Understanding the human brain

[Ahsan Iqbal]

If I understand correctly, you are referring to the limitation of direct surgical experimentation on a healthy human brain and subject. If so, then I agree; however, I disagree with the notion that animal brain research hasn't produced solid results. The example I gave earlier (luocotomy)was indeed a solid result--for our understanding of frontal function in human psychosis--from direct experimentation on the frontal lobe of chimps. What brain injury in humans and concurrent comparative studies of the healthy brain of other species provide is a well-defined picture of the functional nature of nearly every intricacy of the human brain. Although normal human brain study may be beyond the boundaries of some surgical experimentation, non-surgical experimentation via drug studies and comparative non-invasive technologies have and continue to produce remarkable insights on the nature of human brain function.

 

I am not saying that animal experiments have not proved fruitful. Indeed they have. We have learned a lot from them. The point I wanted to make was that there is a limit the the knowledge we can gain from animal experiments. This is based on simple explanation that animal brains are not even near to human brain in terms of physiologic development. We can get solid results from experiments on the hind brain or the mid brain. As their is not such an extensive difference in these portions of brains of humans and animals. But when it comes to the forebrain, the scenario changes completely. Human cerebrum is way more developed than other animals' and in this case, animal experiments are very unlikely to provide solid results as the material of experiment doesn't contain the ingredients for which it is tested.

[DrmDoc]

I am not saying that animal experiments have not proved fruitful. Indeed they have. We have learned a lot from them. The point I wanted to make was that there is a limit the the knowledge we can gain from animal experiments. This is based on simple explanation that animal brains are not even near to human brain in terms of physiologic development. We can get solid results from experiments on the hind brain or the mid brain. As their is not such an extensive difference in these portions of brains of humans and animals. But when it comes to the forebrain, the scenario changes completely. Human cerebrum is way more developed than other animals' and in this case, animal experiments are very unlikely to provide solid results as the material of experiment doesn't contain the ingredients for which it is tested.

Indeed there are limitation to non-human brain experimentation because they are not human; however, coupling these experiments with what we learn from human brain injury, disease, malformation,and disfunction closes most of the gaps in missing data. My position is that the knowledge we seek about the nature of human brain function is not beyond our reach when we pursue and integrate all of the available avenues of research at our disposal. Certainly, the ape frontal lobe may not "contain the ingredient" essential to humanity but that hasn't harmed our efforts to gain solid insights regarding the nature of the human frontal from ape experimentation. Such experiments demostrate few functional differences between the human brain and the brain of other spieces.

[Santalum]

Our most powerful tool is science. Yes it is a product of our collective brains but it is also a comprehensive technique of investigation that allows us to over come the partiality and bias of our individual and collective brains.

[Tres Juicy]

Our most powerful tool is science. Yes it is a product of our collective brains but it is also a comprehensive technique of investigation that allows us to over come the partiality and bias of our individual and collective brains.

 

 

Yes, but only as far as we can recognise that bias.

 

If we don't see it, we cannot account for it

[leugi]

i believe that the question is very interesting as fully understanding our brain will probably lead to some of the greatest discoveries of all time, the other question would be, can we apply this knowledge on machines, creating a computer that has the same characteristics as a human brain, only infinitely more powerful, maybe the two types of intelligence don't combine really well, but i guess only time will tell.

[Santalum]

Yes, but only as far as we can recognise that bias.

 

If we don't see it, we cannot account for it

 

The scientific peer review process is designed to reveal and over come bias even if individual scientists can't see that they are biased.

 

Thus far it is worked extremely well given our level of technology and knowledge about life and the cosmos.

If it was a failure or only partially successful then I guess we would still be living in the dark ages.

[Tres Juicy]

The scientific peer review process is designed to reveal and over come bias even if individual scientists can't see that they are biased.

 

Thus far it is worked extremely well given our level of technology and knowledge about life and the cosmos.

If it was a failure or only partially successful then I guess we would still be living in the dark ages.

 

 

I'm not talking about individual bias, but the bias of the brain in general (all brains)

 

The reason I say this is that it may be that the human brain is limited to thinking in certain ways.

 

I'm wondering if there may be a "blind spot" when it comes to consciousness attempting to understand itself. If that were the case it would be very hard to detect.

