Friday, April 25, 2014

Neurodynamics and consciousness workshop 2-30 pm May 2 2014 Beach room 3rd floor Tolman Hall UC Berkeley

Neurodynamics and consciousness workshop
2-30 pm May 2 2014 Beach room 3rd floor Tolman Hall UC Berkeley

This workshop will have 2 parts; Walter Freeman will speak about the large and medium-scale (macro and mesoscopic) issues related to neural dynamics; Sean O Nuallain will speak about the microscale, individual neurons.

To familiarize attendees with the language used, an introduction to Walter's work is appended and papers summarizing the two approaches attached

Again, please note that this list in NOT the hotel California; you can check out AND leave FOM anytime, or simply mark this as spam and your server will do the rest

Introduction to Walter’s work

Over the past half-century, the Freeman laboratory has accumulated a
large volume of data and a correspondingly extensive interpretive
framework centered around an alternative perspective on  brain
function, that of dynamical systems. The contents of consciousness, by
contrast, are seen as an inevitably sparse sample of events in the
perception-action cycle. The paper proceeds to an attempt to elucidate
the contents of this sparse  sample.

 Freeman (2005a ) established  that local dynamics in rabbit and human
neocortex are scale-free, and that every skilled action involves all
cortex and basal ganglia in varying degree. Self-similarity from the
microscopic to the macroscopic levels of the cortex allows the cortex
to change state very quickly. Freeman (2002)  introduces the notion of
a wave packet, amplitude modulation of which constitutes the
expression of knowledge, which is stored in synaptic modifications and
expressed by phase  transitions.  Freeman (op.cit., 517) also makes
the radical contention that we do not need independent access to the
external world for communication to occur; it is sufficient that the
internal meanings in speaker and hearer  come transiently into
harmony.

The felt experience of consciousness is constrained by the fact that
the cortex operates discontinuously, with “shutter” states
interspersed with the generation of wave packets (Freeman 2007).
Moreover, while eschewing the technical apparatus of decoherence,
recent work has adopted quantum field theory (Freeman et al, 2006c) to
explain the phenomenon of anomalous dispersion in the brain. Just as
the vibration induced by a blow will reach the other side of a solid
object at a different time to the sound thereof, wave packets show
properties of transmission independent of neural impulse itself. In
fact, the brain behaves in ways not dissimilar to a boson.

Freeman (2005b) introduces several other  leitmotiven.  Globally
coherent brain activity may be an objective correlate of consciousness
through preafference. Preafference, in turn, enters once the more
veridical notion of circular causality is substituted for the
stimulus-response act.Briefly, once an action is lined up, the brain
prepares the system for the sensory consequences of this action in the
preafference process. The consequences for consciousness qua process
are enormous.

Essentially, Hume was right; there is no conscious will, but there
does exist a conscious “won't”. Agency as a concept needs to be
correspondingly attenuated; when the intending of an act presents
itself to consciousness, it is experienced as a cause; consciousness
of the consequences thereof are experienced as effects.

 What is  asserted, then,  is that conscious states comprise a sparse
sample of the wave packets that embody motor commands, corollary
discharges, and pre-perceptions that we conceive as unconscious. Wave
packets embodying motor commands are the substratum for mathematical
and other abstract thought. Furthermore, focal consciousness samples
at far too slow a rate to give veridical access to  the contents of
our cortices, and nature has gifted us various mechanisms to get
around this.

Specifics of this paper


Walter states three precepts;

1.        The only evidence for consciousness other than introspective is the
existence of group behavious and goal-directed such, particularly when
both attributes are combined in hunting;
2.        Thus, it is speculated consciousness emerges around the Cambrian,
perhaps 500 million years ago;
3.        Neuropil, generically considered, is the organ for consciousness

He summaries his viewpoint thus;
“Consciousness is a biological process that is sustained by
coordination of activity in many parts of the brain of a subject who
is engaged in an action of searching for information that it needs to
cope with its environment………My hypothesis is that the summary action
is expressed in a global field of synchronized oscillation, which will
shape the next action. My conjecture is that we experience this wave
packet as consciousness”


