Andrés Gómez Emilsson | Solving the Phenomenal Binding Problem: Topological Segmentation as the Correct Explanation Space @/Andr%C3%A9sG%C3%B3mezEmilsson | Uploaded November 2021 | Updated October 2024, 32 minutes ago.
How can a bundle of atoms form a unified mind? This is far from a trivial question, and it demands an answer.
The phenomenal binding problem asks us to consider exactly that. How can spatially and temporally distributed patterns of neural activity contribute to the contents of a unified experience? How can various cognitive modules interlock to produce coherent mental activity that stands as a whole?
To address this problem we first need to break down “the hard problem of consciousness” into manageable subcomponents. In particular, we follow Pearce’s breakdown of the problem where we posit that any scientific theory of consciousness must answer: (1) why consciousness exists at all, (2) what are the set of qualia variety and values, and what is the nature of their interrelationships, (3) the binding problem, i.e. why are we not “mind dust”?, and (4) what are the causal properties of consciousness (how could natural selection recruit experience for information processing purposes, and why is it that we can talk about it). We discuss how trying to "solve consciousness" without addressing each of these subproblems is like trying to go to the Moon without taking into account air drag, or the Moon's own gravitational field, or the fact that most of outer space is an air vacuum. Illusionism, in particular, seems to claim "the Moon is an optical illusion" (which would be true for rainbows - but not for the Moon, or consciousness).
Zooming in on (3), we suggest that any solution to the binding problem must: (a) avoid strong emergence, (b) side-step the hard problem of consciousness, (c) circumvent epiphenomenalism, and (d) be compatible with the modern scientific word picture, namely the Standard Model of physics (or whichever future version achieves full causal closure).
Given this background, we then explain that "the binding problem" as stated is in fact conceptually insoluble. Rather, we ought to reformulate it as the "boundary problem": reality starts out unified, and the real question is how it develops objective and frame invariant boundaries. Additionally, we explain that "classic vs. quantum" is a false dichotomy, at least in so far as "classical explanations" are assumed to involve particles and forces. Field behavior is in fact ubiquitous in conscious experience, and it need not be quantum to be computationally relevant! In fact, we argue that nothing in experience makes sense except in light of holistic field behavior.
We then articulate exactly why all of the previously proposed solutions to the binding problem fail to meet the criteria we outlined. Among them, we cover:
1) Cellular Automata
2) Complexity
3) Synchrony
4) Integrated Information
5) Causality
6) Spatial Proximity
7) Behavioral Coherence
8) Mach Principle
9) Resonance
Finally, we present what we believe is an actual plausible solution to the phenomenal binding problem that satisfies all of the necessary key constraints:
10) Topological segmentation
The case for (10) is far from trivial, which is why it warrants a detailed explanation. It results from realizing that topological segmentation allows us to simultaneously obtain holistic field behavior useful for computation *and* new and natural regions of fields that we could call "emergent separate beings". This presents a completely new paradigm, which is testable using elements of the cohomology of electromagnetic fields.
We conclude by speculating about the nature of multiple personality disorder and extreme meditation and psychedelic states of consciousness in light of a topological solution to the boundary problem. Finally, we articulate the fact that, unlike many other theories, this explanation space is in principle completely testable.
~Qualia of the Day: Acqua di Gio by Giorgio Armani and Ambroxan~
-------------
Links:
The Combination Problem for Panpsychism by David J. Chalmers - consc.net/papers/combination.pdf
David Pearce's Physicalism - physicalism.com
The abstract of this talk (originally written for TSC 2020) - qualiacomputing.com/2020/02/15/qualia-computing-at-tsc-2020-ips-2020-unscruz-2020-and-ephemerisle-2020
Welcoming Steven Lehar as a QRI Lineage - qualiaresearchinstitute.org/blog/steven-lehar-lineage
12 The CEMI Field Theory: Seven Clues to the Nature of Consciousness (Johnjoe McFadden) - philarchive.org/archive/MCFTCF-3v1
Consciousness is a Thing not a Process (Susan Pockett) - mdpi.com/2076-3417/7/12/1248/pdf-vor#:~:text=Tononi%20and%20Edelman%20%5B1%5D%20attribute,of%20seconds%20%5B2%5D%E2%80%9D.
Principia Qualia (Michael Johnson) - opentheory.net/PrincipiaQualia.pdf
Raising the Table Stakes for Successful Theories of Consciousness - qualiacomputing.com/2017/02/19/raising-the-table-stakes-for-successful-theories-of-consciousness
Algorithmic Reduction of Psychedelic States - qualiacomputing.com/2016/06/20/algorithmic-reduction-of-psychedelic-states
How can a bundle of atoms form a unified mind? This is far from a trivial question, and it demands an answer.
