Heavy Petting
by rsbakker
Aphorism of the Day: A pet theory is a lot like a pet cat, except that it never dies, always purrs, and craps all over your imagination instead of in the conceptual litter box.
The whole Dennett thing has me back in a philosophical frame of mind. For those of you interested only in my narrative (as opposed to my theoretical) fictions, I’m afraid this might be another eye-crosser.
I’ve been thinking how I never asked Dennett the question I wanted to ask him. Instead, I asked about the rise of ‘neuromarketing’ and how the problem of ‘creeping manipulation’ might compare to the problem of ‘creeping exculpation’ (where lawyers, educators, and the like use neuroscience to make ‘diminished capacity’ arguments to deflect responsibility) he talked about in his presentation. His answer, which was simply a kind of caveat emptor, was so bad that it spawned a couple of other questions far more critical and biting than my own.
What I wanted to ask him about was how he could say we simply ‘are’ our brains when we experience only a fraction of them. The follow up question I wanted to ask was how he thought this ‘fractional identity’ conditions conscious experience. This all ties into a pet theory of mine: that the apparent structure of conscious experience is more a product of what the brain lacks than what it possesses. That much of what we experience, in other words, possesses no NCC’s, neural correlates of consciousness.
The example I always come back to is the way the visual field is both finite and unbounded. The way sight simply trails away into a kind of absolute absence. This, I think, is an obvious structural feature of visual awareness that obviously possesses no NCC’s, no neural circuits that generate the experience of ‘trailing into absence.’ It simply comes with the structural territory. Those little swatches of brain tissue called retinas simply feed forward what they can: the absence of any further information is experientially expressed, in visual awareness, as the absent oblivion that rings our periphery.
Now what I think, vainglorious fool that I am, is that most of the more perplexing features of conscious experience can be ‘explained’ – or at least understood – via this analogy, in the way the various ‘information horizons’ of the various neural systems behind consciousness ‘encapsulate’ and so profoundly structure various experiences. Transparency, for instance, the way we see through our experience, so that we see trees and cars and so on rather than seeing trees and cars and so on causing us to see trees and cars, is an easy one. The information horizons of those regions responsible for conscious experience do not encompass anything more than the ‘products’ of perceptual processing – so the world comes to us as ‘given,’ rather than as a neural construct.
But it also offers possible ‘explanations’ of more difficult things, such as self-identity and the now. It’s always ‘now,’ no matter how much time passes, because our temporal awareness is encapsulated much the same way our visual awareness is. While our brains have no difficulty discriminating times within our ‘temporal field,’ the time of the field itself cannot be discriminated, and so seems to hang in timelessness. The neural circuits responsible for temporal discrimination fall outside of temporal discrimination. Sure, we have a variety of subsystems (such as those involved in memory and narrative) that allow us to stitch our momentary ‘specious presents’ into a greater timeframe, personal histories and whatnot, the same way we have a variety of subsystems that allow us to cobble our momentary visual fields into visual world. But the primary experience of timelessness, the abiding identity of the now, always characterizes the experience in the first instance. The same way we can’t see ‘seeing,’ we literally can’t time ‘timing,’ and so find ourselves hanging in a kind of timeless oblivion while the world rushes about us (within us). The present is literally an artifact of an inability, one grounded in structural and evolutionary constraints placed on our brain.
So many explanatory possibilities fall out of this ‘Encapsulation Theory’ that I don’t know where to begin. For instance, I think it actually offers an explanation of perspective: what it is, why we have it, as well as why things become so bewildering as soon as it attempts to ‘gain perspective’ on itself. Believe it or not, I actually think I’ve stumbled across a possible, quasi-naturalistic explanation of paradox.
The primary problem with this pet theory of mine, however, is simply that so many other amateurs have pet theories of their own, it’s pretty much impossible to get any experts (who all happen to be pursuing their pet theories) to relinquish the time and effort required to grasp its Gestalt, the global sense-making that makes it so compelling to me.
That said, as much as I think it satisfies the theoretical virtues of simplicity, fecundity, and explanatory scope, I still refuse to believe the thing. It’s consequences are nothing short of catastrophic. It really does render us nothing more than absurd fictions.
Well now. Things just got serious here.
So, a lot of this stuff goes over my head, but nonetheless, I love reading it.
Somethingthing that popped up in my mind after reading the last couple of posts:
From Joss Whedon’s show Angel…”If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do…”
“…I wanna help because I don’t think people should suffer, as they do. Because, if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.”
How do we go about living our lives in a world absent meaning without us becoming parlyzed by one existential crisis after another?
Cool post. If you happen to catch my comment, Bakker, would you mind editing the sentence containing the following fragment?
“cobble our momentary visual fields into visual world.”
I think it must be missing an ariticle or a preposition. Or possibly a simple pluralisation. Any rate, I just gotta know what was meant. Cool post.
