Version 1
: Received: 28 November 2021 / Approved: 29 November 2021 / Online: 29 November 2021 (11:51:43 CET)
How to cite:
Fraser, P.; Sole, R.; de las Cuevas, G. Why Can the Brain (And Not a Computer) Make Sense of the Liar Paradox?. Preprints2021, 2021110524. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202111.0524.v1
Fraser, P.; Sole, R.; de las Cuevas, G. Why Can the Brain (And Not a Computer) Make Sense of the Liar Paradox?. Preprints 2021, 2021110524. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202111.0524.v1
Fraser, P.; Sole, R.; de las Cuevas, G. Why Can the Brain (And Not a Computer) Make Sense of the Liar Paradox?. Preprints2021, 2021110524. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202111.0524.v1
APA Style
Fraser, P., Sole, R., & de las Cuevas, G. (2021). Why Can the Brain (And Not a Computer) Make Sense of the Liar Paradox?. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202111.0524.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Fraser, P., Ricard Sole and Gemma de las Cuevas. 2021 "Why Can the Brain (And Not a Computer) Make Sense of the Liar Paradox?" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202111.0524.v1
Abstract
Ordinary computing machines prohibit self-reference because it leads to logical inconsistencies andundecidability. In contrast, the human mind can understand self-referential statements without necessitating physically impossible brain states. Why can the brain make sense of self-reference? Here, we address this question by defining the Strange Loop Model, which features causal feedback between two brain modules, and circumvents the paradoxes of self-reference and negation by unfolding the inconsistency in time. We also argue that the metastable dynamics of the brain inhibit and terminate unhalting inferences. Finally, we show that the representation of logical inconsistencies in the Strange Loop Model leads to causal incongruence between brain subsystems in Integrated Information Theory.
Keywords
Self-reference; cognition; consciousness; computation; causal structure; integrated information theory
Subject
Biology and Life Sciences, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received:
30 November 2021
Commenter:
Grant Castillou
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment:
It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with primary consciousness will probably have to come first.
The thing I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461
Commenter: Grant Castillou
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
The thing I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.
I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.
My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461