[Santalum]

I'm not talking about individual bias, but the bias of the brain in general (all brains)

 

The reason I say this is that it may be that the human brain is limited to thinking in certain ways.

 

I'm wondering if there may be a "blind spot" when it comes to consciousness attempting to understand itself. If that were the case it would be very hard to detect.

 

 

Bias of the individual and bias of the brain are one and the same Tres! An individual is the brain inside its head!

 

Again the scientific process potentially gives us the necessary tools to look beyond any 'blind spot' that our brains posess regarding the working of the brain. And once again we have done pretty well with unraveling its mysteries thus far.

[Tres Juicy]

Bias of the individual and bias of the brain are one and the same Tres! An individual is the brain inside its head!

 

Again the scientific process potentially gives us the necessary tools to look beyond any 'blind spot' that our brains posess regarding the working of the brain. And once again we have done pretty well with unraveling its mysteries thus far.

 

Yes, I know . And again this goes back to my original post - whether there may be a limit to what we can learn about the brain/consciousness given that they are our only tools for that particular job.

 

What I mean is perhaps a shared bias exists in all brains

 

If a "blind spot" existed how would we detect it?

 

The scientific method/process does a great job but it in itself is a product of the potentially biased human brain

[Santalum]

Yes, I know . And again this goes back to my original post - whether there may be a limit to what we can learn about the brain/consciousness given that they are our only tools for that particular job.

 

What I mean is perhaps a shared bias exists in all brains

 

If a "blind spot" existed how would we detect it?

 

The scientific method/process does a great job but it in itself is a product of the potentially biased human brain

 

What you are talking about is the ability of one brain to comprehend the full layout of neural connections and the complexity of the millions of nerve impulses moving through them that generate an individual.

 

And you are right in that no one person could possibly do that any more than one individual could full comprehend the full complexity of the flow of , say, carbon through the entire global ecosystem.

 

But in both cases science makes it unecessary for one individual to comprehend the full cimplexity of any one system. Various individuals may specialise is one small piece of the complex system and may then comunicate with each other in the universal language of science and together figure out how a bigger chunk of the complex system works.......and so on until you can describe aspects of the entire system.

 

That is how it will be with the brain.

 

Consider this........

 

What blows my mind with modern Intel CPUs is that some individuals can look at the unintelligable (to us) microscopic circuit layouts of the CPU and decide, in consultation with other system experts, if they put an extra transistor there or a bigger buffer their they will increase the efficiency and speed of the entire CPU.

 

So through scientific methods our brains have an astounding ability to comprehend unbelievable complexity.

 

It may take a very long time for scientists to unravel the working of a human brain, since it it orders of magnitude more complex, but it is hypothetically possible assuming we don't become extinct. What is more likely in the foreseeable future is that we will understand the human brain to the level of a flow chart that details the major neural pathways rather than a complete circuit diagram detailing every neurone and every synapse.

 

I sometimes wonder if our cities and our economic systems are becoming so large and complex that it is becoming impossible for individuals, who we put in charge of various large chunks of them e.g. treasurer, to comprehend them and to respond rationally and calmly to the various crises that arise. Hence our cities and economies are just become increasingly dysfunctional as they have grown beyond an optimal level that one individual can easily comprehend as a whole.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Santalum

[DrmDoc]

Yes, I know . And again this goes back to my original post - whether there may be a limit to what we can learn about the brain/consciousness given that they are our only tools for that particular job.

 

What I mean is perhaps a shared bias exists in all brains

 

If a "blind spot" existed how would we detect it?

 

The scientific method/process does a great job but it in itself is a product of the potentially biased human brain

I think I understand; you are referring to a functional bias--a bias originating from the way all brains appear to process information. However, can we be sure that all brains have some functional commonality. For example, I see the color red because that was how someone identified that color to me as a child and as concurred by my peers. However, red may be green and green may be red from my perspective; therefore, what I've learned to perceive as red may not truly be the color that others percieve. From another perspective, autism is a prime example that not all brain receive and process information in the same manner. Nevertheless, these non-conforming functional brains give us a functional perspective that enhances what we generally know and are capable of knowing about brain function.

[charles brough]

Can we ever hope to fully understand the brain when the most powerful tool in our possesion is the brain itself?

 

Also, much of the brain is inaccessable to us consciously. Can a system (such as the brain) be "pointed" at itself?

