76 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2024
    1. thus we have a very highly developed system designed to overcome the limitations in ordinary human perception

      for - key insight - adjacency between - dzogchen training - trekcho - cutting through training - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekch%C3%B6 - togal - https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php? title=T%C3%B6gal - cognitive science - evolutionary biology - adjacency statement - It is very interesting that we find parallels between - Dzogchen practice and - our consciousness's attempt to overcome the limits of its own perceptions of reality

  2. Aug 2023
    1. It was after he heard a BBC interview with Marvin Minsky, a founding father of artificial intelligence, who had famously pronounced that the human brain is “just a computer made of meat.” Minsky‘s claims compelled Penrose to write The Emperor‘s New Mind, arguing that human thinking will never be emulated by a machine. The book had the feel of an extended thought experiment on the non-algorithmic nature of consciousness and why it can only be understood in relation to Gödel‘s theorem and quantum physics.↳Minsky, who died last year, represents a striking contrast to Penrose‘s quest to uncover the roots of consciousness. “I can understand exactly how a computer works, although I’m very fuzzy on how the transistors work,” Minsky told me during an interview years ago. Minsky called consciousness a “suitcase word” that lacks the rigor of a scientific concept. “We have to replace it by ‘reflection’ and ‘decisions’ and about a dozen other things,” he said. “So instead of talking about the mystery of consciousness, let‘s talk about the 20 or 30 really important mental processes that are involved. And when you’re all done, somebody says, ‘Well, what about consciousness?’ and you say, ‘Oh, that’s what people wasted their time on in the 20th century.‘ ”↳But the study of consciousness has not gone the way Minsky had hoped. It‘s now a cottage industry in neuroscience labs and a staple of big-think conferences around the world. Hameroff is one of the driving forces behind this current enthusiasm. For years he and Chalmers have run the biennial “Toward a Science of Consciousness” conference that features dozens of speakers, ranging from hardcore scientists to New Age guru Deepak Chopra and lucid dream expert Stephen LaBerge. Hameroff‘s connection to Penrose also goes back decades. He first contacted Penrose after reading The Emperor‘s New Mind, suggesting he might have the missing biological component that would complement Penrose‘s ideas about the physics of consciousness.

      人工智能之父马文·明斯基(Marvin Minsky)曾经提出过一个著名的说法,人类大脑只不过是「一台用肉做的计算机」。

      明斯基这一论断迫使彭罗斯很快写出了《皇帝新脑》,并在书中指出人类的思维永远不可能被机器模仿。这本书给人的感觉就好像跟着作者进行了一次关于意识非算法性质的脑内实验,以及为什么我们只能通过理解哥德尔定理和量子物理学来理解人类的意识。

      已故于 2016 年的明斯基代表着另外一种截然不同观点,与彭罗斯对意识根源的探索形成了鲜明对比。在很多年前的一次采访中,明斯基曾经告诉笔者,「虽然我完全搞不懂晶体管的工作原理,但我能准确地理解计算机的工作原理。」

      明斯基曾经将意识称为一种「皮包词语」,正因为它缺乏科学概念所必需的严谨性。「我们必须要用反思(Reflection)或者决定(Decisions)这样的词来替换意识一词,」明斯基说,「这样一来,与其讨论意识的神秘面纱,我们不如讨论一下意识过程中涉及到的 20 到 30 个重要的心理历程。当你真的完成了所有这些工作后,如果还有人问道,『那什么是意识呢?』你就可以回答说,『那玩意不过是 20 世纪时人类浪费时间的一种方式。』」

      中文译文来自微信公众号「利维坦(liweitan2014)」2020 年的推送「意识无法被计算吗?