References


Freeman WJ [2000] Neurodynamics: An Exploration of Mesoscopic Brain
Dynamics, London UK: Springer
Freeman, W. (2002) “How and why brains create meaning from sensory
information” International journal of bifurcation and chaos, Vol 14,
No 2 (2004), 515-530
Freeman WJ [2005a] A field-theoretic approach to understanding scale-free
neocortical dynamics
        Biological Cybernetics 2005, 92/6: 350-359
Freeman WJ [2005b] William James on Consciousness, revisited. Chaos and
Complexity letters, 1 (1) : 17-43
Freeman WJ [2006a ] Origin, structure, and role of background EEG
activity. Part 4. Neural frame simulation. Clin. Neurophysiol. 117:
572-589.
Freeman WJ [2006b ] Scale-free neocortical dynamics. Encyc Comp Neurosci,
Izhikevich E [ed.].
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Scale-free_neocortical_dynamics
Freeman WJ [2007] Proposed cortical ‘shutter’ in cinematographic
perception. Ch. In: Neurodynamics of Cognition and Consciousness. Kozma R
and Perlovsky L [eds.]. New York: Soringer.
Freeman WJ, Vitiello G [2006c] Nonlinear brain dynamics as macroscopic
manifestation of underlying many-body field dynamics. Physics of Life
Reviews 3: 93-118.


Thursday, April 17, 2014

Foundations of Mind Workshop series, UC Berkeley

Foundations of Mind Workshop series, UC Berkeley

The Foundations of Mind (FOM) project believes that it is possible that, far from showing incremental (let alone as is claimed, exponential) progress, modern neuroscience is a failed paradigm insofar as it focuses on the attempt to explain mentation in neural terms. Moreover, the reduction of cognitive science to neuroscience has worsened matters. Finally, even correcting these trends may leave a sphere of human action beyond the explanatory scope of science. On Mar 6-7 we ran a successful conference (see FoundationsofMind.org) which has begotten an active community of researchers who are now running a fortnightly seminar series, Fridays Beach room Tolman Hall UC Berkeley.

Wrt the first point, we do not have a single example of a sentence or other meaningful symbol being understood by an attested neural process and seem, if anything, to be going ever further from such a goal as the models get ever more primitive after the towering work of the 1980's in neural nets. Secondly, the assumption that mind can be described as a set of faculties, each with an anatomically distinct location, was regarded as risible phrenology until its 1990's comeback as fmri. Thirdly, fmri is a scalar formalism, famously prone to fraud, at a time when it is increasingly clear that the brain not only uses vectors, but that non-linearity is deep in its working ethos.

The reduction of cognitive science to neuroscience has combined with a mania for “Big data” to elide the contribution of linguists. The result has been machine translation systems that are dangerous in their inaccuracy and steadfast in their refusal to allow syntax, semantics and pragmatics to constrain the search space. Even if they did, it is unlikely that the hope for machines to “understand” language is anything but a negatively eschatological aspiration.

That brings us to our final point; in the classical Von Neumann interpretation of quantum mechanics, decision and observation is in the classical realm, outside the purview of the system. Can it be the case that modern neuroscience has been incorrect in failing to give this proper weight? Is it possible that, even after we as responsible scientists get our formalisms right, there will remain limitations in our simulation of behavior by machines?

All seminars are free and open to the public.



Workshop in Beach Room, 3rd floor Tolman hall, UC Berkeley April 18 2014 2pm
2-10 pm Introductory remarks Seán O Nualláin
2-15pm Henry Stapp on “Quantum Mechanics and neuroscience ”

3-15 pm Stan Klein “Connecting visual qualia to their neural correlates”