Perhaps you are asking it is possible that we will ever understand everything there is to know about the brain and how we think. The answer of course is "no." We will never know everything about anything.

 

Every years, we build a better, more accurate picture of how the brain works, and that is what science does. As I explain in "The Last Civilization," science is a constant effort to improve our understanding. Since we will never understand everything, we will always have science, or at least have it as long as we humans exist.

[questionposter]

Hi all,

 

My question is this:

 

Can we ever hope to fully understand the brain when the most powerful tool in our possesion is the brain itself?

 

Also, much of the brain is inaccessable to us consciously.

 

Can a system (such as the brain) be "pointed" at itself?

 

I'm struggling to phrase this correctly... but you guys are intelligent enough to get my gist.

 

Figuring out things about the human brain is hard because you can't look at everything inside, and if you do, it's either dead or you have to be so careful you can't actually mess which much. And then with psychology, your viewing so many different aspects of the brain acting at once that you can't pinpoint which is doing what. My best guess is that we will make many more advances in it's understanding, but like the universe itself we won't ever fully understand it.

The best hope for "utilizing" more of our brain is with machines, since as you've probably a heard there are scientists who have evidence to support that the human brain likely won't evolve to anything more complex, and with machines they can process other information for us or potentially just put information in our heads, although it's predicted that in this century there will be machines themselves which can exceed that of the capabilities of the human brain.

Edited February 2, 2012 by questionposter

[westwind]

Dear fellow members, Thank you for the present debate on understanding the human brain. Could I test your patience with a couple of light hearted observations; you see I have just had a brainwave. I dreamed a dream and out of that dream, which took me all over this world at no cost and into realmes of the mundane ( my everyday existance ), I had an awakening Question. What real business is my brain up to? Are dreams play time for the brain? Complex dreams are busily being composed and stressed over by an agitated chemical process, or maybe neuron activity is involved. Why? Is dreaming part of the work of the brain? If so, where, or what, or who are dreams directed at? What useful purpose do they serve? I am not asking fellow members for posts here. Nor am I asking members for answers to my questions. I am making observations that certainly point to the difficulty in understanding the human brain. westwind.

[questionposter]

Dear fellow members, Thank you for the present debate on understanding the human brain. Could I test your patience with a couple of light hearted observations; you see I have just had a brainwave. I dreamed a dream and out of that dream, which took me all over this world at no cost and into realmes of the mundane ( my everyday existance ), I had an awakening Question. What real business is my brain up to? Are dreams play time for the brain? Complex dreams are busily being composed and stressed over by an agitated chemical process, or maybe neuron activity is involved. Why? Is dreaming part of the work of the brain? If so, where, or what, or who are dreams directed at? What useful purpose do they serve? I am not asking fellow members for posts here. Nor am I asking members for answers to my questions. I am making observations that certainly point to the difficulty in understanding the human brain. westwind.

 

Dreams are when some hallucinogenic chemical like DMT get's released by your brain and goes into a mode of reflecting over memories and events and resting. A lot of it is subconscious actions, but your sort of able to act as a bystander through some of it.

[charles brough]

Dear fellow members, Thank you for the present debate on understanding the human brain. Could I test your patience with a couple of light hearted observations; you see I have just had a brainwave. I dreamed a dream and out of that dream, which took me all over this world at no cost and into realmes of the mundane ( my everyday existance ), I had an awakening Question. What real business is my brain up to? Are dreams play time for the brain? Complex dreams are busily being composed and stressed over by an agitated chemical process, or maybe neuron activity is involved. Why? Is dreaming part of the work of the brain? If so, where, or what, or who are dreams directed at? What useful purpose do they serve? I am not asking fellow members for posts here. Nor am I asking members for answers to my questions. I am making observations that certainly point to the difficulty in understanding the human brain. westwind.

Surely you don't expect the forum members to give answers to all those questions!! That is what education is for. You go to college, or you do research on your own. All that you are unfamiliar with has been reseached and you could learn a lot from it.

