Integrated Information Theory

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There was an explicit technical, behavioral, definition of selfishness provided in the book.

No, there was a technical definition of a property. However, if you would like to point to a line in that book in which Dawkins seeks to define selfishness, by all means do so.

You don't even know what the common discourse, judgemental, understanding of selfishness is. Because you do not appreciate common discourse, it not being as rigorous as science and all.

1) My secondary undergrad major was classical language and my senior these was on particular aspects of Attic Greek discourse.
2) The study of discourse is a field studied by multiple rigorous sciences from linguistics to sociology. In fact, discourse studies/discourse analysis are fields unto themselves.
3) How selfishness is used in discourse isn't actually a matter of discourse analysis but lexical semantics. However, this topic is rigorously studied by such sciences as computational linguistics, cognitive psychology, lexicography, sociolinguistics, cognitive neuroscience, functional linguistics, etc.
4) I started using corpora to study language usage years ago, and have actually used them not only to study language but to ensure that words used in a behavioral or neuroimaging study reflect usage. So I think it's fair to say that whether or not I understand common discourse, I certainly appreciate it and most definitely regard it as a field of rigorous scientific inquiry.

You cannot just calculate who get's the biggest slice of the cake, and say it is selfish.

You've never used cake cutting algorithms? For someone who seems to champion common discourse, you have an amazingly restrictive and prescriptive view of language.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I find it ironic that in objecting to the uses within the sciences of words that have alternate meanings you have demanded an approach to language that is scientific, even mathematical, in its requisite precision.

However ironic you find it, it is what must be done. If scientists want to use words from common discourse in their theory, then they must regard common discourse as being a scientific hypothesis, and then find consistency in it with the theory they want to propose.

Otherwise confusion is generated. And there is very widespread confusion for example resulting from natural selection theory, because in the theory it seems as though it is posited as fact that organisms like to surive. That science can measure love. And this idea is further reinforced by that scientists expressly reject creationism, which posits that love cannot be measured. And further reinforced by evolutionary theories dealing with emotions, positively asserting that love can be measured in the brain. And altogether, it is an assault on the common discourse and religious understanding of love, which confuses people no end, and leads to personal and societal identity crisis.

And here this theory in the topic which has upside down the material state giving rise to the experience, where otherwise in common discourse, the emotion gives rise to the material state, is screwing with common discourse.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, there was a technical definition of a property. However, if you would like to point to a line in that book in which Dawkins seeks to define selfishness, by all means do so.

in the introduction, the first page or so. By all means, know the first thing what you are talking about.

 

[Yerda]

2) The title here "Consciousness is everywhere" doesn't seem to match either the content of the article or IIT theory itself. It's true that IIT uses "phi" values (defined by the theory) as a measure of consciousness, and that these values are based on the ability of any system to integrate information. The higher the value, the more "conscious" the system. However, this still means that there is a distinction between systems which have a phi value greater than zero and things which do not. Also, it is a consequence of this approach that everything which processes & integrates information, from a calculator to a camera to an ant, has some measure of "consciousness." The important point here is that this is not an empirical finding of the theory. It is defined ahead of time (along with information) so that consciousness can be investigated with greater ease (it's hard to study a phenomenon which is so difficult to define).

I thought you'd know something about this.

*Koch was proposing a variant of panpsychism for a while (see his TED talk for example) but seems to have changed his track. One of the papers co-authored with Tononi: [1405.7089] Consciousness: Here, There but Not Everywhere

*They argue that consciousness is not a feature of computers or cameras. At least recently. Only systems with high phi are conscious. Though I won't pretend that I know how to determine what is high, and how to measure it.

Do you think it holds promise?

If not is there a better candidate?

 

[Bunyip]

Reading the article, it seems very strange to me. Information theory, a la Claude Shannon is maths. It is discussing the information in a telecommunications system - how on earth is this being related meaningfully to consciousness?

It is not 'information' as science defines it, and has nothing to say whatsoever about consciousness.

 

[Yerda]

In short, consciousness may have evolved as a functional means of distinguishing self from non-self. I think an ability to do that would have certain survival benefits, such as allowing a large-brained spear chucker to more easily plan for the future, or to recognize non-immediate threats to his or her well-being.

Why it evolved seems to be a question that pops up a lot. The ability to experience seems to be epiphenomenal to a lot of people. From my perspective what you have said about self/nonself seems plausible and you've got to think there would be survival benefits in not eating yourself.

