivation), rather than cells being anesthetic-automatic mechanical events that occur independently of any experience of them.
The expectation that a physical state like reduction–oxidation (redox) constitutes or leads to a cell’s need to participate intentionally in seeking to correct what it somehow senses (unexplained by biology) as disequilibrium is already smuggling in teleology into biochemistry > physics > mechanism.
Because we have genetic mutation and retrospective statistical natural/passive “selection” to account for the evolving mechanical behaviors of cells, no sense or teleology is needed in the explanation. We can omit it entirely and nothing changes in our description of what is causing the movements of cells in the direction of the chemical reactions that are necessarily pulling them there.
In a purely physical universe, chemistry would act not out of any perceived sense of need. There would be no agentic power to seek out satiation of that need, but rather the mechanical behaviors that end up maintaining redox states (unperceived) would be nothing but those behaviors that happen to have survived in the genetics of the cell. If the cell ends up moving in ways that maintain redox and happens to be in an environment that allows that to happen, then the cell has a better statistical chance of reproducing. That’s it. No need, no going out into a world, no controlling, no sense of self – just molecular geometry cashing itself out statistically over time.
JB: “How do resonant waves produce consciousness?”
AB: “say it again”
JB: “How do resonant waves produce consciousness?”
AB: “okay so do you know the Qualia Research Institute yes? So what is their work? Their work is that they’re basically showing that there are harmonic states in the brain that are associated with experience”
It’s important to realize, in my opinion, that the association is always coming from experience, not from anything the brain is doing. The association is retrospective from the reality of consciousness rather than prospective from the reality of unexperienced brain matter.
Michael Shilo DeLay: “The question seems akin to asking how do fundamental waves produce music? Which emerges from all of these individual tones. But the same thing with conscious experiences you have the summing of different modules within the neuron-based systems that are all aggregating and fighting and resonating with one another and you get music that comes out of it.”
JB: “And you don’t see an explanatory problem there? No?
AB: “No. I’m like how I mean I can see a mathematical problem. I can see that it would be very very difficult to mathematize the way that that resonance…”
Here I see that what is being overlooked is the gap between phenomena in one sense modality (waving intensities of chemical or electrochemical movements in a brain) and any other aesthetic quality (sights, sounds, feelings, etc). When we understand music as emerging from a sequence of aural tones, that’s all within the context of a conscious experience. Sound in the aural sense is qualia. Sound waves are actually silent acoustic perturbations of matter as it collides with matter. Between the concept we have of sound waves, which refer to dynamic geometry of tangible objects so firmly embedded in our learning, we overlook the need to explain how and why these movements of matter are perceived at all, and how they come to be perceived as sounds rather than as the silent, physical vibrations of substances that they ‘actually’ are.
In comparing music emerging from acoustic waves to consciousness emerging from brain wave resonance, we are already falling for the same circular reasoning fallacy that leads people to deny the Hard Problem. Since there is the same Hard Problem there in transducing tangible changes in objects to aural experiences of sound, notes, and music, it actually only reinforces the Hard Problem in the brain > consciousness context. Sense is the key. That’s why I write so much about it and call my view Multisense Realism.
For the next few minutes the hosts and guest discuss the limits of the explanatory power of math, language, and scientific theory, and the difference between explanation and description. This isn’t directly related to the Hard Problem in my opinion, but it does speak to the same theme of neglecting different modalities of sense and sense making and glossing over the fact that in all cases, the gaps between such modalities can only be filled, as far as we can conceive, by some conscious experience in which multiple modes of qualia can be accessed and manipulated intentionally in another mode of sense making (imagination, abstraction, understanding). Because Anastasia’s view of the Hard Problem is that it must come from a misunderstanding of biology (which she already gives experience and teleology to), she sees the Problem as one of finding fault with description for not being explanatory.
I agree with Joscha in his response:
3:18:07 So when you talk about harmonic waves producing a phenomenon for me that’s very far from a causal explanation that so it’s something that is very unsatisfying to me because I cannot build this but well for me a causal explanation is something I can make.
This is at the heart of the Explanatory Gap, which I like to meme-ify with this cannibalized version of a cartoon (not sure which artist I stole the original from, but my apologies):
Following this, Joscha gets into a detailed technical explanation of what waves are and why they don’t explain or justify producing phenomenal qualities.