[DrmDoc]

Dear fellow members, Thank you for the present debate on understanding the human brain. Could I test your patience with a couple of light hearted observations; you see I have just had a brainwave. I dreamed a dream and out of that dream, which took me all over this world at no cost and into realmes of the mundane ( my everyday existance ), I had an awakening Question. What real business is my brain up to? Are dreams play time for the brain? Complex dreams are busily being composed and stressed over by an agitated chemical process, or maybe neuron activity is involved. Why? Is dreaming part of the work of the brain? If so, where, or what, or who are dreams directed at? What useful purpose do they serve? I am not asking fellow members for posts here. Nor am I asking members for answers to my questions. I am making observations that certainly point to the difficulty in understanding the human brain. westwind.

Rhetorical musings notwithstanding, those questions are not so difficult to answer for those who are versed in the science of the dreaming brain or for those who are sincerely interested in studying the substantial volumes of credible, scientifically obtained, peer-reviewed research enveloping dreaming and the dreaming brain. Did you know that dreaming appears to be an altered state of consciousness as suggested by the almost conscious levels of neural activity the brain experiences amid the sleep process. Perhaps the best place to begin your search for the answers you may seek is with brain evolution and how the various components of the sleep process likely evolved.

[calabi]

How does neurons firing result in our experience? We've found the neurons that we experience when we see red. But how does firing of the neurons equate to what we experience? How does the result equate to the small mechanical process? Red doesnt appear as some activation of neurons. How can firing neurons create the differences between red and blue.

 

Our experience doesnt equate to the mechanical processes. You might be able to find where they are and what bit does what. But we dont experience anything the way these processes tell us we should. As some kind of zombie, that just responds. If you just look at someone elses brain they would not appear to be conscious.

 

Your not going to get the answer to this by looking at other peoples brains, or zooming in and examing things in minute detail. Some kind of new thinking or holistic approach will need to be taken, or maybe there is no approach and it is impossible.

[Santalum]

I think I understand; you are referring to a functional bias--a bias originating from the way all brains appear to process information. However, can we be sure that all brains have some functional commonality. For example, I see the color red because that was how someone identified that color to me as a child and as concurred by my peers. However, red may be green and green may be red from my perspective; therefore, what I've learned to perceive as red may not truly be the color that others percieve. From another perspective, autism is a prime example that not all brain receive and process information in the same manner. Nevertheless, these non-conforming functional brains give us a functional perspective that enhances what we generally know and are capable of knowing about brain function.

 

At least in humans colour perception is largely universal even if it is not uniform.

 

Except for those with colour blindness, everyone agrees on what red is etc. Otherwise, for example, traffic lights would not work and there would be chaos on the roads.

 

How does neurons firing result in our experience? We've found the neurons that we experience when we see red. But how does firing of the neurons equate to what we experience? How does the result equate to the small mechanical process? Red doesnt appear as some activation of neurons. How can firing neurons create the differences between red and blue.

 

Our experience doesnt equate to the mechanical processes. You might be able to find where they are and what bit does what. But we dont experience anything the way these processes tell us we should. As some kind of zombie, that just responds. If you just look at someone elses brain they would not appear to be conscious.

 

Your not going to get the answer to this by looking at other peoples brains, or zooming in and examing things in minute detail. Some kind of new thinking or holistic approach will need to be taken, or maybe there is no approach and it is impossible.

 

How do a group of transistors in a CPU, all firing in particular ways, result in a 'p' your computer screen in some cases and an 'a' in others?

 

Just because you cannot comprehend how firing neurones in our bain result in what we feel and experience does not mean that they are not responsible for it.

 

IF our feelings and experiences are independant of our neurones then why are their comatose patients, brain dead patients and brain damaged patients etc?

[Ben Banana]

Can a system (such as the brain) be "pointed" at itself?

Definitely, but not always "directly".

 

 

Highlighting 5:21 - 6:22

"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

- Carl Sagan

 

How does neurons firing result in our experience? ... Your not going to get the answer to this by looking at other peoples brains, or zooming in and examing things in minute detail. Some kind of new thinking or holistic approach will need to be taken, or maybe there is no approach and it is impossible.

A theory is: although you claim to "see a full image" gathered by your eyes, which is seemingly integrated into your "mono-centre of consciousness", this is only because your brain is wired to reflect upon itself like that.

 

Unlike a computer screen where the image displayed is simply a matrix of pixels, the layers and complexity of neurons (particularly visual, but not exclusively) must be so dense and comprehensive -- from precisely concrete to highly abstract, and absolutely everything in between -- that this phenomena of consciousness does bizarrely, yet plainly exist.