    2. Penrose‘s theory promises a deeper level of explanation. He starts with the premise that consciousness is not computational, and it’s beyond anything that neuroscience, biology, or physics can now explain. “We need a major revolution in our understanding of the physical world in order to accommodate consciousness,“ Penrose told me in a recent interview. ”The most likely place, if we‘re not going to go outside physics altogether, is in this big unknown—namely, making sense of quantum mechanics.“↳ Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in or Join now. He draws on the basic properties of quantum computing, in which bits (qubits) of information can be in multiple states—for instance, in the “on” or “off” position—at the same time. These quantum states exist simultaneously—the “superposition”—before coalescing into a single, almost instantaneous, calculation. Quantum coherence occurs when a huge number of things—say, a whole system of electrons—act together in one quantum state.↳It was Hameroff‘s idea that quantum coherence happens in microtubules, protein structures inside the brain’s neurons. And what are microtubules, you ask? They are tubular structures inside eukaryotic cells (part of the cytoskeleton) that play a role in determining the cell‘s shape, as well as its movements, which includes cell division—separation of chromosomes during mitosis. Hameroff suggests that microtubules are the quantum device that Penrose had been looking for in his theory. In neurons, microtubules help control the strength of synaptic connections, and their tube-like shape might protect them from the surrounding noise of the larger neuron. The microtubules‘ symmetry and lattice structure are of particular interest to Penrose. He believes “this reeks of something quantum mechanical.” ↳Still, you‘d need more than just a continuous flood of random moments of quantum coherence to have any impact on consciousness. The process would need to be structured, or orchestrated, in some way so we can make conscious choices. In the Penrose-Hameroff theory of Orchestrated Objective Reduction, known as Orch-OR, these moments of conscious awareness are orchestrated by the microtubules in our brains, which—they believe—have the capacity to store and process information and memory.↳“Objective Reduction” refers to Penrose‘s ideas about quantum gravity—how superposition applies to different spacetime geometries—which he regards as a still-undiscovered theory in physics. All of this is an impossibly ambitious theory that draws on Penrose’s thinking about the deep structure of the universe, from quantum mechanics to relativity. As Smolin has said, “All Roger‘s thoughts are connected … twistor theory, his philosophical thinking, his ideas about quantum mechanics, his ideas about the brain and the mind.”

      对于意识的本质问题,彭罗斯的理论提出了一种更深层的解读。他的理论基于一个前提假设,即意识无法被计算,而且它绝非神经科学、生物学和物理学现阶段能够解释的问题。

      在 2017 年的一次采访中,彭罗斯告诉笔者,「为了理解并认知意识,我们首先要经历一次对于物理世界的巨大认知变革。至于那个可以研究意识本质的领域,如果我们不打算完全脱离物理学范畴的话,那么该领域最有可能一直存在于那个巨大的谜题中,换句话说,我们首先要解开量子物理的谜题。」

      彭罗斯将量子计算的基本特性吸收到他的理论中,即每一比特的信息,即量子位(Qubit)可以同时表现为多种状态,比如同时既是「激活」的,又是「未激活」的。在一次几乎是瞬间完成的计算之前,这些量子态(Quantum States)并未聚合(Coalescing),而是同时存在的,即叠加态(Ssuperposition)。而量子相干性(Quantum Coherence)只有在大量事件在量子态下同时发生的时候才会出现——比如某系统中的大量电子相互作用。

      对此,哈默洛夫认为量子相干性发生于微管(Microtubule)中,这是一种大脑神经元内部的蛋白质结构。也许读者会好奇所谓微管到底是什么东西:它们是存在于真核细胞中的管状结构,可以把它看成是细胞骨架(Cytoskeleton)的一部分,它们可以在细胞活动时发挥决定性作用,这些细胞活动也包括细胞分裂在内,比如在有丝分裂时决定染色体的分离。

      哈默洛夫认为,这些微管就是彭罗斯一直在为自己理论寻找的一种「量子装置」。在神经元中,微管可以帮助控制突触的连接强度,而它们管状的结构可以帮助它们免受周围更大的神经元带来的噪音影响。这些微管的对称、晶格结构恰恰是彭罗斯最感兴趣的。他相信这样的特征「散发着某种量子物理的气味」。

      不过,想要对意识产生任何影响,你需要的不仅仅是随机且持续发生的量子相干性事件。这个过程首先要经过某种方式重组,或者重新经过精心的编排,人类正是因为这一重组过程才能做出有意识的选择。在彭罗斯与哈默洛夫提出的协同客观崩现(Orchestrated Objective Reduction,简称「Orch-OR」)理论中,他们认为人类大脑中的微管会精密编排、操纵这些有意识的瞬间,而正是这样的瞬间给了人脑处理信息并存储记忆的能力。

