Radical Neuro-buddhism and You— or why thinking doesn't exist because Science™ - What is the nature of consciousness and thinking?

[wylfım]

This OP will be an unusual blend of mockery (in the spirit of the site) and actual deep thinking; please be gentle, it's my first time : (
Also if someone could tell me how to put description text on spoilers, I would appreciate that.

Here we have this wonderful essay by Aeon, that is so full of obfuscation that I'm not really sure what it's trying to convey.

Nevertheless, I will make an attempt.

Your sense of self doesn't really exist, it's just an outgrowth of your neurons communicating with each other. This means that you may not really be in control of your thoughts— you only THINK you are. The agent-self model, as he refers to it, is just your brain's attempt at trying to assign causes to your actions in order to learn from them.

Except that causes don't exist, and so neither do you. How he knows this, I don't know, but he has a philosophy degree so let's flow with it.

Spoiler

However, even if you do experience yourself as an agent, that doesn’t mean you fundamentally are one. In the physical world, there is no such thing as ultimate origination. Science is what explains why you think and behave the way you do, not some pre-existing agential self.

Now is where things get interesting. You can be conscious but not have a sense of self; this sense of self is only your brain telling itself that it can tell itself things. Don't worry, I had trouble comprehending that at first too. But I digress; here is the quote evidencing his thinking (or, according to him, the illusion of thinking).

Spoiler

But since the real cause – unconscious, sub-personal processes, such as synapses firing – can’t be represented within the workspace of our consciousness, the brain tells itself something else: there must be a self acting so as to make all these thoughts and actions occur!

Now, like any well-written article, he tries to tie it in with existing issues. As many intelligent rationalists would say:
"This process of learning about ourselves is emotionally unattractive to many. It forces us to confront centuries-old systems of systematic self-deception, often represented by certain forms of organised religion. Indeed, one of the interesting aspects of mental autonomy is our general inability to notice when we lack it."
But of course, that is too simple a stance. We're philosophers, goddammit, and we need complexity. And so we get this gem:

Spoiler

Meditation research is poised to make major contributions to mental autonomy. Mindfulness practice can sometimes lead to a crystal-clear and silent mind that is not clouded by thoughts at all, the pure conscious experience of mental autonomy as such that arises without actually exerting control. In long-term practitioners, this can result from the cultivation of a kind of inner non-acting that includes noticing, gently letting go, and resting in an open, effortless state of choiceless awareness.

Of course, he's anti-religion. Except buddhism. Because muh eastern tradition.
Yes, he says this.

Spoiler

Whether this sort of cognition really requires a robust notion of selfhood, as most Western philosophers would argue, would be disputed in many Eastern traditions. Here the highest level of mental autonomy is often seen as a form of impersonal witnessing or (in the words of the Indian-born philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti) ‘observing without an observer’ (though even this pure form of global meta-awareness still contains the implicit knowledge that the organism could act if necessary).

Now, maybe I'm just not intelligent enough to grasp this article. But he seems to try separating consciousness and sense of self— you can somehow think, without knowing it is you thinking. And this prompts the question, then.
What is thinking? What is consciousness? What is the self?

My theory is that consciousness is the manifestation of a critical mass of semi-independent neurons cooperating. In this framework, thinking would then be the processing of information by the network, and the self is the conglomeration of all the cooperative efforts of the individual units. Like how a car is the sum of its parts, and only exists because the parts in it work together to make it exist. This means it is real, though perhaps in a sense less real than something physical because it requires an extra medium upon which to exist (the mind).

But that's just me. What are your thoughts?

 

[BigMoney]

Yeah i think psychedelics are pretty cool

 

[Not an_ime g_irl]

Assuming that the author is right:
If thinking is an illusion, we still live inside that illusion in such a convincing way we cannot discern it from reality, heck, we might not even know what reality feels like. But how can he claim thinking is inexistent, if this illusion is our reality, thus we call this illusion of thinking "thinking"
I could claim touch is an illusion, but that wont change anything. Even if touch is an illusion, i am still touching, as this illusion is my reality, and i know no better than this.

 

[The Fool]

What is all this trying to say? That our intelligence is the result of physics and neural networks and isn't the result of some catch-22 magic where we think we exist because we think we exist? wow color me shocked I would have never assumed such a thing.
You should probably read a few wikipedia articles on the brain and it's various regions to get a basic idea of what parts of the brain are doing what to support consciousness. The parts that remember shit, the parts that process color, the parts that generate emotions, whatever their fucking names are because honestly how does anyone remember those names?