 

This is a strong particular case when a system (such as the brain) cannot be pointed directly at itself. Likely one of the strongest cases, at that. Contrary to what you (calabi) have denied, the only way we can understand "consciousness" is by doing the dirty work. Ethos. Scientific research.

 

But in other words, yes a mere machine can "experience with consciousness" just as we believe ourselves to, at least by this concept. From giving this statement, I predict people will insist bringing examples of quantum behavior and other [stretched] ideas to discuss. Helplessly, I can only say we should consider epistemology and for now, stay close to neuroscience. We haven't prepared or discovered enough information to sensibly theorize around the subject of "conscious phenomena". To be decent, I should say I've only given a concept as far as I'm aware.

 

How do a group of transistors in a CPU, all firing in particular ways, result in a 'p' your computer screen in some cases and an 'a' in others?

From a high level, character glyphs are found by a memory offset pointing to one bitmap of a bitmap array (a "font"), which a letter or symbol may be encoded by. A well known character standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascii

 

 

Off-topic note:

I wish an AJAX implementation allowed me to look at different pages while creating a post. That would be useful.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[Tres Juicy]

At least in humans colour perception is largely universal even if it is not uniform.

 

 

 

Can you prove this?

 

I may well percieve the sky to be red, but since I have been taught from an early age that the name of that colour is blue I will call it blue

 

If you show me what you percieve to be blue, I will also call it blue

 

It doesn't mean we see the same thing

[Santalum]

Definitely, but not always "directly".

 

 

Highlighting 5:21 - 6:22

"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

- Carl Sagan

 

 

A theory is: although you claim to "see a full image" gathered by your eyes, which is seemingly integrated into your "mono-centre of consciousness", this is only because your brain is wired to reflect upon itself like that.

 

Unlike a computer screen where the image displayed is simply a matrix of pixels, the layers and complexity of neurons (particularly visual, but not exclusively) must be so dense and comprehensive -- from precisely concrete to highly abstract, and absolutely everything in between -- that this phenomena of consciousness does bizarrely, yet plainly exist.

 

This is a strong particular case when a system (such as the brain) cannot be pointed directly at itself. Likely one of the strongest cases, at that. Contrary to what you (calabi) have denied, the only way we can understand "consciousness" is by doing the dirty work. Ethos. Scientific research.

 

But in other words, yes a mere machine can "experience with consciousness" just as we believe ourselves to, at least by this concept. From giving this statement, I predict people will insist bringing examples of quantum behavior and other [stretched] ideas to discuss. Helplessly, I can only say we should consider epistemology and for now, stay close to neuroscience. We haven't prepared or discovered enough information to sensibly theorize around the subject of "conscious phenomena". To be decent, I should say I've only given a concept as far as I'm aware.

 

 

From a high level, character glyphs are found by a memory offset pointing to one bitmap of a bitmap array (a "font"), which a letter or symbol may be encoded by. A well known character standard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascii

 

 

Off-topic note:

I wish an AJAX implementation allowed me to look at different pages while creating a post. That would be useful.

 

 

I know full well how how glyphs are displayed on the screen. I was merely using it as an example of how the average non-IT literate perosn might conclude that the process is som complex it is not understandable.

 

Can you prove this?

 

I may well percieve the sky to be red, but since I have been taught from an early age that the name of that colour is blue I will call it blue

 

If you show me what you percieve to be blue, I will also call it blue

 

It doesn't mean we see the same thing

 

 

As a matter of fact Tres Juicy the idea that human colour perception is universal IS pretty much a proven fact!

 

Colour perception begins in the retina with the cones of which there a 3 types attuned to red, blue and green wave length bands. Since all humans have exactly the same 3 kinds of cones, except perhaps those with colour blindness then it is entirely reasonable to assume that all humans perceive the same wave length band as the same colour.

 

Although, as previously stated, there are variations in the details. Some people may be more or less sensitive to given wavelengths and may disagree for example on the hue or brightness of a given colour. E.G. The Himba people in Africa who are particularly sensitive to shades of green.

 

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

[calabi]

We dont see colours the same. Language can even effect our perception of them.

