What is mind?

[bascule]

Listening to a Republican science critic I really got the feeling that the general public believes that the human inability to formulate a comprehensive scientific (i.e. material/naturalistic) theory of consciousness in some way demonstrates that consciousness must have an immaterial component. Or to put it more simply, we've tried the materialistic approach, that hasn't worked, therefore Cartesian dualism must be correct.

 

I'm something of a passionate materialist. I feel if we had a comprehensive scientific theory of consciousness, the Singularity would be upon us as it wouldn't be long before we had self-improving artificial intelligence (i.e. seed AI). Nevertheless I am convinced that consciousness is an emergent effect of material systems, and furthermore, that we can state with some confidence which parts of the brain are doing the "heavy lifting" of the conscious process, i.e. constructing from scratch (or close to it) a self-contained and continuously updated model of reality.

 

There's a third camp here... materialists who still refuse to acknowledge that mind is merely a manifestation of chemical and electromagnetic systems. The brilliant physicist Roger Penrose, author of The Road to Reality, perhaps one of the most comprehensive guides to modern physics knowledge, argues in his book Shadows of the Mind that consciousness comes about through a quantum effect, and thus our brains are not responsible for consciousness and our actual mind is non-locally connected to our body and resides elsewhere. While I cannot disprove this I do not see this explanation as being consistent with either neurological or evolutionary explanations.

 

So what do you think? What/where is your mind?

[scicop]

I'll stick with the Paul Adams and Roldolfo Llinas points of view.

[bascule]

I'll stick with the Paul Adams and Roldolfo Llinas points of view.

 

I don't know who Roldolfo Llinas is, but Paul Adams has had a number of very illuminating insights into the operation of the neocortex.

[silkworm]

I need to go buy a dictionary before I can participate in the poll.

[alt_f13]

I need to go buy a dictionary before I can participate in the poll.

Heh, perhaps so for me too...

 

I think that without the mechanisms used in the storage of short, and long term memory, the part of the brain responsible for conciousness is of no use, so I would take that into consideration.

[GutZ]

I need to go buy a dictionary before I can participate in the poll.

 

 

lol I second that.

 

I couldn't say I was a total materialist. I don't believe that the brain can be easily replicated, i.e. engineered. Then again I know anything about how the brain works in detail, but at the same time I doubt many people are completely sure how all aspects of the brain work.

 

I would have to see how it works in real-time with data input/output.

 

If I had to pick between those choices though....QE

[abskebabs]

I have to say Roger Penrose's work is very interesting, but I think his theory is in incomplete and speculative form at the moment. I think we may have to wait a few years before its validity can be truly tested. The fiercest critiques of Penrose's theory have said that quantum effects like entanglement and superposition cannot occur in the brain because of the decoherence that occurs at body temperatures. He and his proponents however have countered this by saying this, by saying classical derivations of temperatures and energies used cannot apply on the scale of vessels like microtubules.

 

Personally I am unsure, I think Penrose's as well as other quantum biological theories need further development and we need to learn more generally with the passage of time, before these theories could be accepted. They of course also need to be able to make predictions according to them as well. I have much more to learn, and I'm unsure about how well developed the fields of neurology and similiar fields are, so my gut feeling would be to go for the middle option.

[Edtharan]

I need to go buy a dictionary before I can participate in the poll.

LOL. I just used http://www.Dictionary.com

 

Although I voted for : "The mind is material but primarily involves other systems besides the thalamus/neocortex". This is not exactly my position.

 

I experimented with Artifical Neural Networks on the computer a bit a while ago. From these initial experiment, I came to the conclusion that it was not just the way the Neurons were connected, but also was the sequance tha tthe neurons fired in.

 

For a simplistic example:

There are 4 neurons A, B, C and D.

 

Neuron A is "wired" to casue B to fire but suppress the fireing of C and D.

Neuron B is "wired" to casue A to fire but suppress the fireing of C and D.

 

Neuron C is "wired" to casue D to fire but suppress the fireing of A and B.

Neuron D is "wired" to casue C to fire but suppress the fireing of A and B.

 

Now with the exact same layout for the neurons, there are 2 stable states this net work can be in:

A->B->A

or

C->D->C

 

The pattern of fireing is therefore important to the functioning of the neural network.

