‹ First  < 3 4 5
 
   
 

What will be harder to model scientifically: primary consciousness or higher-order consciousness?

 
Giulio
 
Avatar
 
 
Giulio
Total Posts:  152
Joined  26-10-2016
 
 
 
18 April 2017 12:54
 

This talk of explicit and implicit has got me asking something I haven’t asked before: is the real purpose of consciousness (both in raw experential form that we presumably share with many other animals, and semantic narrative form that might just belong to humans and maybe a couple of other animals) from an evolutionary perspective to allow the formation and recall of (explicit, rather than implicit) long term memories.

I know this sounds a little like chicken and egg: are conscious experiences the real thing of value, and implicit memories just memories of these conscious experiences (how I have always thought about it); or is long term memory the real thing of value, and a conscious experience just an aspect of this (what I am asking now).

So to sharpen it up a little I could make the claim: conscious experiences have no survival value in their own right; what evolution selected for was the capacity for long term memories of informational value about the state of animal’s body, its environment, interactions etc, and conscious experience (as it is felt ‘in the moment’) just happens to be part of the solution evolution found. What would be some evidence or an experiment that could potentially disprove or be consistent with this claim?

I am wondering whether this question is worth its own thread, rather than being buried in this thread? (More interesting I think than my original question)

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5462
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
18 April 2017 14:02
 

Bringing in another bit of cognitive science: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi wrote a book called “Flow”. Flow occurs when a person is doing something for which the challenge matches the skill. When this happens people can get into the “flow state”. Players moving to more advanced levels in a video game is a great example of matching challenge to skill.

In any case, when you’re “in flow” you know it, and it’s quite pleasurable, and it’s implicit.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5229
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
18 April 2017 23:00
 
icehorse - 18 April 2017 11:19 AM


I can’t recall if this has come up in previous discussions?... Are you familiar with Tim Gallway of “Inner Game of Tennis” fame? He puts a lot of energy into dealing with that part of the brain he calls “the critic / coach”. This is the part that - when people are learning something complex - is internally shouting instructions: “head down”, “elbow cocked”, “knees bent”, and so on. When we created this perspective 30 or 40 years ago he didn’t have the cognitive science language of implicit / explicit, but his idea of the coach maps very cleanly into the explicit brain. Gallway was correct in his assessment that the coach (explicit), gets in the way of the part of the brain that can actually learn and perform physical activities. So he created a series of exercises to be performed while learning tennis or golf or skiing or whatever, to distract the coach / explicit so that the implicit could be freed up to learn.

Does this map fairly well to the “narrator” ?

We have touched on it before. It’s a bit tricky and touches on why, for me, the whole idea of ‘implicit brain’ has outlived its usefulness. It is a static way of describing a dynamic system.

Trioon breaks up secondary perception and Explicit Brain into two interacting systems either of which can be just as implicit as the Implicit Brain. Either of them can be the explicit component depending on the needs of the moment. The needs of competitive tennis do not include either of them being explicit except as a problem to be overcome.

Once overcome and training has set in, do we call anything of what’s left explicit? Does experience go dark until the game is over? If fully absorbed in the physicality of the game, could we say that the CNC is the Explicit Brain? If you have tuned out the explicit brain’s coach/critic, is he still carrying on somewhere implicitly or has he truly stopped? Trioon says the latter.

All the instructions you cited are short and uncomplicated and do not require anything trioon would call narrating. They are plain perceptions within the chunk-limit. In your example, secondary perception is being explicitly Cinematic with no narration in operation and provides the verbal drilling. This is a simple, animal-like two perception system that we often assume. It is bioon-mode.

There must be a point in the training where the coach is useful in drilling in the associations that need to become implicit. Does it start with a real coach actually shouting these things?

None of this should involve narration unless one is playing tennis for FUN and not training for competition or improvement and still hearing coaches. Then there is no explicit motivation for coaching. If one is still suffering the inner coaching like it has become an unavoidable automatic function, that would be because an auto-narrator is operating implicitly. An actual shouting coach would be training both the meat-robot and an inner auto-narrator.