I guess if you do want to get philosophical, you can break consciousness up into symbolic reasoning. The brain works in vague symbols all associated with each other. We have some base, instinctual symbolic associations just from how parts of the brain are connected with each other. Red is painful because pain in the visual cortex sees it as red for some reason. Symbols come from our sensory organs and we use those symbols to create and recombine more. It's kind of irrelevant if those symbols are represented in neurons, or, say, every person in China calling each other saying which person to call next if their number is higher than the number the person being called has. As for the self, that's just a bunch of associations connecting your body/agency to various thoughts and actions, it's not that special. People just over-hype the concept of the self because, as you said, they're egotistical, but a variety of mental illnesses show just how easy it is to disassociate with yourself. All it takes is to change the associations between some thoughts, not even adding in new ones, and you can completely change someone's state of mind, opinions, memories, values, anything.
You can become aware of the reliance of your neurons if you say the same word a lot in a short amount of time. If you do that, the word loses meaning and you don't understand it anymore. It's because you're physically shorting out the neurons responsible for holding that information. They revive after a minute, so it's harmless.

damn I wrote all this and I'm not even drunk

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

Bullshit. If thinking is an illusion why does stuff like mathematics exist? How could there be scientists and iventors if thinking isn't real? If it wasn't real no one would figure out anything.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Consciousness is not real, because something something neurons.

Buddhism is real, because something something Eastern philosophical tradition.

Someone is very confused.

Western philosophical tradition is still better than any other. More rational. More concise. More simple and clear cut (relatively speaking). More elegant and beautiful.

Plato's Theory of Forms is more elegant and beautiful than any Darśana.

 

[Crocophile]

I'm pretty sure this is just the background lore of Morrowind.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

No Randy Orton " I hear voices in my head, they come to me, they understand they talk to me!" theme option?

 

[wylfım]

Consciousness is not real, because something something neurons.

Buddhism is real, because something something Eastern philosophical tradition.

But you see, the Eastern philosophers don't believe in logic, and postulate that we must feel enlightenment, that is, nothingness, in order to know it.
On second thought, the lack of belief in logic actually explains a lot about his view point, and perhaps the current state of philosophy. They're all buddhists, which is a) probably why modern philosophy can be so shitty and b) why probably why they reject core fundamental axioms of the western tradition.

No Randy Orton " I hear voices in my head, they come to me, they understand they talk to me!" theme option?

Not this time around, you should have made the idea pop up in my head. You know I can't control what I think about, dammit.

That our intelligence is the result of physics and neural networks and isn't the result of some catch-22 magic where we think we exist because we think we exist? wow color me shocked I would have never assumed such a thing.

I actually think it would be possible to make an argument that intelligence isn't (fully) the result of physical processes, a là Cartesian duality. Probably less supportable, at least with current knowledge (that may change in the future), but I'm a big fan of the Chinese AI thought experiment:
Imagine you had a robot that could translate between Chinese and English perfectly, and could hold a fluent, convincing argument with a person. Now take someone who doesn't speak Chinese, and have them work out the same algorithms as the robot does, but on paper. They can now produce fluent Chinese in practice, but that still doesn't mean they understand Chinese.
So in that sense it's possible that there is more to consciousness than just physical manipulation of data with operations and algorithms.

 

[The Fool]

Imagine you had a robot that could translate between Chinese and English perfectly, and could hold a fluent, convincing argument with a person. Now take someone who doesn't speak Chinese, and have them work out the same algorithms as the robot does, but on paper. They can now produce fluent Chinese in practice, but that still doesn't mean they understand Chinese.
So in that sense it's possible that there is more to consciousness than just physical manipulation of data with operations and algorithms.

Didn't you, like, literally say the chinese room experiment is an algorithm? And you're using it as an example of something that isn't an algorithm?

 

[Wallace]

Let me try translating this bit of academese...

Most of the time, our minds operate on "auto-pilot"; we're not mindful about what we're doing. Instead, our thoughts stray to other topics in a rambling, stream of consciousness narration. How this integrates with what we consider to be the self isn't fully understood. Are you the person who is making the rambling, stream of consciousness narration, or are you the one who observes it?

In one sense, our self-narration becomes a lens through which we view the world and interpret things. When different people look at the same object, they might come to different conclusions. For example, perhaps seeing a gun lying on a table might be interpreted as a danger to one person, whereas someone else might interpret it as not dangerous. Who is right is highly subjective.

Since we're in the mindless state so often, this raises the question whether or not we have free will or agency. After all, if we're doing things on autopilot mindlessly, are we exerting free will to do it? We have a physiological and neurological response to things, sure. But where does the biochemical reaction end and the "self" begin?

So, now we have subjective experience meeting a system that runs largely on autopilot. Where is our "self" or the willpower that makes us do or not do certain things? How does it kick in, and how does it stop? The author's argument is that when our mind wanders, we lose our autonomy. Indeed, mental autonomy might not be real at all, since we become meta-aware: "Oh, my attention just wandered there," says the inner monologue. Now you're back on auto-pilot and didn't even notice.

... That's about all I could gather before my eyes glazed over. Oh look, I did it myself!

Try reading Michael Singer if you want a better explanation of this topic without the pretension.

 

[Positron]

Since we're in the mindless state so often, this raises the question whether or not we have free will or agency.

