The Non Problem of Consciousness

 There is much conversation about the "Hard problem of consciousness". One perspective on that is that this issue is born out of primate biology of wanting to be / feel special. A rather simple resolution to this is that all that exists is "aware" of its existence by definition. Then there are gradation / spectrum on what that awareness encompasses. Humans are at a particular level on that spectrum. There is no problem of consciousness, rather an excess of primate arrogance.

Should vs Could

 When we use "should", we are in some sense battling reality, i.e., it IS not the way we want it to be. However, if we use "could", then we engage the imaginal to chart possible paths to what could be. It take more energy and is more difficult to find a path of what could be. And what could be may not what we want once we actually get there.

It may be useful to note that should's often arise out of a value system. And our value systems are a story about what is important. What is important to us is not necessarily important to "reality". And hence we are out of sync with the real. The Tao Te Ching talks about being one with the way without specify what that way is. That is the eternal journey - discovering a way to the way.

Categories, Errors, Spectra, Spaces

 Let us apply the Laws of Form to the notion of categories. Before any distinction is made, there are not categories. Is this what is reflected in spiritual, psychedelic, and other experiences where one has the sense of no boundaries and being part of one "consciousness"? We create categories with some value / intent. In particular, our psycho-biology uses distinctions / categories to create the "other".  The other can he revered (perhaps as authority) or hated. These variations determine our behavior towards the "other". 

Another way to think about this is that we are all somewhere on a spectrum of whatever attribute we are using to create categories. Categories imply a qualitative difference. However, on most attributes what we have are really quantitative differences.

We can further generalize this notion to think of a multi-dimensional space of attributes in which we all exist. In this case again we are quantitatively different from each other rather than qualitatively as implied by categorizations. These categorizations can be positive (saint vs sinners, boss vs worker, ..) or negative (good ethnic group vs vermin, chosen group vs damned, ...).

These ideas can be applied to the notion of category error / mistake. We put things, beings, etc, in different categories with some intent. Would it be more accurate to think of them as being in a different part of ontological attribute space? One of the possible benefits of that may be that affect circuits may not be inadvertently activated with their resulting behaviors and responses to the delineated category?

The Sacred as a Container

 

Think of the Sacred as a containment field for consciousnesses. What contains behavior? Some kind of container / limit can be such a "manager" / controller for behavior. The sacred acts as such a container. It creates both a wall as well as a veil that stops the algorithmic neural nets we have from venturing past that wall or looking beyond that veil. Perhaps this is the notion behind Nietsche's "God is dead" statement. 

In another sense, one can think of the creation of the meme of the sacred as a psychotechnology to set limits on behaviors and practices.

Depolarization

 Think of an identity as a developing and layered structure, part of the "cognitive light cone":

• Part of a family / origin group
• Part of a tribal group
• Part of an belief system / culture group
• Part of species group
• Part of a planetary group
• Part of "biologic / life / living" group
• Part of a "conscious" group
• Part of "sentient" group
• Part of  existence

It seems like polarization is possible at any level as most of existence is outside wherever identity is situated. The next stage that transcends polarization is when identity is with "infinity" / all that is possible. Degrees of depolarization occur as an identity traverses this sequence.

Artificial Intelligence - a different perspective

 The are various active conversations / perspectives on the current AI capabilities and directions. What I have not seen much / any conversation / discussion on is how AI sheds a light on us (human species). AI is providing a powerful feedback loop / mirror to us of the issues with us as well as the our possibilities.

Human Chemistry

 Each of us has traits / features / behaviors as individuals. However, those characteristics change when we are members of a group of any size. One can liken this to hydrogen and oxygen combining. Each has different characteristics alone versus in combination.

Another chemical reaction is the binding of a human to a belief system. The strength of that binding determines the "chemical" properties of the combination as different from the individual properties. One can see how often "believers" are actually behaving in contradiction to their faith.

The Sacred

A friend asked me what I consider to be sacred. My initial response was that I don't know what is not sacred. On deeper reflection, it occurred to me that words are pointers to "something". They are not the "thing" itself. With that in mind, it seems to me that the pointer is to a state of consciousness / awareness / being. This state can be arrived at in "any" context - in nature, in place of worship, looking at the stars, ... There can be a binding in peoples' minds limiting the sacred to only certain contexts. So, each one us can interpret the word in so many different ways. Perhaps it is useful to keep this in mind and to tread lightly around each others' binding context to their sacred. 

