iNow Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 Can i create a last thread on consciousness that addresses his incongruity? You are, of course, free to do what you want, but I personally struggle to see any benefit in such an act. I already have no idea what the difference is between the three in existence, and would call on the staff to actually merge them into one. This is plainly opposite to your inquiry about opening a fourth. However, that's not as relevant as the content you are preparing. My unsolicited advice to you is to focus more on the content as opposed to where it gets placed.
Sayonara Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 If an incongruity has arisen in this thread, then this thread is the best place to address it.
Graviphoton Posted May 23, 2008 Author Posted May 23, 2008 Then this was wrong then from the start---- and not necesserily from my advantage, if there was one/
john5746 Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/QBrain.htm Thought this was interesting and maybe applicable. Some wiggle room for QM in the brain, but primarily not a QM machine. I feel.....uncertain about all this.
bascule Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 Afterall, does not the configuration of atoms and molecules inside my head mean something to the state of mind, and ultimately consciosuness? Again, you're completely missing the point. The configuration of atoms and molecules inside a computer processor determine the outcome of the symbolic events occurring inside the processor, but those events play out in what's fundamentally a symbolically-driven process. Now this configuration is what allows consciousness. Electrically-fried, carbon materials. Not electrically-induced wires and hardware. Why does the substrate matter as long as the symbols are the same? There are hundreds of processors which are capable of processing the x86 instruction set, and the design of each of them is completely different, yet they are able to execute the same programs without problems. http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...efs/QBrain.htm Thought this was interesting and maybe applicable. Some wiggle room for QM in the brain' date=' but primarily not a QM machine. I feel.....uncertain about all this. [/quote'] First let me say Victor Stenger rules, and cheers to a fellow Boulderite. What he's describing there is entirely reasonable: yes there will be quantum mechanical events in the brain every now and then, however these represent violations of the brain's symbolic abstraction, and not something critical to consciousness. Rather, the sort of events he's describing would "break" consciousness momentarily, and are precisely what mother nature sought to avoid when building brains.
Graviphoton Posted May 23, 2008 Author Posted May 23, 2008 Because it is simply not enough to say on-off binary processesors can excite a self-reflecting system like a human. In fact, considering the amount of computers in the world now, with no artificial intelligence arising from them, is evidence alone that consciousness is more complex that on-off binary codes. One reason might be because of perhaps superpositining laws. No longer does consciousness not act in binary codes, but it hasa value which is between 1 and 0... A computer by definition thats works in this process, would be the long sought after quantum computers. The brain has reached a state, where its atoms and molecules are pivotal to awareness. This cannot be achieved through technological mechanics alone. And no, the operations of the mind, ''the computation'' as you put it, is very different to that of a computer. Its also universally-accepted that the human brain is more powerful as well than that of a boolean logic and processors.
mooeypoo Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 The brain has reached a state, where its atoms and molecules are pivotal to awareness. This cannot be achieved through technological mechanics alone. How do you know this? Why? where does that come from!? Your insistence to preach instead of PROVE and REFERENCE is getting quite annoying. These aren't "common knowledge", and these aren't majority-accepted scientific concepts. So you need to show references, you need to explain, you need to CONVINCE us. I personally try not to take *anyone's* word for anything, which is why I check and read references and do my own little research before accepting or denying a claim. You give me NOTHING to work with, just claims... I don't understand, exactly, what you expect any of us to do with these claims. ~moo No.. i dont think you understand friend... .. The most plausible theory, outweighs that of the least...] ... a small adaptation of spock So really, the burden of proof lies upon those who make the most speculative Now, be honest... which really is more suspect? Oh, and "Plausibility" is measured by *FACTS*. Not claims.
Graviphoton Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 There isn't any references in this case. This is my own conclusions of what i see when i look at the mind and consciousness. I think our particles have reached a unique state. It must have. It goes to reason.
iNow Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 No, that doesn't follow. "I have no references, so our particles must have reached a unique state." WTF?
iNow Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 Too bad then. Well, that was a well reasoned response. Thanks for the clarification. Now I know why you aren't being taken seriously.
