quantum consciousness

[gib65]

gib65' date=' 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?

[/quote']

 

Perhaps I should rephrase this. I'll say "I don't see anything inherently wrong with the brain being physically deterministic..."

 

I assume that the brain is a network of neurons that communicate with electric and chemical signals. Therefore, all the activity that goes on in the brain can be expressed in terms of the laws of electricity, chemistry, and neurobiology. There is no reason to suppose that within this froth there are any violations of these laws. But if you want proof that the brain is deterministic, I have none (and no one else does either).

 

PS - See, I do understand the materialist's position.

[bascule]

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?

 

Such as?

 

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.

 

How does phenomenology correlate but is yet not reducible to the anatomical structure of the brain?

[bascule]

...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.

 

I think the high level and low level operation is immaculately understood. What's missing is where the meet in the middle (i.e. understanding of the specific operation of the human brain).

 

Of course, that problem is being solved as well, by projects like Blue Brain and CCortex. Check out the CorticalDB:

 

http://ad.com/corticaldb.asp?id=2

 

Artificial Development’s Cortical DB is the most accurate and comprehensive database of CNS (central nervous system) structural and functional data built to date. The Cortical DB represents the human brain at multiple, overlapping levels of detail - from the molecular to the high-level structural. The crux of the Cortical DB is an array of billions of neurons with trillions of connections, representing the morphology, connectivity, chemistry and functionality of all known neuron types in the human brain.

 

The Cortical DB draws upon data synthesized from the vast body of neuroscience literature, with special emphasis on neuroanatomy, comparative neurology, neurochemistry, and physiology. At the molecular level, the database models individual synapses, neurotransmitters and genetic markers. The neuron level includes individual neuron morphologies, dendrite and axon branching patterns, neuron-pair connectivity patterns and firing patterns. The circuitry level computes connection probabilities between neuron populations, long-distance axonal projection patterns, and emergent patterns such as cortical columns and topographical maps. And the structural level contains all known human brain structures, with special emphasis on the cortex, hippocampus, thalamus and basal ganglia.

 

Cortical DB applications

 

The Cortical DB has immediate and broad applications for related AD projects, and for the worldwide scientific community as a whole.

 

The Cortical DB will be integrated with data from AD’s NanoAtlas to provide the backbone to AD’s CCortex simulation. The prototypical neurons contained in the Cortical DB will allow for rapid identification of neuron types in the NanoAtlas, and matching of these identified neurons to other data that cannot be derived using standard histological techniques.

 

The Cortical DB will also provide an invaluable tool for researchers across multiple fields, from neuroscience and medicine to IT and cognitive systems. The project will allow users to perform complex and powerful online searches to obtain a variety of anatomical, physiological, genetic and functional data, and to compare their own research with this data. Additional useful features include alias name matching, species comparisons and intuitive navigation. As the largest and most comprehensive repository of neurological data available today, the Cortical DB will accelerate worldwide progress in the biological sciences.

 

Arguing that the brain isn't up to the challenge of creating consciousness is like arguing that natural selection isn't up to the challenge of creating life on earth. It's the same argument: somewhere in the process of consciousness is some little itty bitty indescribable part of irreducible complexity which surely can't be the effect of mere neurons.

 

If the above is correct, then the CCortex Project and Blue Brain project are an immense waste of money.

 

I'd like to close with a couple of quotes (re: Blue Brain)

 

"When Wilfred Rall proposed 40 years ago that it is time to build models of single neurons, the neuroscience community resisted strongly saying that it was pointless or too difficult, but a few years later it was as if this was an obvious and inevitable step: so much insight followed on how neurons compute information. We will see the same in this paradigm shift as we move from the Neuron Paradigm to the Microcircuit Paradigm"

 

"Scientists have been accummulating knowledge on the structure and function of the brain for the past 100 years. It is now time to start gathering this data together in a unified model and putting it to the test in simulations. We still need to learn a lot about the brain before we understand it's inner workings, but building this model should help organize and accelerate this quest."

