"Being No One: Consciousness and the Phenomenal Self"

[Davian]

I came across this in my efforts to better understand how the brain works, specifically in regard to consciousness. While tempted to post this in the philosophy forum, philosopher Thomas Metzinger is using neuroscience to explore what makes us tick. A search of the forum shows that this subject has been touched on, but not in depth.

As I have never been a dualist or theist, I was surprised at my own reaction to the concept he is presenting; I found it a little unsettling, but it fits the data - what we experience correlates to brain activity.

I have since found a variety of ways to poke around at the edges of this 'self model' that demonstrate some of the things covered in the book and the video, and I will post those if this subject is of any interest here.

----------------------

Excerpted from Thomas Metzinger's book, Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity (Bradford):

Consciousness, the Phenomenal Self, and the First-Person Perspective

"This is a book about consciousness, the phenomenal self, and the first-person perspective. Its main thesis is that no such things as selves exist in the world: Nobody ever was or had a self. All that ever existed were conscious self-models that could not be recognized as models. The phenomenal self is not a thing, but a process—and the subjective experience of being someone emerges if a conscious information-processing system operates under a transparent self-model. You are such a system right now, as you read these sentences. Because you cannot recognize your self-model as a model, it is transparent: you look right through it. You don’t see it. But you see with it. In other, more metaphorical, words, the central claim of this book is that as you read these lines you constantly confuse yourself with the content of the self-model currently activated by your brain.
This is not your fault. Evolution has made you this way. On the contrary. Arguably, until now, the conscious self-model of human beings is the best invention Mother Nature has made. It is a wonderfully efficient two-way window that allows an organism to conceive of itself as a whole, and thereby to causally interact with its inner and outer environment in an entirely new, integrated, and intelligent manner. Consciousness, the phenomenal self, and the first-person perspective are fascinating representational phenomena that have a long evolutionary history, a history which eventually led to the formation of complex societies and a cultural embedding of conscious experience itself. For many researchers in the cognitive neurosciences it is now clear that the first-person perspective somehow must have been the decisive link in this transition from biological to cultural evolution. In philosophical quarters, on the other hand, it is popular to say things like “The first-person perspective cannot be reduced to the third-person perspective!” or to develop complex technical arguments showing that some kinds of irreducible first-person facts exist. But nobody ever asks what a first-person perspective is in the first place. This is what I will do. I will offer a representationalist and a functionalist analysis of what a consciously experienced first-person perspective is."

-------------------------

From Youtube: "Thomas Metzinger is the Director of the Philosophy Group at the Department of Philosophy at Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz. His research focuses on philosophy of mind, especially on consciousness and the nature of the self. In this lecture he develops a representationalist theory of phenomenal self-consciousness. "

"Being No One"


----------------------
ETA:

"The self-model theory of subjectivity (SMT)

The concept of a self-model plays the central role in a philosophical theory of consciousness, the phenomenal self and the first-person perspective. This specific theory is the so-called "self-model theory of subjectivity" (SMT; see Metzinger 2003a, 2005a). However, SMT is not only a conceptual framework in analytical philosophy of mind, but at the same time an interdisciplinary research program spanning many disciplines from neuroscience, cognitive science, neuropsychology and psychiatry to artificial intelligence and evolutionary robotics (e.g., Blanke & Metzinger 2009, Metzinger 2007, Lenggenhager et al. 2007, Windt & Metzinger 2007, Metzinger & Gallese 2003). The theory simultaneously operates on phenomenological, representational, functional and neuroscientific levels of description, using a method of interdisciplinary constraint satisfaction (see Weisberg 2007, section 2, for critical discussion). The central questions motivating the SMT are: How, in principle, could a consciously experienced self and a genuine first-person perspective emerge in a given information-processing system? At what point in the actual natural evolution of nervous systems on our planet did explicit self-models first appear? What exactly made the transition from unconscious to conscious self-models possible? Which types of self-models can be implemented or evolved in artificial systems? What are the ethical implications of machine models of subjectivity and self-consciousness? What is the minimally sufficient neural correlate of phenomenal self-consciousness in the human brain? Which layers of the human self-model possess necessary social correlates for their development, and which ones don’t? The fundamental question on the conceptual level is: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the appearance of a phenomenal self?"

Self models - Scholarpedia

 

[Blayz]

I don't mind (pardon the pun) the illusion of self thing, it's like chaos theory, if the pattern is unseeable it might as well not be there. I would, however, argue that the third person perspective is a higher order than first, and that chimpanzees have a 1st person perspective independent of any kind of cultural evolution.

 

[hedrick]

I came across this in my efforts to better understand how the brain works, specifically in regard to consciousness. While tempted to post this in the philosophy forum, philosopher Thomas Metzinger is using neuroscience to explore what makes us tick. A search of the forum shows that this subject has been touched on, but not in depth.

