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 6th June 2012, 08:51 AM   #521
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Of course I am biased, being a programmer, but IMO it is the good programmers who understand more about our world than anyone else.

Needing to write your own code that numerically simulates/models a world tends to make you think about just exactly what that whole "world" thing entails.
I think it is the exact opposite.
You know more and more about less and less when you reduce the world to numbers.
__________________
"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 6th June 2012, 09:36 AM   #522
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
No.

None of these people you speak of really know that much about the subject. Baars knows a little more, but not by much, since he isn't a computer scientist.

The people that know alot about the subject are the researchers making robot brains out of neural networks. Brains that function using the same principles as ours.

You wrote quite a bit of stuff, but none of it is really relevant, because there are researchers making robot brains out of neural networks that function using the same principles as ours.

I repeated that, because it is important.
I missed the demonstration that you or anyone else actually knows what principles our brains use.

Blathering SRIP just doesn't fill the gap at least for me.
AlBell 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 6th June 2012, 12:43 PM   #523
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
See Bolded: Sort of agree with this, from my purely scientific side, in terms of physically measurable experimental evidence being the essential precursor of any theory.

See italisized: And note purely the emphasis.

I honestly dont know how I can make you see my side of the argument without advocating doing something I don't like recommending to people unless they make that decision themselves.
Sorry Mr. Scott, I would go into why I think consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe (albeit I am pushing my guessing ability some here) but I have seemingly pissed off someone who is raring to go into everything about neural networks and hard AI and so on, so let me just say that Zeuzzz's response above aint too bad.

Zeuzzz, are you referring to giving DMT a try? It is a fascinating subject this molecule DMT. I have not tried it myself. I want to though (even though it sounds scary as hell).
__________________
I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.

— Hitler, 1933
tensordyne 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 6th June 2012, 12:45 PM   #524
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by AlBell View Post
I missed the demonstration that you or anyone else actually knows what principles our brains use.
Uhmmm, yeah, that is about what I was going to say.
__________________
I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.

— Hitler, 1933
tensordyne 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 6th June 2012, 02:19 PM   #525
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
No.

None of these people you speak of ...
Wow, I find the above quote in its full form very odd in a way. Let me see if I can break it down some.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
No.
Not exactly the best way to start a conversation.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
None of these people you speak of really know that much about the subject. Baars knows a little more, but not by much, since he isn't a computer scientist.
What subject is it that we are speaking off? The subject of neural nets, consciousness (the main point of this thread), neurobiology, ...??? So far I have used the following researchers names': Dennett, Chalmers, V. S. Ramanujan, Searle. I don't think I brought up Baars ever, not that I super care. I am just trying to be complete.

I have to say, even though I disagree with Dennett, he does know a lot about the literature and concepts of the topics I listed above as to subject matter. It is pretty silly to assume he doesn't; the guy is super smart.

Similar things can no doubt be said about Chalmers and perhaps less so for Searle. As for Ramanujan, the hard on you seem to have for programmers knowing so much is not true. Most programmers do not know much about Brain Physiology, even if they are experts in programming neural nets. I could go on about domain specific knowledge. Instead, I will leave that for a response to a different entry.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
The people that know alot about the subject are the researchers making robot brains out of neural networks. Brains that function using the same principles as ours.
Ah, I see that the subject is neural nets (?). The current paradigm is that the brain mostly acts like a neural net. That model is still subject to change as we learn more.

Myself, I see a definite possibility that neurons might be acting like little antennae as well as being rapid firing circuits. Some indication of this to me is due to the fact that consciousness has been found to be associated with neurons firing synchronously.

If the brain is only a net, I do not see the point behind neurons firing synchronously (consciousness seems to especially coincide with synchronous firing in disparate parts of the brain, or so I remember reading somewhere).

The structure of neurons also makes me think they may be acting as antennae. They often have long axons coated in segments as well as fire off in rapid bursts. Many man-made antenna have similar characteristics. Look up the papers by Johnjoe McFadden (and perhaps some others) if you want to read from someone who knows much more than I do about this particular subject.

I have to say, when thinking about a brain that is wired up like a switching circuit (neural network, I am being metaphorical calling it a switching circuit) versus one that has both switching and acts like a field effect computer (not that we even have such a technology, but it does make sense as a concept perhaps), the latter one allows for much more complex interactions. I say this as both someone who knows a fair amount of physics and computer science.

Modeling a Faraday cage encased set of rapidly switching antennae would be pretty costly computationally. Especially if the order of antennae was even anywhere near as many neurons as a small brain has. Lots of nonlinear EM field effects would be present. It is just a mess of a problem.

In any eventuality, it is premature to exclude out all aspects of the brain except neural networks as a point of study in relation to consciousness. What about various chemicals? Do they not affect consciousness? I am sure others can add in various aspects of the brain that do not function like neural nets and could very easily be connected to conscious states.

Plus, neural nets are not all they are cracked up to be. They have limitations and their own issues (please feel free to gift us with your knowledge on this rocketdodger).

You know, if you asked someone during the Victorian times how the brain works they might relate it to a steam engine. In our day we relate it to electronic computers. Who knows what next technology we will relate it to that is supposedly the truth of the matter.

So I say, let the researchers in their various fields investigate. I have no problem with that (even AI research!). I do have a problem if someone comes along and claims their invention is conscious. Let the neuroscientists do their job to hopefully figure out how consciousness works in the one source we can seemingly all agree about: us.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
You wrote quite a bit of stuff, but none of it is really relevant, because there are researchers making robot brains out of neural networks that function using the same principles as ours.
Well, that is somewhat galling to say that what I wrote is irrelevant on the grounds above. The only thing that seems irrelevant is the response you gave to the post I made. Irrelevant, that is, to anything I wrote (note that I returned the disfavor in kind, I am just not that rude), because there is not much in the way of analysis of what I said. I do not have any problem with anyone bringing neural nets into the mix though, so that is cool.