Combining Models - Vervaeke, Wilber, McGilchrist

 In Vervaeke's Awakening from the meaning crisis work, he mentions 4 ways of knowing:  1) participatory; 2) procedural; 3) perspectival; and 4) propositional. We can look at this model in light of Wilber's Integral model, and McGilchrist's left/right brain model.

Participatory is a strong relationship dynamic between Wilber's upper left and lower left quadrants with a lesser relationship to the right quadrants.

Procedural is a strong relationship between upper left quadrant and the right quadrants.This can be generalized to a tribal, city state, civilizational level as a relationship between lower left and the right quadrants.

Perspectival is a meta relationship to the quadrants, i.e., what is the agent's viewpoint in the quadrants. One can see "it" from a single quadrant view or multi quadrant view. Or various combinations of some or all the quadrants perspectives.

Propositional is the left brain map / model of "it" / reality. And actions can be based on this basis alone.

Meaning Crisis ?

 These thoughts arise out of watching Vervaeke's Awakening from the meaning crisis and numbers of conversations and dialogues on such topics. One of the themes in these conversations is the loss of the sacred. And one could say Nietsche's notion of "God is dead" is along the same lines. And an attempt to create a new or reawakened sense of the sacred. Or in Vervaeke's term, creating a "religion that is not a religion". The notion of sacred is a bit of a concern for me. One way to look at the sacred is that it creates a veil ( of our own making ) with which we blind ourselves to what is beyond whatever our version of the sacred is. The sacred is useful in terms of the neurological states it allows us to experience. And of course, the side effects of those states can be quite beneficial.

Another way to think of the meaning crisis is that there is a mismatch of the values we ( as a result of the culture we are in ) get programmed with and our basic biology. Part of our biological frame includes empathy, a sense of fairness. Our current cultures put a high metric on economics ( a mode of having ). This is a maladapted metric to our biology. Hence, in the process of making money we may feel a sense of meaninglessness because of the mismatch of that metric to our biology / neurology. Another factor to keep in minds is that this sense of empathy, fairness is an evolutionary addition to our biology. It seems to be present in other primates, mammals, ....? What are the earliest indicators of this biological feature in evolution?

Scapegoats, Girard, and structural frames

 Girard's notion of the origins of scapegoating:

Whereas the philosophers of the 18th century would have agreed that communal violence comes to an end due to a social contract, Girard believes that, paradoxically, the problem of violence is frequently solved with a lesser dose of violence. When mimetic rivalries accumulate, tensions grow ever greater. But, that tension eventually reaches a paroxysm. When violence is at the point of threatening the existence of the community, very frequently a bizarre psychosocial mechanism arises: communal violence is all of the sudden projected upon a single individual. Thus, people that were formerly struggling, now unite efforts against someone chosen as a scapegoat. Former enemies now become friends, as they communally participate in the execution of violence against a specified enemy.

One of the questions that arises is what are possible underlying structures of this phenomenon. One possibility is that mammalian predator neurologies generate  waste products that build up over time. There is a need to release these wastes. When a group has accumulated enough waste, it seeks a receptacle for that energy or a release mechanism. Scapegoat(s) are found as ways to release this energy.

One can also think of this process as a way to maintain stability and avoid change. If something external is the "cause" of the energy build up, then one doesn't have to deal with one's own part in the build up of this "waste product' / energy.

An example of this structure in the alpha and omega of the wolf pack. Human societies / civilizations also create their own omegas in terms of  a servant class, an ethnic group, an easily differentiated sub-group, ...

Reasoning Frames

 Watching a dialogue between Professor Gilbert Morris and Daniel Schmactenberger on "A History of Racial Conflict", came across the notion of "motivated reasoning". The question arises when is there not motivated reasoning? We have the illusion of being "objective". Since the majority of our thinking is unconscious, and we are biological beings who don't really understand their neurology, reasoning structures, motivations, limitations, ...., we categorically can not be objective in any reasonable sense. Hence, all our reasoning is motivated reasoning based on reasons we may or may not be aware of.