3:20:02 JB: “…you can build control systems and once you have control systems you can also build control systems that don’t just regulate the present but also regulate the future, but in order to regulate the future they need to represent stuff that isn’t there right – that will be there at some level of coarse graining but it’s currently not present so you need to have a system that is causally insulating part of your mechanical structure from the present…control systems that don’t just regulate the present but also regulate the future. But in order to regulate the future they need to represent stuff that isn’t there right that will be there at some level of coarse graining but it’s currently not present so you need to have a system that is causally insulating part of your mechanical structure from the present…”
I propose that groupings of moving objects don’t actually need to represent anything to appear to ‘control’ future states, and that no such need to represent could be fulfilled physically. All that would be needed are mechanical switches and timers that happened to have evolved to fit with environmental states that happen to repeat. If the brain needed to control the position of the legs in the future to walk successfully, it need only set aside some neurons for that purpose. They don’t need to represent anything or imagine the future, they just need to grow a miniature duplicate of the brain chemistry involved in walking but without being connected directly to efferent nerves to the legs. There doesn’t need to be a representational relationship hiding inside of chemistry, the chemistry just had to have accidentally evolved to accumulate a lot of repeating triggers of triggers.
In other words, there’s no reason to represent anything in the future when you can just use space instead of time. You don’t need to know that the wood you’re piling up is for burning in cold Winter if you have a statistical mechanism of mutation that happens to select for piling up wood and burn it if temperature conditions activate a thermal switch. Instead of executive consciousness, it would just happen that a brain that grows miniature low resolution copies of itself would end up pantomiming meta-cerebral functions. No feedback or representation at all, just parallel reproduction of self-similar neurochemical systems. No code or instructions are needed, just clockwork chain reactions.
I’m not suggesting that I think that’s what happened in reality. I think that the reality is that all phenomena are part of the way that conscious experiences are nested and relate to each other. If that were not the case, I doubt that biology as we know it would have evolved at all. I agree with Anastasia’s view that experience begins prior to the cell, and with Joscha’s view that there is nothing special about biology that would explain consciousness.
Where I do disagree with Joscha’s estimation of consciousness is in the attribution of ideas and motivations to robots:
3:28:55 AB: “it’s not obvious that the bacteria needs to be more conscious than a soccer playing robot which is not conscious. Right? Bacteria needs to be more conscious than a soccer playing robot which is not conscious right if you build a robot that plays soccer it’s the robot is fulfilling a bunch of function it’s going to model its environment it’s going to figure out where the ball is where the other robots are where the goal is how to get the ball between yourself and the goal how to push the ball into the goal and so on so in some Financial sense it’s going to have beliefs about the environment it’s going to have commitments about the course of actions it’s going to have full directive Behavior it’s going to have representations about the world with itself inside but I don’t think it experiences anything.“
I don’t see any reason to assume that a robot’s behavior requires the generation of any actual models, beliefs, or representations. The robot is just lots of switches switching switches that control the movements of the physically assembled parts that make it up. I like to use the example of a fishing net and how it is very effective at catching fish, but it doesn’t have to know anything about what it is doing. The size of the fish and the shape of the net are all that are needed. In the same way, the structure of the robot is all that is needed to explain why the robot parts move in the way that they must move – by physical law, not by models or beliefs.
In the video AB and MSD go on to talk about justifying the emergence of consciousness in bacteria but not in a robot because of either complexity or flexibility. Neither of these seem to me to warrant the creation of a new type of representational or qualitative metaphysics. Moving objects are just moving objects, no matter how many there are or how fancy their movements become.
3:34:18 AB: “…any exercise that attempts to explain consciousness without the physical substrate without recognizing that the physical substrate is mandatory for the effect that we’re seeing and is the iterative product of progressive complexity that has been evolving on Earth for the last four billion years will fail to produce Consciousness because it is inherent in the structural organization of these different modules that resonate with one another to create complexity
Here is a case where I agree with what Anastasia is saying in one sense but disagreeing completely in another. I agree that the human conscious experience probably has to result from billions of years of specific evolutionary history, however, I disagree that it is related to physical structures. I propose that the physical structures and mechanisms are effects, rather than causes, of how our conscious experience has developed. Because I think that the physical universe we see is an appearance in our evolved consciousness (see Donald Hoffman’s Interface theory), it is the trans-physical accumulation of conscious experiences themselves that the human qualities of our experience depend upon.
For this reason I do not think that human consciousness can be replicated or simulated mechanically. It’s not because biology alone is capable of providing complexity, flexibility, or harmonics, it’s because biology is the particular vocabulary that consciousness has developed for higher/richer forms of experience to use lower forms of conscious experience as a vehicle. I think that biology doesn’t generate consciousness, rather biology is a symptom of the interface between two different epochs and timescales of evolving conscious experience.
