The Reactivity Schema Theory of Consciousness | Keith Frankish Lecture

21 thoughts on “The Reactivity Schema Theory of Consciousness | Keith Frankish Lecture”

1. In the midst of pain and strife
   Reaction is death,
   Response is life.

2. 29:14
   
   version of the thing that normally cause an internal version of the smell or the color or whatever to cause it no the
   
   29:20
   
   commonality wasn't in there being an internal version of the external equality it was in there being the same
   
   29:26
   
   pattern of reaction this I think this line there this
   
   29:32
   
   confuses cause and effect reactions that compose the interos spectable property and it's through Rec reacting through
   
   29:39
   
   reacting that one identifies the property that I think it marks a little Copurnican revolution in thinking about
   
   29:46
   
   Consciousness it's as significant as the change from thinking about the Earth as being at the center of the solar system
   
   29:53
   
   and thinking about the Sun as the center it's it um it looks innocuous as D put
   
   30:00
   
   to there but it the consequences are huge
   
   pattern of reaction

3. 1:31:01
   
   these are really just questions just things you could look into if um if you would want to take seriously well
   
   1:31:08
   
   obviously you could try to locate the the activity scheme in the brain and say well what we need to look for neural I
   
   1:31:14
   
   said there's neural mechanisms that do these things that this monitoring this modeling that feeding High cognition
   
   1:31:19
   
   Zone okay so let's find them we should be able to Det detect them if they're
   
   1:31:25
   
   there uh of course detecting anything in the brain is is is is is is is is is
   
   1:31:31
   
   tough um given even given the wonderful techniques that we have at present

   we should in principle
   
   1:31:54
   
   be able to do so we need to look for neural processes which have these features they carry
   
   1:31:59
   
   information about systemwide patterns of reactivity okay so there need to be some
   
   1:32:04
   
   some brain system that is that is mapping global patterns of activity not in detail not in detail but
   
   1:32:12
   
   mapping the general shape so be kind of looking at the levels of activity in different areas simultaneously maybe1:45:39
   
   wonderful lecture I think what we'll do is we'll post this out we'll see what the responses are anyone can just leave us their questions in the comment
   
   1:45:45
   
   sections below and I'll curate a bunch of them if anyone has any ideas where
   
   1:45:50
   
   Keith needs to work on certain aspects improve upon all things you just want to congratulate and and tell him thanks for
   
   1:45:57
   
   the insightful information just let us know fantastic yes if you get a lot of1:46:02
   
   responses I'll be happy to come back and discuss some I know I think we definitely will at some point the question is oh yeah and another thing if
   
   1:46:08
   
   anyone has any ideas and would like to take this further they most certainly should well I hope that it's see what1:47:21
   
   audience I hope anyone listening or watching tries to their best to engage interact and yeah that's what this
   
   1:47:27
   
   platform is all about it's to give you guys the opportunity to explore these

   1:47:51
   
   committed um amateurs in the best sense can can contribute um think about

4. If these theories are untestable, hasn’t it been inappropriate to accuse others of believing in illusions?

5. 1:27:57
   
   pattern all of that little those little fine gray lines inside the green um uh
   
   1:28:02
   
   star there are lost you just have the outline of the thing so it presents
   
   1:28:08
   
   experience to you as something abstract intangible an
   
   1:28:13
   
   essence of significance it's it has that significance you know the significance
   
   1:28:19
   
   that's a bit like the significance of that other thing and maybe you can say I I like it or I don't like it or it's um
   
   1:28:26
   
   it inclines me to do this or that or whatever but I can't really tell you more about it because it's there I've
   
   1:28:31
   
   got nothing to there's no structure available to me really um I can just
   
   1:28:36
   
   make comparisons and general um uh evaluations and that's all I've got it's
   
   1:28:42
   
   just essence of signic we might say it's a pure feel it's an ineffable feel that I'm
   
