IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags artificial intelligence , consciousness

View Poll Results: Is consciousness physical or metaphysical?
Consciousness is a kind of data processing and the brain is a machine that can be replicated in other substrates, such as general purpose computers. 81 86.17%
Consciousness requires a second substance outside the physical material world, currently undetectable by scientific instruments 3 3.19%
On Planet X, unconscious biological beings have perfected conscious machines 10 10.64%
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
Old 1st June 2012, 03:29 PM   #441
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
google "lucas penrose fallacy" and read up on it.
I just googled it, but I can't find anything in any sort of reputable published literature to back this up. Do you have a link? I'm sure Penrose does not have time to respond to every online critisism of his work, im pretty sure he sticks to the more established scientific methods of peer review and journal publications. And if it is published I expect he will have replied to it with a reposte.

Again, if you want to read that Penrose paper I linked to and comment on why its "crazy" then please do. If you dont even want to read it then please dont keep arguing from ignorance.

Last edited by Zeuzzz; 1st June 2012 at 03:31 PM.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2012, 03:37 PM   #442
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Attack the messenger not the message, gotcha.

Some of the greatest advances in science have come from interdisciplinary models proposed by people that have combined two or more academic fields into one single discipline.




Subjective statement without scientific reasoning noted.




Failure to even look at the material I am talking about, whilst arguing against it, dually noted.

aka argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Good day to you

Brains are like parachutes. They only work when open.
LOl, did you even read the articles on the fallacy?

Let put it in language that might be easier for you: Penrose's arguments surrounding quantum consciousness are tantamount to someone arguing that a car engine can't function by internal combustion because there is no way little explosions could make the car teleport.

I know what his arguments entail -- that humans can reach conclusions that can't be arrived at using an algorithm guaranteed to halt, and that microtubules somehow allow neurons to make use of quantum computing.

I know why his arguments are invalid -- every human conclusion can be arrived at via an algorithm, just not necessarily one guaranteed to halt in all cases, and even if it wasn't, quantum computing doesn't do anything to escape computability.

So Penrose's argument is basically that a car needs to teleport to move, and that you can get a car to teleport by just giving it higher octane gasoline. We happen to know that no, cars can move by rolling, and no, even if they needed to teleport, it would require more than super-gasoline.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2012, 03:43 PM   #443
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I have a difficulty with the word 'consciousness'.
You can be unconscious and experiencing dreams.
You can be asleep, not conscious of what's happening, but having some level of experiencing.
So, some of you know my theory: we are electricity and electricity is where we are:

http://maartenverguchtt.weebly.com/w...ity-is-us.html
For the purpose of this thread, 1a below applies (from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conscious)

No, I don't agree that we are electricity. Electricity can be present that is not conscious, and a conscious machine can, in principle, be made of non-electric substrates, like brass and steel, legos, tinkertoys, light, marbles, or hydraulics. If you think it can't, explain why.

Quote:
con·scious (knshs)
adj.
1.
a. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
b. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.
2. Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious life on the planet.
3. Subjectively known or felt: conscious remorse.
4. Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly.
5. Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: was increasingly conscious of being watched.
6. Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet.
n.
In psychoanalysis, the component of waking awareness perceptible by a person at any given instant; consciousness.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2012, 03:43 PM   #444
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I have a difficulty with the word 'consciousness'.
You can be unconscious and experiencing dreams.
You can be asleep, not conscious of what's happening, but having some level of experiencing.

This is slightly off topic, but your post reminded me of a very interesting conversation between Neil De Grasse (badass) Tyson and Richard Dawkins. You can youtube the hour and a half long discusion by searching youtube for "the poetry of science"

Here is the text of the conversation, which ends with Tyson sharing an anecdote about dreams, altered states of consciousness and creativity:

Tyson: The language of the universe, which we call mathematics; maths has an unreasonable utility in the universe as we just invented it out of our heads. You don’t discover maths under a rock. Yet it empowers us to provide accurate predictions about the universe. And what results from this is that over time as a scientist, you learn to abandon your senses, as they can fool you into thinking something is true when its not. You use your tools to do the measuring and say ok, thats the reality. Then you make a mathematical model of that, which you can manipulate, logically (because maths is all about the logical extension of one point to another) and then you can make new discoveries about the world. No longer are you justified in saying “that idea in science is not true because it doesn’t make sense”. Forget your senses. Who cares about your senses. As you are growing up you are assembling a rule book for how nature works on the macroscopic world. The microscope takes you down smaller, the telescope takes you bigger, and each scale has its own laws of physics that manifest themselves in those regimes that you have no life experience in recognising. So its maths that allows you to take these incremental steps beyond the capacity of your senses, and perhaps even the capacity of your mind.

