Across every aspect of being a self, we perceive ourselves as stable over time because we perceive ourselves in order to control ourselves, not in order to know ourselves.
Seth, Anil. Being You: A New Science of Consciousness (The Sunday Times Bestseller) (p. 222). Faber & Faber. Kindle-editie.
@jonny I agree. Would you agree to the following: every person percieves himself as stable, but nobody really is stable (according to Seth): changing in time, in different situations etc. In queer people there is a more obvious discrepancy (or more at the surface?): between embodied self (experiences that relate directly to the body) and perspectival self (= subjective perception).
"This perspectival self is nowhere better illustrated than in the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach’s self-portrait, also known as ‘View from the Left Eye’."
Seth, Anil. Being You: A New Science of Consciousness (The Sunday Times Bestseller) (p. 179). Faber & Faber. Kindle-editie.
@jonny@MolemanPeter@admin Thank you Peter for sharing your thoughts on this and I too am in favor of suspending threads. I've personally already blocked them (how to do that -> https://mstdn.social/@stux/111587300850571158) but doing so at the instance level requires community consensus given that we are a cooperatively governed instance. so yes let's call for an instance vote. We'll share the loomio link soon.
@NicoleCRust Something for you?
We have proposed and argued that, under the two principles of Parsimony and Self-consistency, it is possible to assemble many necessary pieces of the puzzle of intelligence into a unified computational framework that is easily implementable on machines or by nature. This unifying framework offers new perspectives on how we could further advance the study of perception, decision making, and intelligence in general. To conclude to our proposal for a principled approach to intelligence, we emphasize once again that all scientific principles for intelligence should not be philosophical guidelines or conceptual frameworks formulated or developed with mathematical quantities that are intractable to compute or can only be approximated heuristically. They should rely on the most basic and principled objectives that are measurable with finite observations and lead to computational systems that can be realized even with limited resources.
Ma Y, Tsao D, Shum H-Y (2022): On the Principles of Parsimony and Self-Consistency for the Emergence of Intelligence [Internet] DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2207.04630
"It could be argued that generative AI is one of the most beautiful and important inventions of the century – a 21st-century 'mirror' in which we can see ourselves in a new and revealing light. However, when we look behind the mirror, there is nobody there."
Pezzulo G, Parr T, Cisek P, Clark A, Friston K (2023): Generating meaning: active inference and the scope and limits of passive AI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2023.10.002 #neuroscience
This article is about the human brain vs AI, but it is also a great summary of how the brain works if you are not interested in AI.
Pezzulo G, Parr T, Cisek P, Clark A, Friston K (2023): Generating meaning: active inference and the scope and limits of passive AI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2023.10.002 #neuroscience
In the limit, I do think that mind reading is literally “what am I thinking or feeling right now?” (And I get to think or feel any crazy thing).
Wrt resolution: I have a hard time believing it. The loss from spikes to lfps on the same electrode is so huge! There’s a lot of “devil’s in the details and depends on what you’re looking at”, of course. But I really don’t think the brain’s neural code (for different thoughts) will be reflected by local averages of 100K+ neurons.
I'm still waiting for a simple mathematical intuition for "top down causation". If it's just the statement that a complex system determined by N variables cannot be modeled completely with N-1 of them, then I'm curious to know what type of (non-nervous system) thing N is that contributes to thought. It's called "context". But what type of thing is it? And how is that supposed to influence thought? Unlike the worms, this seems much more mysterious than biomechanics (making me think that the simple mathematical intuition here is off?)
Brain Inspired 174: Alicia Juarrero: Context Changes Everything (on her ecent book) https://braininspired.co/podcast/174/
On nodes and links in a dynamical system: the nodes may be condensated links, stabale links. Meaning that processes may be most important.
@MolemanPeter we are preparing to update #neuromatchstodon to the latest version soon. It has some new search-related features. But for full-text search to work we need to enable Elastic Search. We will do a quick instance-wide check to see if anyone has any concerns about us enabling that. If the consensus is to enable it, then we should have full-text search on the instance soon.