I was led to Theosophy.net while researching an argument projecting the Ontological Primacy of Consciousness. This argument was motivated or inspired by the writings of AGI/Mind researcher, Dr. Ben Goertzel. While researching this subject I became aware of the highly interesting research programme of Professor Emeritus, Stanford University, Department of Materials Science,Dr. William Tiller.

Dr. Tiller has created a "host intention device," a simple electronic board with printed circuitry which allows one to embed intent. It has been empirically substantiated that this embedded intent is capable of altering matter (mind over matter) and of altering the "gauge symmetry" of physical reality (from uncoupled to coupled in Dr. Tiller's words). Dr. Tiller's research led to the discovery of the predicted but elusive magnetic monopole.

Further research led me to Leon Maurer's fascinating "ABC theory" and this website. I thought perhaps the members of this discussion group would find the following brief argument, which I submitted to Dr. Goertzel and Dr. Tiller, of interest. If nothing else it introduces the subject of Pattern Dynamics. Although Dr. Goertzel suggests that consciousness is "derived," he goes on to project the existence of an "Overmind" and the very premise of Pattern Dynamics suggests that the "Abstract Mathematics of Thought" (Divine Thought, the Thoughts of Overmind) is primary. I would greatly appreciate any comments and I am thoroughly enamored with the idea of contributing to this extraordinary community. Thanks are in order to whomever created it. The argument follows (I apologize and take full responsibility for any and all errors or omissions):

 

 

“This is typical of mathematics, which is not so much about numbers as most people think – it is really about patterns. Sometimes numbers help, other times they get in the way. Many exercises in mathematics books are really asking you to find the pattern by solving a general problem (with letters) instead of a special problem (with numbers) . . . Mathematics expresses the pattern by symbols . . . “

- Dr. Gilbert Strang

 

Recently I read a number of books written by Mathematician, Complex Systems Theorist, AGI/Mind Researcher, Dr. Ben Goertzel. He gives all four books, The Structure of Intelligence, The Evolving Mind, Chaotic Logic, and From Complexity to Creativityaway for free on his website (although they are rough draft verions so lack figures and such). Dr. Goertzel starts with the Axiom of Gregory Bateson concerning patterns being the "Democriton" atoms of existence.

He defines a pattern as “a representation of something simpler.” His goal is to apply Pattern Dynamics to the study of mind; as such, the concept of pattern borrows heavily from theoretical computer science. Basically, a pattern is realized when the process of combining two “ordered pair” entities, y and z, results in an entity x and is simpler than representing x outright. For example, suppose you have an array, x = [1,4,9,16,25], then you could arrive at entity x by combining an entity, y = x(x) , with a process, z = map y [1,2,3,4,5]. Provided the “structural complexity” of y plus the “structural complexity” of z plus the “structural complexity” of combining y and z to obtain x is less than the “structural complexity” of x, the ordered pair entity, (y,z), is a pattern in the entity x. Structural Complexity is defined as the total amount of pattern in an entity. These concepts, pattern and structural complexity, are combined with other modified elements from a diverse array of scientific fields of study forming the conceptual system which allows one to “trace” the flow of pattern through complex adaptive systems during discrete intervals of time.

Conventionally, scientists trace energy flow through systems in order to analyze those systems. This has proven extremely useful in many instances but Dr. Goertzel demonstrates that Pattern Dynamics allows a more refined and subtle analysis of complex adaptive systems; an analysis often more faithful to observed phenomena. A tremendous example of this is demonstrated with Dr. Goertzel’s representation of evolution in terms of Pattern Dynamics. A Pattern Dynamic perspective completely alters the spirit, if not the law, of strict Darwinism. For a thorough treatment I would direct the reader to The Evolving Mind.

Probably the most often used modified element, and the one of greatest concern to this essay, is the pattern based representation of the psychological concept, Gestalt. A gestalt represents that which exists in the whole but not the parts and is represented in Pattern Dynamics as Emergence or Emergent Pattern. Emergence, Em, is equal to the pattern present in the combination of two entities, wUx, minus the pattern in each entity separately:

Em(wUx) = St(wUx) - St(w) - St(x)

The best non-mathematical explanation of Emergence I have found used a flock of birds as an example. “Individual birds interact only with a small number of nearby birds. No leader tells them what to do. Yet the flock still forms and moves as a whole. The flock possesses collective – emergent – properties that are not obvious in each bird’s behavior.”