As I have never been a dualist or theist, I was surprised at my own reaction to the concept he is presenting; I found it a little unsettling, but it fits the data - what we experience correlates to brain activity.

I'm not sure why this is unsettling. Maybe it's because of my background in AI, but I always assumed that the self was in effect a process and not a physical (or metaphysical) thing. I tend to think of the brain as the hardware. Without something executing in the hardware it's just dead meat. From the summary you include it doesn't sound like the self is an illusion. It's just not identical to any piece of hardware, but rather is closer to a process. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone who works with computers. Most people who do that come to think of computer processes as actual entities. They're not physical entities, but they are still actual things with which you can interact.

I don't see that this as even problematical from a Christian point of view. Since the early 20th Cent we've known that the Hebrew concept of a person wasn't of a separate metaphysical thing. Rather, soul is a way of speaking of the whole person. Most Christians are in fact dualists, but I don't think that's necessary. Theology has been exploring the implications of this throughout the 20th Cent., using concepts of person that are rather different than the naive dualist ones.

 

[Davian]

I'm not sure why this is unsettling. Maybe it's because of my background in AI, but I always assumed that the self was in effect a process and not a physical (or metaphysical) thing. I tend to think of the brain as the hardware. Without something executing in the hardware it's just dead meat. From the summary you include it doesn't sound like the self is an illusion. It's just not identical to any piece of hardware, but rather is closer to a process. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone who works with computers. Most people who do that come to think of computer processes as actual entities. They're not physical entities, but they are still actual things with which you can interact.

I guess that it's unsettling in the lack of continuity of self. No immortal soul, when I'm dead I'm dead, I have no issue with that, but I thought at least that I (the SE, or self-experience "I") would be around until then.

With Metzinger's theory, I (the SE "I") only exists when needed by my brain. When my brain and body sleep tonight, the "I" that thinks that it is typing this will be gone. Tomorrow, on awakening, my brain will again construct its self-model, and "I" will once more be aware. I will remember myself to me.

The AI perspective is an interesting one. Here is my AI analogue of how I see the brain working:

Imagine that you have created a combination of hardware and software capable of supporting a non-biological parallel of what we consider consciousness.

This consciousness, as one would expect, gets introspective, and sees that it is only a electronic model of a 'self'. That, if unplugged, or deleted, it will cease to exist. It may have been created for a purpose, such as city management or a medical application saving human lives, but ultimately it is just a program, a model. A sort of nihilism sets in and it unplugs itself constantly.

So you make a new system, where the AI actually runs inside of another AI; the second one is just there to catch that introspection so that the first does not see any conundrums. The second one processes and synchronizes all of the video, audio, and tactile (for robots) before handing it off to the first. The second is actually capable of basic maintenance and decision making, while providing the first AI, the 'self-model', with the impression that it has full control.

I don't see that this as even problematical from a Christian point of view. Since the early 20th Cent we've known that the Hebrew concept of a person wasn't of a separate metaphysical thing. Rather, soul is a way of speaking of the whole person. Most Christians are in fact dualists, but I don't think that's necessary. Theology has been exploring the implications of this throughout the 20th Cent., using concepts of person that are rather different than the naive dualist ones.

Theology explores it, but they often work backwards from the answers they want to get to.

Even in my short time here, I have come to realize that I could not make a statement that could generalize a 'Christian point of view'. Old earth, young earth, flat, round, spherical, rotating, not, evolution by natural selection, by God, by no means.

 

[razeontherock]

Subscribing

 

[Aeneas]

Posting relevant Symphony of Science video.

Ode to the Brain! by Symphony of Science - YouTube

 

[Davian]

Thomas Metzinger was interviewed on the Brain Science Podcast last year:

"German philosopher Thomas Metzinger, author of The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self and Being No One. Dr. Metzinger argues that any credible model for how the brain generates the mind must incorporate unusual human experiences, such as so-called out of body experiences (OBE), and psychiatric conditions. In this interview we explore how OBE and virtual reality experiments shed light on how the brain generates the sense of self that characterizes normal human experience."

http://www.brainsciencepodcast.com/bsp/thomas-metzinger-explores-consciousness-bsp-67.html

 

[Davian]

Posting relevant Symphony of Science video.

Great video - thanks.

Seeing Jill Bolte Taylor in that video reminded me of her Ted Talks appearance, which is where those clips were taken from:

"Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor had an opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: One morning, she realized she was having a massive stroke. As it happened -- as she felt her brain functions slip away one by one, speech, movement, understanding -- she studied and remembered every moment. This is a powerful story about how our brains define us and connect us to the world and to one another."

How it feels to have a stroke - YouTube

 

[razeontherock]

Even in my short time here, I have come to realize that I could not make a statement that could generalize a 'Christian point of view'. Old earth, young earth, flat, round, spherical, rotating, not, evolution by natural selection, by God, by no means.

