Mathematics of the mind

[symplectic_manifold]

Hello!

What I'd like to ask is, whether there is a mathematical theory of consciousness in development or any promising serious research projects in describing conscious process mathematically or physically with sufficient mathematical background

[Qfwfq]

Why so much bold?

 

There's not much point in emphasis when you're emphasising most of the post.

[symplectic_manifold]

what is wrong with my post...emphasis?

 

either such a theory exists or it's not formed yet to be called a real theory and there are only fragmented attempts to describe the whole matter...that's what I meant.

 

if you understood the question on the whole could you please try to answer it or direct me to some sources?

 

if i don't seem to have formulated my question properly then i'm sorry for that...i hope there is understanding from the forum members' side that not for all the english language is the mother tongue.

[Qfwfq]

We do understand that English isn't the mother tongue of some posters.

 

There is research into these matters, but I'm not sure why you are concerned with sufficient mathematical background or what you would consider sufficient.

[CraigD]

…is [there] a mathematical theory of consciousness in development or any promising serious research projects in describing conscious process mathematically …

There are several.

Inspired by such wonderful books as Douglas Hofstadter’s "Godel, Escher, Bach" (which does not actually propose any such theory), such theorizing was very popular in the early 1980s. I knew someone then who was pursuing a degree in that was actually called "synthetic psychology", which focused extensively on such theories.

 

In my opinion, one of the best-developed ones is described by Marvin Minsky in his "Society of Mind". This book doesn’t describe in detail Minsky’s formalism, but his academic work, some of which is available via his website, does.

 

No theory of consciousness of which I’m aware has gained much acceptance or popularity, largely, I believe, because none have provided very useful, general approaches to artificial intelligence programming.

 

Another, very profound problem with theories of consciousness is that, in my (and many more famous people’s) opinion, the term “consciousness” has never been adequately defined. “What is consciousness” (which is the subject of an excellent collection of essays titled “The Mind’s Eye”, edited by Hofstadter) remains a controversial subject, subject more to philosophical debate than mathematical formalism. Minsky and others have gone as far as concluding that the term “consciousness” is a “semantic null” (similar to Noam Chomsky’s famous example “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”), that it refers to a phenomena that doesn’t actually exist. Having spent many years contemplating this problem, I've come to agree with this conclusion.

 

… or physically …

This seems to me to be a more promising line of research, since it doesn’t rely on the philosophical/theological interpretation of the term “consciousness”.

 

Unfortunately, current brain-imaging technology is not high-resolution enough to provide high-quality experimental data for such research. Until such imaging technology is developed, development of physical theories for the working of the brain will likely proceed very slowly, and produce few compelling results. The threads ”Upload your mind into a computer by 2050?” and “nano bots” beginning around post #13 have some discussion of these difficulties.

 

The once-popular field of “synthetic psychology” sought to develop mathematical formalisms from simplified, “synthetic” nervous systems, but, to the best of my knowledge, is no longer very popular. Example of this research involve “Braitenberg Vehicles” and “neurodes”.

[HydrogenBond]

The psychology of Carl Jung (star pupil of Freud) from 1920-1950's speaks of the collective unconscious, which in modern analogy, amounts to personality software both up potential and below potential of the ego. Within the laboratory of the mind one can see these phenomena at work, especially within dreams. Jung makes a very strong empirical correaltion, if that counts as mathematical. His correlation require no nebulus concepts, rather the nebulus is explained in terms of the activity of archetypes (empty program structure at birth; maybe natural wiring) genetically inherant within the human brain, common to all humans. The ego and culture can program these into a unique expression of a general type. That is why the story of the great flood is documented to occur independantly within isolated jungle cultures, where no connection to higher cultures can be established.

 

Aliens, Atlantis, are probably other archetype or barebones wiring schema up potential of the ego, ie., higher than the go. These myths can be found in almost all cultures even those isolated by geography. The archtypes can become quite compelling and can project onto reality making their projection appear real. Archetypes appear to be wired into the frontal lobe and can send neural signals into the sensory cortex (current can go in both directions; sensory cortex to frontal lobe or frontal lobe into sensory cortex). During frontal lobe to sensory cortex currents and one will see a projection from an archetype overlapping reality sensory data. This is common at night in the dark; someone seems to be hiding behind the tree or a sound seems to mean a bear is nearby, even though there might not be anything real out there. The archetype is real but most people are unconscious of them, so our reactions to internal projection are often mistaken for reality. One will swear it is real because it reaches the ego similar to sensory input data (both overlap the sensory cortex) and can go to other parts of the brain from there.

