So I guess having more a of "growth mindset" will allow people to embrace new beliefs and make them more willing to think critically. It seems like in general that being "open" to new ideas and experiences would allow for rewiring of the brain. But I'm curious to know what could be done in he case where let's say someone is really hardwired in the beliefs about something and maybe their beliefs are detrimental to them or others around them. How could someone spark or instigate "openness" in them? or is not possible?
You make a great point! Perhaps “hardwired” wasn’t the best word to use, as it makes change seem impossible. But our brains are incredibly neuroplastic - they can re-wire and re-fire. While many processes are hardwired, they’re capable of coming undone. I agree that openness can help, but I recommend practicing the new thought processes you’d like to replace the old, unhelpful ones. It takes time and practice, but can be done!
Fun for me to find your newsletter on a quiet Saturday morning, while I’m thinking about how to balance my day between life-stuff and work-stuff, work-stuff involving grading essay about topics not so far off from yours. I teach undergrad cognitive science classes and we cover these topics to varying degrees of depth, depending on the class. One point I am making consistently in every class I teach though is this: The “Information Processing” meta-theory has outlived its usefulness. It put cognitive science on the academic map in the 20th century, but now that we know so much more about human neuro-cognitive processes we no longer need the metaphor to guide our work. The differences between human thinking and computer processing are really huge. That is, the parities are vast over simplifications. Even the prowess of the latest machine learning programs pale in comparison to the human brain.
Up and coming meta-theories that will one day replace the computer metaphor are rooted in situationism and embodiment. The human species evolved to survive in unpredictable environments - what we do at our core is anticipate and act in creative ways, ways that are grounded by previous experience but colored by novel “in the moment” creative application. Our minds operate at a level of probability that computers do not have the processing power to emulate.
Oh, and about the whole “technology is changing our brains” issue? Literally everything we do changes our brains. Plasticity drives everything, not just the use of a human-made artifact. So this, to me is a straw-man point. And computer programs have nothing at all that resemble human plasticity.
With all that - I 💯 agree with your closing quote! When we change the inputs, the outputs change in kind. We all have the power to change.
Thanks for the fun opportunity to jump in on your thread.
Erica, thank you so much for reading my ideas and hopping in the comments to share your expertise in this topic (of which I’m definitely a non-expert, so this is a rare treat!).
I’d love to know if you have any books you recommend on cognition or neuroscience (that a non-expert can understand). It’s obvious you’re well-informed on this topic and I’d love to get your advice!
Hi Jen - happy to share reading suggestions! I highly recommend Andy Clark: he's a cognitive scientist with a home discipline in Philosophy. His ability to bring together Cognition, Neuroscience, and AI is remarkable. I am a big fan this book titled Mindware: A Introduction to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science. It is actually a bit of a heavy lift, but if you read Kurzweil, I would imagine you are up for it! I see that Andy Clark has a new book out that I haven't read yet, too called "The Experience Machine: How Our Minds Predict and Shape Reality" and it looks like this one is geared towards a more general audience. Given what I know about Clark's perspectives, I am comfortable recommending it sight unseen. If you want a preview first before investing, check out this New Yorker interview with him too: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/02/the-mind-expanding-ideas-of-andy-clark. Clark reasons (in line with Alan Turing's original thesis) that AI should be thought of as a companion to human thinking, and he explains this in a book called Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Also a little bit of a heavy lift, but so much more accurate that the metaphor that human thinking is like comuters. It isn't. But humans and computers can do so much, together! Happy reading!
PS: I just ordered a copy of Andy Clark's new book-- I'm excited to read it! If you are intrigued by the idea of embodiment, maybe start with the new book then circle back to the "Supersizing the mind" one if you want a deeper dive?
You’re an angel! Thank you so much for these thoughtful recommendations. Andy Clark has made his way to the top of my “need to read” list. Just got a sample of Mindware delivered to my kindle and am going to give it a shot!
"Holding two conflicting arguments in our minds is unrealistic—we must either lose faith in the future of humanity or have faith in it. "
This may be a false dichotomy. The thing is, we can, and do, hold paradoxical beliefs and still function (most of the time). Humans' ability to have conflicting beliefs, I think, (haha) is what makes us human.
There is also great potential creativity in cognitive dissonance between two view points, if only we have the patience and discipline to work through the differences. Sadly the majority don't have those qualities, but maybe worse don't even know the possibility exists.