How does simulation of a single neuron in ones visual system produce the richness of subjective color perception? This is the topic of connecting qualia to neural activity. The capability for achieving that connection has only become available in the past six months, because of a new instrument developed at UC Berkeley. But before getting to the recent experiments some context is appropriate in the context of this 20th anniversary of the Tucson "Toward a Science of Consciousness" (TSC) meetings. Who can forget Chalmer's presentation of the "Hard Problem" at TSCII in 1996. The 764 page book of papers from that meeting is a treasure and is unequaled in capturing the state of the field at that point. The challenge of connecting the hard problem of qualia to the neural correlates of the brain is still with us and I'll argue that advances in technology may enable substantial progress.  My article in the Vision and Consciousness section of the TSCII book was titled "Double Judgment Psychophysics for Research on Consciousness: Applications to Blindsight" (cornea.berkeley.edu/pubs/120.pdf). My present title could have been the same as the old title but replacing "Double" to "Triple", and "Blindsight" to "color" as I now discuss.
A new instrument that enables single neuron brain stimulation has been developed by Austin Roorda of UC Berkeley. The new technology that combines adaptive optics and super precise image stabilization enables one to do careful psychophysics on individual cones and ganglion cells. Retinal ganglion cells (RGC) are special since they are the bottleneck for vision, carrying information to the brain along the optic nerve. Roorda's lab is next to mine and we have been developing new approaches for single and double RGC stimulation.  One of the big surprises is that activation of single retinal neurons can produce a wide variety of color percepts. It had previously been thought that single RGC stimulation would produce limited color percepts (red, green, yellow, blue) based on the opponent color mechanisms found in RGCs and the brain's lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN). But a much greater diversity of colors were found. In our experiments for every single RGC stimulation we make a triple judgment on the perceived hue, saturation and intensity of the stimulus. Several competing hypotheses regarding the mechanisms that produce the surprisingly diverse color percepts are now being tested and will be discussed. The new instrument opens up a great variety of experiments linking neural activity to perception. 




4pm Gautam Agarwal, et al.
“The emergence of information in mesoscopic measures of brain activity”




4-45 pm
Seán O Nualláin of the universityofireland.com
The great neuroscientist Karl Pribram and equally great physicist David Bohm collaborated a generation ago with, among others, Jiddah Krishnamrti to produce a completely new worldview. It provided a narrative, based on cutting-edge science on how the evolutionary process allowed nature to express itself as the “implicate” becoming “explicate” and presenting itself to consciousness manifest in us. This beautiful paradigm eventually failed to overcome resistance centering on the neurophysiological plausibility and lack of detail.

In 1999, after having met Seán O Nualláin at a conference on Gurdjieff organized by Seán’s close friend Jacob Needleman, Karl Pribram spent a week at the O Nualláin lab in Dublin. There, for the first time, a detailed computational implementation of the Pribram / Bohm work was done. Far from being merely a beautiful theoretical framework, it was found that the view of dendrodendritic connections between neurons as the critical computational operation in the brain explained many heretofore intractable problems about sense perception. Moreover, it was consistent with Stapp's work on quantum neural activity qua harmonic oscillators.
May 2 2-30 pm Walter Freeman on neural dynamics at the mesoscopic and macroscopic levels
4-30 pm The microscopic level Seán O Nualláin

“Resonate and fire; how non-spiking neurons process sensory data”


While it is universally accepted that several types of cells in the
retina, including rods, do not spike, little investigation has been
done to ask how sense-data can be processed without neural firing.
Moreover, the fact that timing of afferent impulses to a neuron shapes
its firing has not received enough attention. This talk argues that
firing is actually a limit case of a more general mode of neural
functioning in which subthreshold oscillations have a critical causal
role. A harmonic oscillator model of the neuron is sketched, beginning
from a compartmental Hodgkin-Huxley model, and it is shown how the
emergent principles operate equally for tactile, auditory, and visual
input.

The talk ends with speculation on the role of attention and consciousness.

Finally, please note that this has been sent out with the support, indeed the encouragement of various list moderators; if you do not want to receive more, please mark as spam.

Friday, March 14, 2014

Welcome and summary


Thanks and welcome 

The theme of this year’s conference is “Foundations of Mind: Cognition & Consciousness”. There is a clear implication that these two can be distinguished, an implication that puts clear blue water between this conference and others apparently on the same theme.



This distinction can be found as far back as 200 AD with Alexander's interpretation of Aristotle's “common sense” as “that which perceives”, an interpretation echoed in Plotinus with his theory of the “inner sense”. While this move at first sight might seem to remove the magic from mental function, in fact it seems to me to be salutary. In particular, splitting the act of awareness from the contents presented to awareness allows a more detailed examination of these contents per se.