 

I look forward to the day when we can finally put all this foolishness behind us and admit that consciousness is merely the summation of the combined action of millions of neocortical columns in our brain.

[bascule]

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....

 

How would this manifest itself? Something metaphysical? Patterns in seemingly random quantum fluctuations? If so, what's the consciousness on the other side made out of? Why haven't quantum physicists noticed these patterns? Why are they inconsequential to models of neural networks, or models of neurons themselves? Why haven't neurophysiologists ever noticed this before?

 

This isn't an answer, it's merely shifting the problem domain away from where it rightfully should be: the brain. Your brain is your mind is consciousness, end of story.

 

I really can't believe there are people out there who refuse to accept that we think with our brain. Honestly...

 

Cartesian dualism is a fundamentally flawed non-explanation of consciousness.

 

[ashennell]

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.

 

I agree with your opinion about quantum consciousness theories here but why do you invoke this in response to a suggestion that the brain is essentially determinisitc. Is the only contribution or addition from quantum theory a means of avoiding determinism. If so, then it is useless, just an addition source of noise in the system. We don't need anything other than deterministic processes to describe behaviour, determinsitic processes can generate psuedo random behaviour, complex enough that it is unpredictable.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by gib65

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?

 

Bascule: Such as?

 

I think gib65 is right here, we could have an artificial brain and still not be able to prove that it is conscious. I think we would feel that there was something missing even if there was not. Fine, one day we will be able to describe the brai nas a set of dynamic equations, learning rules, etc., etc. but which ones exactly make consciousness. Which intrinsic part of the processing procedure results in subjective experience. I dont' think we will need to add something to create consciousness but I don't think we will be able to prove that it is conscious either.

 

 

I think the high level and low level operation is immaculately understood. What's missing is where the meet in the middle (i.e. understanding of the specific operation of the human brain).

 

This is just not true. There is still plenty of things that we still don't understand at every level. We have little idea of how the brain deals with motivation or motivated behaviour for example.

 

Of course, that problem is being solved as well, by projects like Blue Brain and CCortex. Check out the CorticalDB:

 

The quote you provide describing CorticalBD is a perfect example of our lack of understanding. If we really understand what the brain is doing why are we busy coping the intricate details of neuron types? Because we don't really know which features mean what and which are irrelevent. It is a fantastic research tool but I'd much prefer a set of principles that explain wht the cortex is doing.

 

I look forward to the day when we can finally put all this foolishness behind us and admit that consciousness is merely the summation of the combined action of millions of neocortical columns in our brain.

 

This is an association between two different phenomena and not and explanation of the relation. It is almost like denying that the problem of explaining consciouness exists at all.

[bascule]

This is just not true. There is still plenty of things that we still don't understand at every level. We have little idea of how the brain deals with motivation or motivated behaviour for example.

 

Just to throw a bone out there... the locus coeruleus? (Okay, you're probably going to have a field day with that one so forget it)

 

But in my prior statement I was describing our understanding of the high level operation of the process of consciousness (The pandemonic model, multiple drafts, etc.)

 

Dennett's formulaton of the multiple drafts model is empirical based upon deductive reasoning from the results of hundreds of different cognitive science experiments.

 

I'm curious as to why you are so quick to assert our ignorance on the topic on this thread yet you have never commented on any of the threads where I have provided my reinterpretation of multiple drafts/the pandemonic model/spotlight theory.

 

The quote you provide describing CorticalBD is a perfect example of our lack of understanding. If we really understand what the brain is doing why are we busy coping the intricate details of neuron types?

 

Multiple drafts is a theory of mind. It's full of holes: namely in descriptions of the low level structure. What are the specialists and what specifically do they do? Well they're clearly neocortical columns, and Blue Gene is out to answer the latter question.

 

I'm coming at this from a computer science perspective here so perhaps I'm confusing you with high level/low level distinctions. I'm saying we have high level abstractions of the mind's structure which we're still in the process of mapping onto the low level implementations in the brain itself.