Graviphoton Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 Or maybe i am just sick of the fact i am trying to speculate in... oh, that's right, speculations section.
Bignose Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 Or maybe i am just sick of the fact i am trying to speculate in... oh, that's right, speculations section. We are all free to speculate as much as you want. But, look. You came to an Internet forum based on science. If you didn't want your speculations to be poked and prodded and questioned and debated, you shouldn't have posted it on an open forum. You should have posted on a personal website, or a personal blog. But, you came to this forum, and people here aren't just going to be convinced by a bunch of pretty words or phrases like "it begs to reason" or "it's been said". We are going to probe deeper and see if the science behind the idea is sound and ask questions and point out logical errors. This forum wouldn't be able to call itself a science forum if its members didn't do these things. So, I'm not sure what exactly you were expecting, but this is a taste of how real science acts. Science is going to ask hard questions and be very unaccepting without good referencing and a solid foundation from which to build theories and ideas. I'm sorry that the reaction wasn't exactly what you wanted. I had hoped that you'd have taken the opportunity to use the "reboot" of the thread to try and evaluate some of your claims. To answer some of the most pressing questions -- like defining what exactly is consciousness. But, unfortunately you either got distracted or just didn't want to do it. And when you don't answer questions that have been asked directly at you, you are going to find it awfully hard to convince people. Refusal to answer direct questions shows where the weaknesses of the idea are. If you go to any scientific conference anywhere, after every single presentation there is time for the audience members to ask questions and the presenter is expected to answer them. Fairly often, the impact of the information the presenter presents isn't judged just by how good the presentation itself is, but how well the presenter answers the questions asked of him after the talk itself is done. Answering questions posed to you well is a reality of the scientific method. So, again, I'm sorry you didn't get the reaction you wanted. But, the forum has nothing to apologize for because the members have given you a lot of leeway, and have only done what good scientists would do. Even speculations need to have some basis in fact to root them down. And, if speculations cannot stand up to repeated questioning, then what kind of speculation do you have? If it withers under the scientific process, then you have no speculation at all -- you have a failed speculation. Speculations are great and highly encouraged, but they also have to welcome a review process. If your speculation isn't mature enough to be able to handle a review process, then you need to go back and work on it some more. Or it needs to be abandoned. It really is that simple.
Edtharan Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 Or maybe i am just sick of the fact i am trying to speculate in... oh, that's right, speculations section. Making claims without providing references for them is speculation... Because it is simply not enough to say on-off binary processesors can excite a self-reflecting system like a human. The human brain is not binary. It is an analog system. There are neurons the inhibit and neurons that excite, but they don't have to have a binary state. But, even just assuming that we can only operate with a binary state, you can get complex behaviours out of even that. We will use a really simple form of a Neuron. The Neuron will be made up of 3 parts: 1) Dendrites: These are links from this neuron to other neurons. 2) Soma: This is where the main "processing" takes place. It has a threashold level that needs to be achieved by the Dendrites before it will activate the neuron and post a signal on the Axion. 3) Axion: The neuron "posts" its activation state to this so that other neuron's Dendrites can read it. An Axion can be Inhibit or Exite the recieving Neurons (designated as a + or a - sign). To start off with we have a single neuron with 5 Dendrites, an Activation threashold is 3 and + Axion. As we don't have other neurons this neuron will be manually activated (it will be the Input Layer of the Neural Network). So, if we put a "+" activation on 3 of the dendrites and nothing on the other dendrites then this neuron will activate. If we then put a "-" on one of the remaining 2 dendrites it will not activate. That is pretty simple and could easily be replicated in code, or even as an electrical circuit. It is also distinctly not quantum in nature. Now imagine we have 6 neurons: 1) 3 Dendrites, Threashold of 1 and a "+" Axion 