Dawkins: Yes good point. And I've noticed that at some point when you become so used to doing the mathematics it becomes kind of intuitive, like i'm told that pilots that have flown planes for very long end up feeling the wings of the plane as if they were part of their own body.

Tyson: Is this a common sensory occurrence?

Dawkins: Yes I think it is, its a common thing, it think its a common thing when people get skilled at using micro manipulators where they are using their hands, and whats actually going on is only tiny minuscule movements, going on as if under the microscope.

Tyson: So it becomes their hands?

Dawkins: yes

Tyson: I see, so the plane becomes the pilot, or the pilot becomes the plane.

Dawkins: Indeed, just as you said, the telescope is an extension of the eye.

Tyson: I knew this person, my advisor in grad school, and I spoke to him one morning and he was doing research on star clusters that have these huge orbits around the centre of the galaxy, and he had this dream where where he was one of these clusters and he was orbiting the centre of the galaxy. And I thought this was so cool, as, if you start becoming your cosmic dream; I want to have those dreams! as you start to think more creatively about what might be discovered.

Last edited by Zeuzzz; 1st June 2012 at 04:06 PM.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2012, 03:45 PM   #445
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
I just googled it, but I can't find anything in any sort of reputable published literature to back this up. Do you have a link? I'm sure Penrose does not have time to respond to every online critisism of his work, im pretty sure he sticks to the more established scientific methods of peer review and journal publications. And if it is published I expect he will have replied to it with a reposte.

Again, if you want to read that Penrose paper I linked to and comment on why its "crazy" then please do. If you dont even want to read it then please dont keep arguing from ignorance.
I have read that paper of his many times. That isn't the crazy part. The orchOR jibberish is actually plausible ( although it is easy to find refutations in actual peer reviewed journals, in particular that the scale on which Penrose posits orchOR takes place is something like more than 10 orders of magnitude too small to statistically affect neuron behavior ).

The crazy part is that he thinks we NEED orchOR, or anything like it. He has a very old standing argument for that, called the lucas-penrose argument.

It basically goes like this: Human mathematicians can think of things that Penrose can't imagine could be arrived at via an algorithm, therefore there must be some non-algorithmic component to our thought process.

Like I said, that is not only wrong, but it doesn't even matter, since his orchOR idea doesn't escape the limits of computability.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2012, 03:47 PM   #446
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
LOl, did you even read the articles on the fallacy?

Let put it in language that might be easier for you: Penrose's arguments surrounding quantum consciousness are tantamount to someone arguing that a car engine can't function by internal combustion because there is no way little explosions could make the car teleport.

I know what his arguments entail -- that humans can reach conclusions that can't be arrived at using an algorithm guaranteed to halt, and that microtubules somehow allow neurons to make use of quantum computing.

I know why his arguments are invalid -- every human conclusion can be arrived at via an algorithm, just not necessarily one guaranteed to halt in all cases, and even if it wasn't, quantum computing doesn't do anything to escape computability.

So Penrose's argument is basically that a car needs to teleport to move, and that you can get a car to teleport by just giving it higher octane gasoline. We happen to know that no, cars can move by rolling, and no, even if they needed to teleport, it would require more than super-gasoline.

Nothing you said bears any relevance to anything I've read in recent literature proposed by Penrose et al.

I note you dodged my main point. I've just spent a fair while scouring journals for this as you asked, and not found anything.

So I say again:

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
I just googled it, but I can't find anything in any sort of reputable published literature to back this up. Do you have a link?

Last edited by Zeuzzz; 1st June 2012 at 03:53 PM.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st June 2012, 08:29 PM   #447
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
Originally Posted by Jeff Corey View Post
You are using "trained" and "learned" very differently than people who study those processes, like me, ever do. We define them in terms of changes in the behavior of individual organisms, not of a species over time through natural selection.
well, yes. I did use the term differently.
It sure doesn't mean I don't study the processes.
I'm the one suggesting this radical exploitation, and it comes from study.

If you're curious, I'd expound on the idea, if we can get past semantics.