      所谓「客观崩现」的概念则要涉及到彭罗斯对量子引力——即叠加态如何应用于不同的多个时空几何结构——方面的观点,他也把该理论视为目前物理学尚未发现的理论。然而所有这一切都是一个不可能被验证的、野心勃勃的假说,这个假说不过是借鉴了彭罗斯在量子力学领域和相对论领域对宇宙深层结构的思考。正如斯莫林说过的另一句话:「罗杰的所有观点都是相互勾连的扭量理论(Twistor Theory),无论是他的哲学思想、那些关于量子力学的观点,还是关于人类大脑与心灵的观点。」

      中文译文来自微信公众号「利维坦(liweitan2014)」2020 年的推送「意识无法被计算吗?

  3. May 2023
    1. https://pressbooks.pub/illuminated/

      A booklet prepared for teachers that introduces key concepts from the Science of Learning (i.e. cognitive neuroscience). The digital booklet is the result of a European project. Its content have been compiled from continuing professional development workshops for teachers and features evidence-based teaching practices that align with our knowledge of the Science of Learning.

  4. Feb 2023
      • title = What can cognitive science bring to art and museums?

      • Comment = Maurice Benayoun has applied cognitive science, VR and AR too many at installations throughout his life.

    1. to guide you through this 00:06:24 model very quickly was first published in 2004 it's a lot cited in the field of empirical aesthetics it tries to explain how we process artworks by claiming that there are perceptual analyzers followed by 00:06:38 implicit memory integrations or familiarity aspects then explicit classifications where the perceiver in his perception perceives the style or the content 00:06:51 and then followed by later stages that we called cognitive mastering
      • Cognitive science model of what happens in the brain of a perceiver of art
      • The model was first published in 2004 it's cited often in the field of empirical aesthetics
      • it tries to explain how we process artworks by claiming that:
        • there are perceptual analyzers followed by
        • implicit memory integrations or familiarity aspects then
        • explicit classifications where the perceiver in his perception perceives the style or the content
        • followed by later stages that we called cognitive mastering
    2. cognitive scientists can also provide museums and artists with a specific understanding of how the interaction between artworks and viewers can operate 00:02:34 so to discuss potential applications of cognitive sciences to museums and art
      • cognitive science can provide museums and artists with a specific understanding
      • of how the interaction between artworks and viewers can operate
      • this meeting explores potential applications of cognitive sciences to museums and art
  5. Oct 2022
    1. Cognitive-science research shows that people improve learning efficiency by practicing the set of specific cognitive tasks required for their area of expertise.11. K. A. Ericsson, R. T. Krampe, C. Tesch-Römer, Psych. Rev. 100, 363 (1993); https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363A. Ericsson, R. Pool, Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise, HarperOne (2017). Although that approach is based on learning research, it is uncoincidentally quite similar to the ideal master–apprentice method for traditionally teaching a craft (see figure 1).

      The master-apprentice model of teaching and learning in which the master breaks down a problem into a set of subskills which the apprentice solves and practices with regular feedback for improvement is broadly similar to best pathways shown in cognitive science research on improving learning efficiency for building expertise.

      (restatement)

  6. Sep 2022
  7. Aug 2022
  8. Jul 2022
    1. when we attribute sensory experiences to 00:06:39 ourselves for instance like the experience of red or the experience of seeing blue the model is external properties and we think of there as being inner properties just like those external properties that somehow we are 00:06:52 um we are seeing immediately

      This comment suggests a Color BEing Journey. How can we demonstrate in a compelling way that color is an attribute of the neural architecture of the person and NOT a property of the object we are viewing?

      See Color Constancy Illusion here:

      David Eagleman in WIRED interview https://hyp.is/go?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocdrop.org%2Fvideo%2FMJBfn07gZ30%2F&group=world

      Beau Lotto, TED Talk https://hyp.is/go?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocdrop.org%2Fvideo%2Fmf5otGNbkuc%2F&group=world

      Andrew Stockman, TEDx talk on how we see color: https://hyp.is/go?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocdrop.org%2Fvideo%2F_l607r2TSwg%2F&group=world

      Science shows that color is an experience of the subject, not a property of the object: https://youtu.be/fQczp0wtZQQ but what Jay will go on to argue, is that this explanation itself is part of the COGNITIVE IMMEDIACY OF EXPERIENCE that we also take for granted.

