Examples of Multiple (Unshared) Consciousnesses in Persons 

So to begin we would like to direct your thoughts to a few interesting studies and theories that will help preface our project, the first are studies done by Dr. Michael Gazzaniga. In these tests the subjects were people that had hemispherectomies (for various reasons) where all communication between the two hemispheres were separated physically.

 This meant scientists could distinctly communicate with two different sides of the brain (effectively two consciousnesses) without the other one knowing (thru each ear).  A test subject sitting at a table with polygons and shapes cut out into the tables was asked in the right ear (while they shielded the left side from knowing)  to place a block into a square that had been cut out from the table. Then they shielded the right ear, and asked why the person had put the block into the square hole. The test subject manufactured an elaborate lie or extrapolation about believing it was a different test.  He had no recollection of being told to place the block in the hole.

He had experienced himself doing it and had to concoct an internal narrative dialogue to claim sovereignty over his body.  So here's a case where both sides of the brain had a completely different narrative story about what just happened.  He thought the test was to see if he could properly choose the correct hole while the previous side had its own [truthful] narrative of being told to put the block there.

(A further experiment to see what would happen when one side was told to put the square block into a triangular hole on the table. The subject self-justified that he wanted to see if someone could mistakenly put the wrong block in the wrong hole and still have it fit.)

In Dr. Gazzanigahas own words: 

  "What was interesting was that the left hemisphere did not say, “I don’t know,” which was the correct answer. It made up a post hoc answer that fit the situation. It confabulated, taking cues from what it knew and putting them together in an answer that made sense.  We called this left-hemisphere process the interpreter. It is the left hemisphere that engages in the human tendency to find order in chaos, that tries to fit everything into a story and put it into a context. It seems driven to hypothesize about the structure of the world even in the face of evidence that no pattern exists."  

 For a couple different experiments read the bottom ½ of Our Brains Constantly Confabulate Stories Which Builds A Meaningful Narrative For Our Life

As humans it's so important to us that we have some congruence in our narrative, seemingly even at the peril of truth, and these experiments suggest this function to be absolutely essential to our continued functioning as a consciousness, far more than retaining every detail.  But why then was the mind otherwise so functional and quick to repair the narration, what are the underlying processes that create the narrative and allow the consciousness to place itself within the story clearly? The answer has many layers, only a few of which we can begin to address in this paper.

In the mid-70s the scientist Julian Jaynes had a theory about a "bicameral mind" which seemed to operate in this multi-mind manner ( he however claimed that only two consciousnesses were in control)  one was the servant and the other was the master. the master later on became like the voice of God and these humans were the ones listening.  He had found enough support for example that there was a master who told the slave when it was time to eat or seek shelter )  

Douglas Miles, CTO of the LOGICMOO project, has been thinking on this for quite some time. Let’s look at one of his musings on one theory of the division of mind:

"Looking into his theory I mostly disagree with most of his conclusions, but I can see that he was potentially onto something.  For instance, what if the roles were reversed? That the slave sought shelter and food and the master took credit for the great idea (just, like the man in the brain separation experiments.)   The important part of Jaynes’idea is that both these creatures have their own consciousness."

He doesn't believe that humans are born as blank slates, but he doesn't see that as an issue in the development of modeling consciousness.

“Really, I am saying that the ‘originating consciousness’ of our ideas are not important in the scheme of who we are. Since we control our narrative (And i don't mean we merely have control of our spin-engine)   we can still put thought into who we are.

For example we literally train a new consciousness to wash its hands, to regularly floss...  We program new skills and modes of thinking when we practice these behaviours such as kindness. If each part of us will try to formulate its own reasons for our actions, this means we must train our autopilots to take us where we want to go.”

This self-creation and self-moderation is a key component to the development of consciousness, and has shaped every aspect of Douglas Miles design. We believe it is important to model the function of the mind rather than the form. 

Other division of mind theories:

  • Michael Gazzaniga, while working on the model of dual consciousness, came to the conclusion that simple dual consciousness (i.e. right-brain/left-brain model of the mind) is a gross oversimplification and the brain is organized into hundreds maybe even thousands of modular-processing systems.[20][21]
  • Carl Jung in 1935 when he stated, "The so-called unity of consciousness is an illusion... we like to think that we are one but we are not."[22]
  • Marvin Minsky's “Society of Mind” model claims that mind is built up from the interactions of simple parts called agents, which are themselves mindless.[23]
  • Thomas R. Blakeslee described the brain model which claims that brain is composed of hundreds of independent centers of thought called “modules”.[24] Also  renamed Michael Gazzaniga's interpreter module into the self module.[18]
  • The Neuro-cluster Brain Model describes the brain as a massively parallel computing machine in which a huge number of neuro-clusters process information independently from each other. The neuro cluster which most of the time has the access to actuators is called the main personality (the neuro-cluster which typically acts upon an environment using actuators). Other neuroclusters which do not have access to actuators or which have only short duration and limited access to actuators are called “autonomous neuroclusters ”.[25]
  • Michio Kaku described the brain model using the analogy of large corporation which is controlled by CEO.[26]
  • Robert E. Ornstein claimed that the mind is a squadron of simpletons.[27][28]
  • Ernest Hilgard described neo-dis-associationist theory which claims that a “hidden observer” is created in the mind while hypnosis is taking place and this “hidden observer” has his own separate consciousness.[29][30]
  • George Ivanovich Gurdjieff in 1915 taught his students that man has no single, big I; man is divided into a multiplicity of small I’s. He described the model similar to Michael Gazzaniga's using the analogy in which the man is compared to a house which has a multitude of servants and Michael Gazzaniga's interpreter module is equivalent to master of the servants.[25]

Other AI science (Specifically Hebbian)  won't work

The question is not whether one can replicate the 10 trillion synaptic strengths and yet greater number of connectivity's of the human brain in a software matrix. This would be like trying to build an airplane out of a trillion micro-widgets in the exact same configuration as found in an eagle or a sparrow. Instead, the goal here is to replicate the functionality of a specific human consciousness in software.

Insert A revised description to Douglas Genetic Bandwidth Theory   maybe explain or link to Hebbian Neural Networks..

Copywrite © 2020 LOGICMOO (Unless otherwise credited in page)