   1:28:48
   
   acquainted with it isn't there's no ineffable feel there there's no quality there there's a pattern of complex
   
   1:28:54
   
   Downstream reactions that have been schematically modeled and the schematic modeling
   
   1:28:59
   
   produces my judgments about them and those judgments about them I tend to express in the only way I can as well
   
   1:29:05
   
   it's got this feel hence the illusion of phenomenal
   
   1:29:12
   
   Consciousness the answer to the illusion problem um um the answer to life the universe and everything it's not 42 it's

6. 56:16
   
   hugely important part of cognition getting attention getting attention wrong is is um can be disastrous um so
   
   56:24
   
   getting it right focusing on the right bits of information at the right time tracking the right things is essential to survival attention is absolutely
   
   56:31
   
   crucial um pychological mechanism58:33
   
   around and holding on to them and grasping information about them in a in a in a almost magical way it's just locks
   
   58:41
   
   onto them and grabs information about them and then having done that it can have all sorts of effects on how we respond um again without in in a sort of
   
   58:48
   
   magical way there's no uh the model doesn't contain any details of how this works it's just a this thing that that
   
   58:55
   
   FL go out as it where grasps onto things gets information about them makes things
   
   59:00
   
   happen in a way that's um apparently magical1:01:10
   
   schematic character it leads us to judge that these experiences we're having are
   
   1:01:16
   
   themselves sort of magical subjective states that we're having this state of being sort of locked onto this thing in
   
   1:01:21
   
   a magical way and grasping information about it in in a in a way that doesn't
   
   1:01:27
   
   involve any mechanism we just see it andof information there and this information then has effects on us that
   
   1:01:34
   
   uh in in a again in a sort of magical way because we have no idea of the mediating processes all we have is a
   
   1:01:39
   
   schematic outline of this grasping of information in the experience and the information and this being potent in
   
   1:01:45
   
   affecting us so the schematic character of the model then induces us to form
   
   1:01:50
   
   this conception of our minds uh which is essentially dualistic okay which is that
   
   1:01:55
   
   that the there there are immaterial processes occurring there's an immaterial S grasping of things
   
   1:02:02
   
   information um and this is what leads us to um talk about his justest to talk
   
   1:02:08
   
   about qualia and um to conceive of our minds as having a non-physical aspect
   
   1:02:14
   
   it's due to the simplified modeling1:09:39
   
   perceptual processes does result in this this womb of effect we um um we have a
   
   1:09:46
   
   we reach supersonic um velocities
   
   1:09:53
   
   now this reactiv patter I suggest could be mappable on multiple Dimensions corresponding to various dispositional
   
   1:10:01
   
   features of the stimulus as disposition to affect us in different ways sort of attractiveness perhaps
   
   1:10:08
   
   dangerousness edibility um um we can all sorts of
   
   1:10:15
   
   different think of all the different ways in which a stimulus could affect you all the different um um reactions it
   
   1:10:23
   
   could dispose you to um to have each of these correspond to a dimension of
   
   1:10:31
   
   this so we can map it in this multi-dimensional
   
   1:10:36
   
   space now the shape of that reactivity pattern in the multi-dimensional space
   
   1:10:42
   
   encodes information about the significance of the stimulus for the
   
   1:10:47
   
   object if you know the shape of that reactivity pattern you know what that stimulus means for the for the um
   
   1:10:55
   
   for the subject1:18:29
   
   there now what you've got there then is a model of the reactivity pattern created
   
   1:18:36
   
   here by the stimulus which is in this case an apple but there's no point in having a model of the significance of a
   
   1:18:42
   
   stimulus unless it's linked to a representation of the stimulus itself you need to know what stimulus created
   
   1:18:48
   
   this reaction you need to as it bind the bits of information together so let's suppose that the perceptual
   
   1:18:55
   
   processing generates some the perceptual side the classificatory side remember as in as in
   
   1:19:03
   
   Nick distinction between perception and sensation so there's a side that's detecting and classifying bits of the
   
