Let's Read: The Ego Tunnel (Part 3)

Chapter 4: From Ownership to Agency to Free Will

Review

In chapter 3, Metzinger used OBE and other disruptions to self-consciousness to sketch out a 3-part model of consciousness:

• Physical body model. This is a model of the physical body, with joints, bones, meat, weight, velocity, shape, etc. It is put into a model of the physical world, and it cannot occupy the same volume as other solids. So for example, the arm of the body cannot sink into the desk.
• Astral body model. This model has the same shape as the physical body model. However, it has no weight, is not affected by gravity, has no organs, and though it has a volume, it cannot exclude anything else from the volume (it's like turning off collision in a game). It is basically a ghost in the shell of the physical body model. It is usually a bit smaller than the physical body model.
• Viewpoint model. A point in space augmented with a Cartesian frame, to represent the orientation of your viewpoint. It represents your "true location". It is perched between the eyes of the astral body model, facing straight forward. 
  It is used to model where the sound you are hearing is coming from. So for example, if you hear a noise on the left, that would be modeled as a sound source to the left of the viewpoint. 
  It is also used to model where what you are seeing is. So for example, if you see a ball straight ahead, that is modelled as a ball straight ahead of the viewpoint.
  Note that even in a blind-deaf person, there is still a viewpoint model. It is simply not used to assist in inference of audio and visual input. Even a blind-deaf person must feel like they are somewhere in spacetime. That "somewhere" is the location of the viewpoint model within the world model.

Metzinger further contends that to create a thing that feels, it is necessary and sufficient to make a "minimal phenomenal selfhood". A minimal phenomenal selfhood is made of these parts:

• A model of spacetime.
• A point in the spacetime model, indicating "here I am".
• A model of the body (usually humanoid) centered around the viewpoint.
• A global workspace, that is, a buffer memory unit like the RAM. 

And to augment a minimal phenomenal selfhood into a minimal subject, it is necessary and sufficient to add:

• A self-attention control module. The three components of the minimal phenomenal selfhood should appear in the global workspace, and the self-attention control module's function is to emphasize/deemphasize parts of the self-body-model into focus in the global workspace.

This whole system for making a minimal subject is called a phenomenal self-model. It is reasonably easy to construct even with today's technology. It is probable that the self-driving cars in 5 years will have phenomenal self-models.

Examples of self-doubling illusions like autoscopy, heautoscopy, and out-of-body experiences (OBE)

Three kinds of self-models

Keep these three kinds of self-models in mind as you study the odd states of self-consciousness.

• Physical body model. This is a model of the physical body, with joints, bones, meat, weight, velocity, shape, etc. It is put into a model of the physical world, and it cannot occupy the same volume as other solids. So for example, the arm of the body cannot sink into the desk.
• Astral body model. This model has the same shape as the physical body model. However, it has no weight, is not affected by gravity, has no organs, and though it has a volume, it cannot exclude anything else from the volume (it's like turning off collision in a game). It is basically a ghost in the shell of the physical body model. It is usually a bit smaller than the physical body model.
• Viewpoint model. A point in space augmented with a Cartesian frame, to represent the orientation of your viewpoint. It represents your "true location". It is perched between the eyes of the astral body model, facing straight forward. 
  It is used to model where the sound you are hearing is coming from. So for example, if you hear a noise on the left, that would be modeled as a sound source to the left of the viewpoint. 
  It is also used to model where what you are seeing is. So for example, if you see a ball straight ahead, that is modelled as a ball straight ahead of the viewpoint.
  Note that even in a blind-deaf person, there is still a viewpoint model. It is simply not used to assist in inference of audio and visual input. Even a blind-deaf person must feel like they are somewhere in spacetime. That "somewhere" is the location of the viewpoint model within the world model.

These three self-models are meant to synthesize different kinds of sensory data. Here, I am speculating since I can't find papers about this.

• Physical body model synthesizes sensory input on the body: location of localized pain, heat, coldness, touch, pressure.
• Astral body model synthesizes proprioceptive input, vestibular input, and active motor output. 
• Viewpoint model synthesizes location of visual and auditory sources. Basically, if you hear something from the left, and sees something 
  Your viewpoint model is updated continuously by sensory input. There is a constant inference loop between your viewpoint model and the visual sources and audio sources in the world model, as your brain tries to integrate all visual, auditory, vestibular, and other senses into one consistent model of the world with a viewpoint.
• If the ear senses an acceleration upwards, that would tend to move your viewpoint model up. 
• If the eye sees most of the scenery moving to the right, that would tend to move your viewpoint model to the left, or turn it to the left. 
• If the eye sees most of the scenery staying still, but a small blob moving to the right, you would keep your viewpoint model stable, but move the model of the blob.
  

The art of ventriloquism is all about confusing the viewpoint model, so that the sound source is incorrectly modelled.