 

[Yerda]

Reading the article, it seems very strange to me. Information theory, a la Claude Shannon is maths. It is discussing the information in a telecommunications system - how on earth is this being related meaningfully to consciousness?

It is not 'information' as science defines it, and has nothing to say whatsoever about consciousness.

Koch trained in physics, and Max Tegmark is a physicist at MIT, and they both seem to have no issue with the use of the word information. When they say a conscious state is informative they mean it is specific. If you see only a book you are not seeing a bird. This is informative in the classical sense of Shannon's work.

The relation to consciousness is that they argue that a system with a high measure of integrated information is conscious.

I'm nowhere near qualified to say whether they are right or wrong. I find it really interesting though. I can see it isn't everyone's cuppa however.

 

[apophenia]

Otherwise confusion is generated. And there is very widespread confusion for example resulting from natural selection theory, because in the theory it seems as though it is posited as fact that organisms like to survive.

I would say that confusion is not 'generated', rather it is highlighted.
When people make that ubiquitous error - "because in the theory it seems as though it is posited as fact that organisms like to survive " it is the result of unconsciously applying an idea created by theologians over the centuries, which is that life is a manifestation of a higher order teleology.

It is not the task of scientists to unravel and somehow standardise the cognitive habituations , the covert assumptions, of disparate cultural groups.

. And altogether, it is an assault on the common discourse and religious understanding of love, which confuses people no end, and leads to personal and societal identity crisis.

"the common discourse"

Whose 'common discourse' ? You are suggesting that there is a "religious understanding of love" which is natural and globally shared. Simply not true.

Is there a 'common discourse' regarding consciousness, identity, 'spirit', 'soul', or purpose ? Only if you limit your reading to one book, and limit your conversations to reinforcement of conditioned norms within a like-minded cohort.

You are demanding that scientific terminology present no 'cognitive dissonance' to the fragile masses on the verge of personality crisis. So who is going to determine what is the common discourse, and maintain it as a social obligation ?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Reading the article, it seems very strange to me. Information theory, a la Claude Shannon is maths.

That's true. However, Shannon formulated his theory of communication that became information theory using concepts from physics (particularly entropy). I'm not saying this is the reason for the use of information theory in physics, but it does have a nice symmetry to it.

The actual reason has much more to do with quantum computing and the realization that information theory can be extended far beyond communications. A great deal of research in modern physics, including vast numbers of studies that have nothing to do with quantum computing, still refer to qubits and rely on quantum information theory. Quantum mechanics is centered around a several postulates. One of the most important is that the state-vector or wave-function (the mathematical representation of the quantum system) contains all the information need/necessary to extract/measure any and all values for any and all observables (i.e., properties that can be measured such as momentum). From a practical standpoint, quantum mechanics is a set of procedures that allow us to extract information using the mathematical/logical structure of quantum theory. The orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics is probably not even believed by those who claim to hold it true, but in practice it yields results. This interpretation is that quantum mechanics is irreducibly statistical. The state of a quantum system has no know relation to anything in the physical/"real" world, but is defined such that we can perform experiments that yield information concerning the values of measurements.

 

[Bunyip]

That's true.

Yes it is, cheers.

However, Shannon formulated his theory of communication that became information theory using concepts from physics (particularly entropy). I'm not saying this is the reason for the use of information theory in physics, but it does have a nice symmetry to it.

The actual reason has much more to do with quantum computing and the realization that information theory can be extended far beyond communications. A great deal of research in modern physics, including vast numbers of studies that have nothing to do with quantum computing, still refer to qubits and rely on quantum information theory. Quantum mechanics is centered around a several postulates. One of the most important is that the state-vector or wave-function (the mathematical representation of the quantum system) contains all the information need/necessary to extract/measure any and all values for any and all observables (i.e., properties that can be measured such as momentum). From a practical standpoint, quantum mechanics is a set of procedures that allow us to extract information using the mathematical/logical structure of quantum theory. The orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics is probably not even believed by those who claim to hold it true, but in practice it yields results. This interpretation is that quantum mechanics is irreducibly statistical. The state of a quantum system has no know relation to anything in the physical/"real" world, but is defined such that we can perform experiments that yield information concerning the values of measurements.

Shannon wrote extensively on the misuse of his theory in all manner of other fields, it was something he found quite remarkable.

 

[Yerda]

The theory is inconsistent with common discourse. According to common discourse the emotion turns the corners of the mouth upward, the corners of the mouth turning upward does not result in the emotion. So how the brain is does not give rise to any emotion.

