Showing posts with label Teilhard de Chardin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teilhard de Chardin. Show all posts

Sunday, September 08, 2013

Adrian D. Nelson - The Study of Fundamental Consciousness Entering the Mainstream

Christof Koch, working alongside Francis Crick, spent a couple of decades seeking the neural correlates of consciousness, and established himself as a leader in the study of consciousness and the ways the brain creates the mind. Yet, for all the discoveries and advances in our understanding of the brain, the how of converting sensory experience into subjective sensations remains a mystery.

Philosopher of mind David Chalmers has distinguished between the easy problem of consciousness and the hard problem of consciousness. The "easy problem" is essentially the area in which Koch and Crick were working - identifying the what, the neural correlates of consciousness.
Finding the neural correlates of consciousness is a problem of the same general type as finding the neural correlates of anything—language or memory, for instance. Neuroscience has made great progress in solving such problems in the past. Finding the brain regions and processes that correlate with consciousness is simply a matter of directing an existing research strategy from areas of previous success (language, memory) onto a different aspect of mental functioning (consciousness).

Solms, Mark; Turnbull, Oliver. (2010-09-07). Brain and the Inner World: An Introduction to the Neuroscience of Subjective Experience (Kindle Locations 799-802).
This approach seeks to understand which brain regions and/or processes correlated with conscious experience, and identifying where in the brain they reside. The "hard problem" is the why and the how.

In his own work, Koch is careful to distinguish between neural correlates of consciousness and a theory of consciousness.
It should be noted that discovering and characterizing the Neural Correlates of Consciousness in brains is not the same as a theory of consciousness. Only the latter can tell us why particular systems can experience anything, why they are conscious, and why other systems - such as the enteric nervous system or the immune system - are not. However, understanding the Neural Correlates of Consciousness is a necessary step toward such a theory. (Koch, C. Neural Correlates of Consciousness, Scholarpedia entry)
In his most recent book, Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist (2012), Koch admits his openness to non-materialist explanations of consciousness, including the possibility that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe. In this interview from The Atlantic, he goes a little further:
I was surprised to see your book invoke Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Jesuit priest and paleontologist who believed the universe is becoming more conscious as it gets more complex. Most scientists write off Teilhard as a religious apologist.

Koch: Most scientists don't even know about him. He had this idea about evolution where he argued that from very simple micro molecules to single cell organisms to multi-cell organisms to simple animals to complex animals to us is the emergence of complexity. He observed that the universe was getting more and more complex, and he postulated this would continue. Essentially, he postulated something like the Internet. He called it the "noosphere" -- the sphere of knowledge that covers the entire planet and is heavily interconnected. He died in 1955, long before any of this emerged, and he postulated that human society would evolve into a very complicated entity that would become self-conscious. He thought this would happen on other planets and throughout the entire universe, and the universe in some weird state would become self-conscious. It's all totally speculative, but I do like some of these ideas. I see a universe that's conducive to the formation of stable molecules and to life. And I do believe complexity is associated with consciousness. Therefore, we seem to live in a universe that's particularly conducive to the emergence of consciousness. That's why I call myself a "romantic reductionist."
The article below, from the Collective Evolution blog, offers a little overview of how the study of consciousness is changing in fundamental ways.

The Study of Fundamental Consciousness Entering the Mainstream

August 8, 2013 by Adrian D. Nelson



The world-renowned neuroscientist Christof Koch, spent decades working alongside the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, Francis Crick. For decades these two men searched for the neurobiological basis of consciousness. They discovered many insights into cognition and the functioning of perception, yet the central enigma, the nature of consciousness itself, remained mysteriously elusive.

In 2009, Koch shocked the scientific community by publishing his conviction that consciousness probably isn’t just in brains, but is a fundamental feature of reality. This is a view known to philosophers as ‘panpsychism.’ The theory that Koch is now dedicating his research to is called ‘Integrated Information Theory’ or ‘IIT.’ It is the brainchild of neuroscientist Giulio Tononi of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

In explaining his theory, Tononi asks us to consider a simple light sensitive photo diode like those found in a digital camera. A simple diode might respond to just two states: light or dark. We could present our diode with any number of images, yet regardless of the picture, the diode conforms to one of only two possible states. Is it light, or is it dark?