And so the panels we have examine this. We will learn in the first panel about the reconstruction of this distinction in thinkers such as Gurdjieff; we will also hear about the notion of “fine tuning” in modern cosmology, an area in many ways invented by the Belgian priest and physicist Georges Le Maitre. We then go on to examine which neuroscience methods can in fact characterize content in ways that are formally sufficient. This leads to the issue of whether there is not a propoer way to “reduce” one discipline to an other.



The dichotomy between content and perception continues in language, where clearly attention has a valuable information-processing role to play. At the ultimate metaphysical and indeed ontological level of analysis, we find that there is an as yet unresolved issue about how the act of observation can affect an apparently objective state of affairs.



Of course, decoherence theory has established that observation may not be necessary, and the epistemological interpretation of QM withholds belief in our ability cognitively to penetrate nature at this level. Yet that interpretation of QM is precisely the “weasel words” with which Osiander introduced “De Revoltionibis” by Copernicus.



Consequently, among the many fine submissions we got for review, we will include in the program here speculative interpretations of Q entanglement and the links with subjective experience.



We have an extremely diverse group of presenters, diverse not just in the range of subjects in which they are expert but in their ethnic and political affiliation. I am glad to say that we have Irish people from both sides of the main religious divide there.(1) In the old story, at the summit of the mountain we are all wearing the same kit, and we are all mountaineers as we scale the highest heights. I wish everybody here a great conference.
(1) The person from the unionist tradition was the only speaker who failed to show up; three of those who did are over 75 years of age


Conclusions

1.Neuroscience has fared at least as badly as philosophy in explaining
the mind. We have no credible account of any symbols emerging from
neural impulse; we have not developed tools to monitor electrical
junctions; indeed the current gargantuan Markram/Koch efforts are
doomed as they look at chemical synapses in the absence of theory
2.There is a way out here; dynamical systems theory, modulation of
carrier waves, the harmonic oscillator as central, honouring the
in-principle arguments that exist about tensors
3.Von Neumann's arguments in his "Grundlagen" still hold up.
4.Linguistics and other symbol systems need to be honoured
5.We need physicists!
6.Absent any input from extravagantly-funded Neuroscience, it is
intellectually responsible to attend to psychological and indeed
spiritual accounts that are rooted in best practise from other
sciences
7.The so-called "hard problem" (considered as linking neural event and
subjective experience a la John Locke) is simply nonsense and has
retarded the area
8.Finally, we must find a way of funding and organizing courses and
research away from the current PI model. As it happens, I paid for
this conference myself (and, given the reaction, do not regret doing
so). 

Sean O Nuallain

Friday, February 7, 2014

Foundations of Mind, UC Berkeley mar 6-7 2014; call for participation

Foundations of Mind: Cognition & Consciousness

Conference
The world’s top scholars and neuroscientists discuss cutting-edge issues related to cognition and consciousness

At
Sproul Room, International house at UC Berkeley, 2299 Piedmont Ave ,  Berkeley
March 6 – 7 ,  2014


Preliminary schedule


 Registration details for "Foundations of mind"  are at
http://foundationsofmind.org/

It also includes details of *Free* on-line courses in  consciousness
studies and cognitive science for suitably qualified applicants

Early bird rate for conference lasts until Feb 15 2014

 
We already have offers to publish the
proceedings both from a peer-reviewed journal and an academic book
publisher.



Confirmed plenary speakers/panelists include:-

Stuart Kauffman (U Vermont)
Terry Deacon (UC Berkeley)
Henry Stapp (LBNL, UC Berkeley)
Ed Vul (UCSD)
Jacob Needleman (SFSU)
Jerome Feldman (ICSI, UC Berkeley)
Kathryn Blackmun Laskey (George Mason)
Robert Campbell (Clemson U)
Mike Cole (UCSD)
José Acacio de Barros (SFSU/Stanford)
Mike Cole ( UCSD)
Ellen Thompson (FIU)
Sean O Nuallain (UoI)
Fr. Robert Spitzer (Magis institute)
Tony Bell (UC Berkeley)
Len Talmy (U Buffalo)






Conference chair; Sean O Nuallain (UoI)
Inquiries/ further suggestions for panellists to 
president@universityofireland.com