So the author suggests that if we aren't conscious with our action 100% of the time, we might as well have no autonomy or agency at all. Is free will a all-or-nothing concept? I don't think so. To push the "autopilot" metaphor a little further: an airplane is on autopilot most of the time, but it does not mean the pilot has no control of where it goes. Indeed why airplane pilots are paid so much is that they are able to assert control at the most critical steps, which might just account for say 10% of the flight path.

I think it is wrong to reduce the "mind" to "consciousness" or even "brain"; I find Merleau-Ponty's concept of "embodiment" more descriptive of what actually happens. In short, our body exhibits reasoned volition of its own, beneath our conscious awareness. Hence what we call "mind" is incomplete unless you also include the "body".

In another way, not allowing every mental activity to surface into consciousness is advantageous as it saves us mental processing power. For example, now I'm typing this message, my fingers move more or less automatically, without registering each step -- "I'm now reaching for the Capital C. The carpometacarpal joint of left little finger must abduct so my little finger moves towards the 'shift' key on the left; then flex the two distal fingers joints so the tip of your left little finger presses upon the 'shift'. At the same time, each tiny joint of my left index finger must flex in such a way that I hit on the C key..." It is just not feasible. There is a mindfulness exercise in which you do precisely that: registering every tiny movement of your body and saying it aloud. Most people can't last 15 minutes. Our brain is designed to silent all these motor messages, in order to free up our consciousness to handle more important tasks -- such as, in my current situation, thinking how to structure my sentences. In Merleau-Ponty's terms, I subcontract the guided, intentional, motor activity to the embodied mind of my fingers. Does it mean I don't have absolute agency of what I type? I don't think so.

As for the concept of "self", I don't care if it is a fiction or not. I just accept it because it is useful and non-contradictory.

 

[wylfım]

Didn't you, like, literally say the chinese room experiment is an algorithm? And you're using it as an example of something that isn't an algorithm?

It is an algorithm, and the algorithm alone appears to be conscious, but it isn't, because the algorithm doesn't have understanding. Which I'm using as an argument that there is perhaps more to consciousness than just the biochemical reactions of the brain, which are also a sort of algorithm.

 

[MadDamon]

But you see, the Eastern philosophers don't believe in logic, and postulate that we must feel enlightenment, that is, nothingness, in order to know it.
On second thought, the lack of belief in logic actually explains a lot about his view point, and perhaps the current state of philosophy. They're all buddhists, which is a) probably why modern philosophy can be so shitty and b) why probably why they reject core fundamental axioms of the western tradition.

Lol, no. Eastern philosophy has a huge emphasis in logical thinking. Buddhism is more like a school of though than a religion in many way. You need to work hard,to focus on thinking in a way that would bring you to enlightenment, and get rid of any impure thought that could taint you from you way of getting to that place.
Source: Been raised on Buddhism

 

[The Fool]

It is an algorithm, and the algorithm alone appears to be conscious, but it isn't, because the algorithm doesn't have understanding. Which I'm using as an argument that there is perhaps more to consciousness than just the biochemical reactions of the brain, which are also a sort of algorithm.

You're still talking backwards to me.
What do you mean by it not having understanding? You mean it doesn't hold state? The issue with the Chinese Room is that it doesn't hold state because it holds infinite state (having every possible response ever pre-written). It's largely non-applicable to a conversation about real-world consciousness that absolutely must hold state in order to work with limited resources.

 

[wylfım]

You're still talking backwards to me.
What do you mean by it not having understanding? You mean it doesn't hold state? The issue with the Chinese Room is that it doesn't hold state because it holds infinite state (having every possible response ever pre-written). It's largely non-applicable to a conversation about real-world consciousness that absolutely must hold state in order to work with limited resources.

It is unintelligible in the sense that, though I can produce conversational Chinese, I don't understand what anything I am producing means.
A similar analogy: I can teach you how to integrate something by following step-by-step procedures. That does not necessarily mean you know what the integration represents. Think of a calculator.
In a similar way, someone can appear to have consciousness, but only be following a set of pre-recorded instructions. Just because there is a biological system that appears to be sentient, doesn't mean it is sentient. The two states are seperable. Hence the possibility that consciousness is something different from exclusive neuronal interactions— to use your own language, the possibility that thinking is not necessarily the exclusive result of physical and neural networks.
If that makes any more sense.

Lol, no. Eastern philosophy has a huge emphasis in logical thinking. Buddhism is more like a school of though than a religion in many way. You need to work hard,to focus on thinking in a way that would bring you to enlightenment, and get rid of any impure thought that could taint you from you way of getting to that place.
Source: Been raised on Buddhism

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt the system of logic is far different from that of the western tradition? In the sense that it is not empirical nor outside oriented, but introspective and subjective? Which is what I was referring to in my earlier post— his argument is extremely out of place for his goal of creating an objective scientific model for how the brain works.