2) 3 Dendrites, Threashold of 2 and a "+" Axion 3) 3 Dendrites, Threashold of 1 and a "-" Axion 4) 3 Dendrites, Threashold of 1 and a "+" Axion 5) 3 Dendrites, Threashold of 1 and a "+" Axion 6) 3 Dendrites, Threashold of 2 and a "-" Axion Nerons 1, 2 and 3 are all input neurons (that is their dendrites are going to be manually activated by us). Neuron 4, 5 and 6's dendrites connect to each of the input neurons. Now, if the 3 dendrites on Neuron 1 are activated, Neuron 1 will activate. This will then trigger all 3 secondary Neurons (4 and 5 ) to activate but not 6 (the output could be read as 1, 1, 0). If we also send a signal to all 3 of neuron 2's dendrites, then it will activate (recieving 3 with a threashold of 2). This then gives enough +'s to activate neuron 6 as well. This means the input is: 1) 1,1,1 2) 1,1,1 and the output is: 1,1,1 Not all that interesting. But let's now activate Neuron 3's Dendrites. Giving us the Input of: 1) 1,1,1 2) 1,1,1 3) 1,1,1 As 3 has a negative Axion, this inhibits the activation of any neuron connected to it. This means that neurons 4, 5 and 6, even though the have two "+"'s, they also have one "-" dropping their total to one "+". So Neuron 6 won't fire and the output is: 1,1,0 again. Now for the interesing part: Instead of having Neurons 1, 2 and 3 as input neurons, we will connect them up to the Axions of 4, 5 and 6 (leaving all values as they are). This means the inputs to 1, 2 and 3 are: 1) 1, 1, 0 2) 1, 1, 0 3) 1, 1, 0 S0 Neurons 1 and 2 activate. This means that neurons 4, 5 and 6 get these inputs: 4) 1, 1, 0 5) 1, 1, 0 6) 1, 1, 0 This means that Neurons 4, 5 and 6 activate. This cycles back around into Neurons 1, 2 and 3: 1) 1, 1, -1 2) 1, 1, -1 3) 1, 1, -1 Neurons 1 and 3 now activate. So now Neurons 4, 5 and 6 get this input: 4) 1, 0, -1 5) 1, 0, -1 6) 1, 0, -1 And the whole thing grinds to a halt . This might not sound very interesting at first, but play around with this simple neural network and see the variety of activation patterns that you can get. You can get stabel patters that keep repeating forever (or until other neurons get activated). The thing is, this is only 6 neurons, you have billions of them and they are constantly recieving new inputs all the time. Not onyl do you have lots more, your neurons work slightly differently. In stead of just having an ON/OFF value, they can have any value between 1 and 0, and you also ahve many differnet types too that work slightly differently. There is also "long range" signalling in the brain where a single neuron can effect neurons not directly connected to it and can potentially effect all the neurons in the brain. You can have neurons that don't just excite or inhibit other neurons but can release chemiclas that change the way neurons behave (raise of lower the activation threashold, turn it from an Inhibitor to an Excitor, or other things). None of these require QM effects (although it might achieve them though chemical reactions that rely on QM effects), and they can be all simulated on a binary computer (you can get analog computers and Neural Networks can be simulated on them too), or if you have enough time with pen and paper. In fact, considering the amount of computers in the world now, with no artificial intelligence arising from them, is evidence alone that consciousness is more complex that on-off binary codes. It is to do with computing speed. Each simulated neuron might tak a few hundred clock cycles to compute it in a really simple Neural Network simulation. But if you were to simulate a human brain with 100 billion or so neurons, then we need to multiply 100,000,000,000 by a few hundred (say 500 - actually for us to simulate a real neuron we might be looking at many, many more clock cycles). This gives us 50,000,000,000,000, or 50 thousand billion (50 trillion) clock cycles. My computer can do 2,000,000,000 clock cycles each second. This means in 50,000 seconds (or just under 14 hours), I could simulate a fraction of a second of a human brain's operation. Not only will it take a long time to simulate, we have to get the dat in there in the first place. That means examining the 100,000,000,000 or so neurons for their connections (whicb number in the thousands for each neuron). We migth have the technology today to simulate a amphibian or reptile brain, but we are no where near the computing power to simulate a human brain. But we could just wait a few years. If (and that is a big if) Moores law holds true we should be able to simulate a Human brain is a couple of decades. If the computing speed doubles every 18 months, then in a few decades we should have the computing power in a single computer that would be able to simulate a human brain at real time speeds. One reason might be because of perhaps superpositining laws. No, it down to computing power. In factr they can simulate superpositiojn on computers