Next, there is the issue of the frame used for reasoning. The frame used in this dialogue was basically a "moral frame", e.g., how could persons like Jefferson, Washington profess such high morals, write the Bill of Rights and yet participate in slavery and oppress other human beings. One can tie oneself in knots trying to answer this dilemma. A more useful frame for these kinds of issues in particular, and other issues in general, is to use a "structural frame", i.e., what kinds of underlying structures create these phenomena. Part of our biology is to utilize and maximize asymmetry in our favor. And to feel special as primates or perhaps even more generally, as living beings with a perspective. We also have a reptilian heritage of identifying "blemishes" in others as a way to identify them and then use that rationalization to increase our asymmetry with them. The asymmetry is what allows us to create hierarchies - servants, slaves, worker bees, bosses, .... This creation and utilization of asymmetry is part of our biological heritage. All human societies do this, continue to do it, we are surrounded by this phenomena in all societies, past and present. It is also the basis of this existence, particles -> atoms -> molecules -> cells -> ..... Each aggregation increasing the asymmetry between itself and its components or "siblings".

The structural frame, imho, gives more of a chance of being intentional and have choice over this basic biological impulse that we have. The universe cares little, if at all, for our moral frames. It does respond to the congruency of our structural understanding to the actual causal structures of the phenomena in question.

Hard problem, Egregores, and AGI

 Given a different frame, a hard problem can become an easy / easier problem. Or point to a different way to understand the "problem". One way to think about consciousness or the hard problem of consciousness is to think of it as an egregore. With a certain combination of neural structures with certain features / characteristics, an egregore is created. We identify that as a "self" or our consciousness. Since we have such a direct experience of it, we have so many words for it - self, I, ego, my name, your name, .... There are many egregores which we have no names for, e.g., family egregore, ethnic egregore, national egregore, mob egregore, .... We can be parts of these egregores, however, we don't have a direct experience of them as an entity since we are only a part of that egregore. Our memory, our senses, etc., don't have a sense of their identity as they are parts of our egregore / consciousness.

From this framing arises the question: what are the necessary and sufficient sub-parts for the creation of an egregore? This may be a useful direction in the study / creation of a strong agi. We have early inklings of intentionality in creating egregores, e.g., metanoic teams ( a team that is greater than the sum of its parts). We don't seem to have deterministic processes for creating metanoic teams. However, on occasion we are do create them on occasion with some degree of intentionality. We are also getting inklings of how to do this from synthetic biology, genetic studies, biology, ...

Science / Religion

Came across an interesting article trying to distinguish between science and religion.  Unfortunately, the author falls into the pattern he is decrying - us / them. Scientists can be just as fervently dogmatic as religious true believers. They have ruined careers / lives of others because they did not follow the current scientific models / dogma. This continues to happen pretty regularly. Also, he totally leaves out that binding to dogma does not have to be religious dogma, it can be any ideology such as fascism, communism, trumpism, .... These are all non-religious ideologies. Science has its own dogma about what is real and what is not. Although, one can say, as the author points out, that it a self-correcting process. What he doesn't point out is that that self-correction can take a generation or more. Which is an improvement over religion's century / millennia long binding to dogma with little self-correction or upgrading.

Another model to think about these issues is that each one of us is at a different level of development and hence need. Each of us needs an anchor  / foundation to build our lives around. Children's anchors are their parents and parental authority. Adults can substitute other authority figures, e.g., priests, popes, mullahs, gurus, to be their authority figure. This is a way of conserving energy. One can call it cognitive off-loading. Letting somebody else do our thinking and reasoning takes a lot less energy. And nature tends to take the path of least resistance and minimal energy utilization. This pattern is built into the fabric of existence.

So, with a developmental model as the base, the issue becomes how do we help each other be more reasonable, think more clearly, pay attention to the feedback that the universe continually provides us to help us grow. One of our features is the remarkable ability to filter out feedback the universe is giving us and continue our "dogmatic" path no matter how much pain and suffering it causes us and others.