Very profound thoughts, I’d like to balance one of your assertions with this wonderful quote from Francis Scott Fitzgerald:
”The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”
On III, very fitting as I was nerding out deep into all of this just last night 😆
We still have zero idea how physical processes in the brain give rise to a subjective conscious experience - the hard problem of consciousness.
Where I landed: no-where conclusive, because I'm just a guy.
Either way, I think this is interesting: panpsychism says "everything in the universe has consciousness as a fundamental property" as in the human body has consciousness - seems to be a step in the right direction for science...
But what if instead of everything in the universe having consciousness, consciousness has the universe?
"The universe is what consciousness looks like when it perceives itself from the perspective of the separate subject of experience" - Rupert Spira.
Huh. That is fascinating. I had not thought of the universe being the “thing” that’s conscious, but it feels right. Also, that would mean that we only see/experience a small fraction of the universe’s consciousness and assume it to be our own. You’ve got me thinking, Roc!
“ When it comes to change, we’re not hopeless. Perhaps we’re just running bad programs.”
I doubt we will soon get to the point where we can “jack in,” Matrix style, to download new skills and knowledge in a few seconds as our eyes twitch, although it would be handy. Too bad, because I would love to learn to fly a Blackhawk via a 20 second download. Kung fu, too.
And how intelligent, really, is AI? It’s a human artifact that requires human knowledge and experience to work. Maybe it should be thought of as a parasite, at least at this point. Will it ever make the leap, as only humanity has so far, to create language, develop a sense of its own history based on experience, and come to understand what it means?
Very well written, there is an answer to all that "Consciousness" exists behind Creation formed from 'Itself"., In "The Twelve Blessings" Jesus this confirmed with some details of the cosmos.
Happened in London 1958 through the voice of Dr George King in a selfinduced Samadhic trance.
Faith seems to be a transferable skill. While it is far too simplistic to say it is so, I wonder if there is a continuum between blind faith that can easily be used to justify horrible actions, and faith that is informed by some sort of embedded moral code that values the survival of humanity in all its iterations. Of course that simplistic observation still begs the question: what then is that moral code and what is its source.
Peter, you make a good point and this is something I’ve also thought about. I’d like to think that the “blind faith” you speak of is by no means equivalent to “faith,” but instead is a mental construct. I believe genuine faith is spiritual or metaphysical—beyond the “mental” state. It’s the “mental” plane where we find the flaws of man (but also many good ideas, too). I don’t think we can “think” our way into faith. It happens through surrendering to a higher power that exists beyond our thoughts.
Well done Jen for your clear presentation of some difficult concepts. I appreciate that you outlined the different thoughts of consciousness rather than simply stating your own perspective. This is an excellent essay that echoes my own beliefs.
Thank you so much, Donna! I sincerely appreciate you reading my writing and crafting thoughtful and constructive comments week after week. I’m beyond grateful.
I also appreciate your call-out on the various schools of thought on “consciousness.” I had to do some research on that one!
I love this Mat, finding pieces of my puzzle in someone else's story. I think that's why I enjoy being on Substack so much because I see parts of myself (good and not-so-great!) all over the place. This creates a vibrant energy that pulls us all together. Thanks for sharing your insightful comment.
Jen, your article got my brain buzzing. I love this mix of philosophy, tech angst, and a dash of spiritual optimism. Here's what I'm chewing on:
Are we just fancy bio-computers? Maybe, but I still hope there's a little "soul software" somewhere in the mix. Otherwise, what's the point of art, love, or those ridiculous viral cat videos?
Homo Techno – the upgrade or the glitch? On one hand, awesome tech! On the other, I can barely remember my passwords thanks to autofill. Are we evolving... or devolving?
Confusing consciousness, indeed. I get what the author means. Some days I feel like a sentient being, on others, I'm just a predictable algorithm fueled by coffee and Wordle fails.
Faith's role in the tech age. Interesting twist! It takes a leap of faith to believe humans aren't just replaceable tech. If we can't believe in something more than ourselves, maybe A.I. really will take over.
Bad programming = bad thinking. This hits home. Sometimes I realize how trapped I am by my own assumptions. Maybe instead of doom-scrolling, I should work on updating my brain's operating system...
Overall, I appreciate you tackling these big questions head-on. It's a reminder that even as tech reshapes us, we need to keep pondering the big "why" of it all.
