quantum consciousness

[bascule]

I dont understand the reasoning right at the beginning. Human thought processes are non-algorithm (which I agree with)

 

I think you would find that the majority of the world's neurophysiologists and cognitive scientists would disagree with that statement. The prevailing view is that consciousness is a completely deterministic algorithm.

[ashennell]

The prevailing view is that consciousness is a completely deterministic algorithm.

 

I think the use of the word algorithm has different meanings here.

 

From wikipedia:

In mathematics and computer science an algorithm (the word is derived from the name of the Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi) is a finite set of well-defined instructions for accomplishing some task which, given an initial state, will terminate in a corresponding recognizable end-state (contrast with heuristic).

 

also from wikipedia:

Two fundamental goals in computer science are finding algorithms with provably good run times and with provably good or optimal solution quality. A heuristic is an algorithm that gives up one or both of these goals; for example, it usually finds pretty good solutions, but there is no proof the solutions could not get arbitrarily bad; or it usually runs reasonably quickly, but there is no argument that this will always be the case.

 

In this sense I would stay that most neurophysiologists and cognitive scientists would agree that the brain is heuristic and not algorithmic.

[ashennell]

Bascule - Sorry, I think my last post was a little terse.

 

Just to clarify, I agree that processes in the brain, as everywhere else, are determinsitic. I don't think that a quantum explanation is necessary as I have already argued. I simply used the term non-algorithmic to imply heuristic. Heuristics are derterministic too. But they are not algorithmic in the sense that they don't necessarily produce the correct answer or the optimal solution. So I would define an algorithm as a set of rules or produces that can be followed to reach a correct solution.

 

I assumed that the original use of non-agorithmic in this tread implied the same thing. It does seem that they actually meant non-determinsitc.

[DV8 2XL]

Well that's the big question isn't it? If we knew we were living in a deterministic universe the issue would be moot.

 

I don't hold with any of the ideas that I listed in that article - none of them are mature enough to warrant an opinion at this time. But it is going to come down to a quantum explanation for thought or buying into ether the Many-minds hypothesis or the Many-worlds one, to reconcile a nondeterministic universe; that's the crux of the argument for.

[bascule]

Well that's the big question isn't it? If we knew we were living in a deterministic universe the issue would be moot.

 

Neurophysiology also renders the issue moot.

 

I don't hold with any of the ideas that I listed in that article - none of them are mature enough to warrant an opinion at this time. But it is going to come down to a quantum explanation for thought or buying into ether the Many-minds hypothesis or the Many-worlds one, to reconcile a nondeterministic universe; that's the crux of the argument for.

 

The behavior of the brain can be mathematically modeled (in a completely deterministic manner) well above the quantum level. Otherwise the Blue Brain Project would be methodologically unsound.

 

Your statement is a false dilemma. Even if the universe is somehow fundamentally non-deterministic that doesn't mean the operation of the brain need be.

[DV8 2XL]

Please don't think of me as a supporter of these ideas, only a reporter.

 

Until a reasonable definition of thought or consciousness is established and some idea of whether this is a deterministic universe or not, this is a field without foundation.

 

Also Blue Brain has yet to prove the soundness of its methodology.

[bascule]

Until a reasonable definition of thought or consciousness is established and some idea of whether this is a deterministic universe or not, this is a field without foundation.

 

It's certainly not a "field without foundation;" consciousness has been the subject of extensive multidisciplinary research by neurophysiologists, by cognitive scientists, by artificial intelligence researchers, by behaviorial psychologists, and by phenomenological philosophers.

 

To simply cast aside their work shows a fundamental lack of understanding in the field, which is probably why you fell so easily for pseudoscience like "quantum consciousness" (although someone apparently likes you enough to have filed this one under "Speculations" instead of "Pseudoscience")

 

Also Blue Brain has yet to prove the soundness of its methodology.

 

Hardly. We've been reducing biological neural networks to mathematical models of their operation for years. See Genobyte and this New Scientist article on building an artifical hippocampus from a mathematical model of its operation.