3:35:02 AB: “…the phenomenon of experience is all these different resonant modes you can think about what it feels like to listen to a sine wave versus what it feels like to listen to a symphony they’re the same thing except the sine wave has been modulated into something far more complex and that complex wave has something else in it.
I agree that a symphony is the same thing as complex modulations of sound, but again, a sine wave doesn’t sound like anything unless you can hear. The chain of physical causality ends in the silent brain. There is nothing about an auditory cortex that will be able to conjure sounds out of the oscillating changes in its chemistry. There is no evolutionary advantage to an organism that has to hear sounds rather than one that just transduces acoustic vibrations mechanically into oscillating electrochemical states. We know, for example, from Blindsight patients that the brain is perfectly capable of responding correctly to questions about optical conditions without any experience of visibility.
I agree with Joscha that there’s nothing special about biology as far as being an extra property above chemistry or physics. Again, it’s all just tangible objects moving each other around in public space.
3:38:37 – AB: “What the QRI work is interesting where it’s interesting because there appear to be different states inside the brain that correspond to emotional states and so if you are unhappy or you’re feeling depressed there’s a different brainwave state that is associated with that experience.
I think it’s important to understand that ‘correspond to’ can only happen in a conscious experience. Correspond isn’t a physical activity or structure. Physical states of a brain have no physical way to correspond to anything, so they are just what they appear to be – geometric changes in tangible shapes. Consciousness uses brains, but brains have no way to use consciousness. They have to use physical force – which also has no way to use consciousness. When we use a non-physical model of nature instead, there is no problem with some aspects of consciousness perceiving other aspects of itself as physics. We see it all the time in dreams.
3:40:33 JB: “What is actually sadness? Right? Sadness is an affect it is directed on some source of satisfying a need being permanently removed from your world can never get it back and it’s completely crucial to you. You identified the satisfying yourself through the source of satisfaction and it’s got it will never come back right this is sadness in some sense and a stronger form of sadness is grief it’s a paralyzing form of sadness and sadness leads to certain behaviors mostly a disengagement with the world because you’re helpless you cannot do anything about it. In supplicative behavior you are appealing to an environment to help you with the situation and to create a solution for a problem for which you’re incapable of finding one. And so sadness is some complex psychological phenomena that you can formally define and the question is how is it implemented in the brain?
And what’s also crucial about sadness is that you experience yourself changing as a result of sadness and without this experience you wouldn’t say that somebody is sad you would say somebody acts as if they are sad but there’s a difference between acting as if you are sad and actually being sad. Because that requires an experience of sadness. And so we are coming back to this original question how is it possible that the system that is mechanically implemented is actually feeling something and don’t say waves that are interacting with each other that sounds like magical thinking to me because it’s not adding anything beyond molecules bumping into each other and you’re saying more complexity it just means more molecules bumping more complexly into each other.“
I completely agree that any explanation of sadness based on waves doesn’t work, and that this is what the Hard Problem is all about. In Joscha’s discussion, he links sadness with semantic and behavioral correlates, but that too doesn’t explain emotion itself. Sadness is an affect but that doesn’t explain why or how affects could arise either from brain activity or events that happen to a biological organism.
Finishing up this segment, the discussion turns to conceptualization.
3:42:41 MSD – “…a concept is a relationship between two physical bodies so one is moving towards the other let’s say and then an abstract concept would be taking that motion and relating it to another concept and you can compound these into greater and greater degrees of abstraction…”
I disagree that concepts have anything to do with objects. Objects relate to each other in only one way as far as I can tell, and that is through the relation of the geometry of their shape, position, and motion. Nothing conceptual or abstract about that as far as I can tell, although since motion requires some sense of duration, we could distinguish objects from objects changing position/shape over time, with the latter being arguably less like a static object. Since stasis and velocity are both relative and dependent on perceptual framing (as is everything except perception itself), the idea of a static object is purely hypothetical. If we say that anything hypothetical is an abstraction, fair enough, but even so, it is an abstraction of geometric shapes and not a concept that departs from geoemtry.
The Sense of the Zombie
A couple of things about the Zombie argument.
1. I think that the use of term zombie introduces unnecessary distractions due to the associations with supernatural or fictional types of beings. To ground the argument more in reality, I would use terms like ‘doll’ or ’emoji’ instead. Indeed there is nothing supernatural or unusual about an object or image that looks like there should be a conscious experience behind it but which in fact lacks one. A mannequin or doll is a 3d object that resembles a person’s 3d body. If that object is animated in the ways that resemble the movements of a living person’s body, then it would be ‘zombie’.