 

Because we don't really know which features mean what and which are irrelevent. It is a fantastic research tool but I'd much prefer a set of principles that explain wht the cortex is doing.

 

That is, of course, the ultimate goal of all of this effort. When that happens the Singularity will be upon us.

 

This is an association between two different phenomena and not and explanation of the relation. It is almost like denying that the problem of explaining consciouness exists at all.

 

Precisely, as I said, it's a non-explanation, just like the little man inside of the radio.

[gib65]

Such as?

 

Well' date=' there's a simpleminded way of answering that and a complicated way.

 

The simpleminded answer: qualia, subjective experience, the way things feel, etc.

 

The complicated answer takes into consideration what you're saying right now about the simple answer - that of course qualia, subjective experience, and the way things feel are explainable in terms of neurons. It also takes care of your second question:

 

How does phenomenology correlate but is yet not reducible to the anatomical structure of the brain?

 

You seem to think - and correct me if I'm wrong - that if two things are perfectly correlated, then they must be the same thing (so let's scrap one). Well, I actually agree with this, but I disagree with the direction materialists push the reduction. Now this is where I'm going to get burnt, so let me first say that I don't intend, at least not in this thread, to explain why I believe this, but I think the reduction can be made from neurons to mind.

 

I know you and all the other materialists reading this are gasping at such a blasphemous statement, so I apologize if I don't back up this statement right here and now. But if you're wondering how a metaphysicist could possibly deny the materialist's position while still holding a firm grasp of it, there you go.

 

I would like to say, however, that I am not a dualist, I don't subscribe to Cartesian splitting, and I certainly don't think free-will is something that allows the mind to deviate from the operations of the brain in such a way that your overall behavior has to decide who to obey: you're brain or your mind. I'm on board with all the determinists out there, and our friends working on the Cortical DB.

 

I am developing a website about all my philosophies and beliefs on the subject matter. If you can wait a year or so, I'll remember to give you a link. If you want to discuss these beliefs in private, drop me a message (I love debating stuff like this).

[DV8 2XL]

I agree with your opinion about quantum consciousness theories here but why do you invoke this in response to a suggestion that the brain is essentially deterministic. Is the only contribution or addition from quantum theory a means of avoiding determinism. If so, then it is useless, just an addition source of noise in the system. We don't need anything other than deterministic processes to describe behaviour, deterministic processes can generate pseudo random behaviour, complex enough that it is unpredictable.

 

As I said up-thread, if you invoke Determinism, the point becomes moot.

 

McCulloch and Pitts proved an important theorem: that a network of binary neurons is fully equivalent to a universal Turing machine, i.e., that any finite logical proposition can be realized by such a network, i.e., that every computer program can be implemented as a network of binary neurons.

However, when you try to use it locally (in some mechanistic, wet computer, sort of way) to explain thought, The Limitive Theorems (Godel, Church-Turing, etc) come into play. And this is an issue that can't be blown off. Although some feel that this in fact disproves Incompleteness, I'm not ready to throw that out just yet.

 

But if we use a Boltzmann machine type (or any other gradient-descent algorithm) model, like you suggest, based on thermal randomness and stochastic annealing the shear number of events that would be required to manifest something as complex the mind gives rise to some computational thermodynamic issues that again cannot be ignored.

 

Computational models of neural activity now abound. The number of mathematical theories on how neurons work almost exceeds the possibility of testing them. And in the end a bridge is still missing between the physical, processes and the macroscopic mind processes of reasoning, thinking, knowing, etc., in general, the whole world of symbols.

 

Does this mean that they are all wrong and that we must look to quantum effects (at quantum scales) for an explanation? No, it has it own problems, issues of scale and temperature that won't go away.

 

This is what I have been driving at: it is premature to dismiss any plausible research in this matter as pseudoscience at this time.

[bascule]

Computational models of neural activity now abound. The number of mathematical theories on how neurons work almost exceeds the possibility of testing them. [/size]And in the end a bridge is still missing between the physical, processes and the macroscopic mind processes of reasoning, thinking, knowing, etc., in general, the whole world of symbols.