 

Consciousness runs on a neural network. We can model the operation of neural networks. Therefore we can model consciousness.

[ashennell]

Hardly. We've been reducing biological neural networks to mathematical models of their operation for years. See Genobyte and this New Scientist article on building an artifical hippocampus from a mathematical model of its operation.

 

I think you are probably overestimating what we have actually achieved, there has been progress for sure but there are a huge number holes. We don't have any basic definition of the 'neural code' and mathematical models of neurons tend to match behaviour without really providing us with underlying understanding of what they are actually doing. There are a lot of books and news reports out there that are basically propaganda - they make it seem like we have just about cracked the whole brain. Maybe in a few years or decades we will but there is nothing in science to suggest that this is already happening right now. I've heard the quote 'Neuroscience is like physics before Newton' - I'm not sure who originally said it but it is definately still true.

 

I would also agree with DV8 2XL that the Blue Brain project has yet to prove itself, the same can be said for the HPC chip.

 

Consciousness runs on a neural network. We can model the operation of neural networks. Therefore we can model consciousness.

 

You don't really believe that it is this simple do you?

 

There are a huge number of different types of neural network, biological, biologically inspired and otherwise. Are they all conscious systems? If not then why do particular neural networks produce consciouness and not others?

[DV8 2XL]

bascule, your just spoiling for a fight, and I'm not going to give it to you.

 

I have not been sucked in to quantum consciousness theory; part of what I was driving at in pointing to my Wikipedia entry is that the field is far too wide open to speculation at the moment. The question of quantum phenomena having a hand in consciousness is however, a valid one, that does not imply that it has been established that it does,

 

Assertions that it has been established that consciousness can be modeled, or in fact that it has been properly defined, to everyone's satisfaction is what demonstrates "a fundamental lack of understanding" or at least a very narrow view of the subject.

[bascule]

I think you are probably overestimating what we have actually achieved, there has been progress for sure but there are a huge number holes.

 

Obviously. We've only decoded the low-level operation and the operation of one higher level structure: the hippocampus.

 

We don't have any basic definition of the 'neural code'

 

You are aware that Hodgkin and Huxley decoded the nerve impulse, right?

 

As for the phenomenological exchange format of the human brain, we haven't decoded that yet, obviously, but research by Crick and Koch seems to have illuminated the basic structure of its format.

 

and mathematical models of neurons tend to match behaviour without really providing us with underlying understanding of what they are actually doing.

 

From a high-level perspective, no. Your point being?

 

There are a lot of books and news reports out there that are basically propaganda - they make it seem like we have just about cracked the whole brain.

 

Obviously not.

 

There are a huge number of different types of neural network, biological, biologically inspired and otherwise.

 

Yes, we are specifically talking about modelling the behavior of human neural networks...

 

Are they all conscious systems?

 

Obviously not.

 

If not then why do particular neural networks produce consciouness and not others?

 

Differences in the higher level structure. Consciousness is afforded by the higher level structure of the human brain. The low-level structure is essentially meaningless in the scheme of things; its basic design is shared by most animals on earth. Does that mean neurons are doing anything magical in humans which they aren't in other species? Does that mean that all species with neurons possess consciousness?

 

I don't think either of you two are affording enough respect to our present level of knowledge... and your analysis thereof is rather short sighted...

[ashennell]

You are aware that Hodgkin and Huxley decoded the nerve impulse, right?

 

I'm sorry Bascule but this just shows the limits of your understanding in this area. The Hodgkin-Huxley equation models the membrane potential given the concentrations of different ion channel species within the membrane. This allows us to stimulate action potentials and model their propagation along axons etc. Does this mean we understand the information processing performed by neurons - no. This is still a hugely active area of research - the trend at the moment is looking at networks as non-linear dynamic systems, as systems that exhibit stability in a number of different attractor states. There are a huge number of different analyses of spike train encoding that use statistical or information-theoretic approaches. Why? Becuse we don't know how these spike trains encode stimuli.