I found the ideas expressed in Dr. Goertzel’s books rather stimulating, to say the least, but my contention rests with the uni-directional flow of Pattern Dynamics. Dr. Goertzel conforms to scientific dogma and endorses a strictly bottom-up or simple-complex approach. This approach manifests in the concept of Emergence; Emergence “traces” pattern flow in the direction of increasing complexity, more elaborate, more complicated structures (patterns) emerge from simpler structures (patterns) (i.e. from DNA to organisms, from organisms to ecosystems, etc.). This is all fine and dandy but, when applied to mind, Pattern Dynamics represents consciousness as, simply, emergent pattern. Dr. Goertzel suggests that consciousness is nothing more than short term memory. I found this unacceptable to the point of absurdity and suggested, to Dr. Goertzel, a bi-directional Pattern Dynamic flow based on a novel conceptual addition to Pattern Dynamics which I called Permeance. Permeance is a measure of Behavioral Structure and behavioral structure can, in many cases, be “traced” from complex to simple (i.e. drop a marble into a bowl, initially the marble exhibits very little behavioral structure, the marble follows a random path within system constraints, but as the marble approaches a state of rest its behavior becomes increasingly ordered or structured, easier to “trace,” simpler); I referred to Permeance as a measure of the degree to which consciousness permeates a system and entities within that system.

To bolster my argument I relied almost exclusively on analogical reasoning. I didn’t spend any time arguing the validity of such reasoning simply because I didn’t feel I could improve on Dr. Goertzel’s demonstration. If the reader doubts the validity of analogical reasoning I would direct them to, The Structure of Intelligence, chapters 5-8.

To begin I rigidly defined Permeance. I find it somewhat hilarious but absolutely acceptable, not to mention logically consistent, that Permeance rests on a foundation of Emergence. Dr. Goertzel defines Behavioral Structure as follows (The Structure of Intelligence, chapter 4, page 9):

“Let S be any system, as above. Let it and ot denote the input to and output of S at time t, respectively. That is, ot is that part of St which, if it were changed, could in certain circumstances cause an immediate change in Et+1; and it is that part of Et which, if it were changed, could in certain circumstances cause an immediate change in St+1.

Then we may define the behavioral structure of an entity S over the interval (r,s) as the fuzzy set B[S;(ir,...,is)] = {Em(ir,or+1),Em(ir+1,or+2),...,Em(is,os+1), St[Em(ir,or+1),Em(ir+1,or+2),...,Em(is,os+1)]}. This is a complete record of all the patterns in the behavior of S over the interval (r,s).“

It follows then that Permeance measures the behavioral structure existent in the whole but not the parts. The Permeance, Pm, of a system, yUz, equals:

Pm(yUz) = B[(yUz),(i_r,...,i_s )] - B[y,(i_r,...,i_s )] - B[z,(i_r,...,i_s )] on any interval, (r,s).

As a system of entities evolves its behavior, most generally, becomes more simple, more ordered; it exhibits an enhanced correlation between inputs and outputs; it establishes more “Requisite Variety;” its Permeance becomes greater.  And this is a result of increasing control.

To continue my argument I refuted the idea that consciousness is itself emergent pattern; I attempted to establish the ontological primacy of consciousness. To do this I relied heavily on analogical reasoning utilizing the slightly revised cybernetic concept of control. Cybernetics, a word derived from kybernetes, the Greek word for “steersman,” is the science of communication and control. When analyzing communication and control in self-organizing and evolving systems I propose that one is analyzing consciousness and that consciousness is the controller.

From the “Control” node of the Principia Cybernetica Web  I quote: 

“Control

Control is the operation mode of a control system which includes two subsystems: controlling (a controller) C, and controlled, S. They interact, but there is a difference between the action of C on S, and the action of S on C. The controller C may change the state of the controlled system S in any way, including the destruction of S. The action of S on C is formation of a perception of system S in the controller C. This understanding of control is presented in Fig.1.