now (the maths are far too complex to do by hand, they need computers to do the maths). No longer does consciousness not act in binary codes, but it hasa value which is between 1 and 0... A computer by definition thats works in this process, would be the long sought after quantum computers. I mentioned it passing earlier, but you can actually get analog computers. Also in programming there is a data type called a floating point number that deals with such values. And besides, you can simulate complex phenomina on a digital computer. Complexity is not random, does not rely on QM and is unpredictable unless you actually follow the simulation through. The brain has reached a state, where its atoms and molecules are pivotal to awareness. This cannot be achieved through technological mechanics alone. This is a claim so show your proof, or at least why you can to this conclusion. And no, the operations of the mind, ''the computation'' as you put it, is very different to that of a computer. Its also universally-accepted that the human brain is more powerful as well than that of a boolean logic and processors. Actually the more we come to udnerstand the human brain the more it looks like a lot of small analog computers networked together. In fact a neuron works pretty simply: If the inputs on it's Dendrites exceed a given threashold, then activate and send a signal to it's Axion. There are a few minor twists and turns in there (mainly in how the neuron responds to different types of signals and so forth), but nothing that we have discovered so far that couldn't actually be simulated on a computer. There isn't any references in this case. This is my own conclusions of what i see when i look at the mind and consciousness. I think our particles have reached a unique state. It must have. It goes to reason. This is Wishful thinking. Also with "It must have. It goes to reason." You are using Argument from Ignorance. You are usingthe rhetorical Question (even if you did't use the question mark) "It must have". This is: You can't think of any other reason, so your claims must be true. Just because you don't have the knowledge to come up with another explaination does not mean your explaination is true. Finally, you are also doing Reification of Mind and Consiousness. You first have to establish these are real (rather than just assuming that they are real). We know that the Brain exist (we can see it and poke it). But what is "Mind", what is "Conciousness"? Are they real entities we can talk about, or are the a shorthand for "Something" that the Brain does? Three logical fallacyies in one paragraph.
Graviphoton Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 I know the human brain is not binary. When did i ever say that? Answer me that, before i read the rest of your post... Big Nose I don't care that they are prodded at. I was referring to that fact, that i am being asked to site things i personally have speculated. You totally misunderstood what i was saying. And i have explained this before, i try to answer everyone. I can't answer everything.
Bignose Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 No, you're misunderstanding what I am saying. You are free to speculate, but expect people to ask lots of pointed questions. And furthermore, should you refuse or ignore questions, then your speculations look weaker and weaker. You don't have to answer everything immediately. Common courtesy, however, would be to acknowledge that a question has been asked and the estimate when you would be able to give that question a full answer. No one expects you to be able to answer every single question immediately. Just let people know when you will have the time to answer their questions as fully as possible. And it isn't just things you are personally speculating... you are assuming some things to be facts and givens and then basing ideas on those assumptions. But, if those assumptions are flawed -- the things you think are facts really aren't -- you can't build anything up. If you just start with something, you have to cite where that starting point is accepted by the scientific community. Or if your starting point is just speculation as well, then all it is is word salad. That is to say, lots and lots of words, but with no substance behind them. One more time, I'd invite you to answer this direct question: what is your definition of consciousness? In asking you to answer direct questions and solidify your base assumptions, we are in fact trying to help you build a strong theory that is rooted in accepted science. We aren't trying to make this personal, and I really hope that you'll understand that it has never meant to be personal even if you did/are taking it that way. We are trying to show you how to argue your points successfully based on the principles of good science. We are trying to help you make your words more substantive.