How to be happy

The equation of happiness

Let's imagine a happiness meter, calibrated so that if we measure the happiness of everyone on earth, the average happiness is exactly 0. If you get -1, you are sadder than average, and if you get +4, you are much happier than average.

Then we can imagine an "equation of happiness": given a person P's genes, memories, current job, current activity, friends, etc, predict what their happiness is.

Happiness(P) = ?

Well, to start with, we can do the laziest thing possible:

Happiness(P) = 0

After all, that's the global average. Can't be too wrong! But that's boring. What is interesting is to account for the variation of happiness level between people. So let's try that. What accounts for variation in happiness?

Next, remember that people seem to have a set level of happiness that they return to after a while. Good things make them happier than the set level, and bad things make them less, but they always return to it.

Happiness(P) = SetLevel(P's personality) + EventsHappiness(P's history)

Next, remember the general lesson: for personality traits, usually half is based on genes, half based on environment. 

Happiness(P) = 0.5 GeneScore(P's genes) 

+ 0.5 EnvScore(P's environment) 

+ EventsHappiness(P's history)

And we have a fairly workable model of happiness! 

Actually, the current best model for happiness is roughly this:

Happiness(P) = 0.5 GeneScore(P's genes) 

+ 0.1 CircumstanceScore(P's circumstance) 

+ 0.4 ActivityScore(P's activity)

where "circumstance" stands for

the national, geographical, and cultural region in which a person resides, as well as demographic factors such as age, gender, and ethnicity. Circumstantial factors also include the individual’s personal history, that is, life events that can affect his or her happiness, such as having experienced a childhood trauma, being involved in an automobile accident, or winning a prestigious award. Finally, circumstantial factors include life status variables such as marital status, occupational status, job security, income, health, and religious affiliation.

and "activity" stands for things that you do intentionally, non-automatically. Some activities particularly useful for happiness include meditation, exercise, practicing a valued skill, helping others without asking for reward.

Causal Anthropocentrism

There is a pattern of thinking that has annoyed me. Today I found the name for it: "causal anthropocentrism".

What triggered this post is a quote by Xi Jinping:

There is no such thing as the so-called Thucydides Trap in the world. But should major countries time and again make the mistakes of strategic miscalculation, they might create such traps for themselves.

The Thucydides Trap describes this unhappy pattern: as a hegemonic power grows weaker relative to an emerging power, war often results. This concept worried Graham Allison a lot, and you can find him talking about it in books and lectures. This does not concern this post.

What annoyed me about Xi's quote is the part

they might create such traps for themselves

Aitken's trick for calculating decimal expansions of rationals

Aitken's Method

Professor Aitken was both a mental calculator and a master mathematician, and a detailed account of his mental math abilities is found in An exceptional talent for calculative thinking, (IML Hunter, 1962)

I'd just like to sketch out one amazing trick, which is illustrated thus:


The proof is  $x = 5/23 = 15/69$, then, $x = (15 + x) /70$, so the trick is to calculate $15/70$ by short division, to generate the digits of $x$ one at a time, then immediately feed to the top to continue. A kind of "just-in-time" algorithm!

Let's breakdown will like George Ainslie

Breakdown of Will (2001) is a book about breaking down will, that is, dissecting the idea of a "will" and show how will is made from little pieces. The book is too long for me to read because I'm a very busy pony, so I'll just read summarize fro Précis of Breakdown of Will (2005).

BTW, Ainslie's breakdown of will has no relation to Jaynes' breakdown of the bicamel mind, but the name really reminds me of the breakdown, which is how I came to notice Ainslie's breakdown of will theory. I'm such a nihilist, I just can't stop myself from finding another thing to breakdown.

The author, George Ainslie, is most famed for his discovery of hyperbolic discounting in Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulsive control (1975).

People devalue a given future event at different rates, depending on how far away it is. This phenomenon means that our preferences are inherently unstable and entails our present selves being pitted against what we can expect our future selves to want.

"Discounting" means that humans prefer the same reward to come sooner. The \$100 that comes in a month seems to be less attractive than the \$80 that comes today. This is a very reasonable assumption, for two reasons:

1. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die.
2. \$80 today can be invested and turned into \$100 by the end of the month. Though to be realistic, the average return on capital is just 5%/year.

Let's read: Spinoza's Ethics, You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read, and why Elephants don't play chess

Descartes and Spinoza are two 17th century philosophers. Descartes's philosophy is the one that's shaped how people think the world works, but are they true? Today we read two papers that suggest otherwise.

You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read (1993), Daniel T. Gilbert, Romin W. Tafarodi, Patrick S. Malone. It's a paper written by psychologists, but touches on a lot of philosophy and neurosciences in it.

Let's start by the abstract:

Can people comprehend assertions without believing them? Descartes suggested that people can and should, whereas Spinoza suggested that people should but cannot.