 

 

How do a group of transistors in a CPU, all firing in particular ways, result in a 'p' your computer screen in some cases and an 'a' in others?<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">Just because you cannot comprehend how firing neurones in our bain result in what we feel and experience does not mean that they are not responsible for it.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">IF our feelings and experiences are independant of our neurones then why are their comatose patients, brain dead patients and brain damaged patients etc?

 

I'm not saying that they are not responsible for it, but I'm saying that merely looking at them may not tell us much.

 

We are not computers, we use computers which translate things into the way we see. But how does our brains translate things into the way we see.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with comatose patients and brain dead people. I'm not sure if I'm able to explain well enough, but maybe your example of the computer will help. There is no reason for us to be conscious, their probably is because we are, but we havent found that reason yet.

 

A computer doesnt see what it does, it creates these pixels on the monitor, all it sees(it doesnt see anything really) is the pixels which are just excitations of liquid crystals. You might be able to make programs that see patterns in the pixels, like faces but they arent really seeing the faces. Just an arrangement of elements that match to a pattern. We might be doing the same thing but we are not aware of it. Whether we are able to make computers that are conscious I dont know, until we understand our own I doubt it.

The simplified way we experience the world its weird.

 

There are people that are working on mapping the brain and all its connections. Consciousness perhaps results from complex cyclic behaviours. I'm of the opinion it might be fathomed. Like the world, the way you see it has to be inside your head. So you think your looking out of your eyes but your not, your looking at a simulation inside your head of what your mind has translated from your eyes. The pattern of the neurons that makes that doesnt neccesarily have to be the same though. Thats the way I think it could be done, how exactly your mind does it is the question.

[Ben Banana]

I'm not sure if anyone grasped the deep concept I was trying to throw out in my earlier post. I wasn't merely suggesting that "computers are conscious" (which is nonsense), I only said that they can be "conscious". Awe... this will be frustrating to explain.

 

@Santalum

Sorry.

 

@calabi

Wow, just as I hypothesized! I've been classified "colorblind" my whole life, however from close observation I've doubted the common notion of what it meant. At least in my case, its simply a difference of the brain and how it developed, not of the eyes or of some birth defect. Now to think of it, the idea of a birth defect which somehow makes your eyes "unable to measure select colors properly" sounds very stupid. Great video. I'm glad to see this research has been done. I was actually going to try explaining the very same idea in the last post (to support some things I wanted to say), but I thought the concept would be too alien for anyone to fairly consider. This is a great relief. Thank you very much for sharing that video!

 

A computer doesnt see what it does, it creates these pixels on the monitor ... You might be able to make programs that see patterns in the pixels, like faces but they arent really seeing the faces. Just an arrangement of elements that match to a pattern. We might be doing the same thing but we are not aware of it. Whether we are able to make computers that are conscious I dont know, until we understand our own I doubt it.

Yes, this must be everyone's initial assumption. Its considerably difficult to suggest otherwise, as I will explain why later (not in this post, sorry).

 

I had a dream last night. As I woke up this morning, I wondered particularly about how my brain represented the images and events which I "experienced" in the dream. Sometimes I dream very lucidly, where the dream seems indistinguishable from awake reality.

 

Have you ever had a dream which seems to last for hours of the night, yet you may only be asleep a short duration? You may even experience multiple epics within the same night. Then you wake up in awe with the feeling as if you just read twenty whole novels in a single night! I think this is easy to find an explanation for. Its simply because you "make up" and experience the dream much faster than you can experience awake reality. Due to hierarchical abstraction of information and memory, native experiences (generated by your own mind) can be iterated on the fly. While dreaming, your mind goes through a daft relay of connections. If your dream is full of nonsense, these faulty connections are found (by comparison with "axioms" baked into your memory) and corrected during the natural process.

 

During awake life, you're processing external information. Miniscule observations which may already have been well abstracted and classified into your memory will only bloat your experience, inconveniently prolonged by the persistence of uncontrollable time. When you read a fictional book, its not only necessary to read and understand the words, sentences, dialogue and apply surface-level comprehension. Most importantly, you are required to run this information through a much higher pipeline of abstraction and relation, in the act of "painting a picture" around the story. In contrast, this can all happen simultaneously during a dream. Because dreams are native and your brain is not trying to integrate external information as it usually does, connections are very lively.

 

Evidently, the information and process of a brain are merely the substance and mechanical throughput of a massive dynamic hierarchy.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[Santalum]

We dont see colours the same. Language can even effect our perception of them.

