Neurons, Consciousness, and Being Part of Larger Systems

In a profound discussion about consciousness and cognitive systems, Michael Levin presents a fascinating perspective on how we might be part of larger systems without being able to recognize it. This exploration touches on fundamental questions about consciousness, emergence, and the nature of reality itself.

Key Points

1. The Limits of Self-Knowledge

Levin begins by acknowledging the fundamental challenge: how can we know if and when we’re part of a larger cognitive system? Maybe there is a fundamental limitation that prevents us from ever being completely certain about our role in larger systems.

2. The Two Neurons Analogy

Perhaps the most compelling part of Levin’s discussion is his analogy of two neurons in a brain, each with different philosophical perspectives:

• The Materialist Neuron: Believes in pure chemistry and a mechanical universe
• The Mystical Neuron: Senses patterns, order, and meaning in its environment

(1:17:04) Imagine two neurons in the brain and one is kind of a strict materialist and one’s a little more mystical. And the one neuron says like, “you know, we just run on chemistry and the outside world is a cold mechanical universe and it doesn’t care what we do. There’s no mind outside of us.” And the other one says, “I can’t prove it, but I kind of feel like there’s an order to things. And I kind of feel like our environment is not stupid. I kind of feel like our environment wants things from us. And I kind of feel these back propagating through us that are like almost rewards and punishments. I feel like the universe is trying to tell us something”. And, and the first one says, “ah, you’re just seeing faces in clouds. It doesn’t, it doesn’t exist.” And of course in my example, the second one is correct because they are in fact part of a larger system. They’re part of a brain that is learning things. And it’s very hard for any one node in that system to recognize that.

The irony in this analogy is that the “mystical” neuron is actually correct - they are indeed part of a larger learning system (the brain), even though they can’t directly prove it.

3. Synchronicity as Evidence

Levin proposes that our experience of synchronicity might be evidence of our participation in larger cognitive systems. He suggests that meaningful coincidences that can’t be explained through direct physical causation might be indicators of higher-order processing:

(1:18:02) And it’s very hard for any one node in that system to recognize that, or even a sub node, you know, sub network. But I wonder if we could have a degree of intelligence ourselves, if we could gain evidence that we were part of a larger system that was actually processing information. And I don’t know exactly what that would look like, but my hunch is that it would look like what we call synchronicity. I think that what it would look like are events that don’t have a causal connection at our lower level, mechanistically, like by physics, there’s no reason why that should be, but at a larger scale in terms of meaning and greater meanings of things that they do have some kind of interpretation. And I think that’s what it would look like to be part of a larger system. I think it would look and feel like synchronicity.

Philosophical Reflection

Levin’s perspective challenges us to consider a profound possibility: what if our intuitions about meaning and pattern in the universe aren’t just psychological projections, but genuine insights into our role within larger cognitive systems? This view offers a middle ground between pure materialism and mysticism, suggesting that what we often dismiss as “seeing faces in clouds” might sometimes be valid recognition of higher-order patterns we’re participating in.

Conclusion

I love to bridge materialism and mysticism. I think that we are part of larger systems, but we don’t always know it. An we don’t have the cognitive capabilities to oversee it entirely. I think that the beauty of Levin’s perspective lies in its humility - acknowledging both the limitations of our knowledge and the possibility of discovering new ways to understand our role in larger systems.