 

Thus, my position is that although the wireing in the thalamus/neocortex might be what leads to a "Mind" (but I am still undecided as to what other sections of the brain and body are nessesary), ther exist (semi intangeable) fireing patterns that are essential to the functioning of these areas.

[Royston]

I voted immaterial, though I wasn't really sure why this disagreed with just a quantum explanation of the mind...as much as a causal / determined explanation, but so far I hold that consciousness is a universal process as opposed to isolated to our brains.

 

However I can totally relate to consciousness as Bascule has described, and really it's an open book, and whatever science discovers then I'll have no choice but to abandon what I want consciousness to be. As for a quantum explanation...does anybody really understand or can explain this in layman, I really can't follow how the mind can be explained through any of the quantum processes I've come across...probability, indeterminism, quanta, where do any of these fit into self awareness ?

[scicop]

Anybody ever see the Ali G episode when he ask C Everett Coop (former surgeon general).. "what is the brain?"

 

The title of this posting reminded me of that.

[Forensicmad]

As Homer once said:

"What is mind? No matter.

What is matter? Never mind. Hee hee hee."

[reor]

I believe the mind is material and a result of interaction between the various parts of the brain. I see the mind as a set of perceptions. I don't know about quantum effects, but i think there is alot the brain does which we don't know about, yet.

The origins of our thinking may lie "deeper", but the mind as i see it is a material result.

 

Did you mean "mind" as a whole or did you mean "consciousness" or "self-awareness"?

[abskebabs]

. As for a quantum explanation...does anybody really understand or can explain this in layman, I really can't follow how the mind can be explained through any of the quantum processes I've come across...probability, indeterminism, quanta, where do any of these fit into self awareness ?

Jim Al Khalili makes a brief effort to explain it in his book, "Quantum a guide for the Perplexed." I own this book, and I'm feeling generous so I'll type what he has to say on the subject:

 

"There is one final interpretation of quantum mechanics that we have not yet discussed. It deserves a mention for two reasons; the first is its that its originator is one of the most respected mathemtatical physicists of his generation, Roger Penrose. The second is that it may explain the one area of science more mysterious than quantum mechanics; the origin of consciousness.

 

According to Penrose, superpositions of different quantum states do not collapse due to the act of measurement, the presence of a conscious observer, or even interaction witht eh enviroment. Instead he believes that the process takes place even for an isolated system via a physical process linked with the very nature of spacetime itself. According to Penrose the 'objective reduction', or collapse, of the wavefunction takes place due to the different spacetime geometries of each state in the superposition. (Thus if a particle is in superposition of being in two different locations, the curvature of spacetime will alter depending on where the mass of the particle is more likely to be.) Once the difference in geometries builds up to a critical level, as when the partcile becomes entangled to its enviroment, the uperposition becomes unstable and collapses into just ne of the possible states. Of course, neither Penrose nor anyone els knows the details of this mechanism since we do not yet have a complete theory of quantum gravity.

 

This interpretation has been applied by Penrose and Sturat Hameroff to explain how consciousness might get switched on within the brain. I should explain first that they appeal to quantum mechanics as they believe that the way we 'think' is fundamentally unlike the way a computer carries out algorithmic processes. This noncomputabllity of conscious thought, they maintain, must require something beyond classical physics-namely quantum physics. And they believe they have found just the right biological vessel to protect the delicate quantum coherence within the brain from the external enviroment.

 

The brain's neurons contain hollow cylindrical ploymers called microtubules. These are in turn made up of individual proteins known as tubulin, which can exist in a superposition of two slightly different shapes. Penrose and Hameroff maintain that microtubules have just the right properties for this superposition to be maintained, and spread to surrounding tubuins. A coherent superposition is thus maintained for a significant time, allowing for preconscious approaches to emerge. Objective reduction of the superposition takes place when Penrose's critical threshold is reached and consciousness is switched on. Of course this would be going on all the time in the brain. Maybe we do not need to build a quantum computer after all; we each carry one in our heads!"

 

Phew! That took a while to type I hope the publishers don't sue me:embarass: ...

[alt_f13]

Could someone please explain to me how the mind could be a quantum effect, or how this idea even came about?

[bascule]

Could someone please explain to me how the mind could be a quantum effect, or how this idea even came about?