If, whilst playing, one is also having a rambling internal monologue about their marriage, business or PRCA, that actual playing and the CNC is all implicit while the rambling is explicit. The game performance will be reduced to only what the meat-robot is prepared for. Anything out-of-the-expected will addressed with a blank look. Any last-instant explicit choice would come way too late. In this example, narration is explicit and both primary and secondary perceptions are implicit.

It’s a 3D map.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5347
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
19 April 2017 07:45
 
Nhoj Morley - 18 April 2017 06:42 AM
Jb8989 - 18 April 2017 05:36 AM

That’s right. So on the other end (?), you’re narrating the music and somewhat removed from its sensation?

I would hope not. A state of narration would be very removed from sensation and might leave the listener thinking that such things as music are nonsense. Following music and any resulting sensation requires the comfy middle ground of cinematic perception perceiving any temporal structure up to the chunk-limit that is beyond the reach of primary perception.

Narrative perception is involved in music’s design and execution and should not be necessary for listening. If it’s done right.

That’s what I meant, I was just using the word “you’re” in the objective tense. When does cinematic perception end and the type (depth?) of narration that removes us from a sense of our surroundings begin? It seems like in trioon story telling and experience conflict a lot.

Is cinematic perception generally the most comfortable perceptual state?

[ Edited: 19 April 2017 09:03 by Jb8989]
 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5229
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
19 April 2017 09:54
 
Jb8989 - 19 April 2017 07:45 AM

It seems like in trioon story telling and experience conflict a lot.

Doc, before I type too much, could you rephrase this question? I can’t get past its flexibility. Is it, trioon dynamics as described do not jive with my experience? I expect that one. Is it something else?

 

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5462
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
19 April 2017 11:02
 

Nhoj - (dang I lost a post!)

I think you’re taking the implicit / explicit too literally. So:

- of course the implicit and explicit are running in parallel - we’re almost always multitasking
- of course there is some ongoing communications between the implicit and explicit
- of course there is no clean switch flipped from “training mode” to “performance mode”

For you to say

It’s a bit tricky and touches on why, for me, the whole idea of ‘implicit brain’ has outlived its usefulness. It is a static way of describing a dynamic system.

Leads me to believe I’ve done a poor job of explaining this, because “static” is the last thing it is…

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5229
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
19 April 2017 11:12
 

me too. I mean the description is static, not the system it describes. Whoa!

The word ‘implicit’ becomes a poorer and less implicit term when applied to those functions of the brain.

PS- I like the new look. A horse with a beard.

[ Edited: 21 April 2017 02:55 by Nhoj Morley]
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5347
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
19 April 2017 13:49
 
Nhoj Morley - 19 April 2017 09:54 AM
Jb8989 - 19 April 2017 07:45 AM

It seems like in trioon story telling and experience conflict a lot.

Doc, before I type too much, could you rephrase this question? I can’t get past its flexibility. Is it, trioon dynamics as described do not jive with my experience? I expect that one. Is it something else?

No, no. It probably means that I don’t understand the concept of narration in trioon. Sometimes I feel like its describing awareness, and other times regular simple thought processes, and occasionally “over-processing.” But I imagine that’s part of what I don’t get about it. What does it say about the subconscious? I think that the subconscious is an aggregate of perceptions that are too short in duration to have the capacity to recruit enough awareness to see, feel, touch, taste or hear.

[ Edited: 19 April 2017 13:56 by Jb8989]
 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5229
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
21 April 2017 03:35
 
Jb8989 - 19 April 2017 01:49 PM

  I think that the subconscious is an aggregate of perceptions that are too short in duration to have the capacity to recruit enough awareness to see, feel, touch, taste or hear.

Recruit enough awareness is an interesting phrase. Very un-trioon like and perhaps the root of our trouble.

