“Something very profound is happening in science, something not seen in more than a century is occurring: the paradigm of science is changing. Consciousness, particularly nonlocal non-physiological consciousness, is becoming mainstream.”
Schwartz S. A., Kuhn, consciousness, and paradigms, Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing. (2018) 14, no. 4, 254–261, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2018.04.004, 2-s2.0-85050662195, 30072078.
The Jazz metaphor of transitions from thesis, anti-thesis, and Synthesis is appropriate to describe our understanding of consciousness.
The publication, Kuhn, Robert. (2024). A Landscape of Consciousness: Toward a Taxonomy of Explanations and Implications. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2023.12.003 is a fantastic compilation of knowledge from many domains spanning “physicalist-to-nonphysicalist landscape of essences and mechanisms.” It covers several categories and, as the conclusion says, provides a “fascinating look at the whole of human intelligence coming up against a problem, one that is vital for us. The diversity of these views is part of a larger point that, as a species, diversity is our strength: we each tackle problems in our unique ways, and (hopefully) someone will win the lottery. Moreover, a goodly percentage of the views are inter-consistent: just touching different parts of the same elephant.”
I am not a philosopher or a computer scientist. I was trained in Physics and learned to ask questions from my thesis advisor and mentor, Prof. Walter Kohn, who got a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1998. My transition from many-body physics to information technologies occurred when I joined Bell Labs in 1980. My work in attempting to improve the sentience, resilience, efficiency, and scalability of distributed software applications managing our communication, collaboration, and commerce led to my quest for a deeper understanding of computer science. It led to my book “Designing A New Class Of Distributed Systems” in 2011, and my paper at the Turing Centenary Conference in 2012, where I had the honor of discussing the shortcomings of the current computing model based on the von Neumann stored program control implementation of the Turing Machine. My quest to improve the computing model led me to the writings of the now-late Prof. Mark Burgin in 2013, who also pointed out the shortcomings and proposed new solutions using the General Theory of Information (GTI). I spent considerable time, till he passed away in 2023, trying to study, understand, and apply GTI to build a new class of autopoietic and cognitive machines.
It is with sincere regret that I acknowledge the missed opportunity to discuss R. L. Kuhn’s paper with Mark because we were not aware of this paper (an unknown known). Equally, I lament that R. L. Kuhn was not exposed to GTI and its profound implications for the relationship between material and mental structures in all genomic biological systems.
According to GTI, knowledge belongs to the realm of biological systems, which convert epistemic information from material structures that deal with energy and matter conversions into knowledge. They represent knowledge as named sets/fundamental triads dealing with entities, relationships, and interaction-driven behaviors. Information is the bridge between the material structures and the mental structures. The schema and operations that transform one state of the system under observation to another provide knowledge representation in associative memory and event-driven interaction history. As I mentioned in another post, the genome provides the knowledge to build, operate, and manage a society of cells that work together with a unique identity and an ability to make sense of information received from various senses and take action based on experience. The knowledge is passed on from the successors to the survivors as chromosomes, which contain the knowledge to create a society of cells that behave like a community where individual cell roles are well-defined. Their relationships with other cells are defined through shared knowledge, and they collaborate by exchanging messages defined by specific relationships and behaviors. DNA provides a symbolic computing structure with the knowledge to use matter and energy to create and maintain stable structures with particular tasks. In addition, the neurons, also known as nerve cells, form the fundamental units of the brain and the nervous system, which carry information. The brain contains billions of neurons and forms complex networks that process information and update knowledge stored in associative memory and event-driven interaction history. The associative memory and event-driven interaction history strengthen connections based on experiences and events. This allows the brain to learn, adapt, and recall information efficiently.
Individual consciousness is not just a desirable component but a requirement in the hierarchical knowledge network. It enables us to make sense of what is being observed using associative memory and the event-driven interaction history, analyze various options, and act to optimize our state. Thus, individual consciousness must result from observing, modeling, analyzing, predicting, and acting to optimize the future state based on the system’s objectives. In a hierarchical knowledge network, consciousness must manifest itself at various levels, including the individual component, group, and system levels. In Genomic systems, two networks are in play. First, a structural component network consisting of cells, groups of cells, and a body, brain, and mind that provide a unique sense of identity (“self”) and the infrastructure required to sustain itself using autopoietic behaviors. The second one is the cognitive network that provides the infrastructure for mental structures that form associative memory and interaction history and their use to model, analyze, predict, and act based on knowledge acquired through learning. This includes the state of the “self” and its relationship with “external reality” by verifying the outcomes of its actions. Creativity is part of this process, where knowledge is represented as associative memory and interaction-driven history is used to explore possibilities using mental structures.