2. The issue of whether such a robot could be created out of the same molecules and cells as a person’s body is a completely separate issue. This is what derails the thought experiment. Instead of focusing on the relationship of tangible phenomena as they appear to our sense of sight and touch versus the intangible or trans-tangible phenomena of feeling and thought, we are now lost in a completely irrelevant discussion about the extent to which any phenomenon can be duplicated.
This diversion in turn allows our initial assumptions of physicalism to close the door that the zombie argument opened in the first place. If we had assumed in the first place that we are conscious bodies, then we will of course see the duplicate of a body as having duplicate capacities for consciousness. It’s tautological. We would entirely miss the real opportunity of the zombie argument, which begins with being able to logically tease out the body of a person from the conscious experience of a person, but goes somewhere more useful if we focus on the properties that make them separate.
3. What are the properties of a body? What are the properties of a conscious experience? What makes them different? What knows that they are different?
I think that we will find that a body is a tangible presence. A three dimensional object that can be touched and held in a literal and concrete sense. A conscious experience of the subjective, personal variety is not that at all. In fact, it appears to be a kind of diametric opposite to a material object. Where objects have distinct shapes and location, feelings and thoughts seem to exist in a kind of ambiguously spaceless and timeless fugue of overlapping qualities. Whether or not we accept that the body just has these properties ‘inside’ of its processes does not change the fact that we can logically see them as completely distinct from the tangible properties that define bodies as material objects.
Once we can understand that bodies and minds cannot be the same thing while also reducing those opposing sets of properties to that of bodies, the whole issue of duplication is revealed to be a red herring. We have to acknowledge that a body cannot do anything to ‘seem’ or ‘seem like’ anything other than what it is, and that any ‘seeming’ would be part of the anti-tangible, experiential aspect of the phenomenon that we are experiencing as a person or ourselves. From there, it’s a quick step to see that in fact the ‘mind’ or conscious experience is perfectly capable of dreaming up worlds that include tangible appearances, including bodies or body images that belong to dream characters, but also robots, dolls, and emojis.
Sense and Simulation
1. Nothing that can be experienced is a simulation.
There are different levels of perception (experiences of experience) and interpretation (experiences of understanding perceptions), and they can spoof each other, but all experiences are as fundamentally real any physical substance or process.
If you look in at a mirror, you are *really* seeing a *real* image, it’s just that your body isn’t really inside of a mirror. Your physical body can’t actually be seen, it can only be touched and felt. What can be seen is an image (made of color contrast shapes) that reflects both low-level tangible-public and high-level intangible-psychological conditions.
2. The Hard Problem of Consciousness can be reduced to this question: “How can a particle, force or field become sensitive?“
I think that the answer is that it cannot. Rather, we have to invert our Western presumptions about nature and understand that fields and forces are concepts that may need be replaced by a more accurate one: direct sensory-perceptive and motive-participatory phenomena – aka nested conscious experiences.
Particles are the way that the division and polarization of experience is rendered in the tangible-tactile modality of sensory-perception.
They are not sensitive, and no structure composed of particles is sensitive, just as no words made of letters generate meaning. The particles and structures, words and letters are literally place-holders…spatiotemporally anchored addresses through which experiences can be organized in increasingly complex, rich, and meaningful ways. This is what nature and the universe is: An anti-mechanical sensory experience of mechanically divided experiencers…an aesthetic holos that renders its self-diffraction through anesthetic holography.
21st century madman’s picture of God
In/out : Electromotive-sensory force ::
Around and around : Gravitoentropic-Magnetic a-motive field
Are We Wrong About The Universe?
Are we today as wrong about any scientific fact that is widely accepted as the belief that the earth was the center of the universe and the like?
It’s not so much a particular scientific fact that we are currently wrong about, but rather the interpretation of those facts which is ultimately incomplete and inverted. In my view, the cosmological picture that we have inherited is as wrong as geocentric astronomy was, in that we presume a physical universe of forces, fields, particles, and mechanisms; forms and functions which act in the complete absence of any kind of experience or awareness. I expect that we will eventually come to understand that unconscious forms and functions cannot generate any such thing as a sensation or feeling, and that it is actually forms and functions which are presentations within a deeper context of universal perceivability.