In Fig.2 we define the concept of perception. We see in the controller an agent which is responsible for its actions, and a representation of the controlled system, which is an object whose states we identify with perceptions. The relation between representation and agent is described as a flow of information: the actions of the agent depend on this flow. Thus the action of S on C is limited, in its effect, by changing only S's representation in C, not the rest of the system. Thus the asymmetry of the control relation: C controls S, but S does not control C. The action of S on C is "filtered" through the representation: its effect on C cannot be greater than allowed by the changing state of the representation.

Of course, two systems can be in a state of mutual control, but this will be a different, more complex, relation, which we will still describe as a combination of two asymmetric control relations.

In many cases the controlled system can be also seen in greater detail, which is done in Fig.3. We describe the controlled system using some variables and distinguish between the variables directly affected by the controller, from the variables which are observed by the controller in perception. The causal dependence of the observed variables on the affected variables is determined by the intrinsic dynamics of the system. We also must not forget about the effect of uncontrollable disturbances on the observed variables.

In Fig.3 we also made an addition to the controller: it now includes one more object which influences the agent: goal. The agent compares the current representation with the goal and takes actions which tend to minimize the difference between them. This is known as purposeful behavior. It does not necessarily result from the existence of an objectified goal; the goal may be built into the system -- dissolved in it, so to say. But a typical control system would include a goal as a an identifiable subsystem.

Even though the relation of control is asymmetric, it includes a closed loop. Looked from the controller, the loop starts with its action and is followed by a perception, which is an action in the opposite direction: from the controlled to the controller. This aspect of control relation is known as feedback.

The concept of control is the cornerstone of cybernetics. The basic control scheme which we have defined in this node is the unit from which complicated cybernetic systems are created by nature and man. For this reason, our definition is pretty wide: we want our building unit to be as universal as possible. In particular, we see as special cases of control some systems which most present authors would, probably, not call control.

The different components (e.g. perception, action, ...) of the control loop we have enumerated can in the limit be absent. This leads to different "degenerate" or "limit" cases, which we would not usually see as control systems, but which still share many properties with the more elaborate control scheme. Specific instances of this control scheme can further differ in the presence or absence of different attributes or properties characterizing control systems: separability, contingency, evolvability, asymmetry, ... This leads to a very broad view of control in which many very important types of system can be classified, as shown by many examples of control systems. The abstract scheme can also be mapped on different other schemes for control by authors such as Ashby, Powers and Meystel, and on an older definition in terms of statements and commands.” 

In my view, this concept of control requires two slight modifications:

  1. The agent(s) doesn’t/do not exist in the controller; they exist in the controlled. Admittedly, this is a fuzzy distinction but the only “action” taken by controllers, in their truest sense, is the dissemination of information – control objectives. This information is communicated to agents which, in their truest sense, are actuators and, based on this information, the actuators manipulate the controlled resulting in actions on the environment which generate resultants in the form of control system feedback. Consider a simplified example: the human mind/body. Consciousness, which I plan to demonstrate is the “self,” is the controller; the mind/neuro-system is the “information highway,” the interface between controller and controlled; the muscles are agents (actuators); the body, which includes the actuators, is the controlled; the universe is the environment.
  2. The rule, rather than the exception, is for controllers to be nested within control systems. To accommodate I would add an additional element to the universal control system abstract: constrained controller. From the “Constraint” node of the Principia Cybernetica Web , “Constraint is a measure of the reduction of variety or reduction of freedom.” The concept of constrained control is acknowledged in the “Control Hierarchy” node of the Principia Cybernetica Web ; however, the term constrained controller is not used and I feel the term will help expedite my present argument. A constrained controller, n controller in the universal control system abstract, is the “slave” to a “master;” its “goal”  is constrained by the information received from the n + 1 controller. A simple example of a control system involving constrained controllers is an industrial automation control system. Goals are formulated based on the representation generated from Environmental (Market) perturbations and Sensed Variables. These goals are formulated by the Executive, an n + 4 Controller. Information is disseminated to the Production Supervisor, an n + 3 Controller. This information is modified and disseminated to the Production Operator, an n + 2 Controller. This information is modified and disseminated to a PC based network, an n + 1 Controller. This information is modified and disseminated to a Programmable Automation Controller, the n level Controller. This information is modified and disseminated to agents (linear and rotary actuators, relays and contacts) and the agents, integrated into the controlled system, act. These actions affect production variables resulting in production dynamics. Discrete and/or continuous sensors monitor these dynamics and generate the perceptions which are directed back up the controller hierarchy.

