Consciousness slash reality: Anil Seth and Donald Hoffman

(new - Dec 2, 2021) Is Reality a Controlled Hallucination?
https://youtu.be/qXcH26M7PQM

INTRO: The cognitive scientist Anil Seth argues, using innovative combinations of theory and experiment, that our brains are prediction machines inventing our world and correcting our mistakes by the microsecond. Anil's new perspective on consciousness has shed light on the nature of the self, free will, the intimate relationship between being alive and being aware - and the possibility of conscious machines. (MORE - video)

---

(April 21, 2016) The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality 
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolu...-20160421/

INTRO: The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that the world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like a mind-independent reality. What’s more, he says, we have evolution itself to thank for this magnificent illusion, as it maximizes evolutionary fitness by driving truth to extinction. (MORE - details)

What is Consciousness? - Donald Hoffman (Nov 22, 2020)
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ynTqCFBhRmw

Why the brain does not cause conscious experience (Feb 27, 2019)
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Zr7eaE9AUtg

I enjoyed them both but Anil Seth really brought it!

"Conscious selfhood arises because of, and not in spite of, our beast machine nature."

I loved the ending—the free will portion, the octopus, AI, and brain organoids. Creepy. 

Damn it! Now, I’m going to have to buy his book. Oh well, I’ll buy it for myself for Christmas.

"Free will is just another aspect of the perceptions that make up a self. It’s the perception of making actions that appear to come from within. When we experience a freely willed action, it feels as though we’re making something happen that needn’t have happened, or I could have done differently, or that I’m intervening in the universe in some way. That doesn’t mean that that’s true. In the same way that when I experience red, it doesn't mean that redness is there in the world. It means that’s my brains way of making best sense of what’s going on. Voluntary actions are real. We do things that have mainly internal causes but there’s no need to postulate some uncaused cause that swoops in from wherever and changes the causal structure of the universe. That is spooky nonsense."

I can always count on you to bring the unknown.

Thanks, CC!

Of course you enjoy having your biases affirmed, even without any solid science to back it up, just "in [his] view, anyway."
Correlation is no causation.

I watched the first lecture with some impatience.
Once he'd said "Conciousness is a hallucination that keeps us alive." I thought "That's a self-evident truth - do I have to listen to the next 50 minutes?". I did listen, partly out of respect for CC and partly because SS said there was going to be an octopus.

I thought he was a bit thin on free will. When playing chess you can make any move within the rules - free will exists. What people actually do is try to make moves that either don't cause them to lose or will ultimately result in a win. In fairness a lot of 'stuff' isn't immediately win or lose - it may also be about maintaining stability in (for example) a relationship. Might want to dive off into parents and children but I'm not qualified there.

In the game of tic-tac-toe you have Os and Xs on a grid. I think the game is just about simple enough that you can play it without paper and pencil. You 'imagine' the grid and each player tells the other where they are placing their O or X. "I'm putting my X in the middle" - seizing the centre ground. Nothing to see, just tokens representing a grid, an X and an O in each players mind. Once you (or any animal) can use tokens to represent a thing you (or they) can play out death and victory scenarios without actually dying. I'll propose that the ability to 'tokenise' - the ability to try out 5 ways of killing an elephant without getting near one - explains just about everything about 'consciousness'.

Do animals (beasts) use tokens to 'think'?
I'd say yes. In my garden when a bird (usually Mrs Blackbird) gives an alarm tweet all the birds fly away. The tweet isn't a predator - it's a token representing a predator. To start with the birds were frightened of both of us. Then they were just frightened of me, now they aren't bothered by either of us. As humans we were different tokens and they attached 'harmless' to us at different times. First the small birds came, then the (big) wood-pigeons came and eat all the food so we shooed them away. Then the small birds came back and all was well for a while. Then the pigeons came back and we tapped on the window and the pigeons flew away and the small birds stayed. Then the pigeons worked out - no alarm call - why are we flying away? Tokens and more tokens. We now have half a dozen extremely tame and rather fat wood-pigeons to feed. Similar story for squirrels.

You put some effort into that one. Well said, C2!

I got the book. Damn! Amazon is spooky action at a distance.

He said that the deeper is problem is that correlations are not explanations.

He starts with degrees of freedom. He takes it from beyond human, e.g., animals, to machine minds. You don’t even need to be conscious to play Tic-Tac-Toe, but if you are, you might have certain degrees of freedom.

From the book:

I JUST MADE A CUP OF TEA.

"Let’s use this example to develop the view of experiences of volition—and voluntary actions too—as self-related perceptions. There are three defining features that characterize most, if not all, experiences of volition.