And yet another factor at play is our starting / base state as we think / act on these things. Are we in a state of care / love / compassion. Or are we in a state of looking for a blemish - what is wrong - that would justify our dislike / disgust / hate / ... The starting state can make such a difference in our thinking / reasoning. Perhaps, recognition of this dynamic is what led various spiritual traditions to extol the value of love / agape.

And in the midst of all this confusion about what is going on and why, if we are able to pay attention to the moment, there can be this sense of awe at this existence - we have no absolute idea what it is all about and yet here we are, breathing?

Meta Generators

 The last post on generator functions and processes led to a conversation about how to think more clearly about these - how is a function different from a process. One can think of a function as a "class" as in an object oriented programming model. The usage of that class is the process. The usage of the class is an instantiation of that class in a particular context. So,

Generators

 We are surrounded by overwhelming complexity of form, function, process, .... One way to get some degree of grip on this complexity is to think in terms of generator functions that create this complexity. For example, Daniel Schmactenberger talks about some generator functions that are creating the existential risks to our societies.

So this lead me think about a generator process for another dynamic in our history / societies. Think of our evolution as the universe trying different patterns to form viable organisms. One aspect of the formation of an organism is the modular / functional creation of parts that create a whole organism. We start out as a cell that then differentiates into organs with different functions and capabilities and forming a viable organism as the end result of all that differentiation.

One aspect of this formation process is a generator process that determines which cells go to which function - heart, stomach, blood, brain, .... Similarly, in our societies we have a generator process for determining who ends up being in a "decision making" / "resource allocation" role. This process seems to promote people to these positions who have certain abilities to maneuver the social web. However, by and large, these same people seem to be short sighted non systemic thinkers. Hence leading to the long list of disastrous decisions with which our histories are littered.

Moral Foundations and Developmental Psychology Integration

 Haidt's  Moral Foundations model lays out all the foundational criteria at the same level. However, we can looks at each of the criteria in terms of developmental psychology models. Let take Kohlberg's model:

Criteria	Model
1) Care/harm: stage 6 2) Fairness/cheating: stage 5 3) Loyalty/betrayal: stage 4 4) Authority/subversion: This can be assigned to Stage 1 and stage 4 5) Sanctity/degradation: stage 3 6) Liberty/oppression: Stage 2 this is a first pass at assigning developmental stages to the foundational criteria. Needs a bit more thought and narrative.

Fog of Self

 There is a fog that surrounds us and dims / transforms how we perceive others as well as ourselves. This fog seems to be made up from our own personal history - experiences, imprints, responses, .... This fog is particularly manifest in personal relationships - how we respond and react to each other, trigger each other. It is really difficult to see another clearly through this fog. We don't know what is in another's mind. Why are they doing or saying what troubles us? The signal that comes through our fog of self can invoke our trigger points. The density of the fog can be a measure of how easily we get triggered. Being able to lessen the opacity of that fog can be a lifetime journey.

Generator Rules / Mental Debugs

Listened to some talks by Tom Chi.  He mentioned this notion of mental debugs (generator rules) that have continuing effects in generating perspective and behavior changes.

• Knowing is the enemy of learning - knowing makes learning impossible. State of knowing closes / impedes the mind to new information / learning in that domain
• Verbs are greater than nouns. Once you categorize something as a noun, mental activity around that goes to zero. If you stay in verb mode, mental activity, learning around that phenomena continues as verbs don't stop this mental activity.
• Crossing the 3 gaps - From first contact: Knowledge -> Practice -> Mastery. Start practicing to learn and that begins the process of mastery. Reading / learning all about it before practice slows down the learning process and to getting to mastery.
• Stay in the medium - stay in the process and in awareness and flow to keep improving whatever it is that you are doing.
• Metabolizability is more important than truth - provide what the moment requires and that can be processed / metabolized not the absolute truth.

Presuppositions and Logic Errors

If we have the presupposition that the world is a fair and just place, then it follows that what happens has to be cast in that light. The victim then has a causal relationship in what happened to them. The victim has to be responsible (in part?) for what happened to them, otherwise the presupposition is invalid. And since the presupposition is generally invisible and out of consciousness, victim blaming is the result. There is some psychological research on this phenomena.