In an old video, Francisco Varela, who helped found the Mind & Life Institute and was a leader in consciousness studies and the touch points of Eastern philosophy and Western science, makes an important point about Buddhism and science. (His colleague Evan Thompson later wrote an entire book warning us about Buddhist exceptionalism). In the video, Varela says of what was once short-handed as New Age thought, “There was a glamour that came with the physics interface, because physics has long been considered the baseline science, talking about very fundamental things such as matter, atoms and gravity. But the understandings that come from physics don’t have much relevance or direct application to everyday human life and experience. To most people the concepts are just too abstract. The natural sciences and cognitive science, on the other hand, are about our bodies, our minds, our moment-to-moment experience. The teachings of dharma have very little to say about physics but a lot to say about mind and body.”
I might add that Varela makes a more inspiring point in the same video that might echo Whitehead's notion of Creativity: "The true living conditions in science, in art, and in spiritual traditions have never been separate because they have the common source…being able to let go of whatever it is you are holding on tight and then jump into a moment of insight and freedom, letting your fixed mind become unfixed. All three of those activities like any human creative commonsensical activity share that letting fixated mind get unfixed.”
You make some interesting points, but I began to stumble with this "And so we have this idea that Buddhism, just as a kind of mindfulness practice or “mind science,” is neutral as regards any metaphysics...."
“Anyone interested in the relevance of philosophy to the study of consciousness and AI, and anyone who's open-minded and maybe has something that they feel like I'm missing, that they could teach me. I would love to learn something.”
If this is a sincere proposition, then I’d say you’re missing the Word of God, Matt. This is a good article on AI.
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461
I find it revealing that instead of data gathering to see if the best AI teams are presently assembled, we assume they already are. In academia, medical, and big tech industries. The hidden structure that must remain fixed to build on that platform is the old system remains fixed. The belief that it has everyone exactly where they need to be from old credentials and old hierarchies with a different intention. At the same time we know AI is actively changing that old structure faster than anything we’ve seen.
I have significant experience managing transformations of complex manufacturing businesses with thousands of people embarking on change to new systems, processes, laws, financial reporting, analytics, and organizational structure. All through financial systems and AI adoption in business. I also know esoteric systems and have created my own mythology. I know the human service side from helping people through addiction, death, and psychedelic integration.
There are a lot of people who should be on the teams helping manage the transformation but they aren’t because it’s built on a future structure others might not yet be able to see. We are eagerly waiting to answer the call when hearts and minds open more.
I write about the need for a foundation for AI alignment at length (as both a philosopher and an AI engineer/consultant for over 10 years) - and think you might be interested in what I propose. Please do check out my Substack - it's very relevant to all the points discussed here. Link in Bio. Or happy to elaborate here if you like - it's called Synthesis: Life is Good - The Axiom of Life.
As a Platonist scholar and promoter I am interested in your statements. It sounds somewhat related to Plato's philosophy but then again, not. I'm not sure I understand "Life=Good," that sounds like Stoicism to me. But then "it's not moral, cultural or religious" is definitely not Stoicism. "It's ontological/axiomatic" is interesting. I will try to read more about what you mean here because "ontological" concerns only the question of existence vs. non-existence, as concepts in themselves. Axiomatic is the idea that something is self-evident which I don't quite see yet. Which part of your assertions are axiomatic? Why didn't you skip the questionable stuff and just get to the axiomatic part? Thanks.
You're right that it's not Stoicism, Platonism, Elan vital per Bergsen, or any established school. It's something more foundational.
When I say the framework is axiomatic, I mean that life is the precondition of all value. Any time we say something is “better,” “worse,” “true,” “false,” “just,” “evil,” etc, we (being alive) are presupposing a living perspective (which is a frame that can judge value). Nothing matters outside of a frame to judge value. And, there is no other frame of value. That's what makes it axiomatic. A self-evident frame, like “I think therefore I am” - except instead of being about the self (like the Descartes example), it is about Life - big L - all of life, not our lived experience of being alive, the whole.
This is the very first axiom I lay out, and all the others are derived from it logically, so we end up with a framework that is internally consistent, comprehensive, parsimonious, purely descriptive (no oughts - zero prescriptions) and, most importantly, axiomatic (and therefore inescapable).
So, with the first three axioms of my framework, we arrive at: Life is Good. This isn’t a moral claim (i.e. “we should value life”), it’s ontological: only life can do the act of valuing, and if it doesn't value itself- it ceases to exist. So the axiomatic statement: Life = Good isn’t a conclusion. It’s the starting point for all value.
It bypasses culture, theology, and preference, giving us a universal foundation for everything - without prescribing anything - leaving that for contextual calls when necessary - which is essential - life isn't static and needs to adapt - ask Foucault. This allows for that.