Talha, I love this! Highly considering changing my “About” section to say, “I write about a mix of philosophy, tech angst, and a dash of spiritual optimism.” I love it 🙌🏽
You bring up great points. I’d like to believe we have some soul software (maybe it’s our faith?) and that we are evolving with technology (however, I also tend to forget my passwords).
Replying to you like this, I’m starting to think that maybe our communication with each other is what makes us human. We constantly want to express ourselves to other humans and connect with them. Computers cannot say the same (and perhaps they never will).
I appreciate you taking the time to read my writing and to write such thoughtful feedback. Thank you so much for your support 🩶🙏
I appreciate this post Jen! We truly have a great challenge before us with the exponential growth of technology and AI happening right along side of mankind, figuring out authentic self. There are those among us who believe that humanity is inferior and needs the help of technology to reach for potential. I’m convinced we have yet to see the potential of what it means to be fully human! In so many ways, mankind is still barely awake. With all my heart, I believe in our worth and potential! A great challenge of the day is learning where the boundaries between humanity and technology lie.
I appreciate your invite for us to consider that we are more than our technology, and to have faith that we will be able to craft A new world that blends are authentic humanity with integrity based technology.
I join you in believing this is not only possible but humanities destiny!
Wayne, thank you so much for your thoughtful comment and for resharing my article—I’m incredibly grateful. It will be interesting to see where the next few years of technological advancement takes us, but like you, I’m an optimist 🩵
Consciousness underlies and creates all that we perceive as physical manifestation. Our brains are receivers of that Consciousness.
Love this, Gwyneth.
I live my Life thus.
So I guess having more a of "growth mindset" will allow people to embrace new beliefs and make them more willing to think critically. It seems like in general that being "open" to new ideas and experiences would allow for rewiring of the brain. But I'm curious to know what could be done in he case where let's say someone is really hardwired in the beliefs about something and maybe their beliefs are detrimental to them or others around them. How could someone spark or instigate "openness" in them? or is not possible?
Shahryar,
You make a great point! Perhaps “hardwired” wasn’t the best word to use, as it makes change seem impossible. But our brains are incredibly neuroplastic - they can re-wire and re-fire. While many processes are hardwired, they’re capable of coming undone. I agree that openness can help, but I recommend practicing the new thought processes you’d like to replace the old, unhelpful ones. It takes time and practice, but can be done!
Love your contemplation Jen! The big difference I see is that computers can't enter the dream state of REM. The question I have is - why do we dream?
https://romanshapoval.substack.com/i/141507692/what-do-dreams-have-to-do-with-emfs
What an interesting observation. Thanks for sharing this!
Fun for me to find your newsletter on a quiet Saturday morning, while I’m thinking about how to balance my day between life-stuff and work-stuff, work-stuff involving grading essay about topics not so far off from yours. I teach undergrad cognitive science classes and we cover these topics to varying degrees of depth, depending on the class. One point I am making consistently in every class I teach though is this: The “Information Processing” meta-theory has outlived its usefulness. It put cognitive science on the academic map in the 20th century, but now that we know so much more about human neuro-cognitive processes we no longer need the metaphor to guide our work. The differences between human thinking and computer processing are really huge. That is, the parities are vast over simplifications. Even the prowess of the latest machine learning programs pale in comparison to the human brain.
Up and coming meta-theories that will one day replace the computer metaphor are rooted in situationism and embodiment. The human species evolved to survive in unpredictable environments - what we do at our core is anticipate and act in creative ways, ways that are grounded by previous experience but colored by novel “in the moment” creative application. Our minds operate at a level of probability that computers do not have the processing power to emulate.
Oh, and about the whole “technology is changing our brains” issue? Literally everything we do changes our brains. Plasticity drives everything, not just the use of a human-made artifact. So this, to me is a straw-man point. And computer programs have nothing at all that resemble human plasticity.
With all that - I 💯 agree with your closing quote! When we change the inputs, the outputs change in kind. We all have the power to change.
Thanks for the fun opportunity to jump in on your thread.
Erica, thank you so much for reading my ideas and hopping in the comments to share your expertise in this topic (of which I’m definitely a non-expert, so this is a rare treat!).
I’d love to know if you have any books you recommend on cognition or neuroscience (that a non-expert can understand). It’s obvious you’re well-informed on this topic and I’d love to get your advice!