I’m not sure I follow. What exactly is this Encapsulation Theory claiming?
“The apparent structure of conscious experience is more a product of what the brain lacks than what it possesses. That much of what we experience, in other words, possesses no NCC’s, neural correlates of consciousness.”
How can we ‘experience’ something if it has no neural correlate? At the very least is must correlate to SOMETHING in the physical world…
And I don’t see why this is any more disturbing than any other reductive materialist interpretation of the mind/body problem.
Well, I think he’s saying your not experiencing the end of your visions input range.
“This all ties into a pet theory of mine: that the apparent structure of conscious experience is more a product of what the brain lacks than what it possesses.”
Well, isn’t that kind of a way of saying that conciousness spends alot of it’s time and resources dealing with what what it doesn’t understand? I mean, that’s what we do most of the time – try to adapt to an evironment we don’t understand. Conciousness is to question. Or, conciousness is the act of questioning. A question is always more about what it lacks.
I mean, it probably goes back to the self flattering ego that a conciousness might think it knows, so it is in this continual loop of ‘I don’t understand…oh wait I get it all, isn’t that great! Hmm, now, I don’t understand…oh wait, I get it all! I’m so fab!’. The lack of understanding/conciousness becoming a continual font of personal victory over ignorance. Supposed victory. Perhaps your using the work around of ‘what the brain lacks’ to avoid the conciousness-flattery cycle? Perhaps you’ve come to identify the conciousness-flattery cycles AS you? Like a rich man might identify his wealth and status as him, and to have it all taken away suddenly feel he is nothing?
That said, as much as I think it satisfies the theoretical virtues of simplicity, fecundity, and explanatory scope, I still refuse to believe the thing. It’s consequences are nothing short of catastrophic. It really does render us nothing more than absurd fictions.
I don’t get this – if subject A was suddenly revealed an absurd fiction, wouldn’t he or she simply puff into thin air? Or atleast their brain would puff away? Or atleast the synaptic bonds suddenly puff away?
Does it render us absurd fictions? Or have you been rendering absurd fictions and were still what we were before?
Poor, so very poor, when we touted ourselves so very rich. But poor. Not thin air.
“I don’t get this – if subject A was suddenly revealed an absurd fiction, wouldn’t he or she simply puff into thin air? Or atleast their brain would puff away? Or atleast the synaptic bonds suddenly puff away?
Does it render us absurd fictions? Or have you been rendering absurd fictions and were still what we were before?”
I don’t think he’s being overly literal with the ‘absurd fiction’ claim. I think it’s more of a figurative definition of what we would be under this ‘Encapsulation Theory’; as in we’re in fact absurd due to our ignorance of our encapsulation. A story detailing an insect that believed itself to be knowledgeable of worldly politics would be an ‘absurd fiction’. Which would be to say, the insect is indeed ‘real’, it’s a living, breathing organism capable of function, but actually rendering -itself- an absurd fiction.
Hello Zero,
You can’t do that and be coherant – talk scientific fact, but then get non literal in describing it’s conclusions. ‘Figurative’ and ‘absurd’ are encapsulations themselves. I mean, it’s like using caged thinking in order to understand your using caged thinking. All your going to get is a caged understanding – an ‘absurd fiction’. That’s not understanding the situation via a scientific method (assuming that’s your goal).
First, are you familiar with “I Am a Strange Loop” by Douglas Hofstadter?
Secondly, I am a little puzzled by all the horror. You have posited a model of human consciousness which is radically different from our received view of it or our experience of it, but appears to be backed up by evidence.
Some expressed (or at least felt) similar horror when it was revealed that earth orbited the sun rather than vice-versa; or when it was shown that the same sun would expanded and devour our planet in several billion years, before guttering out; or when we realized that the universe was expanding (maybe), toward eventual and effective emptiness. One could argue that whatever “existential angst” we as a species encounter, we eventually get back to doing what we do.
Someone, one day, might be able to do all sorts of things to my consciousness. However, someone, right now, could irradiate the earth to such a degree that it becomes uninhabitable, and everyone on it dies.
How about this? One day I will utterly and irreversibly cease to exist, as will my children, my wife, my parents.
Yet, I go on living as I do, because I can (and maybe that is all I can do). To purposely seek out horror, to return to it again and again, seems pointless, even neurotic, and I absolutely do question the motivation for it.
“Yet, I go on living as I do, because I can (and maybe that is all I can do).”
This behavior could perhaps be considered neurotic by some, as well.
Yo Sweetbread:
Peter Singer has an article advocating for bestiality titled Heavy Petting.
Your brain should be planning your brain’s spring break and recalibrating its incentive structure toward my brain’s epiphenomenal puffs of joy.
This aspect of the fiction is a significant part of its appeal to me…
Perhaps another way of looking at this theory is to picture “what if” we had an accurate NCC for everything with no “lack” – what would it be like….