I'll try again. When you say that the emotion turns the corner of the mouth upward, where does the emotion come from?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

in the introduction, the first page or so. By all means, know the first thing what you are talking about.

I do. Which is why I'm waiting to for your quotation that I know you can't produce.

However ironic you find it, it is what must be done.

Why?

If scientists want to use words from common discourse in their theory, then they must regard common discourse as being a scientific hypothesis

The word theory in common discourse used to mean something seen or a sight. It came to have the meanings it does today primarily due to the origin and development of the sciences. So you are essentially arguing that if scientists want to use words from common discourse in order to incorporate them into a word- "theory"- that they shouldn't have ever used because it was from common discourse, then they have to go back in time and invent a new word to use instead of "theory". Having done that, they must regard "common discourse" as being something other than a hypothesis, because both theory and hypothesis have meanings in common discourse that differ from their usage in the sciences.

Alternatively, you could learn that when Dawkins used a word to describe entities (genes) that couldn't possibly be selfish in any sense remotely related to common usage (any more that pebbles can be selfish), you can be sure he isn't trying to insist that selfishness should be defined by genetics.

Also, as long as we're insisting that language be fundamentally different than it is and be strictly defined by "common discourse" (which is something that only scientific research can determine), can we still use the word "science"? I mean after all there's no WAY that Chaucer or Milton used the term the way it is today, so clearly even the word "science" should never have been used by scientists as it didn't reflect "common usage" or "common discourse".

Otherwise confusion is generated.

1) On behalf of the scientific community, I apologize for misleading you into thinking that genes could actually be selfish because of a book.
2) Words are polysemous, ambiguous, frequently used in novel ways, almost always given meaning by the constructions in which they are used, and are never fixed.
3) The only way to erase confusion is to rely on the kind of strict definitions of mathematics/logic. Unfortunately, the only way to avoid confusion is to remove meaning from words (which is what enables us to get calculators and computers to do things- we strip meaning away until we reduce whatever it is we want via logical operators and binary values.

And there is very widespread confusion for example resulting from natural selection theory, because in the theory it seems as though it is posited as fact that organisms like to surive.

There is widespread confusion because given any scientific field, most people don't know enough about it to understand more than the basics if they even know the field exists (not to mention the fact that science education imparts an understanding of the nature of science (NOS) that is fundamentally flawed, and the media throws fuel on the fire by sensationalizing and distorting scientific research. I admit that the gap between scientists and non-scientists regarding the basics of the scientific endeavor is real, problematic, and should be addressed. The way to do this is through education, not relying on a flawed conception of the sciences to interpret popular science literature.

And further reinforced by evolutionary theories dealing with emotions, positively asserting that love can be measured in the brain. And altogether, it is an assault on the common discourse and religious understanding of love, which confuses people no end, and leads to personal and societal identity crisis.

1) Do you actually read scientific literature? If so, how do you obtain it?
2) There is only one way to determine what makes up "common discourse", and that is through the scientific methods developed to do this, as "common discourse" is a technical phrase that wasn't used outside academia.
3) I sympathize entirely with any confused as to the nature or meaning of some scientific finding, theory, model, etc. However, you are using something called a "computer", a term that meant something entirely different until scientists created computability theory and what we now call computers, to talk about a scientific notion "common discourse" via a series of technologies developed by the sciences (all of which used terms that were used in "common discourse", such as transfer control protocol, screen, mouse, network, program, object, language, code, web, etc.), in order to argue that you shouldn't have the ability to do so. Wouldn't it be easier just to self-educate? There's this thing called the internet, which includes a scientific development known as a search engine, and one of these- google scholar- is free and specifically tailored to help people like you to access and find scientific literature.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Shannon wrote extensively on the misuse of his theory in all manner of other fields, it was something he found quite remarkable.

Einstein spent most of his career trying to show that the theory he basically founded was being misused. Yet somehow much of the world depends upon this theory (quantum mechanics) in ways that many don't even realize. I haven't read anything by Shannon in which he asserts what you state, but that's probably because the only reason I read anything by Shannon was either because it was assigned or because it was foundational literature. My mother's master's degree was in communications at a time when communications meant Shannon's theory, and she doesn't know enough from that level of education to understand most of information theory. I"m not sure what you problem is with the transition from the (largely misleading) language of classical physics applied to fundamentally distinct concepts in modern physics to an information-theoretic formulation. It works, it is essential in some cases and useful in all, and it provides a quantitative framework beyond that previously used which allows not only physicists but scientists in multiple fields to more rigorously define (and therefore better test) concepts in these fields. What's the problem?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I do. Which is why I'm waiting to for your quotation that I know you can't produce..

