Joscha bach writing a report
Could you please explain to me briefly in terms of your essay why I feel fear, love, joy sadness? As a matter of fact, it is a direct implication of my position that it shouldn't: brains are the extrinsic images of dissociated complexes of a universal mind, evolved to survive within an Earthly ecosystem external to them.
This is admittedly not strictly true for the whole organism, because it may suffer injuries or form memories etc. We perceive these differences as differences in action tendencies, and the "color" of our cognitive content as emotions.
Joscha bach publications
The scales are simply different: what we humans experience as a life-time is, from the subjective point of view of the universe as a whole, an intangible moment; so short that the pattern of universal thoughts within it remains stable. This may happen in dreams, via meditation, or as a result of psychiatric disorder or the influence of drugs. What you perceive as "I" is a story that your brain tells itself, and that is created or re-created whenever you try to reflect on it. Have insights? MIT Research Scientist Joscha Bach has written a blog post criticizing my suggestion that the universe as a whole is, in a sense, akin to a cosmic nervous system. But the UCSD researchers don't agree that we understand the reasons for the structural similarities observed. I think I understand what you write immediately before and after this point, but I fail to see how ergodicity enters the game.
Bach also implicitly suggests that we know exactly why the universe has the structure it has, and that it has nothing to do with consciousness or cognitive activity. Why I am not you? The similarity between the cosmos and biological nervous systems that I allude to, and which was shown by Krioukov et al, is a structural one, not a functional one.
Let me be clear: the universe is not self-aware. Thanks for the good material! Otherwise, we would expect more fluidity and variation in the patterns and regularities of nature, for the same reason that the thought patterns of a person tend to be rather unstable in the course of time.
Joscha bach writing a report
I think you made an excellent job in pinning down the computational components required for agency and goal-directed behavior. If your self model gets dissociated from your short-term biography, body image, sense of perspective, and sense of agency, you may lose the feeling that you are different from any object in your mind, including me. Author Bio Joscha Bach is a cognitive scientist and AI researcher, specializing in cognitive architectures, Artificial General Intelligence, and models of motivation and decision making. You may lose the ability for self-differentiation before you lose the ability for self-identification. This is admittedly not strictly true for the whole organism, because it may suffer injuries or form memories etc. Ergo, for my thesis to hold the universe should precisely not function like a biological nervous system, despite being akin to one in a certain sense. Goals are part of the characterization of at least minimally intentional systems.
In other words, if you have the resources for adaptive regulation, via information processing that is general enough for universal computation, you will on average outperform all similar systems if you develop a model that allows for goal-directed action.
The scales are simply different: what we humans experience as a life-time is, from the subjective point of view of the universe as a whole, an intangible moment; so short that the pattern of universal thoughts within it remains stable.
I've made this suggestion in a recent paper and two videos video 1video 2.
Joscha bach ph d
And although Bach knew this quite well, for some reason he chose to overlook it. Is it obvious that this is equivalent to some standard notion of ergodicity, see e. In this state, it may appear to you that you are "one with me" and every other object your self identifies with. If all states are recurrent and aperiodic, it is ergodic; once your states are transient, it usually means that the organism is in decay. I was unaware of the differences in understanding ergodicity in other contexts, such as dynamical systems and statistical mechanics, and I should have referenced and explained my thought more clearly. So let me be very precise, as I was in my private emails to Bach: I contend that the universe as a whole is akin to a nervous system insofar as it is the extrinsic image of conscious inner life at a cosmic level, much like a biological nervous system is the extrinsic image of conscious inner life at the level of a living creature. It doesn't affect your argument, of course. The image comparison was a bonus aid, not the basis of my argument. From the UCSD press release: Structural and dynamical similarities [between the cosmos and brains] suggest that some universal laws might be in action, although the nature and common origin of such laws remain elusive. I think you made an excellent job in pinning down the computational components required for agency and goal-directed behavior. What Bach fails to point out, however, is that in the very video where I showed the image comparison, I took pains to acknowledge that image comparisons are misleading—for exactly the reasons he points out—and cannot be relied upon. Sarcastically, he implies even that the comparison was deliberately meant to mislead: This image sends a clear message: if we squint a little, then a well-chosen cutout of a false colored image of a golgi stained pyramidal neuron will look like a red down feather, and a well-chosen cutout of a differently false colored galaxy cluster also looks like a purple down feather, and therefore it is extremely likely that the universe is a giant brain. This is admittedly not strictly true for the whole organism, because it may suffer injuries or form memories etc. Author Joscha Bach wrote on Mar.
I considered organismic regulation, for instance of body temperature, as a Markov process.
based on 89 review