Connectionists: Weird beliefs about consciousness

[Tsvi Achler]

After studying the brain from a multidisciplinary perspective I am well
aware of the difficulties speaking and understanding each other across
disciplines.  There are many terms that are defined differently in
different fields... and unfortunately things are not as simple as looking
them up in a dictionary.

For example the term recurrent connections have different meanings in the
computational neuroscience, neural networks, and cognitive psychology
communities.
In neural networks recurrent means an output used back as an input within a
paradigm of delayed inputs.  It is a method of representing time or
sequences.  Often recurrent connections in neural networks are confused
with feedback back to the same inputs which are actually never used in
neural networks because it forms an infinite loop and is not possible to
rewind in order to generate an error signal.
In computational neuroscience recurrent connections are used to describe
lateral connections.
In cognitive psychology the term re-entrant connections are used to
describe feedback back to the same inputs.

I believe in order to truly appreciate "brain-like" ideas, members of this
group need to familiarize themselves with these brain-focused fields.   For
example in cognitive psychology there is a rich literature on salience
(which again is a bit different from salience in the neural network
community).  Salience is a dynamic process which determines how well a
certain input or input feature is processed. Salience changes in the brain
depending on what other inputs or features are concurrently present or what
the person is instructed to focus on.  There is very little appreciation,
integration or implementation of these findings in neural networks, yet
salience plays a factor in every recognition decision and modality
including smell and touch.

The term Consciousness is a particularly problematic minefield which also
adds in philosophy, metaphysics and subjectivity into the mix.

Juyang, I think we both agree about the basics: the need for more realistic
real world recognition and to move beyond the rehearsal limitations of
neural networks.  I believe scientists not seeing eye-to-eye with each
other and other members of the community is in no small part due to some of
these terms.

Sincerely,
-Tsvi

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 9:54 AM Juyang Weng <juyang.weng at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Tsvi,
> You wrote "A huge part of the problem in any discussion about
> consciousness is there isn't even a clear definition of consciousness".
> Look at the 5 level definition of consciousness:
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness
>
> You wrote: "So consciousness is not necessary or sufficient for complex
> thoughts or behavior."
> I was thinking that way too, until recently.
> I found consciousness IS REQUIRED for even learning basic intelligence.
> To put it in a short way so that people on this list can benefit:
> The motors (as context/actions) in the brain require consciousness in
> order to learn correctly in the physical world.   Please read the first
> model about conscious learning:
> J. Weng, "3D-to-2D-to-3D Conscious Learning", in Proc. IEEE 40th
> International Conference on Consumer Electronics, pp. 1-6, Las Vegas NV,
> USA, Jan.7-9, 2022. PDF file
> <http://www.cse.msu.edu/%7eweng/research/ConsciousLearning-ICCE-2022-rvsd-cite.pdf>
> .
>
> Best regards,
> -John
> ----
> From: Tsvi Achler <achler at gmail.com>
> To: Iam Palatnik <iam.palat at gmail.com>
> Cc: Connectionists <connectionists at cs.cmu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Connectionists: Weird beliefs about consciousness
>
> --
> Juyang (John) Weng
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.srv.cs.cmu.edu/pipermail/connectionists/attachments/20220215/21fd172f/attachment.html>