 

This article covers Penrose's argument:

 

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/quantum.html

 

Debunked here:

 

http://www.1729.com/consciousness/godel.html

 

And here:

 

http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-17-mcdermott.html

[abskebabs]

Henry Stapp has an alternative quantum consciousness theory, that is allegedly unnaffected by the decoherence caused by the temperatures in the brain, originally cited in Max Tegmark's critiqe of Penrose's theory. Have you heard of his theory, and if so what do you make of it? Is there a connection here between Karl Pribram's holographic model of the brain?

[alt_f13]

This article covers Penrose's argument:

http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/quantum.html

Debunked here:

http://www.1729.com/consciousness/godel.html

And here:

http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-17-mcdermott.html

 

Haha. I thought you were serious about that option, sorry.

 

I probably should have guessed that knowing how I like to make polls .

 

I'm going to read those nonetheless.

[Royston]

Thanks for the response abskebabs...I do vaguely remember reading about Penrose's argument, but IIRC it was met with a lot of contention, so for the level of understanding I had in the subject, I didn't get too engrossed in the theory.

 

I guess Penrose shares my belief...hmm, still just because his particular theory isn't right, doesn't mean the idea that consciousness is a property of space-time should be dismissed altogether.

[abskebabs]

Thanks for the response abskebabs...I do vaguely remember reading about Penrose's argument' date=' but IIRC it was met with a lot of contention, so for the level of understanding I had in the subject, I didn't get too engrossed in the theory.

 

I guess Penrose shares my belief...hmm, still just because his particular theory isn't right, doesn't mean the idea that consciousness is a property of space-time should be dismissed altogether.[/quote']

I have mentioned Henry Stapp's "rival" quantum consciousness theory above; but I don't know much about it, and neither does wikipedia:eek: . It has a brief paragraph on it, here's a link if you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp

[Edtharan]

I have an idea that might beable to determin at what level the mind emergens from. It probably couldn't be performed today due to lack of computing power, but one might do a smaller version of it with todays computers.

 

In engineering ther eis the concept of a "Black Box". What this means is that you don't need to know the exact internal mechanisms of a process, as long as you can repeat the conversion from input to output.

 

Using this we could det up an experiment that attempts to reproduce the output od conciousness/mind from the top down. So we start by seeing if its the way the brain body interacts, then the way neurons interact, then intracellualr interaction etc. At one point there will be a breakdown where we can no longer get the expected outputs from the inputs. Once we map all these, we then have a map as to where we can start looking for the emergance of the Mind. An interesting conclusion cna be drawn if this breaks down at ever level is that Mind is supernatural in origin.

 

I have a simpler experiment to do:

At what point does the black box breakdown in the operation of a neuron (as someone who is interested in artificial neural networks I have pondered this many times).

 

This experiment would attempt to replicate the input to output of a real neuron with an artificial neuron in a computer. One would have to start at the lowest resolution (ie not including anything about how the cell works, etc) and add detail to the modle untill one can replicate the behaviour of the neuron.

 

This experiment would actually form part of the larger experiment as layed out above.

[Royston]

I have mentioned Henry Stapp's "rival" quantum consciousness theory above; but I don't know much about it, and neither does wikipedia:eek: . It has a brief paragraph on it, here's a link if you're interested:

 

Thanks again abskebas...Stapp's theory seems to echo slightly of the anthropic prinicple, and also seems to agree (the details are a little cloudy) with some of my thoughts I raised on the freewill debate (philosophy and religion forum.) However I'm not convinced or sure (would be more accurate), if we have any choice to gain knowledge, self awareness appears to make us question, and in turn manipulate our environment...I see our efforts as a logical progression that points forward to only one possible outcome, maybe eschaton, maybe something much grander, it's impossible to stipulate where everything is heading. The quote below sums up Stapp's idea...

 

Each increase in human knowledge is associated with a 'wave function collapse", which is an 'act of creation' that is a step along the arrow of time. This orthodox quantum structure allows 'free will' to be directly instrumental in the evolution of the universe.

[the tree]

I'm very much of the opinoin that the mind involves every part of the brain, the body and it's imediate surroundings.

A computer may still be a computer if you take away the monitor and keybord but the monitor and keybord can still be called part of the computer so why can't our hands be part of our mind?