Here's an example:

Chickens can have their roosts in a green house.
The plants and the chickens compliment each other, and the chickens lay more eggs in winter in a warmer coop.

When the green house gets uncomfortably warm, the chickens will exit it, through a vent that they gladly open, with no training. They go outside. When it begins to get cold, they go back in, and close that vent...with no training.

Yes, the chickens are dumb. But we are smart.


Or is it just me?
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 12:22 AM   #448
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by quarky View Post
well, yes. I did use the term differently.
It sure doesn't mean I don't study the processes.
I'm the one suggesting this radical exploitation, and it comes from study.

If you're curious, I'd expound on the idea, if we can get past semantics.

Here's an example:

Chickens can have their roosts in a green house.
The plants and the chickens compliment each other, and the chickens lay more eggs in winter in a warmer coop.

When the green house gets uncomfortably warm, the chickens will exit it, through a vent that they gladly open, with no training. They go outside. When it begins to get cold, they go back in, and close that vent...with no training.

Yes, the chickens are dumb. But we are smart.


Or is it just me?
Two things are obvious:

You've never kept chickens

You've never had a greenhouse.

So it's just you.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 05:18 AM   #449
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Two things are obvious:

You've never kept chickens

You've never had a greenhouse.

So it's just you.
You sure you got the right thread?
The discussion is about consciousness something you have no experience of.
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 06:05 AM   #450
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
I read Penrose's original book on quantum consciousness years ago and used to think it was very, very interesting. Now it just reads like argument from ignorance, e.g., he doesn't know how the brain can do what it does, so it must use quantum mechanics. He also seems to say, "the brain is mysterious, and quantum mechanics is also mysterious, so their must be a connection." Unfortunately, he has no evidence the brain uses quantum mechanic computers. Sorry, Roger.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 06:35 AM   #451
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
This may be of interest to anyone doing more than emotively reacting to posts. Its the most recent paper Pubished by Penrose et al on the subject of my above post.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/Cosmology160.html
Taking that paper by itself, we would reach the inescapable conclusion that Penrose knows less than nothing about consciousness, brain function, and computation. He bases his position on the following premises, three entirely false and two entirely irrelevant.

Quote:
The 'hard problem' Distinctions between conscious and non-conscious processes are not addressed; consciousness is assumed to emerge at a critical level (neither specified nor testable) of computational complexity mediating otherwise non-conscious processes.
Not true at all. See Dennett and Hofstadter for the most convincing (but not the only) resolution to this distinction. Meanwhile there is no coherent argument that the "hard problem" even exists.

Quote:
'Non-computable' thought and understanding, e.g. as shown by Gödel's theorem (Penrose, 1989; 1994).
Not true at all. Penrose has failed to show any example of anything the human mind does that is not computable, nor does his position allow for such a thing.

Quote:
'Binding and synchrony', the problem of how disparate neuronal activities are bound into unified conscious experience, and how neuronal synchrony, e.g. gamma synchrony EEG (30 to 90 Hz), the best measurable correlate of consciousness does not derive from neuronal firings.
Not true at all. The brain is a neural network, so of course disparate neural activities bind together (not into a "unified conscious experience", but at least into an illusion of one). And EEGs measure bulk neural firings, so that claim is incoherent.

Quote:
Causal efficacy of consciousness and any semblance of free will. Because measurable brain activity corresponding to a stimulus often occurs after we've responded (seemingly consciously) to that stimulus, the brain-as-computer view depicts consciousness as epiphenomenal illusion (Dennett, 1991; 1995; Wegner, 2002).
Yeah. So?

Quote:
Cognitive behaviors of single cell organisms. Protozoans like Paramecium can swim, find food and mates, learn, remember and have sex, all without synaptic computation (Sherrington, 1957).
Yeah. So? They compute; they just don't use synapses as such.

In his defense, he presents only speculation. No evidence whatsoever.

F-

And I'm being generous.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 07:08 AM   #452
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Two things are obvious:

You've never kept chickens

You've never had a greenhouse.

So it's just you.
What an odd thing to say.
I've had both, in 3 different states.
Perhaps you can't imagine the chickens not having access to the plants?
Or their comings and goings not tripping the vents?
Or you're having a bad hair day?