Thursday 6 March; schedule for “cognition” day
8-30 am registration
9am  Jacob Needleman and Robert Spitzer will give 30-minute keynotes,
followed by a discussion

It is now accepted that the Abrahamic religions, focused as they are
on community solidarity based on the sacred and with it the
supernatural, are inappropriate for environmental preservation even
without their licensing of exploitation of the earth. Yet spiritual
expressions based on emphasizing the unity of subject and object, self
and environment, fail to give an adequate account of acts of mind that
stress this difference. The ideal would be a spiritual system wherein
both the extraordinarily unlikely nature of life and earth as well as
the moral imperative to protect it would emerge as consequences from
its ontology and metaphysics. Does  such a system exist or can it be
created?

10-45 tea/coffee

Panel 1  for Mar 6
In general, each panelist will speak for 15 minutes; then the panel
as a whole will discuss the issues for 30 minutes before opening
matters up to the audience

11 am - 1pm Panel 1 Linearity, psychologism, and voodoo correlations

Speakers/panelists; Ed Vul (UCSD - session chair), James Blackmun,Tony Bell (UC Berkeley) Sean O Nuallain (UoI), Robert Campbell (respondent - Clemson)

Gottlieb Frege famously excoriated the attempt to reduce
logico-mathematical reasoning to a description of the psychological
processes underpinning it as " psychologism". But, the response goes,
these logico-mathematical entities are indeed processed in the brain,
so surely it is neither quixotic nor formally incorrect to seek an
appropriate psychological explanation for them. One such candidate
explanation is a faculty psychology based on assignment of these
faculties to the cerebral locations that fmri has been celebrated for
finding.


Neo-Fregeans might have two responses. In the first place, the fmri
results perhaps evince premature closure in their statistical
analysis. Secondly, fmri's localizations are scalar entities in a
cerebral system clearly capable of operating with vectors and even
higher-order tensors .In fact, neo-Fregeans might argue, fmri
implicitly makes extraordinary claims about the nature of scientific
explanation, claims that are hard to justify.

Where does all this leave us?

Lunch Break
Panel 2  for Mar 6
2-3-45pm Cognitive science and neuroscience

Speakers/panelists; Jerome Feldman  (ICSI, Berkeley), Robert Campbell
(Clemson - chair), Ed Vul. (Respondent) Mike Cole ( UCSD), Terry Deacon (UC Berkeley)

Science is a reductionist enterprise - we look for explanations of
phenomena at more basic levels. This does not entail "eliminative
reduction" where only the lowest level has explanatory power. Theory,
modelling, and experiment at multiple levels is important and these
should be consistent. For Cognitive Science, the ancient formulation
of knowledge as truth may be a serious barrier to understanding the
mapping of thought to neurobiology and beyond.

 3-45 tea/coffee


4pm
Symbols, thought and attention

Chair: Len Talmy
Moderator ; Ellen Thompson



Panel Olga Shurygina, Vittorio Tantucci

Two burgeoning trends in 21st century cognitive science appear at
first sight to pull in opposite directions. One is the re-emergence of
Whorfian linguistic determinism; another is the insistence that
bilingualism can retard the development of prion diseases like
Alzheimer's. One might assume that the same holds for music and other
symbolic systems. Yet a commonality is arguably to be found in the
concept of attention; can it be the case that operating between two
linguistic codes forces improved cerebral function simply because of
the monitoring necessary? If so, surely it is appropriate to survey
immigrants using languages like English which seem at first sight the
same on both sides of the Atlantic?