The first defining feature is the feeling that I am doing what I want to do. Being English—at least semi-English—making tea is perfectly aligned with my psychological beliefs, values, and desires, as well as my physiological state at the time and the opportunities—affordances—of my environment. I was thirsty and tea was available, nobody was restraining me or force-feeding me hot chocolate, so I made some tea and drank it. (Of course, if I am being forced to do something “against my will,” I may still feel my actions to be voluntary at one level, but involuntary at another.)

Although making tea was fully consistent with my beliefs, values, and desires, I did not choose to have these beliefs, values, and desires. I wanted a cup of tea, but I did not choose to want a cup of tea. Voluntary actions are voluntary not because they descend form an immaterial soul, nor because they ascend from quantum soup. They are voluntary because they express what I, as a person, want to do, even though I cannot choose these wants. As nineteenth-century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer put it, “Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."

Milton’s argument for free will goes something like this> God says that he gives his creatures the option to serve or disobey, as he wants obedience that is freely given, not forced, but I’ll argue here that Eve disobeyed Adam…not a god, because Adam wanted her to service him.

God didn’t threaten them with punishment, he said they would die. Why then, would he punish them if they had no knowledge that disobeying him was bad?

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

And then next, he creates WOMAN.

Eve wasn’t even around when God commanded man not to eat of it. Adam must have pulled that one out of his ass. And what was Eve’s punishment? Oh yeah, of course—sex with Adam. Go figure.

Why didn’t they die? Because the tree was good for food. Knowing what will and will not cause death is imperative.

Anil Seth said that experiences of volition are indispensable to our survival. They are perceptual inferences and without them we could not navigate our complex environment, nor would we be able to learn from our previous voluntary actions in order to do better.

"But let’s be clear about what free will is not. Free will is not an intervention in the flow of physical events in the universe, more specifically in the brain, making things happen that wouldn’t otherwise happen. This “spooky” free will invokes Cartesian dualism, demands freedom from the laws of cause and effect, and offers nothing of explanatory value in return."

Little side note:

There’s a candy challenge on TikTok. The mom leaves and tells her son, "I’ll be right back. Don’t eat the candy." He says to himself, "If I eat some of these, I’ll hear the noise," (the crunch, I’m assuming). He takes one and puts it to his lips and then puts it back into the jar. He then says to himself, “Okay, momma said, DON’T.” He lifts one up again, but immediately puts it back. He passed the challenge, and it was an adorable, classic angel/devil—pleasure seeking vs consequence scenario.

Now, if God had said to Eve, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye must shit out a pumpkin. The tree of life, fuhgettaboutit. 

(Dec 8, 2021 09:18 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I got the book. Damn! Amazon is spooky action at a distance.

He said that the deeper is problem is that correlations are not explanations.

Ahem.

(Dec 6, 2021 05:28 PM)Syne Wrote: Of course you enjoy having your biases affirmed, even without any solid science to back it up, just "in [his] view, anyway."
Correlation is no causation.

Quote:"Let’s use this example to develop the view of experiences of volition—and voluntary actions too—as self-related perceptions. There are three defining features that characterize most, if not all, experiences of volition.

The first defining feature is the feeling that I am doing what I want to do. Being English—at least semi-English—making tea is perfectly aligned with my psychological beliefs, values, and desires, as well as my physiological state at the time and the opportunities—affordances—of my environment. I was thirsty and tea was available, nobody was restraining me or force-feeding me hot chocolate, so I made some tea and drank it. (Of course, if I am being forced to do something “against my will,” I may still feel my actions to be voluntary at one level, but involuntary at another.)

Although making tea was fully consistent with my beliefs, values, and desires, I did not choose to have these beliefs, values, and desires. I wanted a cup of tea, but I did not choose to want a cup of tea. Voluntary actions are voluntary not because they descend form an immaterial soul, nor because they ascend from quantum soup. They are voluntary because they express what I, as a person, want to do, even though I cannot choose these wants. As nineteenth-century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer put it, “Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."[/color]

That's nonsense. Of course you can choose what it is you want. At any given time, there is usually more than one equally acceptable choice, in which case, you are willing what you will. If we had no volition over desires, we would never face indecision.

Quote:Milton’s argument for free will goes something like this> God says that he gives his creatures the option to serve or disobey, as he wants obedience that is freely given, not forced, but I’ll argue here that Eve disobeyed Adam…not a god, because Adam wanted her to service him.

God didn’t threaten them with punishment, he said they would die. Why then, would he punish them if they had no knowledge that disobeying him was bad?