 

I think the immensely important point that you're missing here is that once this bridge is built it's the end of the world as we know it: we'll have just compounded the evolvability of the system of life in the most profound way since the arrival of humans. Designer consciousness (as opposed to consciousness evolved through natural selection, trapped in the confines of a human skull) will be upon us, scalable to any problem domain no matter how vast.

 

Aah, Singularity.

 

This is what I have been driving at: it is premature to dismiss any plausible research in this matter as pseudoscience at this time.

 

I'm not opposed to research. But quantum consciousness:

 

1. Has no evidence

2. Offers no explanations as to how it would affect the system as a whole

 

Occam's razor would say that it merely adds needless complexity to a sensible deterministic model.

 

What you're suggesting is bordering upon an argument from incredulity...

[ashennell]

McCulloch and Pitts proved an important theorem: that a network of binary neurons is fully equivalent to a universal Turing machine, i.e., that any finite logical proposition can be realized by such a network, i.e., that every computer program can be implemented as a network of binary neurons.

 

I think this seemed important at it's time but not anymore. Trying to understand the brain as turing equivalent is pretty pointless.

 

But if we use a Boltzmann machine type (or any other gradient-descent algorithm) model, like you suggest, based on thermal randomness and stochastic annealing the shear number of events that would be required to manifest something as complex the mind gives rise to some computational thermodynamic issues that again cannot be ignored.

 

I think the most promising approaches that we have for representational learning stem from empirical bayes, infomax, predictive coding and the like, all of which come under the umbrella of expectation maximisation algorithms. There has been some fantastic papers recently concerning the implementation of these methods in reasonably biologically plausible ways. I think Bayes will be at the centre when all is said and done.

 

Dynamical systems theory is also becoming a mainstay of computational neuroscience research. I read an interesting paper recently that suggested that recurrent networks would need to stay near the critical border between chaotic dynamics and ordered dynamics to perform computations on time series. I think this type of analysis is still in it's infancy with regard to neuroscience but I think it will have a lot more to offer.

 

Computational models of neural activity now abound. The number of mathematical theories on how neurons work almost exceeds the possibility of testing them. And in the end a bridge is still missing between the physical, processes and the macroscopic mind processes of reasoning, thinking, knowing, etc., in general, the whole world of symbols.

 

I think that most of the models can be organised into related groups. There are way too many though and analysis of neural nets has always lagged behind the creative part. Connctionism has rediscovered numerous mathematical techniques with even realising it.

 

Symbols... Well this is a different discussion but I'm not convinced that the brain is a true symbol manipulator at any level of analysis. There are some good arguements that it probably is (Fodor etc) but no proofs that it must be.

 

Does this mean that they are all wrong and that we must look to quantum effects (at quantum scales) for an explanation? No, it has it own problems, issues of scale and temperature that won't go away.

 

This is what I have been driving at: it is premature to dismiss any plausible research in this matter as pseudoscience at this time.

 

Agreed.

[DV8 2XL]

I think the immensely important point that you're missing here is that once this bridge is built it's the end of the world as we know it: we'll have just compounded the evolvability of the system of life in the most profound way since the arrival of humans. Designer consciousness (as opposed to consciousness evolved through natural selection, trapped in the confines of a human skull) will be upon us, scalable to any problem domain no matter how vast.

I don't think I was missing the point as much as making it.

 

 

I'm not opposed to research. But quantum consciousness:

 

1. Has no evidence

2. Offers no explanations as to how it would affect the system as a whole.

1. And the hard evidence of a mechanistic model would be...?

2. This differs in kind from what I wrote about the nonexistent bridge between hardware and software how?

 

Occam's razor would say that it merely adds needless complexity to a sensible deterministic model.

Please. Claiming a position in this field on the Principle of Parsimony' date=' given that you haven't got anything better than it is more 'sensible' is sheer nonsense. Some of the quantum models are less complex than some of deterministic models.

