CONSCIOUS COGNITION

 

Is there really gritty matter out there? Or do we construct the out-thereness 

of matter from the mathematical rationality of our pattens of consciousness? 

Unraveling the Puzzle of Consciousness: Key Brain Region Discovered - Neuroscience News

I've written a lot on the subject of consciousness over years. In that time I've expressed my philosophical slant towards idealism, a philosophy that I see as the only chance of making sense of consciousness.  In trying to summarize my view I would give account of my own version of idealism as follows:

The Problem

There seems to be an incommensurability, or conceptual disconnect between conscious cognition and the material world of particles which make up the many kinds of dynamic configurations we perceive around us. What is it about a dynamic configuration such as we see in the neural structure of the brain which makes it conscious? The problem is compounded by recent strides in Artificial Intelligence which are starting to do a good job of simulating at least some aspects of human behavior. The AI problem seems to be simply a case of creating the right kind of dynamic configurations which imitate human thinking. In trying get the AI cognitive dynamic right the question of adding the sentient magic of consciousness doesn't come into it and in fact is of no help at all when trying to design AI systems. It is no surprise, therefore, that some people, misled by the third-person linguistic currency of science which deals largely with dynamic configurationalism and which is (necessarily) oblivious to the first-person perspective, will tell us that consciousness is a mirage or some kind of illusion; a position which is a bit like saying that pain and suffering are illusions and therefore what's the fuss all about?

But yes, on the face of it there is an issue here: In all our attempts to investigate the dynamic configurational basis of intelligence/sentience, whether by deeply probing neural structure or trying to simulate intelligence/sentience computationally the concept of consciousness simply doesn't come into our thinking: So, does it really exist?

The Solution. 

The consciousness problem arises because of the seeming logical impossibility of finding consciousness even in the most sophisticated material configurations; for the closer you look at any configuration the more you find just further configurational detail and that is not what we mean by consciousness.  I would explain that this is because conscious cognition is an entirely different genus of category to configurational categories; conscious cognition is the thing that is doing the looking, whereas material configurations are the things being looked at.  The question "Where can one find consciousness in the physical regime?" is therefore unanswerable until our attention becomes focused back toward the observer rather than the observed. 

So, if we are going to treat material configurationalism as fundamental, axiomatic and elemental we will never be able to solve the question of consciousness. The solution, then, is to turn the question around: Viz: If the perceptions of conscious cognition are taken as fundamental, and axiomatic can we then find a material physical a regime? The answer is a clear yes.... 

If the perceptions and qualia of sentience are sufficiently organized with mathematical precision and faultless registration it then becomes possible for conscious cognition to define material objects in terms of the mathematical logic controlling experience. But to do so would also require that conscious cognition is itself sufficiently organized, rational and sophisticated for it to be able to mentally construct material objects from its experience. The elegant twist in the logic here is that we find conscious cognition is itself describable in terms of the very material physical regime conscious cognition constructs and perceives. I love this twist of circular self-affirmation: As I've said before it so reminds me of the way a computer language compiler can be written in the very language it compiles; that is, a computer language is actually described in terms of itself. Likewise conscious cognition constructs and conceives the objects of the physical regime and discovers itself to be describable in the self-same terms of that physical regime*. See the introduction to my book where I grappled with these ideas.

 

The Thing-in-Itself

Of course, we can never know the nature of the thing-in-itself which delivers the organised patterning of our experiences (However, see Acts 17:28 for a possible Biblical answer).  But if we have sufficient intelligence we can perceive and understand the organization of the experiential interface that this thing-in-itself mysteriously presents to us. It is this organization which enables us to define a rational physical regime of apparently "gritty" matter (or should that be "wirery" strings?). And at the same time we find that we can also self-describe ourselves in terms of that matter. 

At this point one might be tempted to say that because the material physical regime is a mathematical construction made possible by the high organization & high registration of our experiential interface then it follows that "gritty matter" is a kind of mathematical illusion and that conscious cognition is the actual elemental & fundamental reality. This turn of phrase, which I have some (but not full) sympathy with, turns the "consciousness-is-an-illusion" philosophy on its head; if I say "gritty-matter-out-there is an illusion" it serves as a useful hyperbole to get the message of idealism across that the thinking conscious intelligence is fundamental and axiomatic to the cosmos. 

But that message needs qualification: As I've said before, I suspect there are no bit parts in the material "illusion": I'd guess that no object is simply an experiential facade, unlike the characters and objects which appear in a novel or a computer game which are developed just enough to keep up the illusion of a deeper reality. All the mathematics of all the objects and characters in the story of matter have, I suggest, been worked out in full whether it be those distant galaxies or those events of the distant past. 

So, am I claiming that life, the universe and everything is some kind of thorough computer simulation giving us a facade of apparently gritty matter? The answer to that is both "yes" and "no". 