Damasio states, “We need a mind, which is a flow of images and a self. A conscious mind is a mind with a self in it. A self introduces a subjective perspective in the mind.” Also see Digital Consciousness Autopoiesis and Cognition (youtube.com) for some of my thoughts on digital consciousness defining the business of sensing, modeling, analyzing, predicting, and taking action to maintain stability in the face of non-deterministic and rapid fluctuations while dealing with finite resources.
It is fair to say that without the knowledge transmitted through the genome, there is no individual and individual consciousness. Damasio also discusses a collective genome specifying how groups, societies, and countries define for themselves how to build, operate, and maintain their system with specific goals and objectives, which opens the door for collective consciousness.
In addition, how knowledge is represented and managed is independent of the medium, whether carbon-based or silicon-based. This leads us to define a “Digital Genome.”
A digital genome is a knowledge network that has the operational knowledge to create, monitor, and manage a hierarchy of autonomous processes with:
- Functional requirements,
- Non-functional requirements,
- Tools to provide self-regulation (homeostasis) of global, clustered, and local process groups meeting various local and global constraints using shared knowledge, and
- Best practices are based on experience, and they are used not only to assure stability, safety, security, and survival but also to search for ways to flourish and pursue desirable future states.
These are defined with a purpose at the system, subsystem, and component levels. As Professor Burgin and I discussed, this allows us to create domain-specific distributed software applications with high sentience, resilience, efficiency, security, and scalability.
An example of an implementation of such a system is described here.
Digital Genome Implementation Presentations: – Autopoietic Machines (triadicautomata.com)
In conclusion, I would like to point out an alternate view from GTI that allows us to build a new class of autopoietic and cognitive systems regardless of whether they address consciousness or not. I only wish I could have discussed this with the Late Prof. Mark Burgin. It took me over a decade to understand GTI and apply it. Given the taxonomy and explanations in Kuhn’s Paper, a lifetime is probably not sufficient to understand consciousness. Perhaps Kuhn could explain where GTI fits in his taxonomy if it does at all.
It is a fair request, in my opinion.
Postscript
I referred the Landscape of Consciousness paper by R.L. Kuhn to another student of GTI and Society of Minds, Max Michaels, and here is his clear and precise summary of his understanding.
CONSCIOUSNESS AND GENERAL THEORY OF INFORMATION
Mark Burgin’s General Theory of Information (GTI), particularly through his concept of the ontological triad: physical, mental, and structural realities – offer key insights into the concept of Society of Mind reconciled with the ideas in the paper:
- Consciousness as Fundamental Reality: Several sections of the paper emphasize consciousness as fundamental to the universe, resonating with the “mental” aspect of Burgin’s triad. For example, Hoffman and McGilchrist argue that consciousness is not a product of space-time but is fundamental and omnipresent, aligning with Burgin’s perspective that the mental realm is a core aspect of reality.
- Information as a Bridge Between Physical and Mental: The paper discusses the duality of information, where information spaces exist both physically and phenomenally. This view connects to Burgin’s concept of structural reality, which encompasses the abstract structures underlying both physical and mental phenomena. Information as a fundamental concept in reality is a bridge between these realms, aligning with Burgin’s structural reality.
- Emergence and Complexity: The paper touches on the idea of consciousness emerging from complex systems, such as in Integrated Information Theory (IIT). This corresponds to the idea in Burgin’s GTI that structural complexity underlies the emergence of higher-order phenomena like consciousness, blending mental and physical realities.
- Dual-Aspect Monism: The notion that physical and mental aspects of reality are two sides of the same coin, as discussed in the paper, resonates with Burgin’s triadic approach. In dual-aspect theories, both mental and physical realms are seen as expressions of a deeper, structural reality, which is akin to Burgin’s idea that structural reality underpins both mental and physical manifestations.
Burgin’s GTI provides a framework for understanding consciousness as part of a broader interplay between physical, mental, and structural realities, offering a way to integrate various perspectives discussed in the paper.
Food for Thought.
Autopoietic Machines 