Hi Jen - happy to share reading suggestions! I highly recommend Andy Clark: he's a cognitive scientist with a home discipline in Philosophy. His ability to bring together Cognition, Neuroscience, and AI is remarkable. I am a big fan this book titled Mindware: A Introduction to the Philosophy of Cognitive Science. It is actually a bit of a heavy lift, but if you read Kurzweil, I would imagine you are up for it! I see that Andy Clark has a new book out that I haven't read yet, too called "The Experience Machine: How Our Minds Predict and Shape Reality" and it looks like this one is geared towards a more general audience. Given what I know about Clark's perspectives, I am comfortable recommending it sight unseen. If you want a preview first before investing, check out this New Yorker interview with him too: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/02/the-mind-expanding-ideas-of-andy-clark. Clark reasons (in line with Alan Turing's original thesis) that AI should be thought of as a companion to human thinking, and he explains this in a book called Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Also a little bit of a heavy lift, but so much more accurate that the metaphor that human thinking is like comuters. It isn't. But humans and computers can do so much, together! Happy reading!
PS: I just ordered a copy of Andy Clark's new book-- I'm excited to read it! If you are intrigued by the idea of embodiment, maybe start with the new book then circle back to the "Supersizing the mind" one if you want a deeper dive?
You’re an angel! Thank you so much for these thoughtful recommendations. Andy Clark has made his way to the top of my “need to read” list. Just got a sample of Mindware delivered to my kindle and am going to give it a shot!
Thank you so much! And happy reading to you!
"Holding two conflicting arguments in our minds is unrealistic—we must either lose faith in the future of humanity or have faith in it. "
This may be a false dichotomy. The thing is, we can, and do, hold paradoxical beliefs and still function (most of the time). Humans' ability to have conflicting beliefs, I think, (haha) is what makes us human.
There is also great potential creativity in cognitive dissonance between two view points, if only we have the patience and discipline to work through the differences. Sadly the majority don't have those qualities, but maybe worse don't even know the possibility exists.
💡
Perhaps I’ll have to look deeper into this one, thanks for bringing it up, Karin! I appreciate you.
Very profound thoughts, I’d like to balance one of your assertions with this wonderful quote from Francis Scott Fitzgerald:
”The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”
The example—seeing things are hopeless, yet being determined to change them—is perfect.
Thank you for bringing this quote to my attention. It’s indeed a good one.
I hope you are on Twitter, we need as many like minds as possible to remind people of this.
On III, very fitting as I was nerding out deep into all of this just last night 😆
We still have zero idea how physical processes in the brain give rise to a subjective conscious experience - the hard problem of consciousness.
Where I landed: no-where conclusive, because I'm just a guy.
Either way, I think this is interesting: panpsychism says "everything in the universe has consciousness as a fundamental property" as in the human body has consciousness - seems to be a step in the right direction for science...
But what if instead of everything in the universe having consciousness, consciousness has the universe?
"The universe is what consciousness looks like when it perceives itself from the perspective of the separate subject of experience" - Rupert Spira.
Huh. That is fascinating. I had not thought of the universe being the “thing” that’s conscious, but it feels right. Also, that would mean that we only see/experience a small fraction of the universe’s consciousness and assume it to be our own. You’ve got me thinking, Roc!
“ When it comes to change, we’re not hopeless. Perhaps we’re just running bad programs.”
I doubt we will soon get to the point where we can “jack in,” Matrix style, to download new skills and knowledge in a few seconds as our eyes twitch, although it would be handy. Too bad, because I would love to learn to fly a Blackhawk via a 20 second download. Kung fu, too.
And how intelligent, really, is AI? It’s a human artifact that requires human knowledge and experience to work. Maybe it should be thought of as a parasite, at least at this point. Will it ever make the leap, as only humanity has so far, to create language, develop a sense of its own history based on experience, and come to understand what it means?
It’s hard to imagine that it would. Consciousness feels like something reserved for humans. But time will tell.
Thanks so much
Fun stuff to think about unless you’re stuck in deep space with a psychotic HAL!
Excellent discussion. Much to ponder as we must strive to integrate our humanity with technology in our political and economic contexts.
Absolutely, Douglas 🙏
Exactly, Mat, especially when vested interests would have it otherwise.
This writing deserves multiple readings...thank you! So much to contemplate...
Wow… thank you 🥲🩵
This made my day!