"Yes" because there is, I believe, some kind of matrix dedicated to supplying us with an experiential interface capable of empirically answering all the questions we put to it. This constitutes the equivalent of a kind of Turing test for an ontologically real world; as far as empirically interrogating this world is concerned the "illusion" seldom reveals itself to be an "illusion" and survives robust probing.  But we just don't know the absolute nature of the medium on which this mathematics has been reified (although as a Christain I would quote Acts 17:28). Moreover, because the philosophy of idealism gives conscious cognition such a primary and fundamental place it helps to break us into the notion that divine conscious cognition is the a-priori matrix on which the physical regime is reified.

"No" because the computer simulation argument has only been presented in a way where it is clear that "gritty matter" is assumed to be axiomatic, elemental and fundamental. See here for my reaction to the computer simulation notion.  

Very early on in my thinking career I was impressed by the logic of positivism; it seemed irrefutable that not only did all knowledge come via experience/observation but also the objects of the material world were meaningless without their ordered experiential base and the cognitive ability to construct them mathematically. This kind of logical positivism rightly assumed that the combination of organised experience and sophisticated cognitive abilities were axiomatic and fundamental. But where positivism was in danger of falling-over was that it was liable to render meaningless any thought that the constructions built from the data dots of experience pointed to a reality beyond the observer; history, distant galaxies and above all other sentient beings were in danger of, very counter intuitively, dissolving into nothingness, leaving us with a very egocentric solipsism. There had to be a matrix out there that was far more fundamental and elemental than the cognizant observer and which maintained that highly organised facade and interface to a real world. Given the primacy of sentience in the idealist philosophy, for me Acts 17:28 was a rational guess for the nature of the matrix, a guess that integrated and made sense of so much about the human predicament. 

End Note:

My own highly speculative attempt at the physics of consciousness can be found here. I don't push this theory with any strong conviction, but just to prove that theorizing on consciousness should not be a taboo subject. What this theory lacks however is the colourful qualitative nature of conscious experience. Experiential qualities are irreducible to the formal black & white terms of configurationalism. Although Penrose's idea that conscious cognition is a correlate of incomputability is a possible line of inquiry I'm not impressed by this theory myself. 

Footnote

* It must be understood that this self-description is only in terms of the formal structure of cognition as opposed to the qualities of conscious cognition: An AI system may be able to do a could job of formally simulating/describing the neural activity of the mind, but identity of formal structure is not a sufficient condition to create the qualia of consciousness. 

NAID Part V: Politics and North American Intelligent Design

 See here for the previous parts of this series: Quantum Non-Linearity: NAID Part IV: Evolution: Creation on Steriods (quantumnonlinearity.blogspot.com)

Wesley J Smith channels the primordial 
fears fueling conspiracy theorism and by 
default furthers the cause of a certain
D J Trump and his demagoguery

I don't like politics. It is a messy business bound up with the complexities and foibles of a human nature, impossible to fully understand and render in neat formulaic expressions. Well, I suppose I was being naive when I thought the Evolution/Intelligent Design question could be approached from a purely mathematical angle and that politics wouldn't figure; in actual fact the subject is shot through with group identification, group think, and group camaraderie; how silly I was; what did I expect of a highly gregarious human animal? Moreover, since the appearance of a certain Mr. D J Trump and the far-right the question has become even more politised and like covid-mask wearing it has become a predictor of one's woke or unwoke status.

In this connection I was piqued by the following article on the North American ID website Evolution News written by a Wesley J Smith a man who I would place as part of the religio-political wing of the North American Intelligent Design community:  See here:

Beware of the “Right to Health” | Evolution News

Wesley, it seems, is a specialist in human exceptionalism. I'd not disagree with him on human exceptionalism, but although not necessarily disagreeing with his conclusions I can almost guarantee that I'd disagree with the cultural route to those conclusions. Actually, come to think of it, I can bet that I'd also disagree with just what he means by "exceptionalism". But all that is another story, so back to his article. I reproduce the article below, but before I do some general comments.....

Since I wrote a series of posts in 2007 that I called "Mathematical Politics" my suspicions of both the collectivism of Maxism and the libertarian individualism of the far-right has only increased. In fact, I would go as far as to say that both, when pushed hard enough, are the gateways to dictatorships. Both try to sow distrust in the cut & thrust of democratic politics and its established institutions, e.g. democratic forums, the civil service, the police, the army, the judiciary, the media, academia, big tech, big pharma etc, which they believe to be harbouring malign highly self-interested parties.  Both Marxists and libertarians have visions of doing away with "big government" which they will tell us is serving a quasi-anonymous elite. This sense of alienation and suspicion is what I refer to as proto-conspiracy theorism, a precursor which provides fertile ground for the more specific & detailed nonsense of conspiracy theorism such as QAnon and 5G-vaccine theories etc. The political fantasy goal of both Marxists and extreme libertarians is of a folksy decentralization, either in the form of communism or a thoroughly decentralized market.  Both visions see government as part of the problem and therefore both seek the dismantling of the ramifying democratic state which they will portray as the enemy of the people. Much as the romantic idea of a decentralized society sounds attractive, just and fair, it would leave a dangerous power vacuum up for grabs by the demagogues who would emerge out of Marxism and libertarianism.  