 

 

 

I'm not saying that they are not responsible for it, but I'm saying that merely looking at them may not tell us much.

 

We are not computers, we use computers which translate things into the way we see. But how does our brains translate things into the way we see.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with comatose patients and brain dead people. I'm not sure if I'm able to explain well enough, but maybe your example of the computer will help. There is no reason for us to be conscious, their probably is because we are, but we havent found that reason yet.

 

A computer doesnt see what it does, it creates these pixels on the monitor, all it sees(it doesnt see anything really) is the pixels which are just excitations of liquid crystals. You might be able to make programs that see patterns in the pixels, like faces but they arent really seeing the faces. Just an arrangement of elements that match to a pattern. We might be doing the same thing but we are not aware of it. Whether we are able to make computers that are conscious I dont know, until we understand our own I doubt it.

The simplified way we experience the world its weird.

 

There are people that are working on mapping the brain and all its connections. Consciousness perhaps results from complex cyclic behaviours. I'm of the opinion it might be fathomed. Like the world, the way you see it has to be inside your head. So you think your looking out of your eyes but your not, your looking at a simulation inside your head of what your mind has translated from your eyes. The pattern of the neurons that makes that doesnt neccesarily have to be the same though. Thats the way I think it could be done, how exactly your mind does it is the question.

 

Well OK.

 

Similarly looking at individual transistors in a CPU will tell you very little about how it all works.

 

The problem with unravelling brain function is that there is no systematic tool, as far as I am ware, for mapping neural connections given that one neurone has many hundreds of thousands of connections to other neurons. Where as transistors have only one input and one output.

 

A tool will have to be developed that some how averages the connections of one neurone to the next so that the complexity is reduced to something resembling the the very simple connections between transistors.

 

Until such a tool is developed it will be extraordinarily difficult to unravel and comprehend all the neural pathways.

 

We dont see colours the same. Language can even effect our perception of them.

 

 

 

I'm not saying that they are not responsible for it, but I'm saying that merely looking at them may not tell us much.

 

We are not computers, we use computers which translate things into the way we see. But how does our brains translate things into the way we see.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with comatose patients and brain dead people. I'm not sure if I'm able to explain well enough, but maybe your example of the computer will help. There is no reason for us to be conscious, their probably is because we are, but we havent found that reason yet.

 

A computer doesnt see what it does, it creates these pixels on the monitor, all it sees(it doesnt see anything really) is the pixels which are just excitations of liquid crystals. You might be able to make programs that see patterns in the pixels, like faces but they arent really seeing the faces. Just an arrangement of elements that match to a pattern. We might be doing the same thing but we are not aware of it. Whether we are able to make computers that are conscious I dont know, until we understand our own I doubt it.

The simplified way we experience the world its weird.

 

There are people that are working on mapping the brain and all its connections. Consciousness perhaps results from complex cyclic behaviours. I'm of the opinion it might be fathomed. Like the world, the way you see it has to be inside your head. So you think your looking out of your eyes but your not, your looking at a simulation inside your head of what your mind has translated from your eyes. The pattern of the neurons that makes that doesnt neccesarily have to be the same though. Thats the way I think it could be done, how exactly your mind does it is the question.

 

With various robots and drones that these days have very powerful CPU etc and can process detailed images to distance measurements and obstacle avoidance ect, but that lack consciousness, they are never any where near as good as a human being.

 

The best military drones combine powerful computers and cameras etc with the consciousness of a human operator.

 

Perhaps an close approximation to a human with full processing power but no consciousness is a sleep walker who liable to walk in front of a bus or off the edge off a cliff. Without a conscious human operator, an otherwise autonomous drone is very likely to do the same thing.

 

It is fairly obvious to me from the various documentaries I have watched over the years that the powerful processing power of the human brain is useless without consciousness to bring it all together in a coherrent manor. And indeed that it is not possible to have this sort of computing power without generating consciousness by default.

 

Consciousness is as much an inevitable result of the functioning of a complex and powerful brain just as speed and sound are the inevitable results of a motorcycle functioning.

 

Perhaps consciousness is indeed unavoidable once you go beyond a certain threshold of computer (organic or inorganic) processing power. Perhaps this is a fundamental truth of the cosmos.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Santalum