   1:19:08
   
   world and then there's the the other side that's reacting so let's suppose here that the rea the reactive bit is is
   
   1:19:14
   
   is linked up to information from uh from from the pure perceptual side so there's
   
   1:19:20
   
   some sort of um encoding of the of the of the perceptual content an apple some sort of um mental representation of an
   
   1:19:28
   
   apple which is linked to bound to uh the uh reactivity schema so now
   
   1:19:35
   
   what we have is a representation of the content bound to a representation of the

7. Self-evidently, we are nothing more than autonomously-proactive entities.

   From the inside, the physical situational detection events that occur within our physiology are subjective experiences, rather than accessible occurrences.

   From the outside, the VERY SAME events are accessible occurrences, rather than subjective experiences.

   In contrast with all other physical events observed in nature, these contextually dichotomous detection events seem to be an ontological anomaly.

   Because of this, whenever we conceptually abstract and label our own subjective experiences for purposes of self-reflection and discussion, we unwittingly make them seem as though as they are ontologically different to the objective detection events occurring within our own physiology.

   In other words, to us, the detection events seem "physical", and the experiences seem "non-physical".

   Because this is not actually the case, the field of cognitive neuroscience remains profoundly unsuccessful in observing the mechanism(s) responsible for (what they assume is) an objective detection event giving rise to a subjective experience, leading to the appearance of what has come to be known as the "hard problem of consciousness".

   Empirically, all there is to find are these autonomously-proactive entities, with contextually dichotomous situational detection events occurring within them.

   Other than the simple fact that we ARE such entities, there is no reason why it feels like anything for us to be alive.

   This realisation is the dissolution of the "hard problem".

8. I am a physicist and I explain why current physics leaves not room for the possibility that brain processes can be a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness. The hypothesis that consciousness emerges from, or can be identified with physical, chemical or biological processes is incompatible with current physics.
   
   It is a scientifically established fact that a mental experience is associated with numerous distinct microscopic physical processes that occur at different points; there is no physical entity that connects all these distinct microscopic processes, therefore the existence of mental experience requires an element of connection that is not described by current physics. This missing element of connection can be identified with what we traditionally refer to as the soul (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations).

   Emergent properties are often thought of as arising from complex systems (like the brain). However, I argue that these properties are subjective cognitive constructs that depend on the level of abstraction we choose to analyze and describe the system. Since these descriptions are mind-dependent, consciousness, being implied by these cognitive contructs, cannot itself be an emergent property.

   Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what can exist objectively are only the individual elements. Defining a set is like drawing an imaginary line to separate some elements from others. This line doesn't exist physically; it’s a mental construct. The same applies to sequences of processes—they are abstract concepts created by our minds.

   Mental experiences are necessary for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and cognitive constructs; Therefore, mental experience itself cannot be just a cognitive construct.
   
   Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness; We can talk about consciousness or about pain, but merely talking about it isn’t the same as experiencing it. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams)

   From the above considerations it follows that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently the only logically coherent and significant statement is that consciousness exists as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because there is a well-known correlation between brain processes and consciousness. However, this indivisible entity cannot be physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.

   Clarifications

   The brain itself doesn't exist as a completely mind-independent entity. The concept of the brain is based on separating a group of quantum particles from everything else, which is a subjective process, not dictated purely by the laws of physics. Actually there is a continuous exchange of molecules with the blood and when and how such molecules start and stop being part of the brain is decided arbitrarily. An example may clarify this point: the concept of nation. Nation is not a physical entity and does not refer to a mind-independent entity because it is just a set of arbitrarily chosen people. The same goes for the brain.

   Brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a subjective abstractions used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole (and therefore every function/property/capacity attributed to the brain) is a subjective abstraction that does not refer to any mind-independendent reality.

   Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective cognitive constructs and therefore, consciousness cannot be an emergent property. Actually, emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option/description is possible). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes. Emergence is nothing more than a cognitive construct that is applied to physical phenomena, and cognition itself can only come from a mind; thus emergence can never explain mental experience as, by itself, it implies mental experience.

   Conclusions

   My approach is based on scientific knowledge of the brain's physical processes. My arguments show that physicalism is incompatible with the very foundations of scientific knowledge because current scientific understanding of molecular processes excludes the possibility that brain processes alone can account for the existence of consciousness.
   
   An indivisible non-physical element must exist as a necessary condition for the existence of consciousness because mental experiences are linked to many distinct physical processes occurring at different points; it is therefore necessary for all these distinct processes to be interpreted collectively by a mind-independent element, and a mind-independent element can only be intrinsically indivisible because it cannot depend on subjectivity. This indivisible element cannot be physical because the laws of physics do not describe any physical entity with the required properties.

   Marco Biagini

9. We receive signals from the rods and cones in our eyes, but what we "see" consciously is a continuous image., as opposed to individual pixels. The same can be said of an image in computer memory. An image on a computer is a set of bytes representing (RGB) color values in a rectangle, but what we see is a singular image, not individual dots of color or an array of RGB values. The brain uses neurons to map the color but ultimately produces the same thing.
   Does Keith's theory explain how this is possible?

   Love your work!

10. "I have a smell" is a different statement from "I have a smell … of something" … but it seems that materialists/illusionist don't realise how crazy the claim of having access to a "something", because the statement itself implies that you need the smell to have an idea of that "something" and not the other way around. This is why the hard problem has arrived … people imagine their abstractions (ie "something") before their qualia and then claim they "know" about those abstractions through qualia. It is a paradox wrapped in a circular argument

11. @6:10 if we are talking physics, physicalism, or related metaphysics (assume there is nothing else) then there is no such thing as a "private universe". If you allow for the idea some organisms (classed as "sentient", whatever that means) that evolve in the physical universe have a putative soul that is some sort of bridge from physical reality to some sort of platonic or other variety of mind/mental realm, this bridge being what you might call "mind", then you can talk about a private universe. . But then it is not an illusion. The illusion is that you think there is only physical stuff.

12. 1:40:57 Have you heard of this guy Bashar? He's a temporary blind guy in a Hawaiian shirt who likes to discuss, how definition/perceptions paints your emotional experience🦯

13. The pauses and brain hitching makes the speaker difficult to listen to. A manuscript would be welcomed. Adios

14. 24:51: So different emotional(Inner world) relationships with assigned triggers, get tied together with reactive conceptual rule/law/strategy(outer world).

15. Understanding the language model, all the answers are hidden in them, how your mind, brain and conciousness interlink to understand the language in real time, understanding language is the primary source of all the rest you are shuffling, stop chatting within and start doing meditation to know what is happening in your brain in reality when a word frequency strike, everyone has different experiences

16. Why are you getting tired, Lorddess and lords, ghosts and devils spritz are licking and sucking your body mind spirit and awareness until you are alive in many forms throughout desire in you or other life forms, but as soon as you are dead, The role of true God comes into existence to decompose your body, to clean and clear flow of life in any form
    🙏 ❤️
    ."Mind of humanity is fooling other mind on earth in the name of consciousness, as you cannot understand anything beyond mind, so all your study on conciousness is not more than the study of your own mind, dear intelectual of this planet 🌏 are wandering like dogs after its own tail ❤DEAR GODDESSES AND GODS,
    WELCOME TO THE PLANET OF GODDESSES AND GODS FROM THE PLANET OF APES
    🙏

17. Frankish is a highly intelligent and lovely man. But whenever I hear someone talk about illusionism, I can't stop thinking about what an incoherent mess this theory is.

18. Possibly better if written

19. Omg I LOVE this theory!!! Good show professor!

20. Thanks again, for being a great host. Giving us the real deal info.

21. THANKS FOR WATCHING!
    
    If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. 🙂

Comments are closed.