How about fish in a green house?
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 07:14 AM   #453
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
I agree with Pixy on this one. Penrose is trying too hard to explain something without sufficient evidence. Then again so is Dennett.
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 11:02 AM   #454
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
I agree with Pixy on this one. Penrose is trying too hard to explain something without sufficient evidence. Then again so is Dennett.
There's a difference, though. Where Penrose is offering an implausible explanation for something that's not in evidence, Dennett is providing a plausible explanation for something that is in evidence - and which other philosophers (Chalmers, Searle, Jackson) have asserted could not be explained at all.

While that doesn't establish Dennett's thesis as correct, he is at least advancing the discourse, which Penrose ain't.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 11:27 AM   #455
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
I actually think Dennett does more harm than good now. For that matter, so does anyone who tries to come up with theories about human consciousness that aren't literally grounded in human neural network topology.

The "multiple drafts" model is plausible but unfortunately it just doesn't fit well with the way the brain is connected. The more research I look at, the more it is apparent that it just isn't a great model. Global workspace isn't much better, but it is better nonetheless. You can sorta-kinda shoehorn global workspace into something like a brain topography. But even in that case it is better to just look at the neural networks and bypass the "conceptual model" entirely.

At this point I wish we could leave the speculative philosophy behind and just focus on the straight up science. We know enough to do that, the only excuse not to is if someone doesn't want to take the trouble to educate themselves on what is known about neural networks. I wouldn't accuse Dennett and Baars and Blackmore and the like of being lazy when it comes to the hard science, but I kind of feel that they are, a bit. They are happy to look at research but I don't get the sense that they could whip up a neural network program that could control a robot, for example.

However, Penrose is in an entirely different league. If Dennett is lazy, Penrose is outright ignorant.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 12:41 PM   #456
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
I actually think Dennett does more harm than good now. For that matter, so does anyone who tries to come up with theories about human consciousness that aren't literally grounded in human neural network topology.



The top = neurons
To bottom = large scale structure models of the universe.

Non universality derived self similarity, anyone?

Take 60mg dimethyltryptamine, watch physical reality dissolve, and then come back and scientifically rationalize everything you experienced. Be sure to include the exact % of trancendance you experienced. It will be something like this.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 12:47 PM   #457
rcfieldz
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,189
choices

too few choices....my mind is reeling.
rcfieldz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 02:25 PM   #458
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Originally Posted by quarky View Post
well, yes. I did use the term differently.
It sure doesn't mean I don't study the processes.
I'm the one suggesting this radical exploitation, and it comes from study.

If you're curious, I'd expound on the idea, if we can get past semantics.

Here's an example:

Chickens can have their roosts in a green house.
The plants and the chickens compliment each other, and the chickens lay more eggs in winter in a warmer coop.

When the green house gets uncomfortably warm, the chickens will exit it, through a vent that they gladly open, with no training. They go outside. When it begins to get cold, they go back in, and close that vent...with no training.

Yes, the chickens are dumb. But we are smart.


Or is it just me?
I'm curious about the vent. Did you have fox around? As a kid, we raised chickens and I've seen what a fox can do to an unsecured henhouse.
Also, the chickens close the vent? Or is it like a pet door?

Last edited by Jeff Corey; 2nd June 2012 at 02:39 PM.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 04:40 PM   #459
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
Two vents; in and out. The out stays open until they come back in, which is more like a pet door.
Fox trouble. I've always had a couple of dogs when having any farm animals, but I had a coop that was quite complex to enter and exit. The boss chicken would quickly learn the new obstacle, as I would add them one at a time. It proved to be too complicated for predators. Except snakes, I must add. And they would get the occasional egg. I think it was worth it, for the rodent work these snakes would do.
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 05:21 PM   #460
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Take 60mg dimethyltryptamine, watch physical reality dissolve, and then come back and scientifically rationalize everything you experienced. Be sure to include the exact % of trancendance you experienced. It will be something like this.
To expand on this point, can anyone give a possible reason why the subjective experiences people report in such "+5 level" altered states of consciousness seem to be so similar?
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 05:47 PM   #461
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Two things are obvious:

You've never kept chickens

You've never had a greenhouse.

So it's just you.

Nurse! He's up again!
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 08:30 PM   #462
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
To expand on this point, can anyone give a possible reason why the subjective experiences people report in such "+5 level" altered states of consciousness seem to be so similar?
Yeah dude. They're all stone freaks.
Plus, evidently there are mental icons that precede language, and we share a lot of them, and there seems to be a stash of them that get tapped into during the plus 4 or 5 moments.