 

Anyway, Occam's razor is only supposed to be used to choose between two scientific theories which are otherwise equally predictive. The problem with the "simplest is best" equation is that Occam's razor never claims to choose the 'best' theory, but only proposes simplicity as the deciding factor in choosing between two otherwise equal theories. It's possible that, given more information, the more complex theory might turn out to be correct the majority of the time.

 

What you're suggesting is bordering upon an argument from incredulity...

Balderdash. Suggesting that given the current state of the field, that no rational line of inquiry should be dismissed, doesn't come close to a god-in-the-gaps argument.

[bascule]

I would like to say that the Global Consciousness Project claims that consciousness elicits quantum effects upon Random Event Generators that supposedly operate on quantum processes...

 

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

[Daecon]

I can't get the Magic Eye™ picture on that site to work...

[ashennell]

I would like to say that the Global Consciousness Project claims that consciousness elicits quantum effects upon Random Event Generators that supposedly operate on quantum processes...

 

Quite coincidentally, I have a meeting tomorrow with a non-scientist (arty type) who is collaberating with one of the people involved in this project. I think I'm suppost to go and tell them why it is a load of rubbish - im not really sure. Anyway, perhaps I will be able to find out a little more detail.

 

I was going to critise this research but just read the link instead it basically sums up my opinion:

 

http://www.skepticnews.com/2005/02/rednova_news_ca.html

[bascule]

http://www.skepticnews.com/2005/02/rednova_news_ca.html

 

That guy has absolutely no understanding of their methodology or what they are attempting to measure. I've seen several skeptical "critiques" of the project like this and when I read them it becomes painfully clear that they haven't even read the least bit of background into the project's methodology.

 

You see a spike in the numbers, you scan the news headlines to look for some big event. If you find something, then you can say that the spike you saw detected it. If you don't see anything, wait a bit and check again. Then when you find something, you can say that the spike you saw predicted it.

 

The Global Consciousness Project doesn't predict anything (or rather it does, but only "expected" device variances). They claim to measure gestalt awareness of particular events. Consequently changes in variance begin to occur after an event has occured and memetic buzz has started to spread regarding it.

 

From the other direction, if something big happens in the news, go back and look at your numbers. If you see a spike, bravo! If you don't, look farther back in time. Found one? It was a prediction! (Oh, and if you don't find a spike in the numbers, but instead find a trough, that's okay -- that counts, too.)

 

This interpretation is completely inconsistent with all of their data.

 

Didn't find anything at the time of the event or before the event? Don't give up yet! Try looking after the event -- it probably had some sort of psychic impact on the population of the planet for some time after the fact.

 

It's not a "psychic" impact, but here he finally manages to touch upon the only claim of the project: that large events which capture and divert the attention of large numbers of people seem to have a statistically significant impact upon the data they collect. They never claim to predict things before or even during the fact; they claim their numbers correlate to public awareness.

 

As probably the most pronounced example, take a look at this graph of variance running from 30 days before 9/11 to 30 days after.

 

 

A much more refined analysis of autocorrelation shows the relative predictability of the device variance over lags up to four hours, second by second, passing each autocorrelation window over the full 24 hour EDT day. The next figure shows the data from Sept 11 in red, compared with 60 surrounding days of August and September. The latter show a cloud of essentially random traces, nearly all of which remain within a 5% probability envelope. In stark contrast, the Sept 11 autocorrelation is consistently large over the first hour of lags, continuing at a lower but still significant level for the second hour, after which the cumulative deviation line becomes essentially flat again. Besides the obvious difference from the comparison traces, an indication of the likelihood is given by the fact that the cumulative trace penetrates a one in a million envelope -- but see below.

 

Further analysis using a more appropriate asymmetrical distribution suggests a less extreme probability of 0.0005. This is shown in the next figure. In any case, there is little question that these data show structure where there should be none.

 

If you want something bordering on a credible argument against them (this is one I've come up with on my own), it would seem that a large number of their "eggs" are in fact merely PCs running programs which harvest entropy data. Furthermore, it seems possible that some of these computers are not dedicated to the task, but rather might in fact serve as a desktop machine for a particular individual.

