Speculation about Consciousness

[EdEarl]

That Turing invented Turing machines proves the brain is equivalent to a Turing machine, because Turing evaluated programs using his brain, paper and pencil. Turing also proved a universal Turing machine (infinite tape) could computer anything computable; although, some things require infinite time. Thus, our brains can compute anything computable, given infinite time, paper and pencils. AFAIK there is no proof that our brains can compute anything beyond what is computable.

 

What do you mean by, "Our brain's functional responses aren't necessarily limited by its functional matrix."

Edited July 13, 2016 by EdEarl

[andrewcellini]

 

According to one definition, Turing machines are mathematical models of hypothetical computers that can use a predefined set of rules to determine a result from a set of input variables. If that is the nature of the neural nets you are referencing, it really isn't equivalent to the nature of brain function as I understand it. Human brain function, as I understand, involves a collective of several separate and acutely different functional parameters interlocking to produce a unified functional response potentially exceeding those separate functional parameters.

It could be that whatever values the parameters happen to take imply a sort of chaotic solution to whatever hypothetical function describes the brain, and thus it appears that it's acting randomly or unlike it was before.

[EdEarl]

What do you mean by chaotic? Neurons are predictable AFAIK, except for a very small chance of a random quantum affect on a neuron. However, the consensus here seems to be that quantum random effects are insignificant. I suppose toxins that one may ingest may affect neurons adversely, and one might ingest something by chance.

Edited July 13, 2016 by EdEarl

[andrewcellini]

What do you mean by chaotic? Neurons are predictable AFAIK.

They are certainly deterministic systems, but they're nonlinear, and there exist solutions for conductance based models like hodgkin huxley for which there are attractors as mundane as points to strange attractors, and these model observable behavior. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Chaos_in_neurons#Nonlinear_dynamics_in_nerve_membranes this article goes into measuring chaotic behavior and how frequency and amplitude of stimulus impact the behavior of the neuron.

 

Edit: "what do you mean by chaotic" sensitive to their initial conditions in phase space

Edited July 13, 2016 by andrewcellini

[DrmDoc]

That Turing invented Turing machines proves the brain is equivalent to a Turing machine, because Turing evaluated programs using his brain, paper and pencil. Turing also proved a universal Turing machine (infinite tape) could computer anything computable; although, some things require infinite time. Thus, our brains can compute anything computable, given infinite time. AFAIK there is no proof that our brains can compute anything beyond what is computable.

 

What do you mean by, "Our brain's functional responses aren't necessarily limited by its functional matrix."

 

Again, if I understand, you are suggesting that Turing machines are brain equivalent essentially because Turing used his brain to devise those machines. If that true, then perhaps every machine and invention conceived by the brainwork of humanity are also brain equivalent. I not suggesting that Turing machines can't replicate or even exceed the computational ability of human brain function; however, computation isn't exactly what the brain is doing to formulate its responses. Our responses frequently involve behaviors that do not compute and that is because what our brain does is something less calculate and more organic in nature.

 

It could be that whatever values the parameters happen to take imply a sort of chaotic solution to whatever hypothetical function describes the brain, and thus it appears that it's acting randomly or unlike it was before.

 

It might seem otherwise but I'm not suggesting that what our brain does is in anyway chaotic or randomized. Our brain is capable of forming a mental environment of cognitive exchanges between distinct functional groups to produce behaviors independent of our innate programing or instinct. Relative to brain function, cognitive autonomy isn't about a machine's ability to learn, it's about a machine's ability to engage responses independent of what it is programed to do.

Edited July 13, 2016 by DrmDoc

[EdEarl]

@andrewcellini

Your reference says:

 

Chaos, or deterministic chaos, is ubiquitous in nonlinear dynamical systems of the real world, including biological systems. Nerve membranes have their own nonlinear dynamics which generate and propagate action potentials, and such nonlinear dynamics can produce chaos in neurons and related bifurcations.

Propagation of action potentials are signals that ultimately originate from a sensory neuron, for example something touching skin, produce chaos in neurons. The oscillations occur in neurons whether or not they process input or produce output.

 

 

@DrmDoc

I disagree with this idea:

 

computation isn't exactly what the brain is doing to formulate its responses

However, I'm not likely to change your mind. My case is based on AI winning against the best chess, jeopardy, and go players, the ability to drive an automobile, make money in financial transactions, and win in air-to-air dogfights. A general AI does not exist that can do all these things; computers aren't fast and big enough yet. On the other hand, with AI can now be developed to do any knowledge work a human can do, except for complex creative jobs. If a computer can do it, then our brains only need to be able to be equivalent to a Turing machine. They don't need extra capability.

Edited July 13, 2016 by EdEarl

[andrewcellini]

Propagation of action potentials are signals that ultimately originate from a sensory neuron, for example something touching skin, produce chaos in neurons.