 

Quote:

and mathematical models of neurons tend to match behaviour without really providing us with underlying understanding of what they are actually doing.

 

From a high-level perspective, no. Your point being?

 

Copying and undertsnding are two different things.

 

Yes, we are specifically talking about modelling the behavior of human neural networks...

 

What exactly defines a human neural network, what makes it special. Ahh your answer..

 

Differences in the higher level structure. Consciousness is afforded by the higher level structure of the human brain. The low-level structure is essentially meaningless in the scheme of things; its basic design is shared by most animals on earth.

 

What are low-level and high level-structure? Could you be any more more general and unspecific. There are in fact huge similaries between all mammalian brains at most levels of analysis. The gross structures are the same and changes across species are subtle and progressive. You will notice that your HPC chip was designed from recording rodent HPC slices and is going to be hopefully used in humans.

 

the fact is that no one knows what produces or determines consciousness. How far can you abstract and simplify the 'conscious' neural network before you lose consciousness? If people really knew whats is going on then they could answer these kind of questions.

 

I don't think either of you two are affording enough respect to our present level of knowledge... and your analysis thereof is rather short sighted...

 

It is quite clear from your posts that you don't know what our present level of knowledge is. You seem to have a romanticised version in your head - if you worked on modelling parts of the nervous system every day I think you would maybe realise just how little we know for sure.

[bascule]

What are low-level and high level-structure?

 

Cellular structure versus the human brain taken as a whole...

 

the fact is that no one knows what produces or determines consciousness. How far can you abstract and simplify the 'conscious' neural network before you lose consciousness? If people really knew whats is going on then they could answer these kind of questions.

 

Are you saying consciousness could possibly result from anything besides the collective operation of the neurons of which the human brain consists? If not, then you have no argument with me...

[ashennell]

Are you saying consciousness could possibly result from anything besides the collective operation of the neurons of which the human brain consists?

 

NO, I think that is pretty clear. Of course, consciousness could result because of the use of neurons or because of the computations performed by them or both. I would guess that it is dependant on the particular processes rather than the wy they are implemented.

 

I'm not quite sure how everything else we have been discussing boils down into this one point, - but never mind I'm happy to end it here.

[Daecon]

Maybe conciousness is another form of the energy that powers "life", the reason that long chains of chemicals can self-replicate... or something.

 

What about telepathy and precognition, etc. I guess in an infinte variety of things, anything can happen so co-incidence is all down to probability...

 

Speakign of which - have there ever been any studies into "can thought influence probability" or some such?

 

Get 20 people in a room and ask them all to concentrate on what side a rolled dice will land on (ie: a six). Record the number of times it happens. Does the numer 6 come up with an average of 1/6 times, or more than that...?

[DV8 2XL]

Victor J. Stenger, writing in The Humanist, May/Jume 1992 harshly dismissed the Quantum Mind saying:

 

"The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, non-superluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world."

[ashennell]

Maybe conciousness is another form of the energy that powers "life", the reason that long chains of chemicals can self-replicate... or something.

 

This would seem to require that consciousness came before life (amongst other revelations).

 

What about telepathy and precognition, etc. I guess in an infinte variety of things, anything can happen so co-incidence is all down to probability...

 

Yes, I think that telepathy and precognition are all down to co-incidence and the brains ability to obtain more information from the environment than we are consciously aware of.

 

Speakign of which - have there ever been any studies into "can thought influence probability" or some such?

 

Yes, this is quite a common parapsychological approach. They use electronic random number generators and ask a subject to try and wish the numbers to be either higher or lower or something. I think a number of these studies have been published in parapsychology journals that show that biasing of random number generation does occur in this situation.

 

However, I am of course very skeptical about this kind of research and I recently had the opportunity to read one of these papers. It was pretty terrible - there was insufficient detail to allow the experiment to be repeated, parts sounded confused and jumbled. Basically, I was suprised that this kind of junk could be published at all.

[gib65]

Yes' date=' this is quite a common parapsychological approach. They use electronic random number generators and ask a subject to try and wish the numbers to be either higher or lower or something. I think a number of these studies have been published in parapsychology journals that show that biasing of random number generation does occur in this situation.