In an old video, Francisco Varela, who helped found the Mind & Life Institute and was a leader in consciousness studies and the touch points of Eastern philosophy and Western science, makes an important point about Buddhism and science. (His colleague Evan Thompson later wrote an entire book warning us about Buddhist exceptionalism). In the video, Varela says of what was once short-handed as New Age thought, “There was a glamour that came with the physics interface, because physics has long been considered the baseline science, talking about very fundamental things such as matter, atoms and gravity. But the understandings that come from physics don’t have much relevance or direct application to everyday human life and experience. To most people the concepts are just too abstract. The natural sciences and cognitive science, on the other hand, are about our bodies, our minds, our moment-to-moment experience. The teachings of dharma have very little to say about physics but a lot to say about mind and body.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgZMPcrRmio
I might add that Varela makes a more inspiring point in the same video that might echo Whitehead's notion of Creativity: "The true living conditions in science, in art, and in spiritual traditions have never been separate because they have the common source…being able to let go of whatever it is you are holding on tight and then jump into a moment of insight and freedom, letting your fixed mind become unfixed. All three of those activities like any human creative commonsensical activity share that letting fixated mind get unfixed.”
Particularly the left hemisphere.
You make some interesting points, but I began to stumble with this "And so we have this idea that Buddhism, just as a kind of mindfulness practice or “mind science,” is neutral as regards any metaphysics...."
I hope not many people have this idea.
You are so fast in getting it out in substack!!! 🤣 hope to run into you to chat
Likewise, Christin! Enjoyed your quick talk today.
“Anyone interested in the relevance of philosophy to the study of consciousness and AI, and anyone who's open-minded and maybe has something that they feel like I'm missing, that they could teach me. I would love to learn something.”
If this is a sincere proposition, then I’d say you’re missing the Word of God, Matt. This is a good article on AI.
https://open.substack.com/pub/sanityofchristianity/p/an-approaching-dystopia-why-christ?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with only primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461
Grant, please stop pasting this on all my posts. Once is sufficient.
Sorry, I can't find where else I posted it. I'll note your name for the future.
🙏
I find it revealing that instead of data gathering to see if the best AI teams are presently assembled, we assume they already are. In academia, medical, and big tech industries. The hidden structure that must remain fixed to build on that platform is the old system remains fixed. The belief that it has everyone exactly where they need to be from old credentials and old hierarchies with a different intention. At the same time we know AI is actively changing that old structure faster than anything we’ve seen.
I have significant experience managing transformations of complex manufacturing businesses with thousands of people embarking on change to new systems, processes, laws, financial reporting, analytics, and organizational structure. All through financial systems and AI adoption in business. I also know esoteric systems and have created my own mythology. I know the human service side from helping people through addiction, death, and psychedelic integration.
There are a lot of people who should be on the teams helping manage the transformation but they aren’t because it’s built on a future structure others might not yet be able to see. We are eagerly waiting to answer the call when hearts and minds open more.
I write about the need for a foundation for AI alignment at length (as both a philosopher and an AI engineer/consultant for over 10 years) - and think you might be interested in what I propose. Please do check out my Substack - it's very relevant to all the points discussed here. Link in Bio. Or happy to elaborate here if you like - it's called Synthesis: Life is Good - The Axiom of Life.
To quote from the article:
"We are the species that creates itself... there’s no fixed essence we can fall back on if we make a mistake."
But that's wrong.
There is a fixed essence.
It’s called: Life = Good.
It’s not moral. It’s not cultural. It’s not religious.
It’s ontological. And axiomatic.
As a Platonist scholar and promoter I am interested in your statements. It sounds somewhat related to Plato's philosophy but then again, not. I'm not sure I understand "Life=Good," that sounds like Stoicism to me. But then "it's not moral, cultural or religious" is definitely not Stoicism. "It's ontological/axiomatic" is interesting. I will try to read more about what you mean here because "ontological" concerns only the question of existence vs. non-existence, as concepts in themselves. Axiomatic is the idea that something is self-evident which I don't quite see yet. Which part of your assertions are axiomatic? Why didn't you skip the questionable stuff and just get to the axiomatic part? Thanks.
Thanks for the engagement.
You're right that it's not Stoicism, Platonism, Elan vital per Bergsen, or any established school. It's something more foundational.
When I say the framework is axiomatic, I mean that life is the precondition of all value. Any time we say something is “better,” “worse,” “true,” “false,” “just,” “evil,” etc, we (being alive) are presupposing a living perspective (which is a frame that can judge value). Nothing matters outside of a frame to judge value. And, there is no other frame of value. That's what makes it axiomatic. A self-evident frame, like “I think therefore I am” - except instead of being about the self (like the Descartes example), it is about Life - big L - all of life, not our lived experience of being alive, the whole.
This is the very first axiom I lay out, and all the others are derived from it logically, so we end up with a framework that is internally consistent, comprehensive, parsimonious, purely descriptive (no oughts - zero prescriptions) and, most importantly, axiomatic (and therefore inescapable).
So, with the first three axioms of my framework, we arrive at: Life is Good. This isn’t a moral claim (i.e. “we should value life”), it’s ontological: only life can do the act of valuing, and if it doesn't value itself- it ceases to exist. So the axiomatic statement: Life = Good isn’t a conclusion. It’s the starting point for all value.
It bypasses culture, theology, and preference, giving us a universal foundation for everything - without prescribing anything - leaving that for contextual calls when necessary - which is essential - life isn't static and needs to adapt - ask Foucault. This allows for that.
Happy to elaborate if you'd like to go deeper.