Dawkins, selfish gene
"Before going any further, we need a definition. An entity, such as a baboon, is said to be altruistic if it behaves in such a way as to increase another such entity's welfare at the expense of its own. Selfish behavior has exactly the opposite effect.'Welfare' is defined as 'chances of survival', even if the effect on actual life and death prospects is so small as toseem negligible."

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'll try again. When you say that the emotion turns the corner of the mouth upward, where does the emotion come from?

For the 3rd time, the existence of the emotions is generally held to be a matter of opinion in common discourse.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I would say that confusion is not 'generated', rather it is highlighted.
When people make that ubiquitous error - "because in the theory it seems as though it is posited as fact that organisms like to survive " it is the result of unconsciously applying an idea created by theologians over the centuries, which is that life is a manifestation of a higher order teleology

About 100 percent of professional evolutionary biologists make that mistake in interpreting natural selection theory, that they assert it is a fact that organisms like to live. They don't accept it is a mistake, they implicitly argue that love as it is understood in common discourse is wrong. And in common discourse what ought and ought not is derived from what is identified as loving or hateful, which means basically all evolutionary biologists are social darwinists.

We can just identify how a word is used, and count it, making a definition common, or uncommon.

 

[Yerda]

For the 3rd time, the existence of the emotions is generally held to be a matter of opinion in common discourse.

Sorry, I didn't see the first and second time. What does it mean to say that emotions are a matter of opinion?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sorry, I didn't see the first and second time. What does it mean to say that emotions are a matter of opinion?

In post 16 and 20 i mentioned it. For something to be a matter of opinion it means you reach the conclusion by choosing it. Like saying something is beautiful, you can also choose to say it is ugly. For an opinion the validity depends on the conclusion being chosen, and to be forced to a conclusion by evidence or a tyrant is a logical error.

Just take a look at common discourse on TV. If it is said that somebody is "courageous" it means they have several courses of action available, and then "courage" is what made the decision turn out the way it does. And the conclusion courage is offered as a choice, so as that to call the same action "reckless" would just as well be a valid conclusion if that conclusion was chosen instead. Then the opinion is that "recklessness" made the decision turn out the way it did.

Opinions are totally different from facts, with facts the validity depends on the proposed fact being an accurate and exhaustive model of something, the conclusion is arrived at forced by evidence. The fact "the moon is round", is a model of the moon, a copy of the moon itself, to a world of words. With mathematics you can make more accurate and exhaustive models of things, than you can do with words.

 

[Yerda]

In post 16 and 20 i mentioned it.

Indeed you did, again my apologies.

For something to be a matter of opinion it means you reach the conclusion by choosing it. Like saying something is beautiful, you can also choose to say it is ugly. For an opinion the validity depends on the conclusion being chosen, and to be forced to a conclusion by evidence or a tyrant is a logical error.

Just take a look at common discourse on TV. If it is said that somebody is "courageous" it means they have several courses of action available, and then "courage" is what made the decision turn out the way it does. And the conclusion courage is offered as a choice, so as that to call the same action "reckless" would just as well be a valid conclusion if that conclusion was chosen instead. Then the opinion is that "recklessness" made the decision turn out the way it did.

Opinions are totally different from facts, with facts the validity depends on the proposed fact being an accurate and exhaustive model of something, the conclusion is arrived at forced by evidence. The fact "the moon is round", is a model of the moon, a copy of the moon itself, to a world of words. With mathematics you can make more accurate and exhaustive models of things, than you can do with words.

I agree with what you have said here. I hope I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, but how do you feel this applies to consciousness?

For instance, if I am having a particular experience, of coldness say, what part does my ability to form opinions and make choices play in my experience?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

For instance, if I am having a particular experience, of coldness say, what part does my ability to form opinions and make choices play in my experience?

Apparently it would be a lower level of decisionmaking, but this is not much in common discourse. It is only in common discourse if we look at the logic in common discourse as a whole, and then generalize the logic in it consistently. But common discourse is not so consistent itself. On the other hand we would not say in common discourse something feels cold if it did not show any capacity for decisionmaking. So in common discourse free will and feeling cold is fundamentally related to free will.

You can with training become to feel less cold with the same low temperature, showing it is related to decisionmaking.