In his article Wesley takes the view that those ostensively good causes promoted by governments, quangos and technocratic elites in actual fact favor authoritarian control or may even be a cover story for those whose ambitions are power & social control. Let's recall that Marxism makes a similar claim: Viz: Government, whether we call it democracy or not along with its associated institutions, is there to support the interests of the propertied classes.  But for those who see social reality through the spectacles of proto-conspiracy theorism, no obvious dictators pulling the strings are named; instead they lump people into malign classes and nefarious hidden actors who are identified as the cause of our problems with perhaps some individuals (like Bill Gates or Anthony Fauci) singled out as especially evil. In the malaise of a troubled democracy folk discontent readily latches onto these casts of hidden actors who are blamed for social woes and become a target popularists love to hate. This "who-can-we-blame" effect is readily exploited by demagogues who are looking to displace the complexities, contentions and cut-and-thrust of democratic & accountable government with the great simplifications of dictatorial and quasi-monarchical rule. 

Wesley's article speaks for itself. As we see below it is full of how apparently good causes are being used as a cover story to influence the populace to accept the covert goal of authoritarian rule. In his article he names all the hot topics which make the blood of far-right pundits boil: Viz: Gun control, vaccinations, confiscation of intellectual property rights, rule by experts, the international technocracy, the WHO, the UN, Anthony Fauci, limiting fossil fuel use, climate change, human rights, "woke" philosophy, racism, welfare state, public health care, gender transitions, abortion, and more...  These are all bad, bad, bad and set the pulses racing of those who have been baited by the idea that they are all pretexts for ultimate authoritarian control, just as Marxists will claim that government, the legal system, the police, the army and private property rights of the ruling class are a way of keeping the working classes in their place.  

In Wesley's article below I've highlighted the inflammatory & emotive phrases:

Wesley J Smith: Wealth and wellness are becoming the primary justifications for international technocracy, or “rule by experts.” Indeed, we are told that preventing the next pandemic will require that the World Health Organization be given the power to declare pandemics and impose emergency policies internationally. Anthony Fauci went even further, arguing that that the UN and the WHO must be given greater powers to “rebuild the infrastructures of human existence.” Imagine the authoritarian potential.

We have been told, also, that climate change is a health emergency that justifies greater technocratic control. So is racism. Ditto, gun proliferation in the U.S. And we can’t forget the threats to biodiversity. On and on the proposed policy imperialism goes. This is why the seemingly good-sounding proposal for an international “right to health” is such a trap.

A Purported Right: As an illustration, the Lancet just published an article seeking to push this purported right into international law. Note the expansive scope of the proposal. From “Revitalising the right to health is essential to securing better health for all” (my emphasis):

The right to health is a duty held by all states under international human rights law and covers a range of entitlements, including available, accessible, acceptable, and good quality health care for mental and physical health, along with freedoms such as bodily autonomy. The right to health also extends to the underlying determinants of health — those factors, such as the rights to safe drinking water and to adequate food, which are integral to human dignity. Health is a fundamental human right that is indispensable for the exercise of other human rights and essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

That covers just about the entire range of contemporary international technocratic ambition, including the desire to do away with fossil fuels, establish worldwide abortion absolutism and a right to access “gender transitions,” attack the ability of meat and dairy producers to remain in business and family farmers to properly fertilize their fields (as we have seen in Europe, lately), etc. Indeed, the advocacy is steeped with a voracious technocratic grasping for power. To wit:

The report of the International AIDS Society–Lancet Commission underscores the centrality of human rights to achieving better health for all, discussing many of the key issues that require urgent attention. Newer challenges include the worsening impacts of the climate crisis and the potential harms emanating from digital technologies, especially generative artificial intelligence, which continue to advance in a regulatory vacuum.

Efforts to advance the right to health must also involve consideration of the impacts of commercial companies, given their practices that are too often inconsistent with their responsibility to respect human rights — for example, on pricing and distribution of medicines and vaccines.

Good Grief: Under this guise, almost everything becomes about “health,” and authoritarian powers — such as the ability to suspend intellectual-property rights during a health “emergency,” as is already proposed — are justified under a so-called human-rights economy.