Edtharan Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 I know the human brain is not binary. When did i ever say that? Answer me that, before i read the rest of your post... Hmm may be if you actually read the rest of the post you might have seen that I was not saying that you thought the brain was binary. You seem to have jumped to a conclusion about my post without actually reading it. Nowhere in my post do I claim that you said that brains are binary. What I was saying what the even with binary processes you can get behavious that are seen in the real brain. Actually, a neuron is either fireing or not. That is a binary process and that occurs in a real living brain. So although you say that the brain is not binary, it does in fact have binary processes at the core of it's component's opperation.
Graviphoton Posted May 26, 2008 Author Posted May 26, 2008 You qouted me saying ''Because it is simply not enough to say on-off binary processesors can excite a self-reflecting system like a human.'' Then the opening line was, the brain is not binary, emphasizing the ''not''. What am i supposed to read it as Ed? Big Nose I will define consciousness, later on today.
iNow Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Maybe you can try being a little less belligerent when you do. I think everyone would appreciate that.
Graviphoton Posted May 26, 2008 Author Posted May 26, 2008 Thank you for that, added instruction. I'll take it on board, but i can't promise anything. That just wouldn't be fair.
Graviphoton Posted May 26, 2008 Author Posted May 26, 2008 No, you're misunderstanding what I am saying. You are free to speculate, but expect people to ask lots of pointed questions. And furthermore, should you refuse or ignore questions, then your speculations look weaker and weaker. You don't have to answer everything immediately. Common courtesy, however, would be to acknowledge that a question has been asked and the estimate when you would be able to give that question a full answer. No one expects you to be able to answer every single question immediately. Just let people know when you will have the time to answer their questions as fully as possible. And it isn't just things you are personally speculating... you are assuming some things to be facts and givens and then basing ideas on those assumptions. But, if those assumptions are flawed -- the things you think are facts really aren't -- you can't build anything up. If you just start with something, you have to cite where that starting point is accepted by the scientific community. Or if your starting point is just speculation as well, then all it is is word salad. That is to say, lots and lots of words, but with no substance behind them. One more time, I'd invite you to answer this direct question: what is your definition of consciousness? In asking you to answer direct questions and solidify your base assumptions, we are in fact trying to help you build a strong theory that is rooted in accepted science. We aren't trying to make this personal, and I really hope that you'll understand that it has never meant to be personal even if you did/are taking it that way. We are trying to show you how to argue your points successfully based on the principles of good science. We are trying to help you make your words more substantive. The definition of consciousness is difficult, because we don't have any no.1 experience with a) Other human beings and b) Other creatures Because of this, it makes the definition of consciousness hazey, to say the least, but we can know a few things. We're not blind to the function of our spirit, so we can make a few educated assumptions about its definition of existence. Because of order of intelligence in eco systems, that includes us, being obviously at the top of the chain, we know that the level of consciousness depends on a fundamental rule i have noted before in my studies. The rule of self-reflection. We are self-reflecting beings. But that turns out to be one thing shared by three other known animals in the animal kingdom. The Dolphin, the Elephant and the Ape family. These animals have been tested with thoroughly, to suggest they know they exist, and reflect on their existence. This actually shows they are highly intelligent beings. But the intelligence, is ofcourse, limited next to the intelligence of the homosapian. So in conclusion, if we talk about the definition of consciousness, we must see them in different light to that of a mouse. To us, consciousness may encompass the notion of spirit and self. It defines awareness, and also awareness of self, so any creature that does not have these qualities, can't have the qualities we possess, and call ''conscious.''