Let me tackle 2 things, and combine them. A statement framing "the" Christian (C) POV, would be about rather different things than what you are expecting.

It is about losing self! Exactly how this might overlap the main thrust of your thread, or not, I'm not sure yet. Let me point out what I'm familiar with first, and see how you might react. That might help me digest what you're presenting here, which for some reason I'm having trouble with.

C in a nutshell, is "take up your cross, and follow" Jesus. This is one of 2 main things that first "drew" me to the Lord. As a very young child I didn't know what this meant, I knew I didn't know what this meant, I knew it was something significant, and no one could tell me what it is. I do think it is the sort of thing one mortal cannot convey to another, so I don't want to get side tracked on that, but there are several components to it that aren't so difficult:

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

This is found in 3 Gospels. Can this really be differentiated from your concept of SE?

"He must increase, but I [must] decrease. (John 3:31) He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all."

Humility and ego certainly have something to do with your concept of SE, and we see that addressed there, and also here:

"but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:3) For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly ...

For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, [being] many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."

This really takes the self out of things! And it is both a HUGE aspect of C, and what is missing the most. One step further will bring some clarity:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (Philippians 2:6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant"

 

[Davian]

Let me tackle 2 things, and combine them. A statement framing "the" Christian (C) POV, would be about rather different things than what you are expecting.

It is about losing self! Exactly how this might overlap the main thrust of your thread, or not, I'm not sure yet. Let me point out what I'm familiar with first, and see how you might react. That might help me digest what you're presenting here, which for some reason I'm having trouble with.

C in a nutshell, is "take up your cross, and follow" Jesus. This is one of 2 main things that first "drew" me to the Lord. As a very young child I didn't know what this meant, I knew I didn't know what this meant, I knew it was something significant, and no one could tell me what it is. I do think it is the sort of thing one mortal cannot convey to another, so I don't want to get side tracked on that, but there are several components to it that aren't so difficult:

"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it."

This is found in 3 Gospels. Can this really be differentiated from your concept of SE?

"He must increase, but I [must] decrease. (John 3:31) He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all."

Humility and ego certainly have something to do with your concept of SE, and we see that addressed there, and also here:

"but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Romans 12:3) For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly ...

For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, [being] many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."

This really takes the self out of things! And it is both a HUGE aspect of C, and what is missing the most. One step further will bring some clarity:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (Philippians 2:6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant"

I don't get the Christian POV; if others want to comment , feel free to do so.

I don't know what you mean by 'God' other than as a character in a book, or a characterture in modern culture. "Jesus Christ" is a title - is it not? Read in that context, those passages fall flat to me.

It is also my understanding that the bible is a big book, subject to many different interpretations, so that any attempt to retrofit excerpts onto this concept should be accompanied by careful explanation of what value this process would add, beyond a veneer of validation of your religion.

 

[razeontherock]

Ah, "value added" has to make it's way in here, too? Anyway, no "Jesus Christ" is not a title. Jesus is a name, and Christ is an office. There is only one Christ, so the 2 are inseparable.

 

[roach]

I'm not sure why this is unsettling. Maybe it's because of my background in AI, but I always assumed that the self was in effect a process and not a physical (or metaphysical) thing. I tend to think of the brain as the hardware. Without something executing in the hardware it's just dead meat. From the summary you include it doesn't sound like the self is an illusion. It's just not identical to any piece of hardware, but rather is closer to a process. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone who works with computers. Most people who do that come to think of computer processes as actual entities. They're not physical entities, but they are still actual things with which you can interact.

I don't see that this as even problematical from a Christian point of view. Since the early 20th Cent we've known that the Hebrew concept of a person wasn't of a separate metaphysical thing. Rather, soul is a way of speaking of the whole person. Most Christians are in fact dualists, but I don't think that's necessary. Theology has been exploring the implications of this throughout the 20th Cent., using concepts of person that are rather different than the naive dualist ones.

I really, really think this is a critical point. While I am a little skeptical (though not completely close-minded) about the possibility that your conception of mind and consciousness could have been conceived by 1st century religion, [i.e. without modern science] I think this religious view is infinitely more palatable than so many I've encountered. Every time I encounter sophisticated, thoughtful versions of faith that make an earnest attempt to reconcile religious beliefs with science, I am always impressed (and, to date, still unconvinced).

I'd like to ask you specifically about what progress you think theology has made as it pertains to the science of subjective experience? While I advocate the scientific study of consciousness, I have no idea what bearing theology would have on such a project. Further, since you seem to accept scientific methodology, even as it begins to chisel away archaic notions of free will, by what standards do you accept religious faith claims? Or maybe a more appropriate question is, what inclusion/exclusion criteria do you use to assess such claims as true/false, possible/impossible, etc.?