Now consider yourself looking at the same picture, lets say, of the Eiffel Tower on a beautiful spring day in Paris. For us, looking at this image results in a reduction from a near infinity of possible states. Not an image of the Andromeda galaxy, not a childhood picture of your mother, not cells dividing in a Petri dish and so on. Because of the vast number of images we are capable of recognizing, each one is highly informative. For Tononi, the vast amount of information capable of being integrated in the brain means that we have a comparatively huge capacity for consciousness.

Tononi’s theory, that consciousness is born out of networks with high degrees of integrated information, has novel ways of being tested in the laboratory.

In studies with sleeping participants, Tononi and his colleagues used transcranial magnetic stimulation to send a ripple of activity through the cortex of sleeping participants. The researchers found that when dreaming, this ripple reverberated through the cortex longer than when participants were in stages of dreamless sleep. This demonstrated that during dreaming, when the brain is conscious, the cortex has a higher degree of integration.

In another experiment, the researchers built tiny robots known as ‘animats’ that they placed into mazes. The animats used simple integrated networks capable of evolving over sequential generations. To their surprise, the greater the degree of integration that the animats evolved, the quicker they were able to escape the mazes. For Tononi this finding suggested that consciousness may play a more central role in evolution than had previously been thought.

The mathematical value of integrated information in a network is known as phi. But Tononi’s theory, now the topic of serious mainstream discussion, has an extraordinary implication. Phi didn’t just occur in brains, it is a property of any network with a total informational content greater than its individual parts. Every living cell, every electronic circuit, even a proton consisting of just three elementary particles have a value of phi greater than zero. According to Integrated Information Theory, all of these things possess something, albeit but a glimmer of ‘what it is like’ to be them. Tononi states:
“Consciousness is a fundamental property, like mass or charge. Wherever there is an entity with multiple states, there is some consciousness. You need a special structure to get a lot of it but consciousness is everywhere, it is a fundamental property.”
Integrated information theory is in its infancy and there are still many questions it must face. Did the information of brains operate at the level of the neuron, or the protein, or something deeper still? The electromagnetic field of the brain, as observed by psi researcher Dean Radin, is always re-establishing its quantum connection to the entire universe. Could a much richer informational interaction exist than has yet been imagined?

Physicists such as John Wheeler have laid the groundwork for a radical new understanding of reality, in which matter, the laws and constants of nature, and indeed the entire universe is best described, not in terms of physical objects, but through the play and display of a fundamental dynamic information.

Quantum mechanics suggests that the entire physical universe is potentially interconnected at a deep level of nature. So is the total informational content of the universe integrated in some deep sense? Is it in a mysterious way conscious of itself?

As spiritual traditions throughout the ages have long asserted, instead of isolated and separate experiencing beings, we may experience on behalf of the greater evolving system in which we find ourselves.

In Koch’s highly anticipated 2012 book, ‘Consciousness – Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist’, he states:
“I do believe that the laws of physics overwhelmingly favored the emergence of consciousness. The universe is a work in progress. Such a belief evokes jeremiads from many biologists and philosophers but the evidence from cosmology, biology and history is compelling.”
Regardless of the validity of Tononi’s theory, today increasing numbers of scientists and academics are convinced that the existence of consciousness simply cannot be sensibly denied. The study of fundamental consciousness is now entering the mainstream. This movement consists of thinkers in and outside of the mind sciences. Yet despite their different academic backgrounds, they are united by two common convictions: that consciousness is an intrinsic rather than incidental emergence in the universe, and that any complete account of reality must include an explanation of it.

Sources:


Koch, C. (2009, August 18). A complex theory of consciousness: Is complexity the secret to sentience, to a panpsychic view of consciousness? Scientific American.

Tononi, G. (2008). Consciousness as integrated information: A provisional manifesto. Biological Bulletin, 215(3), 216-242.

Edlund, J. A., Chaumont, N., Hintze, A., Koch C., Tononi G., & Adami, C. (2011). Integrated information increases with fitness in the evolution of animats. PLoS Computational Biology, 7(10).

Radin, D. I. (2006). Entangled Minds: Extrasensory experiences in quantum reality. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Koch, C. (2012). Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. MIT Press Books.

Wednesday, August 07, 2013

Jason Silva - The Omega Point

I'm not a huge fan of teleological systems in general, even though I really mostly agree with Thomas Nagel in his recent book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly Wrong. So this new piece at Metanexus from Jason Silva, one of their editors, brings up a lot of questions for me.