Bliss is identical for anyone I've ever witnessed experiencing it, including myself.
So is the minus 4 or 5 experience of abject terror.
Both are totally engaging and leave no room for voicing thoughts or reporting back to one's self regarding the experience as it transpires.

I wrote a poem in an attempt to describe my only experience of pure bliss. It was a long time ago. It was a lot of work; not the poem; the bliss.

If I wanted to annoy people, I'd post the poem. I use to study consciousness through observation of my own, which I believe is the same as any one's. Sitting in silence, for endless hours, observing the dissipation of thought; the sub-units of thought; the ripples caused by the slight effort of not voicing thought or its sub-units, until, eventually, the egg cracked and "I" was no more. Just pure awareness, which came with a flood of orgasmic golden, liquid love-light, silly as that sounds.

I remained in that state for 6 hours or so. It didn't matter much that I couldn't maintain it forever. What mattered to me was discovering its existence, and knowing that it was there, for all of us.

This probably doesn't sound very scientific, though it was pure observation.

How else do we study consciousness?

(braced for the assault, and willing.)
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 09:14 PM   #463
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
To expand on this point, can anyone give a possible reason why the subjective experiences people report in such "+5 level" altered states of consciousness seem to be so similar?
The same possible reasons why people who have their eyes closed and their eyeballs pressed on seem to report such similar experiences.

The same possible reasons why people who hold their breath until they are about to pass out seem to report such similar experiences.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 09:31 PM   #464
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
The same possible reasons why people who have their eyes closed and their eyeballs pressed on seem to report such similar experiences.

The same possible reasons why people who hold their breath until they are about to pass out seem to report such similar experiences.
That's a cheap shot. Or maybe not.

Are no experiences profound, even though sane and scientific types often speak of the profoundness of certain altered states of consciousness?

Yet, you may have a point. Snark free, even. I'm not sure.

You'd need to ask yourself.

A description of extreme nausea, I suppose, would be fairly similar amongst various experiencers of nausea. Same with orgasm, or extraordinary pain.

Yet,

and yet...
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 10:35 PM   #465
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by quarky View Post
That's a cheap shot. Or maybe not.

Are no experiences profound, even though sane and scientific types often speak of the profoundness of certain altered states of consciousness?

Yet, you may have a point. Snark free, even. I'm not sure.

You'd need to ask yourself.

A description of extreme nausea, I suppose, would be fairly similar amongst various experiencers of nausea. Same with orgasm, or extraordinary pain.

Yet,

and yet...
"Profoundness" is just another state of the brain, like needing to pee, laughter, the smell of sulfur, infatuation for Justin Beiber, or deja vous (see Dennett's "The Magic of Consciousnes" for his take on deja vous).

Don't forget that the modules of the brain responsible for these things appeared and then were preserved because the genes responsible for them tended, on balance, to be passed on. The process gave us imperfect modules that are well known to misfire often. You can find profundity in a bathroom tile that's slightly skewed. It does not mean the tile is profound. It just means that for some insignificant reason, it FEELS profound. Our brains are klugy misfiring messes, and becoming comfortable with that reveals more about how the universe works than we'll learn from following all our random feelings of profundity.

Our profoundness module probably evolved millions of years ago to help our ancestors find food, mates, and reason to care for offspring. That's why the module is there. Pattern recognition works for those goals most of the time. That we can find a similar pattern in microscopic images of neural networks and arrangement of the cosmos can certainly trigger the profoundness module, but the module evolved imperfectly, and is likely to misfire and give us worthless leads.

All (probably misfiring) feelings of profundity aside, there's no evidence consciousness is anywhere in the universe but in the brain.

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 2nd June 2012 at 10:37 PM.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 11:38 PM   #466
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Nurse! He's up again!
LOL
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2012, 11:47 PM   #467
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
~snip~ there's no evidence consciousness is anywhere in the universe but in the brain.
Please remember this when you ask why a computer can't be conscious.
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa
"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard
http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/
!Kaggen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2012, 12:26 AM   #468
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
Please remember this when you ask why a computer can't be conscious.
I only ask why a computer can't be conscious to challenge believers in the magic bean. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

I was talking about that universal cosmic consciousness nonsense. There's also no evidence a computer cannot be conscious. In fact, a full simulation of a brain would undoubtedly be conscious. Why wouldn't it be?