4-30 "Embedded I to C in Spanish-Influenced English: An Experimental
View " Ellen Thompson

5 pm  "The inner life of a joyful human being"
Olga Shurygina


  5-30 "Immediate and extended intersubjectification:
A cognitive usage-based study of the presuppositional
construction [you don't want X]" Vittorio Tantucci


6pm Keynote; Stanley Klein



6-30 pm Poster session with wine and cheese. Each poster presenter gets 5
minutes to address the plenary session before an hour of informal
conversation at a reception based around the posters

Posters are
"Nonviolent Movements As Applied Consciousness"

Jack DuVall

. "Quantum Hamiltonian MCMC: A Hypothesis  for the Mind/Brain Connection"
Kathryn Blackmond Laskey

"A grace of sense: Poetry and the architecture of consciousness" Matt Langione

."On the Relativity of Program Implementation" James Blackmun
Can Conscious Intention Bring About Meaningful Coincidence? Sky Nelson

"AN ETHICAL MODEL OF THE MORAL MIND BASED UPON A META-HIERARCHY OF
THE TRADITIONAL
GROUPINGS OF VIRTUES, VALUES, AND IDEALS"
by John E.  LaMuth


7-30pm Concert of celtic jazz to celebrate women's day; free for
conference attendees

Friday Mar 7, 2014, Sproul Room.  2nd floor, International house, UC Berkeley

Friday's schedule; consciousness, neuroscience and quantum mechanics

Keynote speakers Henry Stapp (LBNL), Tony Bell (UC Berkeley). Stuart Kauffman

9-15am  Stuart Kauffman: Answering Descartes; beyond Turing
Respondent and session chair; Terrence Deacon

10-15 "Figure-ground perception and early visual cortical processing"
Karl Zipser

10-45 am break

11am "Is the Universe a Vast, Consciousness-created Virtual Reality
Simulation?"
BERNARD HAISCH

11-30 2 "Evidence of Macroscopic Quantum Behavior andConscious Reality
Selection in a Holographic Multiverse "
Cynthia Sue Larson

noon Break

1pm Keynote; Tony Bell
1-30 "The emergence of information in mesoscopic measures of brain activity"
Gautam Agarwal, Antal Berenyi, Ian Stevenson, Kenji Mizuseki, Gyorgy
Buzsaki, Friedrich Sommer


2 pm  Panel - Quantum mind and its critics

Discussants: Henry Stapp, José Acacio de Barros (session chair),
Stanley Klein   Carlos Montemayor and others

The Quantum mind  hypothesis essentially states that quantum effects
are causative in will and cognitions, leading to an assertion of free
will. It is no longer in doubt that there is a deep mystery associated
with information, the mind, and reality, a mystery that results in
paradoxical findings with observer status in quantum mechanics. It may
be the case that our current concept of information is too
coarse-grained; it may also be the case that conscious will is
actually causative in the cosmos. Recently, the standard objections to
Quantum mind on the basis of decoherence in biological systems have
been refuted by discoveries that photosynthesis involves  quantum
superposition.  Likewise, cognition shows effects readily explicable
by quantum formalisms.  However, these effects may also be looked at
in terms of neural systems as harmonic oscillators; or is this
objection even relevant?

3-45pm Break

4-00 pm Complexity Biology-based Information Structures can explain Subjectivity,
Objective Reduction of Wave Packets, and Non-Computability
by Alex Hankey

 4-30pm 1.     "Mind/Body/Spirit Complex in Quantum Mechanics"
Author: Justin Riddle


5 Mapping The Whole in EveryOne
(An Essay on: Non-existence as the engine and axis of existence)
by  Sperry Andrews

5-30 pm "Science and Subjectivity:A Fresh Look at Phenomenology and
Deconstruction Enabling Meaning in Cognitive Studies"
 Keith Whittingslow


Final discussion and close

Saturday, December 28, 2013

Preliminary schedule for conference “Foundations of mind; cognition and consciousness”



Preliminary schedule for conference “Foundations of mind; cognition and consciousness”

Sproul room, international house, UC Berkeley 6-7 Mar 2014

 Registration details for “Foundations of mind"  are at  http://foundationsofmind.org/

Other themes may be found at  http://cssi32.blogspot.com/2013/10/first-call-for-papers-normal-0-21.html

It also includes details of *Free* on-line courses in  consciousness studies and cognitive science for suitably qualified applicants

Proposed papers/posters presenters should send a 500-word abstract to eireann@yahoo.com by Feb 7 2014. We already have offers to publish the proceedings both from a peer-reviewed journal and an academic book publisher.

