The problem with thoughts like these are they aren’t practical as anything but a source of speculative entertainment. If this theory was factual then knowing that doesn’t change how I perceive the world. Knowing this theory also doesn’t bring me any new definite insights in the study of life that I could sue to launch off more research into. This is an interesting thing to think about but it’s not too useful
I’d push back on that, we could use this to invent a new cognitive architecture approach to AGI (route perception directly to memory state and use that as the world model) and see if it improves RL performance. In fact I think the world models paper did this. You could conceivably have a generative / predictive world model, instead of a perceptual / remembered one. I think Karl Friston is more in the former, predictive camp, which implies your consciousness isn’t a memory, but rather a prediction (Metaverse in your head, so to speak) so it’ll be interesting to see how AGI eventually pops up, will they consciously experience their perceptions, or their predictions? Perhaps perception and prediction are two sides of the same coin and we just need to figure out what material the coin is made of.
Also for neuro, maybe it means Alzheimer’s would show up on perception tests before it shows up on memory tests, if memory is implemented by perception. And since we mostly look at “memory centers” of the brain in that disease, perhaps we could find issues in perceptual areas, too. Maybe we look at the hippocampus when we ought to look at V1, olfactory region, sensory gyrus, etc — if Alzheimer’s follows the clogged sink metaphor, then the clog could be in a different brain region entirely.
Personally I don’t like to think about it that way because that implies consciousness has “lag!” However, we’d have to evolve perception before we could evolve to remember that which is perceived.
One big problem with this article is the fact our vision etc has a lot of holes. If we consciously experience a mere memory, then there’s a whole lot of in-painting going on in the perceptual system to fill those holes, which makes it quasi-generative, and thus less of a memory and more of a prediction of stuff we didn’t actually see. Which means memory and prediction and perception are all the same. That’s a can of worms because it means when we experience a moment, we’re actually predicting the past…
There's definitely something to this POV, tbh. As the saying goes: Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water.
Actually, I think for me it's quite useful. Many people here shared their experience being in the zone when doing sports, gaming, etc.
So my interpretation is that I want to train my unconscious mind so that it makes good decisions. I want to understand and uncover some of my unconscious decisions and how the reactions come to me, and work on modelling those through repetition, exposing myself to sources of knowledge and experiences I think are worthwhile and people worth sharing life with.
If these actions won't help build the unconscious decision maker in me into something I like, then nothing will. But my theory is that exposing oneself to stimuli and training the mind actually forms those unconscious connections that affect people's actions later.
The only problem is that apparently my unconscious brain told me to do that, so am I actually doing anything that makes sense?