Because we have made great use of the tools of science to objectify the universe by factoring out our own subjectivity, we have fallen under a kind of spell of amnesia in which we exclude the process of objectification itself from our picture of the universe. In the effort to dispel the ghost-in-the-machine legacy of Cartesian Dualism, we have succumbed to a more insidious dualism, which is that of “illusion” vs reality, or “emergent properties” vs physical systems. From this vantage point, we are susceptible to any kind of theory which satisfies our empirical measurements, regardless of how incompatible they are with our direct experience. As long as a legitimate scientific authority stands behind it, the educated public happily swallows up anti-realisms in the service of realism…multi world interpretations, superposition, vacuums filled with energy. There is nothing wrong with entertaining these very legitimate possibilities, but there is a deep irony which is being overlooked.
The problem is that we have taken ourselves out of the picture of the universe, but we haven’t gone far enough. We have over-estimated our objectivity in one sense and under-estimated it in another so that the universe we imagine as objectively present looks, sounds, tastes, and feels just as it would to a highly culturally conditioned Homo sapien of the early 21st century. We have failed to appreciate the profound truths revealed by Relativity, quantum uncertainty, incompleteness, the placebo effect, and the vast pool of insight provided by centuries of direct consciousness exploration. Had we been willing to connect the dots, I think that we would see the common denominator is that nature is subject to perceptual participation for its fundamental definitions. In other words, what both the empirical and rational methods of inquiry have shown is that nature is inseparable from perceivability. It is a multitude of changing types of awareness which produces and preserves all forms.
We are used to thinking that consciousness is a special ability of Homo sapiens, and perhaps a few other species, but this is as naive and egocentric as Ptolemaic astronomy now seems. Just as biology has found no hard line separating living cells from genetic machinery, the study of consciousness has revealed signs of sensation and awareness in everything from ants, single celled plants, even a ball of dough. There seems to be no good reason to automatically consider the activities performed by any natural structure strictly unconscious. Indeed, we may be projecting our own complex human experience of layers of consciousness, semi-consciousness, and seeming unconsciousness onto nature at large.
The reality may be that every frame of reference is actually a frame of afference… a trans-spatial, trans-temporal platform for developing temporalizing and spatializing aesthetic experiences. Afference is a neologism adapted from the function of afferent nerves. In this case I am generalizing that function of bringing signals in from the outside. Afference is conceived as a fundamental receptivity to experience which allows for the appearance of all phenomena including space (a sense of distance between tangible or visual presentations) and time (a sense of memory and evaluation of causality) within any given frame. Afference is a hypothetical sub-set or diffraction from the overall Perceivability Spectrum (pansensitivity, pan-afference, or even ‘ference’).
This doesn’t mean that every ‘thing’ is conscious. That sort of ‘promiscuous’ panpsychism is only the first step away from the pseudo-dualism of contemporary science. It can help us to begin to break through our anthropocentrism and consider other scales of time and body size, however it can also lead to misguided expectations about inanimate objects ‘having’ experiences rather than their objecthood ‘being’ an experience within our body’s perceptual scales and limits. The experience of a computer for example, may be limited to the hardware level where natural sensory acquaintance and motor engagement is felt on the microphysical scale and has no emergence to genuine high level humanlike intelligence.
By considering consciousness (not human consciousness, but universal perceivability) to be the source of all qualities and properties of nature, the Hard Problem of materialism solves itself. Physical forces and fields need not be sought out to explain the creation of bodies-with-awareness, which are impossible by definition in my view. In my view there is no room for any kind of sensation or participation as a mechanical product of geometry or computation. Instead, we should recognize that it is experiential phenomena alone which present themselves as bodies, images, thoughts, feelings, etc. Every appearance of mechanical or random force in our frame of perception is ultimately a feeling of participation and sense in a distant and alienated frame of perception.
Every appearance of a ‘field’ (gravitational, electromagnetic, or otherwise) is in the same way only a range of sensitivity projected into another range of sensitivity that uses spatial terms (rather than non-spatial or trans-spatial like olfactory or emotional sense). It is the sense modality of tangibility which deals in spaces and geometries: visible and/or touchable forms. With the ‘field’ model, we are presuming regions of space as domains within which effects simply found to be present by definition. By using the afference model instead, locality is understood to be a symptom of how extra-local phenomena are translated into locality-constrained sensory modes. Afference opens the door to understanding how not to take presence for granted and to see it as a relativistic, aesthetically driven universal phenomenon (or the absolute meta-phenomenon).
Multisense Realism 
Recent Comments