31 January - please note new panel with Len Talmy on symbols, thought and attention

Confirmed plenary speakers/panellists include

Stuart Kauffman (U Vermont)
Terry Deacon (UC Berkeley)
Henry Stapp (LBNL, UC Berkeley)
Ed Vul (UCSD)
Jacob Needleman (SFSU)
Jerome Feldman (ICSI, UC Berkeley)
Tom Griffiths (UC Berkeley)
Robert Campbell (Clemson U)
Mike Cole (UCSD)
José Acacio de Barros (SFSU/Stanford)
Mike Cole ( UCSD)
Christian de Quincey (JFK)
Sean O Nuallain (UoI)
Fr. Robert Spitzer (Magis institute)
Tony Bell (UC Berkeley)
Len Talmy (U Buffalo)

Conference chair; Sean O Nuallain (UoI)
Submissions/suggestions for panellists to eireann@yahoo.com
Abstracts max 500 words, please
Deadline is Feb 7 2014

"Note new deadline*

Thursday 6 March; schedule


8-30 am registration
9am  Jacob Needleman and Robert Spitzer will give 30-minute keynotes, followed by a discussion

It is now accepted that the Abrahamic religions, focused as they are on community solidarity based on the sacred and with it the supernatural, are inappropriate for environmental preservation even without their licensing of exploitation of the earth. Yet spiritual expressions based on emphasizing the unity of subject and object, self and environment, fail to give an adequate account of acts of mind that stress this difference. The ideal would be a spiritual system wherein both the extraordinarily unlikely nature of life and earth as well as the moral imperative to protect it would emerge as consequences from its ontology and metaphysics. Does  such a system exist or can it be created?

10-45 tea/coffee

Panel 1  for Mar 6
In general, each panellist will speak for 15 minutes; then the panel as a whole will discuss the issues for 30 minutes before opening matters up to the audience

11 am - 1pm Panel 1 Linearity, psychologism, and voodoo correlations

Speakers/panellists; Ed Vul (UCSD), Tom Griffiths (UC Berkeley, session chair), Tony Bell (UC Berkeley) Sean O Nuallain (UoI)

Gottlieb Frege famously excoriated the attempt to reduce logico-mathematical reasoning to a description of the psychological processes underpinning it as “ psychologism”. But, the response goes, these logico-mathematical entities are indeed processed in the brain, so surely it is neither quixotic nor formally incorrect to seek an appropriate psychological explanation for them. One such candidate explanation is a faculty psychology based on assignment of these faculties to the cerebral locations that fmri has been celebrated for finding.


Neo-Fregeans might have two responses. In the first place, the fmri results perhaps evince premature closure in their statistical analysis. Secondly, fmri's localizations are scalar entities in a cerebral system clearly capable of operating with vectors and even higher-order tensors .In fact, neo-Fregeans might argue, fmri implicitly makes extraordinary claims about the nature of scientific explanation, claims that are hard to justify.

Where does all this leave us?

Lunch

Panel 2  for Mar 6
2-3-45pm Cognitive science and neuroscience

Speakers/panellists; Jerome Feldman  (ICSI, Berkeley), Robert Campbell (Clemson), Ed Vul. Mike Cole ( UCSD), Terry Deacon (UC Berkeley)

Science is a reductionist enterprise - we look for explanations of phenomena at more basic levels. This does not entail "eliminative reduction" where only the lowest level has explanatory power. Theory, modelling, and experiment at multiple levels is important and these should be consistent. For Cognitive Science, the ancient formulation of knowledge as truth may be a serious barrier to understanding the mapping of thought to neurobiology and beyond.

 3-45 tea/coffee

4pm Keynote; Stanley Klein
 5pm Submitted papers/posters

7pm Concert of celtic jazz to celebrate women's day; free for conference attendees

Mar 7, 2014, 2nd floor, International house, UC Berkeley

Friday's schedule


Keynote speakers Henry Stapp (LBNL), Tony Bell (UC Berkeley). Stuart Kauffman
9-30 Stuart Kauffman: Answering Descartes; beyond Turing
Respondent and session chair; Terrence Deacon

10-45 am break

11am Submitted papers and posters
noon Break

1pm Keynote; Tony Bell

2 pm  Panel 2 Quantum mind and is critics

Discussants: Henry Stapp, José Acacio de Barros (session chair), Stanley Klein   Carlos Montemayor and others