I think Scotts argument is suggesting, under these circumstances, we could not possibly have “selves” or conventional consciousness as our experience of “self” as we know it is largely a consequence of these limitations.
This seems a truism to me… unfortunately that probably means its wrong….
Also if there is an independent real objective reality it may always interact with a system in such a way that, that system is limited in certain respects.
If this did not happen I do not think evolution could occur…
In addition maybe we have no NCCs for some things because they actually do not exist…. Not due to system perception failure (an independent reality that is infinite and without any limitation is the alternate possibility – which I cannot get my head around – obviously;) )
If this were the case it is possible reality is making our “selves” rather than our intrinsic illusions and failure to perceive reality – I think science is making the second option look the more likely one at the moment however….
On the plus side there is never likely to be a system without some NCC limitations so consciousness, perhaps of a completely unrecognizable form (to us) may remain a possibility indefinitely…
The more I think about this, the less I feel I have a handle on it and the more I think I am talking BS…..
I would certainly like to hear more about the theory though…
I am slowly reading Hofstadter at the moment (GEB not strange-loop)… Godel was raised in a previous discussion with Scott on another forum and I vaguely remember his answer suggsted he was familiar with it and did not seen it as valuable to the theory – it does seem like this self-referential idea of consciousness may fit this discussion to me somehow, but I am not yet familiar with it enough (or intelligent enough) to see how…..
Scott, IF this blog satisfies the theoretical virtues of simplicity. I may need to only keep up with Kellhus and his insane family.No shit I read a paragraph, looked up couple words, reread,scratched my head or my ass. Who knows? stardin twu git dumerrr buy menit. lol You write. ill read it…….
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned Metzinger yet. Your theory is almost *identical* to his, Scott.
“Transparency…the way we see through our experience, so that we see trees and cars and so on rather than seeing trees and cars and so on causing us to see trees and cars…”
This is highly problematic. On the one hand you’re saying we’re trapped in our own heads – our representations of the world – while allowing that we have access to a *real* world beyond the skull.
The main problem though is that the theory presupposes what it is meant to explain – we have a perspective on the world because we have limited access to it. We’re individuals because we are individuated…
Of course, there is also the issue that the theory isn’t at all falsifiable ‘from the indside’. Consciousness is necessarily illusiory, so you could just explain away Nagel or Chalmers’ complaints as the result of their delusion (I recall Freud used a similar tactic against his critics). But I doubt you care about that anyway (Neuropath seemed to me to be an argument for why we should have complete uncritical faith in science – some truths can be unthinkable yet scientifically validated – obviously, I find that problematic, but I digress…).
So the ‘blind brain hypothesis’ hasn’t really explained the mind-body problem. Having a perspective on the world is presupposed rather than explained, while qualia are explained away…
Of course, failing to explain the Hard Problem on philosohpers’ terms isn’t going to diminish the corrosive effects of the ‘commodification’ of personality envisaged in Neuropath. But that’s more a nightmare of capitalist materialism than the scientific variety.
I’ve been thinking on this and the absurd fictions assertion – isn’t that projecting a perspective as well, then judging from that perspective? A perspective that lives in the ivory tower to beat all ivory towers, with absolute knowledge of the universe (not to mention no need for food or shelter)? And from it’s very safe position it’d deign to judge something as absurd fictions?
I think it’s probably enough to point it out as a projected perspective, rather than a scientific truth. I think this is how petty and vengeful gods were invented – people projecting their perspective onto a larger picture than just their here and now, but in the process losing the connection that this is their own perspective. So it becomes the voice of god and truth of the state of things.
In terms of trying to see absolutely, I just see an incredibly fine grid. Some positions are filled in, some are not. There is no fiction, either there’s something in a grid space or not. That’s as far as I get in seeing without perspective.
I have never read your blog before, I just searched ‘consciousness encapsulation theory’ as I personally just constructed a theory of consciousness and wondered if anyone had ever thought of something similar to what I have. Funny too, I make it January 17th 2012, you make this January 18th 2011. Here is my blog post here if you are interested:
http://endothief.blogspot.com/2012/01/conciousness-encapsulation-theory.html
I think we’re mining quite different ores, here, Kyle. Your approach commits you to far too many metaphysical claims for my tastes.
That’s fair enough, it’s radical and I basically just made stuff up and it would be smart to be skeptical that I have any merit or have produced any correct ideas.
I am not as strong with language as you are either, you have very impressive writing skills.
Could you elaborate on different ores by the way?
[…] The primary problem with this pet theory of mine, however, is simply that so many other amateurs have pet theories of their own, it’s pretty much impossible to get any experts (who all happen to be pursuing their pet theories) to relinquish the time and effort required to grasp its Gestalt, the global sense-making that makes it so compelling to me. (see here) […]