We agree ‘The subconscious is an aggregate of (all five) perceptions’. They are short in duration. But too short? Only two out of five should give that impression. The other three, taste, smell and touch, take the form of sensations in our descriptions. To sense them is to be aware of them. The name ‘subconscious’ is not entirely accurate and has a quality of ‘short consciousness’ that is usually denied as a consciousness because of its brevity. Sight and hearing have a short-conscious component that must already have happened before the longer, composited cinematic perception forms.

How do you recruit awareness? With a secondary perception perhaps.

When does cinematic perception and the type (depth?) of narration that removes us from a sense of our surroundings begin?

If I read your question right…

Cinematic perception takes 40 to 80 ms to start up from off. It can run (or flow) 15 to nearly 50 ms after primary perception depending on what you’re looking at. A state of self-possessed narration ‘begins’ anywhere from 200 to 1000+ ms relative to primary perception also depending on what you’re looking at. Auto-narration doesn’t really reference a time or have a latency because it doesn’t spring from external stimuli. It plays to a cinematic perspective.

As for surrounding removal, either can do that. Being absorbed in a film is (should be) an entirely cinematic experience (that’s logical) with primary perceptions muted in a comfy chair. If you turn your head to reach for the popcorn bowl, that’s primary perception. Turn back to the screen, hold your head still, add ~20 ms and that’s cinematic perception.

A state of self-possessed narration (Mr. Flashlight) is only an observer of ‘that which has sensations’. There are still feelings but one only observes themselves having them.

Is cinematic perception generally the most comfortable perceptual state?

Yes.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  5347
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
21 April 2017 06:11
 
Nhoj Morley - 21 April 2017 03:35 AM
Jb8989 - 19 April 2017 01:49 PM

  I think that the subconscious is an aggregate of perceptions that are too short in duration to have the capacity to recruit enough awareness to see, feel, touch, taste or hear.

Recruit enough awareness is an interesting phrase. Very un-trioon like and perhaps the root of our trouble.

We agree ‘The subconscious is an aggregate of (all five) perceptions’. They are short in duration. But too short? Only two out of five should give that impression. The other three, taste, smell and touch, take the form of sensations in our descriptions. To sense them is to be aware of them. The name ‘subconscious’ is not entirely accurate and has a quality of ‘short consciousness’ that is usually denied as a consciousness because of its brevity. Sight and hearing have a short-conscious component that must already have happened before the longer, composited cinematic perception forms.

How do you recruit awareness? With a secondary perception perhaps.

When does cinematic perception and the type (depth?) of narration that removes us from a sense of our surroundings begin?

If I read your question right…

Cinematic perception takes 40 to 80 ms to start up from off. It can run (or flow) 15 to nearly 50 ms after primary perception depending on what you’re looking at. A state of self-possessed narration ‘begins’ anywhere from 200 to 1000+ ms relative to primary perception also depending on what you’re looking at. Auto-narration doesn’t really reference a time or have a latency because it doesn’t spring from external stimuli. It plays to a cinematic perspective.

As for surrounding removal, either can do that. Being absorbed in a film is (should be) an entirely cinematic experience (that’s logical) with primary perceptions muted in a comfy chair. If you turn your head to reach for the popcorn bowl, that’s primary perception. Turn back to the screen, hold your head still, add ~20 ms and that’s cinematic perception.

A state of self-possessed narration (Mr. Flashlight) is only an observer of ‘that which has sensations’. There are still feelings but one only observes themselves having them.

Is cinematic perception generally the most comfortable perceptual state?

Yes.

I think that awareness attaches to subconscious perceptions that are long enough in duration and frequency to trigger memory and/or a sufficiently intense emotion. Attention to these is what I might roughly call conscious thought. Executive level thought exercised over the aggregate of this stimuli we’re attending to is what I might call self-awareness. But I’m a little confused, too, because I don’t think that our senses are the same thing as perceptions. I think that perceptions are a combination of senses, consciously, subconsciously or even memorially, organized and interpreted based on our mind’s capacity to recognize them. Seeing and having access to sight, like hearing or having access to auditory control, is hard for a lot of people to distinguish so it kind of all gets tossed into either a subconscious or a conscious category. Trioon is cool because it doesn’t take the bait. I think that we have wholly intact subconscious perceptions that are a combination of all our senses but out of reach of what we might consider our brain’s capacity for “conscious” awareness.