...plus I was speaking in the present tense. In the future, we may find evidence of consciousness somewhere outside the brain, but seeing similarity between images of neurons and the cosmos does not constitute evidence of cosmic consciousness.

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 3rd June 2012 at 12:32 AM.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2012, 08:24 AM   #469
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
The same possible reasons why people who have their eyes closed and their eyeballs pressed on seem to report such similar experiences.

The same possible reasons why people who hold their breath until they are about to pass out seem to report such similar experiences.

This doesn't hold water to me.

There's a difference between poking some-ones closed eyeball with a finger, poking them with a red hot poker or poking them with an acid coated toothpick.

Totally different classes of drugs (tryptamines, ergoline derivatives, opioid analgesics, NMDA agonists) each with completely different Ki value binding affinities to totally different receptors each seem to produce extremely similar effects when +5 states are reached.

Thus such similarities can not be explained by typical neurochemistry.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2012, 09:05 AM   #470
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
I was talking about that universal cosmic consciousness nonsense. There's also no evidence a computer cannot be conscious. In fact, a full simulation of a brain would undoubtedly be conscious. Why wouldn't it be?

It would not have free will and the ability to do any more than it was programmed to.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2012, 09:21 AM   #471
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
Yeah, i wanted to suggest that the profundity of observing a bathroom tile might not be in the same category as a full-blown dmt experience. Thank god Zeuzzz is here, to take the heat for me.
quarky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2012, 11:39 AM   #472
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
It would not have free will and the ability to do any more than it was programmed to.
That's true. In addition to the usual hardware and software, you will need to wire in one "free will and the ability to do more than it was programmed to" bean.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2012, 12:34 PM   #473
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
That's true. In addition to the usual hardware and software, you will need to wire in one "free will and the ability to do more than it was programmed to" bean.

Bean?

Magic bean?

I want.

You got?

Can you explain this sentence more clearly?
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2012, 01:27 PM   #474
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Can you explain this sentence more clearly?
A simulation of a brain does what it is programmed to do. That is, it does the same thing as a brain.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2012, 02:38 PM   #475
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
A simulation of a brain does what it is programmed to do. That is, it does the same thing as a brain.

Who programmed the brain?

And what is the source code?
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2012, 02:40 PM   #476
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Who programmed the brain?

And what is the source code?
Your brain was programmed?

In that case just read the documentation.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2012, 02:59 PM   #477
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
In that case just read the documentation.
Got a link?

Quote:
Your brain was programmed?

Nope.

Just some people here seem to ber implying it was.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2012, 05:48 PM   #478
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
This doesn't hold water to me.

There's a difference between poking some-ones closed eyeball with a finger, poking them with a red hot poker or poking them with an acid coated toothpick.

Totally different classes of drugs (tryptamines, ergoline derivatives, opioid analgesics, NMDA agonists) each with completely different Ki value binding affinities to totally different receptors each seem to produce extremely similar effects when +5 states are reached.

Thus such similarities can not be explained by typical neurochemistry.
I know, that's why I brought it up.

Go ahead and press on your eyeball. Seriously.

If one didn't know how the functron filters in the first stages of the visual processing system worked, they might try to attribute the similarity in patterns that *all people* see to some universal consciousness.

However once you know how those work, it is obvious that "oh, they are just malfunctioning" and that causes the patterns and furthermore that since the circuit is the same in all humans, so is the pattern.
rocketdodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2012, 06:15 PM   #479
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
I know, that's why I brought it up.

Go ahead and press on your eyeball. Seriously.

If one didn't know how the functron filters in the first stages of the visual processing system worked, they might try to attribute the similarity in patterns that *all people* see to some universal consciousness.

However once you know how those work, it is obvious that "oh, they are just malfunctioning" and that causes the patterns and furthermore that since the circuit is the same in all humans, so is the pattern.
It's called a paradoxical stimulus because the usual stimulus for the rods is visible light, not pressure.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th June 2012, 01:38 AM   #480
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by Modified View Post
That's true. In addition to the usual hardware and software, you will need to wire in one "free will and the ability to do more than it was programmed to" bean.
I've boiled one up in my laboratory, injected lots of determination, drive, and enterprise until it glowed with a bright violet light of beany independence. It's quite free willy I assure you, and when it's in my robot slave, it won't do anything I tell it to.

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 4th June 2012 at 01:40 AM.
Mr. Scott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.