[CraigD]

The psychology of Carl Jung (star pupil of Freud) from 1920-1950's speaks of the collective unconscious, which in modern analogy, amounts to personality software both up potential and below potential of the ego. … Jung makes a very strong empirical correaltion, if that counts as mathematical. His correlation require no nebulus concepts, rather the nebulus is explained in terms of the activity of archetypes (empty program structure at birth; maybe natural wiring) genetically inherant within the human brain, common to all humans.

Wow.

 

I don’t believe I’ve thought of Jung’s psychodynamic model in connection with the question of consciousness, even though I studied both intensely at about the same time.

 

Although Jung and Jungians usually aren’t held in high esteem by math/science types (for the most part, I think, due to their acceptance of the objective reality of spiritual and psychic phenomena, anecdotal approach to evidence, and use of traditional alchemical and magical terms, I was always attracted to the generality of his model.

 

In particular, Jungian theory holds that the “self” psychological “complex”, though of distinctly high importance, is not qualitatively different than less important complexes (In Jung’s model, “archtypes” can be considered common data, while “complexes” are actual mental processing units). This is strikingly similar to Minksy and other’s conclusions that “consciousness”, if defined as something other than ordinary mental processing, is an invalid concept. More broadly, Jung’s model by which the various complexes compete, cooperate, and interact in the psyche, “powered” by a finite supply of “id energy”, bears some similarity to “the society of mind” Minsky describes.

 

In the early 80s, I often speculated, in public and in private, that the emerging technology of brain imaging might reveal brain activity supporting Jung’s psychodynamic model. It didn’t, but I continued to find the model interesting and useful as analogy.

 

Although one could certainly build a mathematical formalism around Jung’s model, I’m not aware of anyone doing so, and doubt anyone will put much effort into doing so, for the same reasons that few theories of mind have been well developed – it seems unlikely to be or practical use in programming artificial intelligence, and seems related to physical neuroprocessing only in an analogous way.

[Turtle]

___All mathematics is pattern, but not all pattern is mathematics (yet, if ever). With the advent of fractals & chaos theory, the continued business-as-normal of probability in investigating "mind" is ludicrous except as an example of what we don't know. What parts do scale, initial conditions, & recursion play in mind? :lol:

[HydrogenBond]

What I got from Jungian Psychology was that his paradoxical symbolism analysis were trying to discribe the 3-D memory storage on the right side of the brain. Rational thought or the left side is 2-D or a plane. While 3-D is a sphere. A sphere or spatial memory is composed an many intersceting 2-D planes. The paradoxical symbolism is is trying to use many 2-D planes to describe a 3-D memory. The conflict of opposites are planes that will intersect at 90 degrees. This give one a reasonable approximation for the 3-D volume. Neutralizing the opposition tilts the two planes to help touch the whole 3-D memory.

 

The alchemy symbolism amounts to mystical psychology. The alchemist were compelled by archetype complexes that generated collective human symbolism. They tried to differntiate rational planes from the 3-D memory, which is not always easy to do. To help their social evolutionary cause, the archetype projected into their beakers such that the alchemist saw the mercurial serpant having affinity for the sulfur fires of hell. The practical result was mercury sulfide which is one of the most insoluble substance of nature.

 

The metaphysical stuff implies that consciousness extends beyond the brain. Spiritual phenomena that are often projected into eternal spirits are seen as stemming from projection. But I think Jung took it one step further. Jung called this meaningful cooincidences or sychronictity.

 

Archetype can become complexes or software connected to lower and higher human potential, which is reasonable considering 3-D memory and genetic history. TAccording to Jung, the world wars appeared when Religion was reasoned away in countries like Austria and Germany. The result was a collective social psychosis led by Mystical Adolf Hitler. He saw himself as almost a god, ie., collective projection of an archetype process. He even resurrected the Roman walk and salute and became like Caesar in the minds of millions of people. Personal complexes are the tip of the archetypes because these are more temporal social personal and appear pathological. The archetypes are more confusing because they can appear reasonable and can therefore extend outside the individual and set a social symbiosis that appears natural instead of pathological.

 

Modeling computers on the archetypes would imply 3-D memory. Then setting up a potential between the 3-D memory and the 2-D logic aspect of the computer. The spatial instructions are released animating many planes of possible rational instructions leading to some activity. At the same time, external rational feedback data input is alterring the potential by extending the 2-D memory grid. The 2-D memory is forward integrated to 3-D altering the 3-D potential for another logic cycle using a better 2-D grid.

[Turtle]

___Wow! Hydrogen! You go dog!:D

___I like Jung's synchronicity, but I haven't studied him as deeply as you. On mapping anything on a 3-D grid, these days I have to just say read Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics. I have recently begun mapping square grid graphs to triangular grids, one-for-one (isomorphically) & let me tell you it makes considerable difference in the pattern observed.

___To think any single view, i.e. mathematical system in Godel's terms, completely describes the mind goes against my grain. :) Let's hook some volunteers up to machines & check it out anyway! :lol: :)