[Brief Aside: If you’ll notice, on the control system diagram which follows, perception flows both ways, into and out of the constrained controller; this demonstrates that constrained controllers are often utilized as higher level sensors as well. A beautiful example of a real world application of this is demonstrated in the work of two Rice University Graduatestudents as recently reported on by the Houston Chronicle. This is a pristine example of a Metasystem Transition inspired by the social media phenomena.]

I propose that this slightly modified Cybernetic concept of control can be analogously applied to any self-organizing and evolving system in the totality of all that is. And the major point is the specification of top – down rather than bottom – up control; the specification that communication and control – Permeance – leads to an increase in holistic behavioral structure. And this is thoroughly compatible with Dr. Goertzel’s approach; Emergence and Permeance are two sides of the same coin; they are indicators of resultants, control system feedback. Emergence deals with structural complexity, networks, hierarchies, and such, while Permeance deals with behavioral complexity, the interplay between structural complexities. As structure becomes more complex, as indicated by increasing Emergence, behavior becomes more orderly or structured, less complex, simplified, as indicated by increasing Permeance.

The idea behind Permeance is that, as complex adaptive control systems evolve they become increasingly permeated with consciousness (i.e. they develop a greater degree of “Requisite Variety”), resulting in increased holistic behavioral structure. This idea follows intuitively from personal development. A human being starts out ruled by passion and emotion with the result being their behavior is often erratic, chaotic, random, and uncontrolled – goals are fleeting and unstable; there is an absence of behavioral structure; there is no structured correlation between inputs and outputs. As human beings evolve they gain a level of mastery – control – over passion and emotion and this mastery is a manifestation of developed consciousness. Eventually, over the course of several incarnations, consciousness becomes fully developed (Buddhists refer to this as the elimination of negative karma and all relative attachment); the human being realizes their full potential – complete mastery; they achieve Self-realization (i.e. atman realizes Atman, the upper most level of control). Why do you think prisons and monasteries share so many common traits? They’re self-similar constructs developed by consciousness to refine minds.

A good example of the interplay between Emergence and Permeance is, in my opinion, human spectators at a sporting event, say a football game with "the wave" phenomenae being the "event horizon":

Well prior to game time the system components (spectators) are randomly scattered within system boundaries (the state the game is to be played in). As time approaches event horizon the spectators become increasingly ordered or structured; they gather in more confined system boundaries: originally, the city the game is to be played in and, finally, the stadium. Once in the stadium, they are organized according to team affiliation and economic status. These organizational principles, from state to city, from city to stadium, from disordered to affiliation and economic status based order, are emergent patterns of structure in the system of spectators.

Behaviorally, well prior to game time the systems components behave entirely randomly but within initial system boundaries (state then city then stadium). Once organized in the stadium according to team affiliation, behavior becomes slightly more ordered, more easily predicted. Once "the wave" is implemented (event horizon realized), collective consciousness fully permeates and behavior becomes highly ordered, organized, and easily predicted.

In The Structure of Intelligence Dr. Goertzel suggests that free will should be analyzed as an emotion and quotes Friedrich Nietszche’s analysis of “freedom of the will” (chapter 11, page 9-10):

“. . . the expression for the complex state of delight of the person exercising volition, who commands and at the same time identifies himself with the executor of the order – who, as such, enjoys also the triumph over obstacles, but thinks within himself that it was really his will itself that overcame them. In this way the person exercising volition adds the feelings of delight of his successful executive instruments, the useful 'underwills' or undersouls – indeed, our body is but a social structure composed of many souls – to his feelings of delight as commander. L'effet c'est moi: what happens here is what happens in every well-constructed and happy commonwealth; namely, the governing class identifies itself with the successes of the commonwealth.”

