Sounds accurate to me. I wouldn’t hesitate to show this to someone who said, “Hey Ken, what’s consciousness?” It’d save me some typing.

Sounds accurate to me. I wouldn’t hesitate to show this to someone who said, “Hey Ken, what’s consciousness?” It’d save me some typing.

===

ZTL

Consciousness is composed (I think) of just 4 basic factors:
1. External awareness (objective stimuli)
2. Memories (working, episodic, semantic, and implicit)
3. Drives (hunger, thirst, warmth, safety, sex, power, sociality etc.)
4. Ideals (i.e. moral beliefs)

Your brain brings these 4 factors together unconsciously into a conscious entity we call the ‘self’ or ‘ego’.

From the outside you are being bombarded with stimuli and from inside you’re being bombarded with memories (past stimuli). This congregation of past and present allows you to predict future stimuli through feedback looping and different kinds of hierarchical processing. The goal is to anticipate the future in order to fulfill current objectives based on past experiences.

This process is modulated by drives and ideals. The ideals *pull* you while the drives *push* you (and they’re often in conflict).

Your drives tend to trend toward what we consider ‘uncivilized’ behaviors while your ideals tend to trend toward ‘civilized’ ones. If you’re starving enough, your drives may cause you to break your ideals and steal someone else’s food for instance. The tension between all these forces results in ‘you’ and your actual decisions in the present reality. You are the centralized executive that is being pulled and pushed by your internal programming. You’re the central actor that exists within the deepest part of the whirlwind of all this activity. The ‘eye of the hurricane’ so to speak.

But anyway, that’s my basic theory of how consciousness is ‘accumulated’ in the brain from the unconscious. I know it’s very simple, but that’s my intention.

It’s like Einstein said: “It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.”

====

That’s one part you probably could elaborate on: how everything that you were ever exposed to influences your thinking yet what comes together and how you put it together is uniquely yours. Not sure how you’d fit it in though.

 

—-

Well you said it above. Eye of the hurricane.

===

I don’t know if it’s specifically the executive. I have to go through notes or search but I *think* I saw a better model than the three tiered with the executive on top.

====

 

I don’t know if you could add more right now. I mean it’s good enough to stand as it is. I shared it. Might not need to add more but perhaps with what exists you can add subdivisions or something.

====

People spend whole lifetimes on this stuff. You don’t have to get it done in one night

==

It’s a solid set to work with.
1. External awareness (objective stimuli)
2. Memories (working, short-term, long-term)
3. Drives (hunger, thirst, warmth, safety, sex, power, sociality etc.)
4. Ideals (i.e. moral beliefs)

Shit comes in from the outside through your senses.
You have several holding tanks oozing with the electrified goo of all sorts of memories.
You got pushes that seem to come from somewhere else within, sometimes out of conscious control.
Then you’ve got some kind of right/wrong sense, which I *think* I saw once might be linked to the stomach somehow as the feelings you get when your ideals are crossed are similar to eating a bad peanut.

====

Once I made a big chart of neurological system processes (not just human but any species), treating memories in the same page as inputs and such. Input processing output all lumped together. So proud of the result but never followed up on it. Maybe one day. The piece you wrote can stand by itself as a “good piece”. [better than my video :P ]

If you have a spot where you save “the good stuff” you write, what you wrote today belongs there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgw6q1rR2ME

====

That abstract above (“The Merits of Synesthesia for Consciousness Research”) has tons of clickable references that touch upon a lot of the difficult questions of consciousness. I meant to chase down all of them, a lot of them Zachary Tanner Lyle and Eli Quiroga were heavily debating over the past few days…

anyway I see stuff like this (below) and it sends my “I NEED TO LEARN MORE” hunger in overload. I think I have some reading to do.


Many empirical studies have been undertaken to identify neural correlates of conscious experience (Dehaene and Naccache, 2001; Singer, 2001; Melloni et al., 2007; Aru et al., 2012). According to Crick (1994) neural correlates of consciousness is “the minimal set of neuronal events leading to subjective awareness” (Cohen and Dennett, 2011, p.358); Opinions differ widely on how and whether conscious experience can be accounted for by the physiological processes in the brain (Chalmers, 1995; Metzinger, 2000; Gray, 2005; Cohen and Dennett, 2011). For instance, there is no agreement on whether conscious experience and cognitive processing are integrated or not (e.g., Cohen and Dennett, 2011); and on whether conscious experience is established by means of global integration of information (e.g., Lamme, 2006) or by activity in e.g., localized brain areas (Zeki, 2001).

===

s so true too: ideals + social instincts Like for example, I have no ethical quandry about … finding.. that book online (which I will). Why? Always been in/around hacker cultures. They have kind of a French revolution view of this kind of thing. If you’re too poor to buy bread, stealing it isn’t really stealing”. I’m that way about academic books/papers. Hacker culture.

===

For me, and maybe I’m fooling myself, knowledge is bread. Got the book! Was taken down off a few places, but I have my very own PDF of it. The chapter titles were intriguing and it’s got that practacpoeisis thing in it that I was obsessed about last year (but forgot about)… so hopefully it moves me into areas I’m unfamiliar with.

===

Ruminate? Oh no. I’m connecting from the past to the present so I can move to the future. I don’t dwell. I shoot forward, propelled by whatever’s been interesting me my whole life.

Check out this dedication! Oh if this is page two, I think I’ll like this.

====

dedicationz

====

See my profile pic? There’s a few ways to interpret it. One of them is this:

Looking to the past while also looking to the future, while the present is peeking out inbetween them. All at the same time.

====

There is a strong current in contemporary culture advocating
‘holistic’ views as some sort of cure-all. Reductionism
implies attention to a lower level while holistic implies
attention to higher level. These are intertwined in any satis-
factory description: and each entails some loss relative to our
cognitive preferences, as well as some gain … there is no
whole system without an interconnection of its parts and
there is no whole system without an environment.
Varela, 1977. On being autonomous: the lessons of natural
history for systems theory. In: George Klir (Ed.), Applied
Systems Research. Plenum Press, New York. pp. 77 – 85

 

Started reading a book: “Closed Loop Neuroscience”, 2016. I’m “fangirling” about it already. The chapter titles intrigued me, it’s furthering my study from last year on practopoeisis (I’d forgotten the word so I couldn’t study it for a while!) and I’m hoping I end up learning a thing or two. [it’s a systems theory on neuroscience]
 
Right on page one, he shares a doodle he drew. If this is his doodle? I’m on board. I’ll sit at his feet and let him teach me a few things.
===
squeez
 In the above drawn sketch:
A is the internal structure of agent A.
B is the internal structure of agent B.
A0
is agent A external state emergent of the internal
structure A.
 B0
is agent B external state emergent of the internal
structure B.
I α is the interface between the internal structure of A and
other components of the universe. This interface allows
bidirectional interaction between the internal structure
of A and other components of the universe (the same
applies for agent B but through the I β interface).
P is the paradigm which defines the set of epistemo-
logical tools developed making accessible a certain
knowledge of the universe and the other agents.
U k0
is the external state emergent from the internal state
of the universe. For the agents U k0
is knowable using the
set of epistemological tools (P).
U uk0
is the external state emergent from the internal state
of the universe. For the agents U uk0
is unknowable using
the set of epistemological tools (P).
U is the internal state of the universe that is inaccessible
to the agents.
I μ is the interface between the set of the emergent states
of the universe (both knowable and unknowable) and
the internal state of the universe. This interface allows
bidirectional interaction between the universe itself
and other components of the universe
===

Attachments

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


six + 2 =

Leave a Reply