The phenomenal binding problem asks us to consider exactly that. How can spatially and temporally distributed patterns of neural activity contribute to the contents of a unified experience? How can various cognitive modules interlock to produce coherent mental activity that stands as a whole?
To address this problem we first need to break down “the hard problem of consciousness” into manageable subcomponents. In particular, we follow Pearce’s breakdown of the problem where we posit that any scientific theory of consciousness must answer: (1) why consciousness exists at all, (2) what are the set of qualia variety and values, and what is the nature of their interrelationships, (3) the binding problem, i.e. why are we not “mind dust”?, and (4) what are the causal properties of consciousness (how could natural selection recruit experience for information processing purposes, and why is it that we can talk about it). We discuss how trying to "solve consciousness" without addressing each of these subproblems is like trying to go to the Moon without taking into account air drag, or the Moon's own gravitational field, or the fact that most of outer space is an air vacuum. Illusionism, in particular, seems to claim "the Moon is an optical illusion" (which would be true for rainbows - but not for the Moon, or consciousness).
Zooming in on (3), we suggest that any solution to the binding problem must: (a) avoid strong emergence, (b) side-step the hard problem of consciousness, (c) circumvent epiphenomenalism, and (d) be compatible with the modern scientific word picture, namely the Standard Model of physics (or whichever future version achieves full causal closure).
Given this background, we then explain that "the binding problem" as stated is in fact conceptually insoluble. Rather, we ought to reformulate it as the "boundary problem": reality starts out unified, and the real question is how it develops objective and frame invariant boundaries. Additionally, we explain that "classic vs. quantum" is a false dichotomy, at least in so far as "classical explanations" are assumed to involve particles and forces. Field behavior is in fact ubiquitous in conscious experience, and it need not be quantum to be computationally relevant! In fact, we argue that nothing in experience makes sense except in light of holistic field behavior.
We then articulate exactly why all of the previously proposed solutions to the binding problem fail to meet the criteria we outlined. Among them, we cover:
1) Cellular Automata
2) Complexity
3) Synchrony
4) Integrated Information
5) Causality
6) Spatial Proximity
7) Behavioral Coherence
8) Mach Principle
9) Resonance
Finally, we present what we believe is an actual plausible solution to the phenomenal binding problem that satisfies all of the necessary key constraints:
10) Topological segmentation
The case for (10) is far from trivial, which is why it warrants a detailed explanation. It results from realizing that topological segmentation allows us to simultaneously obtain holistic field behavior useful for computation *and* new and natural regions of fields that we could call "emergent separate beings". This presents a completely new paradigm, which is testable using elements of the cohomology of electromagnetic fields.
We conclude by speculating about the nature of multiple personality disorder and extreme meditation and psychedelic states of consciousness in light of a topological solution to the boundary problem. Finally, we articulate the fact that, unlike many other theories, this explanation space is in principle completely testable.
~Qualia of the Day: Acqua di Gio by Giorgio Armani and Ambroxan~
-------------
Links:
The Combination Problem for Panpsychism by David J. Chalmers - consc.net/papers/combination.pdf
David Pearce's Physicalism - physicalism.com
The abstract of this talk (originally written for TSC 2020) - qualiacomputing.com/2020/02/15/qualia-computing-at-tsc-2020-ips-2020-unscruz-2020-and-ephemerisle-2020
Welcoming Steven Lehar as a QRI Lineage - qualiaresearchinstitute.org/blog/steven-lehar-lineage
12 The CEMI Field Theory: Seven Clues to the Nature of Consciousness (Johnjoe McFadden) - philarchive.org/archive/MCFTCF-3v1
Consciousness is a Thing not a Process (Susan Pockett) - mdpi.com/2076-3417/7/12/1248/pdf-vor#:~:text=Tononi%20and%20Edelman%20%5B1%5D%20attribute,of%20seconds%20%5B2%5D%E2%80%9D.
Principia Qualia (Michael Johnson) - opentheory.net/PrincipiaQualia.pdf
Raising the Table Stakes for Successful Theories of Consciousness - qualiacomputing.com/2017/02/19/raising-the-table-stakes-for-successful-theories-of-consciousness
Algorithmic Reduction of Psychedelic States - qualiacomputing.com/2016/06/20/algorithmic-reduction-of-psychedelic-states