 

However, I am of course very skeptical about this kind of research and I recently had the opportunity to read one of these papers. It was pretty terrible - there was insufficient detail to allow the experiment to be repeated, parts sounded confused and jumbled. Basically, I was suprised that this kind of junk could be published at all.[/quote']

 

Not only that, but there have been studies purporting that subjects could retroactively influence the numbers - that is, unbeknownst to the subjects, the random numbers that appear before them are actual pre-recorded (but still genuinely random), and they are still able to influence the numbers in the direction of a chosen bias.

 

I'm on board the skepticism boat with you Ashennell.

[bascule]

I've been extremely curious about this though, as far as consciousness influencing random number generators goes:

 

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

[DV8 2XL]

This was posted to me by an anon. via the Wikipedia article on Quantum mind. I post it here for your entertainment..

 

"...however, given that the brain, as a material thing, (it) is just a collection of quantum fields. If mind is connected to matter, as would seem altogether plausible, and matter is quantum in nature, then it follows as a ready consequence that mental processes are quantum processes. Thus, e.g., Abdus Salam: all chemical binding is electromagnetic in origin, and so are all phenomena of nerve impulses. If perceptual fields, e.g., are phenomena of nerve impulses, then it would seem to follow that perceptual fields are electromagnetic in origin. Needless to add, perhaps, our most advanced physical theory, quantum electrodynamics (QED) just is the quantum theory of electromagnetic interactions -- like those which govern modern chemistry."

 

...sophistry, of course, but well written.

[bascule]

...however, given that the brain, as a material thing, (it) is just a collection of quantum fields. If mind is connected to matter, as would seem altogether plausible, and matter is quantum in nature, then it follows as a ready consequence that mental processes are quantum processes.

 

The behavior of anything can reduced to quantum processes... the behavior of a computer, for example. Does that mean we need to know quantum mechanics to understand the behavior of a computer program? Of course not. The same goes for the brain: the operation of neural networks can be explained without the need for quantum mechanics.

[DV8 2XL]

You will note that I tagged it 'sophistry'.

 

The writer is a more rabid supporter of quantum mechanical mind theory than you are of of classical mechanical mind theory. This actually is one of the more lucid samples of his diatribes, that he occasionally favours me with. He takes considerable exception to the fact that I have mentioned other models than his favourite, and that I had the temerity to devoted a section of the article to criticisms.

[bascule]

A desire for a metaphysical maifestation of consciousness only reflects an inability to comprehend how consciousness actually operates in this materialist world of ours. It's like opening up a radio and expecting to find a little man inside because you cannot fathom how a speaker and the associated electronics function.

[gib65]

A desire for a metaphysical maifestation of consciousness only reflects an inability to comprehend how consciousness actually operates in this materialist world of ours. It's like opening up a radio and expecting to find a little man inside because you cannot fathom how a speaker and the associated electronics function.

 

I couldn't disagree with you more. Why couldn't a metaphysicist have a full understanding of the mechanics of the brain and still feel there is something missing? I'll agree with any materialist insofar as the brain being physically deterministic, and that this explains behavior, but that's as far as I'll go. I don't subscribe to the reduction of phenomenological experiences to neurons, chemicals, and electric impulses. I will agree that they are perfectly correlated though, but that's it.

[Daecon]

Ooh... maybe conciousness permeates the Universe and the genetically derived synaptic pattern construction of our brains just "tunes in" to this omnipresent conciousness in a slightly different frequency for each person, based on their DNA sequence and the way it influences brain structure....

 

Like the difference between a TV and a radio.

[DV8 2XL]

gib65, when you say; "I'll agree with any materialist insofar as the brain being physically deterministic, and that this explains behavior..."

 

On what do you base that assertation?

 

The current crop of quantum mind theories are very speculative at the moment and none should be taken seriously, but it is a proper line of inquiry given that there is no macro-scale model that is any better at explaining the phenomena we call thought.