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

And then next, he creates WOMAN.

Eve wasn’t even around when God commanded man not to eat of it. Adam must have pulled that one out of his ass. And what was Eve’s punishment? Oh yeah, of course—sex with Adam. Go figure.

Leave it to SS to make anything into a misandrist screed. Just really can't help herself. It's not that she couldn't will herself to be otherwise, it's that disbelief in free will allows her to feel no responsibility for her actions.

Including skipping over the part of the Bible that literally has Eve telling the serpent that she knew all about the tree of knowledge:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Genesis 3:1-3 NIV

Quote:"But let’s be clear about what free will is not. Free will is not an intervention in the flow of physical events in the universe, more specifically in the brain, making things happen that wouldn’t otherwise happen. This “spooky” free will invokes Cartesian dualism, demands freedom from the laws of cause and effect, and offers nothing of explanatory value in return."

Who said free will was an intervention? Sounds like a straw man.
If there are inputs into cause and effect that are not deterministically caused, e.g. quantum randomness, and do not interrupt causality, why should any other indeterministic input be assumed to intervene in causality? It doesn't. Adding a cause does not stop any other existing causes. That's just a lazy red herring, trying to poison the well with characterizations like "spooky." Guess what, Einstein called quantum mechanics "spooky" to, and QM is one of the best proven theories in science.

Quote:There’s a candy challenge on TikTok. The mom leaves and tells her son, "I’ll be right back. Don’t eat the candy." He says to himself, "If I eat some of these, I’ll hear the noise," (the crunch, I’m assuming). He takes one and puts it to his lips and then puts it back into the jar. He then says to himself, “Okay, momma said, DON’T.” He lifts one up again, but immediately puts it back. He passed the challenge, and it was an adorable, classic angel/devil—pleasure seeking vs consequence scenario.

Now, if God had said to Eve, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye must shit out a pumpkin. The tree of life, fuhgettaboutit. 

Again, for the intellectually dishonesty misandrist:

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Genesis 3:2-3 NIV

SS Wrote:neither shall ye touch it, lest ye must shit out a pumpkin.

A good threat sharpens the mind.

If we all made good decisions we'd all be as rich as Elon Musk [humour intended].

My experiences on the theme of volition (in no particular order):

1)The roulette wheel of life .. you know the house wins but you hope it is your day to win.
2)The lottery of life .. playing a small stake for a large gain despite the odds being poor.
3)Dare and consequence .. even knowing the likely consequence you take the risk in the hope you can somehow escape the likely consequence.
4)Impetuous .. little or no attempt made to determine the appropriate action.
5)Stupid.. action or inaction with no clue as to what is going on.
6)False expectations.. been there.
7)Misplaced faith.. self-deception.
8)Deceived.. action the result of being deceived by another party.
9)Divine intervention.. not as far as I'm aware.
10)Possessed by demon(s) .. would explain a lot.

(Dec 8, 2021 11:08 PM)Syne Wrote: Leave it to SS to make anything into a misandrist screed. Just really can't help herself. It's not that she couldn't will herself to be otherwise, it's that disbelief in free will allows her to feel no responsibility for her actions.

Including skipping over the part of the Bible that literally has Eve telling the serpent that she knew all about the tree of knowledge:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Genesis 3:1-3 NIV

That's just hearsay from a serpent. There’s no evidence that she had any firsthand knowledge. God told Adam not to eat it. She wasn’t even created yet. And besides, she was deceived, but he knew full well what he was doing.

Oh sure, and somehow the femme fatale trope isn’t misogynistic at all.

Syne Wrote:Who said free will was an intervention? Sounds like a straw man.
If there are inputs into cause and effect that are not deterministically caused, e.g. quantum randomness, and do not interrupt causality, why should any other indeterministic input be assumed to intervene in causality? It doesn't. Adding a cause does not stop any other existing causes. That's just a lazy red herring, trying to poison the well with characterizations like "spooky." Guess what, Einstein called quantum mechanics "spooky" to, and QM is one of the best proven theories in science.

Guess what, if random actions led to your choice, it wasn't free will. And besides, the jury is still out on whether it’s true randomness or apparent randomness at the quantum level.

And I’m with Einstein, all the events that led to you being you, is why I don’t let you get under my skin.

"It is a special blessing to belong among those who can and may devote their best energies to the contemplation and exploration of objective and timeless things. How happy and grateful I am for having been granted this blessing, which bestows upon one a large measure of independence from one's personal fate and from the attitude of one's contemporaries. Yet this independence must not inure us to the awareness of the duties that constantly bind us to the past, present, and future of humankind at large.

Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here, involuntarily, and uninvited, for a short stay, without knowing the why and the wherefore. In our daily lives we feel only that man is here for the sake of others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own.
I am often troubled by the thought that my life is based to such a large extent on the work of my fellow human beings, and I am aware of my great indebtedness to them.

I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper."—Einstein

---

(Dec 9, 2021 12:07 AM)confused2 Wrote: If we all made good decisions we'd all be as rich as Elon Musk [humour intended].

My experiences on the theme of volition (in no particular order):

1)The roulette wheel of life .. you know the house wins but you hope it is your day to win.
2)The lottery of life .. playing a small stake for a large gain despite the odds being poor.
3)Dare and consequence .. even knowing the likely consequence you take the risk in the hope you can somehow escape the likely consequence.
4)Impetuous .. little or no attempt made to determine the appropriate action.
5)Stupid.. action or inaction with no clue as to what is going on.
6)False expectations.. been there.
7)Misplaced faith.. self-deception.
8)Deceived.. action the result of being deceived by another party.
9)Divine intervention.. not as far as I'm aware.
10)Possessed by demon(s) .. would explain a lot.

Love it! 

(Dec 9, 2021 01:01 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Dec 8, 2021 11:08 PM)Syne Wrote: Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
Genesis 3:1-3 NIV

That's just hearsay from a serpent. There’s no evidence that she had any firsthand knowledge. God told Adam not to eat it. She wasn’t even created yet. And besides, she was deceived, but he knew full well what he was doing.

Um, that's literally quoting Eve quoting God, knowing what she was doing. Please learn to read. I know, the nested quotations are so confusing, huh?
She was deceived by the literal devil on her shoulder. She fell for it because it aligned with her wishes...establishing that women in general can't be held accountable for their own choices very early on. Hint, you're still trying to blame a woman's choice on a man, like a misandrist.

Quote:Oh sure, and somehow the femme fatale trope isn’t misogynistic at all.

Another non sequitur, this time in the vein of tu quoque (whataboutism).
Femme fatale isn't a misogynistic trope. It's demonstrated every single day that men have their lives ruined by divorce, baby traps, gold diggers, etc.. As in Adam's case, men need to have a strong sense of integrity. Women, as you've repeatedly demonstrated yourself (even here, misrepresenting the Bible), cannot generally be expected to. It's not your fault. It's just evolutionary psychology.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Who said free will was an intervention? Sounds like a straw man.
If there are inputs into cause and effect that are not deterministically caused, e.g. quantum randomness, and do not interrupt causality, why should any other indeterministic input be assumed to intervene in causality? It doesn't. Adding a cause does not stop any other existing causes. That's just a lazy red herring, trying to poison the well with characterizations like "spooky." Guess what, Einstein called quantum mechanics "spooky" to, and QM is one of the best proven theories in science.

Guess what, if random actions led to your choice, it wasn't free will.

Never said they did. I said...since you obviously can't comprehend English...that one non-deterministic input is no different from another, when it come to disrupting causation. Since QM admits random inputs without causal disruption, it simply follows that other non-deterministic inputs, like self-determination, wouldn't disrupt causation either. Simple logic.

Quote:And besides, the jury is still out on whether it’s true randomness or apparent randomness at the quantum level.

No, it really isn't. There are zero credible theories that make QM wholly deterministic. That's just your wishful thinking...faith in things unseen.

Quote:And I’m with Einstein, all the events that led to you being you, is why I don’t let you get under my skin.

That's just your desire to absolve yourself of any accountability, and only judging others by the same standard you hold yourself to, e.g. none at all.

Quote:"It is a special blessing to belong among those who can and may devote their best energies to the contemplation and exploration of objective and timeless things. How happy and grateful I am for having been granted this blessing, which bestows upon one a large measure of independence from one's personal fate and from the attitude of one's contemporaries. Yet this independence must not inure us to the awareness of the duties that constantly bind us to the past, present, and future of humankind at large.

Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here, involuntarily, and uninvited, for a short stay, without knowing the why and the wherefore. In our daily lives we feel only that man is here for the sake of others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own.
I am often troubled by the thought that my life is based to such a large extent on the work of my fellow human beings, and I am aware of my great indebtedness to them.

I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper."—Einstein

See, lots of justification for your lack of accountability. You absolve yourself but still misandristically blame men.
Keep going. Maybe one day you'll actually convince yourself.

---

"The most important decision you make is to be in a good mood."
- Voltaire

If you don't believe you can decide what you want, you likely cannot simply choose to be in a good mood.