At the national level, embracing the Human Rights Economy approach — a concept that places people and the planet at the core of economic policy making — can promote investment in health care and other social goods.

A Human Rights Economy can also drive effective action to end power disparities — often the painful legacy of slavery, colonialism, and racist and patriarchal structures — that perpetuate discrimination and marginalisation, entrenching inequalities and inequities.

 You get the drill.

Yes, I do get the drill Wesley! You are a proto-conspiracy theorist and all this plays into the hands of far-right demagogues and conspiracy theorists. Well, OK those government institutions & quangos are composed of flawed human beings and therefore self-interest and error always lurks in the background; cockups and cover-ups are frequent. But when these failings are exposed, fearful and imaginative conspiracy theorists all too easily weave them into the fabric of their paranoid and highly organized macro-conspiracy fantasies; this appears to be a coping strategy in the face of the chaos and randomness of the human condition. But I would maintain there is no organized macro-conspiracy needed to explain this condition; common-or-garden human sin and epistemic limitations are enough. 

Wesley is adding fuel to the fires of fear, discontent and alienation. What is notable is that he names no authoritarian leader who is behind the plot striving to get into the cockpit of society; instead, he just stokes up resentment, blame and above all fear. He fails to see that the real dangers come from identifiable autocrats & potential autocrats who when their guile fails will use threat and coercion to impose their will. It is also notable such authoritarian leaders stoke up popularist fears and have a history of exploiting conspiracy theories and lies to apportion blame on covert actors that the popularists believe have got-it-in-for-them. See here for more on why I believe conspiracy theory to be a false theory society. (See also here)

I would challenge Wesley's understanding of how a society works and in particular the dynamic of societal authoritarianism; the means of authoritarianism is, as always, the good old fashioned overt dictator working through a brutal secret police. So, look out for the up and coming "strong-men" and not those ostensively good international causes no matter how misguided they might be; whilst accountable democracy still exists these causes can be openly argued over. 

Nevertheless, I have some sympathy with the reaction of the NAID community of which Welsey is part. They have been rejected by a highly secularized academic community, a community who have lost their way in regard to the meaning of life; they can only offer emptiness when in fact human instincts about ultimate purpose & meaning actually point elsewhere.  But the NAID community, as I have tried to show in this series, haven't helped themselves with the kind of nonsense they have served up and things have only got worse with them as they have accepted the welcoming embrace of the far-right. But they do have fragments of a case at least worth considering. Writing-off that case wholesale as pseudo-science has only help fuel the grievance politics that motivates Trumpite popularism and blights the academic community in the popularist imagination. 

I'm pretty sure Wesley, like Ken Ham, will be voting Trump, and in doing so he'll be voting for authoritarian control with knobs on.

Relevant Links:

1. Libertarians boo & heckle Trump!

See the links below for the complex pattern of divisions in the ranks of the far right, probably down to the inner contradictions of libertarianism: Try and reduce society to a folksy decentralized level and the demagogues of would-be authoritarian government rush into the power vacuum. These libertarians are finding out what "draining the swamp" means and are in collision with the unintended consequences of their views.

Trump suffered a 'stunning rebuke' in disastrous Saturday night speech: analyst (msn.com)

‘No wannabe dictators!’: Donald Trump booed at Libertarian convention | US elections 2024 | The Guardian

2. Evidence that the Trumpism is an entryist party and not Republican or conservative.

If Trump becomes dictator, pro-Putin Steve Bannon could jostle to be the next in line. He's a lot brighter than Trump and he's riding on Trump's back. Notice that he uses pseudo-Marxist terminology at one point.  If my guess at the long term is correct, then if the Trump/Bannon party get into power they'll form an alliance with Russia against China. So, if you are listening China, there's something there for you to think about. 

Trump's nomination could be 'stolen' by establishment conservatives, warns Steve Bannon (msn.com)

Some Quotes:

Donald Trump’s nomination as Republican candidate for President could be stolen by establishment conservatives, a close Trump advisor has warned.

Speaking exclusively to GB News, Stephen Bannon said that supporters of Nikki Haley, a previous opponent of President Trump, could attempt to “steal the nomination from Trump”.

“They think they have a plan like Cruz had in 2016 to actually try to steal the nomination from Trump at the convention which he should win overwhelmingly.”

“And the reason is they're conservatives, they only mouthed the principles of conservatism. They don't realise you also have to fight for those values"

In his exclusive hour-long sit down with GB News America, Bannon also warned of a potential third world war and slammed the (UK) Conservative Party as Left-wing “liars”.

The former Trump advisor and current radio host said if Britain continued down its current path, “You're going to have a revolution, and that revolution is going to be a violent revolution.”.

He described the current system as “late-stage finance capitalism in the City of London, late-stage capitalism and now becoming techno feudalism”.