    1. This course is an introduction to computational theories of human cognition. Drawing on formal models from classic and contemporary artificial intelligence, we will explore fundamental issues in human knowledge representation, inductive learning and reasoning. What are the forms that our knowledge of the world takes?

      When?

  9. May 2022
  10. Mar 2022
  11. Jan 2022
  12. Dec 2021
  13. Nov 2021
  14. Oct 2021
  15. Sep 2021
    1. Nicholas Carr explores cognitive science and media theory to understand how technology is change our brains through neuroplasticity.

      Ezra Klein was in conversation with Richard Powers regarding his recent book, Bewilderment, exploring the way technology changes us by changing our environment. The medium is the message.

    1. The effects of spiritual practices are now being investigated scientifically as never before, and many studies have shown that religious and spiritual practices generally make people happier and healthier.
  16. Aug 2021
  17. Jul 2021
  18. May 2021
  19. Mar 2021
  20. Feb 2021
  21. Dec 2020
  22. Nov 2020
  23. Sep 2020
  24. Aug 2020
  25. Jul 2020
  26. Jun 2020
  27. May 2020
  28. Apr 2020
  29. Aug 2019
    1. Retrieval practice boosts learning by pulling information out of students’ heads (by responding to a brief writing prompt, for example), rather than cramming information into their heads (by lecturing at students, for example). In the classroom, retrieval practice can take many forms, including a quick no-stakes quiz. When students are asked to retrieve new information, they don’t just show what they know, they solidify and expand it. Feedback boosts learning by revealing to students what they know and what they don’t know. At the same time, this increases students’ metacognition — their understanding about their own learning progress. Spaced practice boosts learning by spreading lessons and retrieval opportunities out over time so that new knowledge and skills are not crammed in all at once. By returning to content every so often, students’ knowledge has time to be consolidated and then refreshed. Interleaving — or practicing a mix of skills (such as doing addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division problems all in one sitting) — boosts learning by encouraging connections between and discrimination among closely related topics. Interleaving sometimes slows students’ initial learning of a concept, but it leads to greater retention and learning over time.

      How can I build this into my curriculum?

  30. Sep 2016
    1. Activities such as time spent on task and discussion board interactions are at the forefront of research.

      Really? These aren’t uncontroversial, to say the least. For instance, discussion board interactions often call for careful, mixed-method work with an eye to preventing instructor effect and confirmation bias. “Time on task” is almost a codeword for distinctions between models of learning. Research in cognitive science gives very nuanced value to “time spent on task” while the Malcolm Gladwells of the world usurp some research results. A major insight behind Competency-Based Education is that it can allow for some variance in terms of “time on task”. So it’s kind of surprising that this summary puts those two things to the fore.

  31. Jun 2016
    1. A few cognitive scientists – notably Anthony Chemero of the University of Cincinnati, the author of Radical Embodied Cognitive Science (2009) – now completely reject the view that the human brain works like a computer. The mainstream view is that we, like computers, make sense of the world by performing computations on mental representations of it, but Chemero and others describe another way of understanding intelligent behaviour – as a direct interaction between organisms and their world.

      http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/p/about-us.html<br> Psychologists Andrew Wilson and Sabrina Golonka

    2. Misleading headlines notwithstanding, no one really has the slightest idea how the brain changes after we have learned to sing a song or recite a poem. But neither the song nor the poem has been ‘stored’ in it. The brain has simply changed in an orderly way that now allows us to sing the song or recite the poem under certain conditions. When called on to perform, neither the song nor the poem is in any sense ‘retrieved’ from anywhere in the brain, any more than my finger movements are ‘retrieved’ when I tap my finger on my desk. We simply sing or recite – no retrieval necessary.
  32. Dec 2015
    1. Agreementis the good stuff in science; it’s the high fives.But it is easy to think we’re in agreement, when really we’re not. Modeling ourthoughts on heuristics and pictures may be convenient for quick travel down the road,but we’re liable to miss our turnoff at the first mile. The danger is in mistaking ourconvenient conceptualizations for what’s actually there. It is imperative that we havethe ability at any time to ground out in reality.