mooeypoo Posted May 27, 2008 Posted May 27, 2008 We are self-reflecting beings. But that turns out to be one thing shared by three other known animals in the animal kingdom. The Dolphin, the Elephant and the Ape family. I know you think I'm asking you to quote every little hiss you say, but truth is, I don't, I am asking you reference and quote things that aren't as obvious as you make them seem. Like this one. I know that dolphins are said to have high intelligence, as do apes. Elephants are first for me, but I can accept it. However, I haven't found anything online about definitive conclusions about them having the ability to "self reflect". If you mean "self awareness" (I think that's a bit different) then I found a few articles suggesting that dolphins recognize themselves and other individuals, and are exhibiting some individual-level behaviour that could suggest self awareness. As for self reflection, I am not sure what you mean by that. As far as I have ever heard it used, it is usually meant to convey "philosophy" - as in the ability to "reflect" ones own origins, past, philosophize about the origin of life, the universe and everything, and reach something that is not necessarily 42. Can dolphins, Elephants and Apes do that? I am not sure. I am also not sure how anyone can prove they can. If you know of actual researches that prove these, or prove what you did mean (in case I understood what you meant wrong), please supply them so I understand what you mean and read them to see how those researches were done. These animals have been tested with thoroughly, to suggest they know they exist, and reflect on their existence. Again, there is a very big difference between knowing you exist and "reflecting" on your existence. I never saw anything remotely suggestive of Elephants, Apes and Dolphins' ability to *reflect* on their existence. Show me the tests, please. This actually shows they are highly intelligent beings. But the intelligence, is ofcourse, limited next to the intelligence of the homosapian. Intelligence is quantitative (at least the way we seem to measure it in tests), and relfection is something completely different. Intelligence, in short, does not mean self reflection. So in conclusion, if we talk about the definition of consciousness, we must see them in different light to that of a mouse. Why? How do you know mice don't reflect on their existence? Because they don't seem to? Again, this isn't meant as offense, it's meant to make a point. Mice might have self-reflecting thoughts, and might not, I am not quite sure how we can even measure this, let alone be certain of any result. If you know of the studies, please share them. To us, consciousness may encompass the notion of spirit and self. It defines awareness, and also awareness of self, so any creature that does not have these qualities, can't have the qualities we possess, and call ''conscious.'' I disagree. I believe dogs are conscious, so are mice and ants, perhaps to different levels, but still conscious. They are aware of their surroundings, reacting to them, and are capable, at some degree, of analysis of their surroundings and some capacity for thought. But what I believe isn't as relevant as the fact that we disagree. Some psychologists and philosophers agree with my assessment. Some agree with yours. Some have their own. That's the point, Graviphoton. Consciousness is a philosophical question, yet to be completely, fully and absolutely defined. You share your opinion, great, but they're not fact, they're opinion. I will ask that you share the studies you talk about so we might be able to be convinced by your opinion. We're talking philosophy here, there are no absolute truths, usually, in philosophy, but there are logical pathways to reach philosophical conclusion. Without those studies about the animals' consciousness and self awareness (self-reflection), your opinion is based on unbased premise, and is, therefore, illogical. ~moo
Edtharan Posted May 27, 2008 Posted May 27, 2008 What am i supposed to read it as Ed? An agreement with you for one (that brains are not binary)? You state that brains are not binary, and the very next sentence (mine) agree with that, and you think I said that you said that brains were binary. You made an assumption about me without actually trying to understand what was written. If you then read the rest of my post, I then go on to show that binary systems can behave in a similar way to the brain. This kind of argument is called: Cherry Picking.
Graviphoton Posted May 27, 2008 Author Posted May 27, 2008 Yes, Elephants self-reflect, in your definition of the term, and reflect on their histories, because they can return to elephant graveyards, and even mourn. Just to clear something up though, self-reflection theory is my own terminology. Youw won't find anything on the net. Now, i must go for now. (By the way, one of the tests found that the elephant recognized when something was stuck to its head... and was amazed by it... playing with it... i can't remember what it was...) I'll look it out.
Klaynos Posted May 27, 2008 Posted May 27, 2008 Elephants can supposedly recognise their own reflection: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19225764.600-elephants-recognise-their-mirror-image.html The original paper: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0608062103v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT Of course this doesn't appear to be the same as "self reflecting"
Recommended Posts