Matti Pitkanen (email@example.com)
Wed, 31 Mar 1999 07:45:20 +0300 (EET DST)
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Ben Goertzel wrote:
> > Agreed, but... To redirect... :) I picked up my copy of Gerald
> >Edelman's "Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the matter of the mind" and I
> >am reminded of why I am so much of a fan of Edelman! You should read
> >this book! His Theory of Neuronal Group Selection (TNGS) has very much
> >influenced what I am thinking of how Local Systems (LSs) interact.
> Yes, I know Edelman's work well ... it was one of the inspirations for my
> mathematical model of the mind
> I do see the parallel here, on a very abstract, archetypal level. He
> a different logic for interaction between neuronal groups, than the one that
> between neurons.
There is article of Edelman and Tononi in Science few months ago (I cannot
find the referenec now). I found that they used very similar concepts in
their classical theory of consciousness as appear in the formulation
of negentropy maximization principle of TGD. They introduced classical
entropy like concept and measure of complexity based on this entropy.
I am not quite sure whether they claimed some kind of maximization of
complexity to take place: they did not propose any explicit principle
selecting which group of neurons gives rise to conscious experience.
In TGD the entropy associated with density matrix of subsystem is in
key role: strong form of Negentropy Maximization Principle states
that in a given quantum state quantum jump is performed by the subsystem
for which the negentropy gain is maximum in quantum jump reducing
entanglement entropy to zero. The 'physical' interpretation is following:
entanglement is measure for attentiveness not yet involving consciousness.
Entanglement entropy measures, not the information content of
conscious experience, but how 'catchy' the potential conscious
experience is. The most catchy consciouss experience is experience.
Mass media people would certainly agree with this!
The problem is to find also a measure for the information content
of conscious experience and there are quite explicit ideas also about
this. The modification of Roy Frieden's ideas to TGD context lead to
the idea that the number of degenerate absolute minima of Kahler action
going through given 3-surface X^3 (there are several of them by classical
nondeterminism) is entropy typ measure for the cognitive resources of
3-surface. This number, call it N_d(X^3), is like the degeneracy factor
g(E) of states of same energy in thermodynamics. In string thermodynamics
g(E) behaves like exp(-E/T_H), where T_H is Hagedorn temperature and
thermodynamics does not exist for T>= T_H since partitition function
The hypothesis is that TGD is like string thermodynamics in the sense that
N_d(X^3) behaves like exp(-K_cr(X^3)), where K_cr is Kahler function for
critical value alfa_cr of the Kahler coupling strength alfa (the only
coupling constant type parameter in TGD). This implies that alfa_cr is
like Hagedorn temperature: if alfa is larger or equal than alfa_cr,
theory does not exist. Quite recently I learned that for alfa=alfa_cr
theory exists if one p-adicizes it. At quantum criticality the universe
is as interesting and intelligent as it can be since maximum number of
3-surfaces contributes to the functional integral weighted by vacuum
functional exp(-K). If this hypothesis is correct, the absolute
minimization of Kahler action which is the basic dynamical principle says
simply that cognitive resources of given 3-surface, are maximized.
To sum up, both variational principles of TGD relate to consciousness:
second principle states the maximization of catchiness of a potential
conscious experience and second principle states that cognitive resources
are maximized. We live in the best possible world although it does
not always look so(;-).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:29:46 JST