Source? That isn't referenced in the article that I linked as I'm certain they're describing experiments with injected currents with in vitro neurons, and as I said they relate the changes in the phase portrait from something that is for example periodic to something strange to changes in frequency and amplitude of the signal and describe how that can be done. I just fail to see why the type of neuron or neurons stimulating the cell we're measuring the response of matters in the context of generating the response.

 

The oscillations occur in neurons whether or not they process input or produce output.

Sure, though I'm not sure how mentioning spontaneous firing rate is relevant (if by oscillations you're referring to action potentials), afaik the dynamics of an in vitro neuron that isn't being given some input current does not give a periodic phase potrait (if that's what you meant by oscillations). The only part I would have to disagree is "produce output" as they simply do if they undergo an action potential, even if no one is around to listen or if it would make a difference on its own(bring a post synaptic cell above threshold). The article also shows other attractors than just chaotic ones, even the one characterizing a single spontaneous action potential (which happens to be a point).

Edited July 13, 2016 by andrewcellini

[DrmDoc]

However, I'm not likely to change your mind. My case is based on AI winning against the best chess, jeopardy, and go players, the ability to drive an automobile, make money in financial transactions, and win in air-to-air dogfights. A general AI does not exist that can do all these things; computers aren't fast and big enough yet. On the other hand, with AI can now be developed to do any knowledge work a human can do, except for complex creative jobs. If a computer can do it, then our brains only need to be able to be equivalent to a Turing machine. They don't need extra capability.

 

Perhaps not; however, when computers like Deep Blue win against human competitors that suggests to me that those machines are doing something beyond the capacity or capability of the human brain, which is something not equal to what our brain does. Chess competitions between humans, for example, involve more than calculated moves, they involve intuition, which is an incalculable quality beyond the process of calculating infinite permutations. Because of that quality, exceeding the calculating ability of the human brain isn't, in my opinion, an accurate measure or reflection of what our brain actually does.

Edited July 13, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Strange]

Human brains aren't given a model of reality, they make one, but it's clear that the process of learning, at the very least for forms of associative memory, is able to be modeled mathematically and is thus realizable in computers.

 

 

The infant brain is not a completely blank slate. It has some level of model hardwired, which is then built on as it develops.

Our responses frequently involve behaviors that do not compute and that is because what our brain does is something less calculate and more organic in nature.

 

 

I would love to see some evidence that the human brain can do something that is not computable.

[andrewcellini]

 

The infant brain is not a completely blank slate. It has some level of model hardwired, which is then built on as it develops.

I did not mean to imply no model, i meant to imply a "fine tuned" model. Obviously there are reflexes, emotions, basic motor functions, sensory function etc.

 

And Ed I see what you're saying by The oscillations occur in neurons whether or not they process input or produce output.. The example with reduced calcium potential of self sustaining oscillations. That is an interesting case and much different than ones i've read about previously (if only i didn't skim the article i referenced lol) but keep in mind that the state space for such a case has a limit cycle and the behavior is periodic which is qualitatively different from the behavior exhibited by a system with a strange attractor. from the article "The resting state and the oscillatory one of axons correspond to a stable equilibrium point and a stable limit cycle, respectively,"

Edited July 13, 2016 by andrewcellini

[EdEarl]

The universe is mathematical from both the large (relativistic) and small (quantum) perspectives. I, too, need evidence to believe that our brain does something besides compute.

[fredreload]

I would like to add to this again that consciousness requires a certain type of electrical property. Imagine a slime creature, whose brain runs with water but not ions(again I'm not being sarcastic). Does it have consciousness? I don't think so. Same goes for a computer, a computer can run with light, or water, both of which is capable of running a computer, but does not have consciousness. It just so happens that a computer is running with electricity, the thing that contains an electrical charge same as the ions in our mind. But if our mind is ran with water or light, would we have consciousness? I believe that voltage plays a role in generating consciousness, but it might also adds in the functionality of binary inputs from the electrical signal of neurons where on and off represents the two states. Imagine a conch shell with air in it that creates a resonance effect. I believe our brain's structure also plays an important role as someone pointed out, that with voltage plays a resonance effect in generating a signal resembling that of life, any analogue people here, the low pass filter, high pass filter, or band pass filters. It could also be states, but state changes.

Edited July 13, 2016 by fredreload

[DrmDoc]

I would love to see some evidence that the human brain can do something that is not computable.

 

The universe is mathematical from both the large (relativistic) and small (quantum) perspectives. I, too, need evidence to believe that our brain does something besides compute.

 

My comments regarding "Our responses frequently involve behaviors that do not compute" was a reference to the frequency at which our behavioral responses do not appear to conform to a rational or preprogramed process that the term compute infers. The arbitrary appearance of that distinction suggests that brain function does something that computers currently do not. Again, we can and may program machines to simulate what human brain function does but what we have done thus far, in my opinion, is an inadequate representation of that function.