[ Edited: 21 April 2017 06:13 by Jb8989]
 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5462
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
21 April 2017 08:45
 

The more I read this, the more I think that trioonity mostly lives in the explicit brain. One characteristic of the explicit brain is that it seeks to be in control. It seeks to be able to explain things that it really cannot, but it pretends to anyway. But perceptions happen at least as soon in the implicit brain - if not sooner. For example, a main practitioner of function movement says: “(physical) balance is useless if you have to think about it”. Balancing is above the explicit brain’s pay grade.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  5229
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
22 April 2017 04:42
 

I notice that I have turned a new members thread into a trioon square dance. Again.

If Mr. Giulio has any objection, I’ll put my further responses to these excellent provocations in another thread.

[ Edited: 22 April 2017 16:39 by Nhoj Morley]
 
Falcon Teachings
 
Avatar
 
 
Falcon Teachings
Total Posts:  12
Joined  14-05-2017
 
 
 
16 May 2017 20:29
 
Giulio - 16 March 2017 03:06 AM

Primary consciousness and secondary or higher-order consciousness are terms coined by neuroscientist Gerard Edelman.

Cribbed from one of the above links: primary consciousness can be defined as simple awareness that includes perception and emotion. As such, it may be ascribed to many animals. By contrast, secondary consciousness depends on and includes such features as self-reflective awareness, abstract thinking, volition and metacognition.


Though we may think of secondary consciousness as a more striking phenomenon, separating us from most if not all other animals, I wonder if in itself it will be easier to explain scientifically (if you accept primary consciousness as given). I suggest this because it seems possible that secondary consciousness may be explained as some type of ‘trick’ whereby several relatively understandable information processing and memory storing/accessing components interact and communicate in such a way to give the illusion of identity (no doubt relying on primary consciousness in the background to give rise to the qualia of this single experience).

I would argue that in addition to primary (animal) and secondary (rational/reflective) consciousness, we have at multiple consciousnesses available to us above those. Certainly most people have experience what might be called tertiary (or transpersonal) consciousness in the form that we call intuition or a priori knowledge. Long before Kant, was is Socrates that spoke of how he couldn’t teach anyone anything but designed his method to uncover what people already knew?

And then we have had a few extraordinary humans that have transcended even these three consciousnesses and are remembered as the ones we now call Jesus or Buddha or Lao Tzu for example. Let’s call that Buddha or Christ consciousness.

When Sam talks about the phenomenon of “self-transcendence” and about how “our conventional sense of self is an illusion,” isn’t that about who we really are being truly more closely akin to these higher consciousnesses?

Falcon Teachings

 
Falcon Teachings
 
Avatar
 
 
Falcon Teachings
Total Posts:  12
Joined  14-05-2017
 
 
 
16 May 2017 20:59
 
Jb8989 - 26 March 2017 03:11 PM
Poldano - 26 March 2017 12:03 AM
Jb8989 - 24 March 2017 04:44 PM
Poldano - 23 March 2017 11:37 PM
Jb8989 - 22 March 2017 12:48 PM

...

Regardless, I’d probably say that somewhere in between thinking and meta cognition is a mental state where people can be Introspectively aware of thoughts and things without being attentive or reflective to them.

This sounds right to me, though I would probably describe the “somewhere” as beyond or above rather than between.

William James has a nice way of articulating this other consciousness: “... our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence; but apply the requisite stimulus, and at a touch they are there in all their completeness, definite types of mentality which probably somewhere have their field of application and adaptation. No account of the universe in its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded.

William James (2014-07-30). The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (p. 336).


Falcon Teachings

 
‹ First  < 3 4 5