 

It seems possible and almost likely to me that some of the variance might merely be a result of human-induced interrupt activity as people used their computers to find out more about what was happening re: 9/11. So much atypical human behavior feeding into the entropy collection process might have a statistically significant impact on the results.

[ashennell]

So, can we just be clear here Bascule, you argue against any form of quantum theory of consciousness but support the idea that consciousness on mass can effect quantum random number generators at a distance? So there is a connection between consciousness and quantum processes outside the brain but not inside?

 

Both suggestions are highly speculative at best but for some reason you dismiss one from the start and yet support the other, the evidence for which is not widely supported inthe academic world.

 

Dick Bierman, who is involved in this GCP, is also a proponent of quantum explanations of consciousness and it would not suprise me that many of the others are too - given the effect they are investigating.

 

Perhaps you would like to update the wikipedia as the same criticisms have been levelled there:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Consciousness_Project

 

Does this mean that quantum computation research is a waste of time? What point is a computer if its bits get flipped every time you think too much?

[bascule]

So, can we just be clear here Bascule, you argue against any form of quantum theory of consciousness but support the idea that consciousness on mass can effect quantum random number generators at a distance? So there is a connection between consciousness and quantum processes outside the brain but not inside?

 

I can accept the possibility that our brains generate quantum "noise" much as a computer generates EM noise.

 

I'm not saying necessarily that there isn't a quantum component to the operation of neurons.

 

However if you accept that consciousness is a purely computational process which can be implemented on any Universal Turing Machine (which I hope you do but I'm worried you might not) then whatever "non-deterministic" effects quantum interactions could possibly introduce into the system are abstracted away in the higher level effect, or merely serve as random number generators to seed particular components of the system.

 

If you ask me these people are trying to build a bridge to one of two flawed ideas because they are unable to accept that consciousness is fundamentally deterministic:

 

1. Due to quantum effects "consciousness" (the high level process) is inherently non-deterministic, and non-determinism can be used as a basis for an argument for Absolute Metaphysical Free Will. Clearly random behavior affords no more room for free will than clockwork behavior.

 

And I have nothing against random components within consciousness. In fact I think there are several operations, such as the formulation of speech, which start out in essentially random configurations and then order is progressively applied to the randomness. But randomness from computerized entropy harvesting is no different from randomness stemming in quantum fluctuations, and thus cannot be used

 

2. Consciousness is metaphysical and our brains act as "radio transceivers" tuned into a particular frequency of metaphysical consciousness, and quantum fluctuations provide a not-yet-understood connection to the mystical realm of metaphysical consciousness, where all of our thinking really takes place. Thus replicating the brain within a computer will not elicit consciousness because what you'll end up with is a radio transciever with nothing to talk to. Thus Absolute Metaphysical Free Will is possible because consciousness is an immaterial and non-physical component of the universe whose operation defies any kind of deterministic, mathematical formulation.

 

Both suggestions are highly speculative at best but for some reason you dismiss one from the start and yet support the other, the evidence for which is not widely supported inthe academic world.

 

I do not reject "quantum consciousness" so long as the formulation does not undermine materialism and the brain as an isolated entity implementing consciousness in and of itself (i.e. saying that the brain talks to a metaphysical realm of pure consciousness) or the ability to implement consciousness on top of any universal turing machine.

 

Dick Bierman, who is involved in this GCP, is also a proponent of quantum explanations of consciousness and it would not suprise me that many of the others are too - given the effect they are investigating.

 

I've seen some pretty ridiculous papers on that site trying to use string theory to explain a connection to a metaphysical realm of consciousness.

 

Perhaps you would like to update the wikipedia as the same criticisms have been levelled there:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_Consciousness_Project

 

I'll take a look.

 

Does this mean that quantum computation research is a waste of time?

 

Absolutely not.

[DV8 2XL]

However if you accept that consciousness is a purely computational process which can be implemented on any Universal Turing Machine (which I hope you do but I'm worried you might not) then whatever "non-deterministic" effects quantum interactions could possibly introduce into the system are abstracted away in the higher level effect' date=' or merely serve as random number generators to seed particular components of the system.