I would like to add to this again that consciousness requires a certain type of electrical property. Imagine a slime creature, whose brain runs with water but not ions(again I'm not being sarcastic). Does it have consciousness? I don't think so. Same goes for a computer, a computer can run with light, or water, both of which is capable of running a computer, but does not have consciousness. It just so happens that a computer is running with electricity, the thing that contains an electrical charge same as the ions in our mind. But if our mind is ran with water or light, would we have consciousness? I believe that voltage plays a role in generating consciousness, but it might also adds in the functionality of binary inputs from the electrical signal of neurons where on and off represents the two states. Imagine a conch shell with air in it that creates a resonance effect. I believe our brain's structure also plays an important role as someone pointed out, that with voltage plays a resonance effect in generating a signal resembling that of life, any analogue people here, the low pass filter, high pass filter, or band pass filters. It could also be states, but state changes.

 

Consciousness isn't entirely about the medium through which information flow. Although consciousness arises from a series of electrochemical exchanges in the brain, consciousness involves a confluence of separate and distinct exchanges contributing separate and distinct qualities to our consciousness matrix.

Edited July 13, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Strange]

I would like to add to this again that consciousness requires a certain type of electrical property. Imagine a slime creature, whose brain runs with water but not ions(again I'm not being sarcastic). Does it have consciousness?

 

 

It could do.

 

 

 

Same goes for a computer, a computer can run with light, or water, both of which is capable of running a computer, but does not have consciousness.

 

You can make a completely mechanical computer. It can do everything that an electrical computer can do. You could create a computer operated by water (in fact, there are some early analog computers that work this way) and, if they are sufficiently complete then they can do everything an electrical computer can do.

 

The ideas of computable functions do not depend on electricity. That is merely a convenience.

 

So, the brain is a biochemical computer it can do all the things an electrical computer can do (and no more). The same is true for any implementation of a computing machine.

 

 

 

I believe that voltage plays a role in generating consciousness

 

You have made it very clear that what you believe is of no relevance.

My comments regarding "Our responses frequently involve behaviors that do not compute" was a reference to the frequency at which our behavioral responses do not appear to conform to a rational or preprogramed process that the term compute infers. The arbitrary appearance of that distinction suggests that brain function does something that computers currently do not.

 

So, as always, it comes down to a personal belief and incredulity.

 

I really, really wish someone had a better argument against strong AI!

[EdEarl]

 

I really, really wish someone had a better argument against strong AI!

You sparked old memories. As a child, when I said, "I wish ...," my grandmother would say, "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." More to the point, she also told me, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink."

Edited July 13, 2016 by EdEarl

[fredreload]

 

 

It could do.

How is it possible for something to run on water have consciousness, you'll have to convince me on this one Strange

 

P.S. Btw, consciousness can be affected by electromagnetic radiation

Edited July 13, 2016 by fredreload

[DrmDoc]

I really, really wish someone had a better argument against strong AI!

 

I have to honestly say that I really can't find any stronger evidence, against the current status of strong AI compared to brain function, other than what AI is now doing isn't true consciousness. Again, I'm not suggesting that we are incapable of programing computers to simulate that quality. However, until some noted developer of AI announces and proves that his/her efforts have produced consciousness in a machine, we should remain unconvinced of that quality being currently expressed by current AI processes.

Edited July 13, 2016 by DrmDoc

[fredreload]

 

I have to honestly say that I really can't find any stronger evidence, against the current status of strong AI compared to brain function, other than what AI is now doing isn't true consciousness. Again, I'm not suggesting that we are incapable of programing computers to simulate that quality. However, until some noted developer of AI announces and proves that his/her efforts have produced consciousness in a machine, we should remain unconvinced of that quality being currently expressed by current AI processes.

My idea is that a computer could simulate voltage and electromagnetic field in a computer(3D graphics maybe), therefore it is possible to simulate an AI software wise, either through Strange's functional explanation or my voltage guesses, both seems plausible

Edited July 13, 2016 by fredreload

[andrewcellini]

How is it possible for something to run on water have consciousness

I would assume the first step is to figure out how to build a computer that "runs on water." Luckily that's in some sense been done

Edited July 14, 2016 by andrewcellini

[cladking]

 

Unless it was programmed to do that.

 

I believe you are wrong.

 

If it were merely programnmed to do things which are beneficial to itself then we couldn't accurately predict its actions. It would necessarily have its own perspective.

[Strange]

How is it possible for something to run on water have consciousness, you'll have to convince me on this one Strange

 

 

As it is possible to build a turing-complete computer using water (or clock work, or matchboxes, or ...) then it is possible to replicate what the brain does.

 

 

 

P.S. Btw, consciousness can be affected by electromagnetic radiation

 

The current implementation can (because it involves flows of ions). But if it were not electrical, then it wouldn't be.

 

Consciousness can also be affected by a hammer. That doesn't mean you need hammers to make a brain.