Very well written, there is an answer to all that "Consciousness" exists behind Creation formed from 'Itself"., In "The Twelve Blessings" Jesus this confirmed with some details of the cosmos.
Happened in London 1958 through the voice of Dr George King in a selfinduced Samadhic trance.
Faith seems to be a transferable skill. While it is far too simplistic to say it is so, I wonder if there is a continuum between blind faith that can easily be used to justify horrible actions, and faith that is informed by some sort of embedded moral code that values the survival of humanity in all its iterations. Of course that simplistic observation still begs the question: what then is that moral code and what is its source.
Peter, you make a good point and this is something I’ve also thought about. I’d like to think that the “blind faith” you speak of is by no means equivalent to “faith,” but instead is a mental construct. I believe genuine faith is spiritual or metaphysical—beyond the “mental” state. It’s the “mental” plane where we find the flaws of man (but also many good ideas, too). I don’t think we can “think” our way into faith. It happens through surrendering to a higher power that exists beyond our thoughts.
(Those are my thoughts, anyway.)
Such an interesting and important read!
Thank you, Sarah! ♥️🙏
Well done Jen for your clear presentation of some difficult concepts. I appreciate that you outlined the different thoughts of consciousness rather than simply stating your own perspective. This is an excellent essay that echoes my own beliefs.
Thank you so much, Donna! I sincerely appreciate you reading my writing and crafting thoughtful and constructive comments week after week. I’m beyond grateful.
I also appreciate your call-out on the various schools of thought on “consciousness.” I had to do some research on that one!
I love this Mat, finding pieces of my puzzle in someone else's story. I think that's why I enjoy being on Substack so much because I see parts of myself (good and not-so-great!) all over the place. This creates a vibrant energy that pulls us all together. Thanks for sharing your insightful comment.
Jen, your article got my brain buzzing. I love this mix of philosophy, tech angst, and a dash of spiritual optimism. Here's what I'm chewing on:
Are we just fancy bio-computers? Maybe, but I still hope there's a little "soul software" somewhere in the mix. Otherwise, what's the point of art, love, or those ridiculous viral cat videos?
Homo Techno – the upgrade or the glitch? On one hand, awesome tech! On the other, I can barely remember my passwords thanks to autofill. Are we evolving... or devolving?
Confusing consciousness, indeed. I get what the author means. Some days I feel like a sentient being, on others, I'm just a predictable algorithm fueled by coffee and Wordle fails.
Faith's role in the tech age. Interesting twist! It takes a leap of faith to believe humans aren't just replaceable tech. If we can't believe in something more than ourselves, maybe A.I. really will take over.
Bad programming = bad thinking. This hits home. Sometimes I realize how trapped I am by my own assumptions. Maybe instead of doom-scrolling, I should work on updating my brain's operating system...
Overall, I appreciate you tackling these big questions head-on. It's a reminder that even as tech reshapes us, we need to keep pondering the big "why" of it all.
Talha, I love this! Highly considering changing my “About” section to say, “I write about a mix of philosophy, tech angst, and a dash of spiritual optimism.” I love it 🙌🏽
You bring up great points. I’d like to believe we have some soul software (maybe it’s our faith?) and that we are evolving with technology (however, I also tend to forget my passwords).
Replying to you like this, I’m starting to think that maybe our communication with each other is what makes us human. We constantly want to express ourselves to other humans and connect with them. Computers cannot say the same (and perhaps they never will).
I appreciate you taking the time to read my writing and to write such thoughtful feedback. Thank you so much for your support 🩶🙏
I appreciate this post Jen! We truly have a great challenge before us with the exponential growth of technology and AI happening right along side of mankind, figuring out authentic self. There are those among us who believe that humanity is inferior and needs the help of technology to reach for potential. I’m convinced we have yet to see the potential of what it means to be fully human! In so many ways, mankind is still barely awake. With all my heart, I believe in our worth and potential! A great challenge of the day is learning where the boundaries between humanity and technology lie.
I appreciate your invite for us to consider that we are more than our technology, and to have faith that we will be able to craft A new world that blends are authentic humanity with integrity based technology.
I join you in believing this is not only possible but humanities destiny!
Wayne, thank you so much for your thoughtful comment and for resharing my article—I’m incredibly grateful. It will be interesting to see where the next few years of technological advancement takes us, but like you, I’m an optimist 🩵