 

If you ask me these people are trying to build a bridge to one of two flawed ideas because they are unable to accept that consciousness is fundamentally deterministic [/quote']

 

How do you deal with the Limitive Theorems? At some point in any deterministic model of consciousness they have to be addressed.

[bascule]

How do you deal with the Limitive Theorems? At some point in any deterministic model of consciousness they have to be addressed.

 

I suggest you read Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea for his refutations of Godel's and Penrose's assertions of the speciality of "mindstuff." This book comprises many of the underlying ideas he expounds upon in Consciousness Explained when he details his empirical theory of the mind.

 

If you wish I can try to parrot his arguments but I'm afraid this is treading on far too aloof of philosophical waters for me to feel comfortable venturing out on.

[DV8 2XL]

The issues brought up by Dennett are far from resolved, and there is a continuing stream of arguments and counter-arguments attached to his work. Most of which suggests that Dennett's argument misses the point of the inquiry by merely re-defining consciousness as an external property and ignoring the subjective aspect completely

 

Unfortunately though, if you assert that the mind can be modeled as a Universal Turing Machine, you must deal with the baggage that it entails. I should think that refuting Godel would have to be a more rigours process than an empirical theory of the mind would be able to deliver.

[ashennell]

Unfortunately though, if you assert that the mind can be modeled as a Universal Turing Machine, you must deal with the baggage that it entails. I should think that refuting Godel would have to be a more rigours process than an empirical theory of the mind would be able to deliver.

 

I think you are mistaken here. If the brain is deterministic then is can be simulated on a turing machine but this doesn't mean that it is equivalent to a turing machine. Undecideability is not an issue here.

[Royston]

Just my two cents, but I've always considered consciousness as one of the last pieces of the jigsaw to fit in a model of our universe. To argue that consciousness is deterministic or indeterministic within a model that so far is both of these, seems a bit pointless...well not pointless, but a never ending debate.

 

If it wasn't for consciousness we would obviously have no clue as to these factors of our physical world anyway...so I believe there is something intrinsic to this model that involves consciousness, what I mean is that consciousness itself could be the discrepancy between these two (wouldn't have the foggiest how this would be...but just an idea.)

 

However to work out a model around the very thing that brought about these factors (nothing yet is conclusive otherwise everything would be certain) seems in my mind as jumping ahead too much. It's going back to the old saying 'we can't work out the equation, if we're part of that equation.' which maybe true, but if we're still not sure if the model that we're part of is deterministic or indeterministic how can we possibly work out if consciousness is, when it's consciousness that not only developed these ideas through observing but is actually part of that model, and arguably the pinnacle of that model.

 

There's no need to reiterate what consciousness is but surely it's better to formulate a model that explains the evolution into conscious thought, rather than doing it the other way around. Sorry for a slightly garbled post...just getting my thoughts down quickly, feel free to pick holes in it.

[DV8 2XL]

I think you are mistaken here. If the brain is deterministic then is can be simulated on a turing machine but this doesn't mean that it is equivalent to a turing machine. Undecideability is not an issue here.

 

I'm not so sure you can assert that something simulated on a Turing machine is not equivalent to a Turing machine. It would seem to me that the Church-Turing Thesis would suggest that this is exactly the case.

[yammers]

Let's take a more basic approach.

 

Consciousness - 1. aware; knowing: conscious of a sharp pain. 2. capable of thought...

 

It seems to me that awareness is nothing more than sensory feedback. Would one be aware if there was no light, sound, smells or touch?

 

The first answer would probably be yes, because we are capable of thought, but thought itself seems to be built on experiences of our senses.

 

With that said, is consciousness simply continuos response to stimulus; for example, the post that will follow this one. Simply a reaction to a stimuli. We all like to think that we are making the choices, and perhaps we are; but what caused the choice you chose?

 

Funny that this thread is in the Speculations Forum.

[yammers]

**** up! Sorry!