The French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin coined the term, omega point, to describe "a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving."
In this theory, developed by Teilhard in The Future of Man (1950), the universe is constantly developing towards higher levels of material complexity and consciousness, a theory of evolution that Teilhard called the Law of Complexity/Consciousness. For Teilhard, the universe can only move in the direction of more complexity and consciousness if it is being drawn by a supreme point of complexity and consciousness.

Further, Teilhard's The Phenomenon of Man argues that the Omega Point must possess the following five attributes:
  • Already existing
  • Only thus can the rise of the universe towards higher stages of consciousness be explained
  • Personal – an intellectual being and not an abstract idea
  • The increasing complexity of matter has not only led to higher forms of consciousness, but accordingly to more personalization, of which human beings are the highest attained form in the known universe. They are completely individualized, free centers of operation. It is in this way that man is said [1] to be made in the image of God, who is the highest form of personality. Teilhard expressly stated that in the Omega Point, when the universe becomes One, human persons will not be suppressed, but super-personalized. Personality will be infinitely enriched. This is because the Omega Point unites creation, and the more it unites, the increasing complexity of the universe aids in higher levels of consciousness. Thus, as God creates, the universe evolves towards higher forms of complexity, consciousness, and finally with humans, personality, because God, who is drawing the universe towards Him, is a person.
  • Transcendent
  • The Omega Point cannot be the result of the universe's final complex stage of itself's own consciousness. Instead, the Omega Point must exist even before the universe's evolution, because the Omega Point is responsible for the rise of the universe towards more complexity, consciousness and personality. Which essentially means that the Omega Point is outside the framework in which the universe rises, because it is by the attraction of the Omega Point that the universe evolves towards Him.
  • Autonomous
  • Irreversible
  • That is attainable and imperative; it must happen and cannot be undone.

The omega point is an idea central to Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, which is one of my issues with his model - there is an inherent assumption that this is true, without any serious evidence in support. I would guess that there is also a considerable degree of devolution and simplification occurring in the universe right now.

In fact, at the current rate of expansion in the universe, there will be fewer and fewer stars, galaxies, and other cosmic structures visible in the night sky (granted, this is on a long-term scale of millions and billions of years). If the universe is conscious, as this theory assumes, then such diffusion of matter into the vast emptiness of space would seem to lead to less complexity, not more, and to reduced consciousness, not greater.

Even more troubling to me is the assumption that there is a god of some sort who serves as the model of human aspirations.

Yet I share these things here because beneath my rationalism, there is a romantic idealist who wishes these fantasies were true. This brief article and accompanying video come from Metanexus Blog: Big Ideas.


The Omega Point

Jason Silva
July 29, 2013

The Omega Point is a term coined by the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. It describes a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving.

The concept is closely linked to Ray Kurzweill's notion of the Singularity, as well as the theories of a number of other futurists, techno-utopics, and "psychonauts." All these theories represent a highly-optimistic stance on the exponential increase of complexity in life, technology, and the universe.

In Jason Silva's latest short video, he explores the common thread running through these theories and perhaps also the universe and you.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Teilhard de Chardin's 'Planetary Mind' and Our Spiritual Evolution

This is a cool podcast from On Being is devoted to the thought of French philosopher and Jesuit priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who was trained as a paleontologist and geologist but is best known for his idea of the Omega Point ("a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving") and for developing Vladimir Vernadsky's concept of the Noosphere.

His best known book is The Phenomenon of Man, in which he outlined a sweeping account of the unfolding of the cosmos. He is in many ways an early example of integral thought in spirituality.


TEILHARD DE CHARDIN'S 'PLANETARY MIND' AND OUR SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION
December 20, 2012

The coming stage of evolution, Teilhard de Chardin said, won't be driven by physical adaptation but by human consciousness, creativity, and spirit. We visit with his biographer Ursula King, and we experience his ideas energizing New York Times Dot Earth blogger Andrew Revkin and evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson.

Listen

Radio Show/Podcast (mp3, 51:09)

Unedited Interviews:
Ursula King (mp3, 1:30:34)
David Sloan Wilson (mp3, 1:41:35)
Andrew Revkin (mp3, 37:24)

Learn

Books + Music
Transcript
Links + Resources

Voices on the Radio


Ursula King is Professor Emerita of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Bristol.


David Sloan Wilson is SUNY Distinguished Professor of Biology and Anthropology at Binghamton University in New York.


Andrew Revkin is Senior Fellow for Environmental Understanding at Pace University. His blog at The New York Times is called Dot Earth.