He then goes on to pose the question, “But what is this pattern called the "self", which the mind recognizes in its own operation?” The “self” is consciousness and consciousness is primary to mind, that is to say, the human being’s mind/body system. Nietszche intuits as much in the discourse quoted. Nietszche identifies the “self” with the commander – the controller – analogous to the governing class of the commonwealth. The “executive instruments,” the “useful underwills or undersouls,” the “social structure composed of many souls” is the mind/body system – the controlled. To put this in pattern speak, if xUy is the sum of all elements in the mind/body system, then consciousness equals:

B[(xUy),(i_r,...,i_s )] - B[x,(i_r,...,i_s ) ]- B[y,(i_r,...,i_s )] over any interval (r,s)

Consciousness – the “commander” – is indicated by Permeance, Pm[xUy]. Viewed from another vantage point, consciousness is pattern space and the mind/body system is pattern/process integrated into pattern space. But, of course, if one views the entire cosmic carnival as an infinite hierarchy of control systems, then the human based consciousness (relative pattern space) is itself pattern/process integrated into n + 1 pattern space . . . ad infinitum. In other words, relatively speaking, humans are constrained controllers and “freedom of the will” is an illusion. This realization is an indicator of intelligence. The realization that humans, at their most fundamental, are non-constrained controllers – the upper most level of control, is an indicator of wisdom. Consciousness = self = Self = Primary Source = Highest Level of Control. And this knowledge is based on experience – introspection.

Joseph Campbell was fond of saying, “I don’t need faith; I have experience.” And what is this experience which so thoroughly supplants faith? From Mr. Campbell’s book, Myths to Live By, I quote:

“Let us imagine ourselves for a moment in the lecture hall where I originally presented the material for this chapter. Above, we see the many lights. Each bulb is separate from the others, and we may think of them, accordingly, as separate from each other. Regarded that way, they are so many empirical facts; and the whole universe seen that way is called in Japanese ji hokkai, “the universe of things.”

But now, let us consider further. Each of those separate bulbs is a vehicle of light, and the light is not many but one. The one light, that is to say, is being displayed through all those bulbs; and we may think, therefore, either of the many bulbs or of the one light. Moreover, if this or that bulb went out, it would be replaced by another and we should again have the same light. The light, which is one, appears thus through many bulbs.

Analogously, I would be looking out from the lecture platform, seeing before me all the people of my audience, and just as each bulb seen aloft is a vehicle of light, so each of us below is a vehicle of consciousness. But the important thing about a bulb is the quality of its light. Likewise, the important thing about each of us is the quality of his consciousness. And although each may tend to identify himself mainly with his separate body and its frailties, it is possible also to regard one’s body as a mere vehicle of consciousness and to think then of consciousness as the one presence here made manifest through us all. These are but two ways of interpreting and experiencing the same set of present facts. One way is not truer than the other. They are just two ways of interpreting and experiencing: the first, in terms of the manifold of separate things; the second, in terms of the one thing that is made manifest through this manifold. And as, in Japanese, the first is known as ji hokkai, so the second is ri hokkai, the absolute universe.

Now the consciousness of ji hokkai cannot help being discriminative, and, experiencing oneself that way, one is bounded, like the light of a bulb, in this fragile present body of glass; whereas in the consciousness of ri hokkai there is no such delimitation. The leading aim of all Oriental mystic teaching, consequently, might be described as that of enabling us to shift our focus of self-identification from, so to say, this light bulb to its light; from this mortal person to the consciousness of which our bodies are but the vehicles. That, in fact, is the whole sense of the famous saying of the Indian Chandogya Upanishad: tat tvam asi, “Thou art That,” “You yourself are that undifferentiated universal ground of all being, all consciousness, and all bliss.”

Not, however, the “you” with which one normally identifies: the “you,” that is to say, that has been named, numbered, and computerized for the tax collector. That is not the “you” that is That, but the condition that makes you a separate bulb.

It is not easy, however, to shift the accent of one’s sense of being from the body to its consciousness, and from this consciousness, then, to consciousness altogether.”

The ontological primacy of consciousness . . .

 

Views: 73

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2024   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service