The Quantum mind  hypothesis essentially states that quantum effects are causative in will and cognitions, leading to an assertion of free will. It is no longer in doubt that there is a deep mystery associated with information, the mind, and reality, a mystery that results in paradoxical findings with observer status in quantum mechanics. It may be the case that our current concept of information is too coarse-grained; it may also be the case that conscious will is actually causative in the cosmos. Recently, the standard objections to Quantum mind on the basis of decoherence in biological systems have been refuted by discoveries that photosynthesis involves  quantum superposition.  Likewise, cognition shows effects readily explicable by quantum formalisms.  However, these effects may also be looked at in terms of neural systems as harmonic oscillators; or is this objection even relevant?

3-45pm Break

4pm 
Symbols, thought and attention


Chair: Len Talmy
Moderator ; Ellen Thompson


Two burgeoning trends in 21st century cognitive science appear at first sight to pull in opposite directions. One is the re-emergence of Whorfian linguistic determinism; another is the insistence that bilingualism can retard the development of prion diseases like Alzheimer's. One might assume that the same holds for music and other symbolic systems. Yet a commonality is arguably to be found in the concept of attention; can it be the case that operating between two linguistic codes forces improved cerebral function simply because of the monitoring necessary? If so, surely it is appropriate to survey immigrants using languages like English which seem at first sight the same on both sides of the Atlantic?

5-45 final discussion
6pm close


Sunday, December 8, 2013

Conference announcement

In keeping with the program set out in the book “Two sciences of mind”, this conference distinguishes between foundational issues related to cognition, to be discussed on the first day, and those related to consciousness. The motivation for this division is primarily procedural; it is proposed that there are myriad issues associated with each that can be approached separately before an integrative strategy can succeed. In particular, it is suggested that the failure of fields like natural language processing to solve their fundamental problems are due to a mistaken assumption of linearity. Likewise, and perhaps related, consciousness studies continues to attempt to reduce our being-in-the-world to psychological processes, in the hope that an expanded concept of information will solve everything. In the vacua that have emerged, charlatans abound with nostrums about neuroplastcity, the “content industry” and oner-interpretation of single findings like those from mirror neurons retarding real neuroscience.

It is proposed that cognitive science must reflect, and equal in complexity, all explanation patterns attested in third-person science. Yet such third-person science involves constructs like vectors and curved space that would seem to be outside the explanatory ambit of scalar methods like fmri. In fact, for cognitive science to succeed in completing the cycle of explanation of the sciences, it must use all representational structures used in the academy.

Further cognitive themes can be found at http://cssi32.blogspot.com/

This will be held Mar 6-7 2014, Sproul Room at international house at UC Berkeley with Skype links to participants who cannot travel to the event

Speakers:
Henry Stapp (LBNL, UC Berkeley)

Ed Vul (UCSD)

Jacob Needleman (SFSU)

Jerome Feldman (ICSI, UC Berkeley)

Tom Griffiths (UC Berkeley)

Robert Campbell (Clemson U)

Mike Cole (UCSD)

José Acacio de Barros (SFSU/Stanford)

Christian de Quincey (JFK)

Sean O Nuallain (UoI)

Fr. Robert Spitzer (Magis institute)

Bernard Haisch (ManyOne Networks )




Interested in doing a full-time course? Visit universityofireland.com

Consciousness studies has surely been one of the main intellectual failures of the past 20 years; there seems still to be a proclivity to attempt to identify consciousness with its content, and that in turn with an entangled nexus bathing us rather like amniotic fluid. On the second day, we propose distinguishing discussing consciousness from its content, and to explicate its relationship with the arts, with science, with political activism, and with religion, particularly in the context of fine-tuning.


Further themes can be found at http://bionoetics.blogspot.com/




Inquiries and submissions for the conference to eireann@yahoo.com; the deadline for conference abstracts (max 750 words) is Feb 1 2014, 5pm GMT. Please note that we welcome papers that disagree with the premises of the workshop; the goal is to have a lively and informed debate.

We also welcome proposals for programme committee members, panellists and indeed plenary speakers

ihprograms@berkeley.edu, 510-642-9460