The response also seemed a bit canned. Almost like how a religious person will repeat their testimony ad nauseum to anyone who would care to listen. "Neural Networks, Brains, Programmers, Go...". "Jesus, Heaven, Church, Go..."

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
I repeated that, because it is important.
No thanks, you do not need repetition for me to acknowledge a concept. I say this for future reference. Of course, if you could acknowledge a few of the concepts I bring up by deigning to respond to them, that would be most appreciated.
__________________
I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.

— Hitler, 1933

Last edited by tensordyne; 6th June 2012 at 02:40 PM. Reason: syntactica
tensordyne 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 6th June 2012, 02:26 PM   #526
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
I think it is the exact opposite.
You know more and more about less and less when you reduce the world to numbers.
That doesn't really make sense.

To understand X implies the ability to reduce X into simpler concepts and see how those simpler concepts work together to produce the behavior of X.

Repeat that, and eventually you arrive at "reducing the world to numbers."

If you mean that looking at the brain in a narrow sense like this implies no knowledge of things the brain can do such as art and poetry, well I would agree. But I don't see how knowing about art and poetry means one knows "more" about the brain.
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 6th June 2012, 02:27 PM   #527
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by AlBell View Post
I missed the demonstration that you or anyone else actually knows what principles our brains use.

Blathering SRIP just doesn't fill the gap at least for me.
I know you did, and that is funny, because it was in a post directed at you, a post you actually responded to BTW.

Par for the course, though. Leave out the maths and hard stuff, lets get back to arguing about stupid red herrings, eh?
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 6th June 2012, 02:33 PM   #528
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by AlBell View Post
Blathering SRIP just doesn't fill the gap at least for me.
Sorry, this just bothers me, what the heck does SRIP stand for? "Soldier Robot Interface Project" is the best I could find online, so I at least did some searching before asking.
__________________
I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.

— Hitler, 1933
tensordyne 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 6th June 2012, 02:48 PM   #529
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
Not exactly the best way to start a conversation.
I am not starting. You are starting. I have been in the current conversation, with the same people, for about 4-5 years.

Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
I have to say, even though I disagree with Dennett, he does know a lot about the literature and concepts of the topics I listed above as to subject matter. It is pretty silly to assume he doesn't; the guy is super smart.
The people I consider authorities on the subject are the programmers that are actually doing the research trying to model the brain. Everyone else just has an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
Ah, I see that the subject is neural nets (?). The current paradigm is that the brain mostly acts like a neural net. That model is still subject to change as we learn more.
This is a very silly group of statements, given that the brain is made of neurons that are networked. It doesn't "act like" a neural network, it IS a neural network,

Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
Myself, I see a definite possibility that neurons might be acting like little antennae as well as being rapid firing circuits. Some indication of this to me is due to the fact that consciousness has been found to be associated with neurons firing synchronously.

If the brain is only a net, I do not see the point behind neurons firing synchronously (consciousness seems to especially coincide with synchronous firing in disparate parts of the brain, or so I remember reading somewhere).

The structure of neurons also makes me think they may be acting as antennae. They often have long axons coated in segments as well as fire off in rapid bursts. Many man-made antenna have similar characteristics. Look up the papers by Johnjoe McFadden (and perhaps some others) if you want to read from someone who knows much more than I do about this particular subject.

I have to say, when thinking about a brain that is wired up like a switching circuit (neural network, I am being metaphorical calling it a switching circuit) versus one that has both switching and acts like a field effect computer (not that we even have such a technology, but it does make sense as a concept perhaps), the latter one allows for much more complex interactions. I say this as both someone who knows a fair amount of physics and computer science.

Modeling a Faraday cage encased set of rapidly switching antennae would be pretty costly computationally. Especially if the order of antennae was even anywhere near as many neurons as a small brain has. Lots of nonlinear EM field effects would be present. It is just a mess of a problem.

In any eventuality, it is premature to exclude out all aspects of the brain except neural networks as a point of study in relation to consciousness. What about various chemicals? Do they not affect consciousness? I am sure others can add in various aspects of the brain that do not function like neural nets and could very easily be connected to conscious states.
Well, let me just ask you a few things.

1) Do you have any actual evidence of these things, or just speculation based on how neurons look similar to "other stuff," such as octopi and trees, in pictures?

2) Can you even begin to suggest why these things you speak of might be necessary for consciousness, that is, what the neural network alone could not manage?

3) Can you even begin to describe how these things you mention might even work, in the context of the neural circuitry of the brain that we know quite a bit about? Merely saying "use field effects" isn't exactly a description.

And BTW chemicals affect how the neural network functions, so I don't see how various drugs and chemicals could advance any argument that it isn't all about neural networks.

Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
Plus, neural nets are not all they are cracked up to be. They have limitations and their own issues (please feel free to gift us with your knowledge on this rocketdodger).
Last time I checked, so do human brains.

Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
Well, that is somewhat galling to say that what I wrote is irrelevant on the grounds above. The only thing that seems irrelevant is the response you gave to the post I made.
But everything you said is irrelevant, given the fact that researchers are making robot brains out of neural networks, that function using the same principles as our brain.

You are basically telling the wright brothers that they need magic faerie dust to fly, after they already got the plane in the air. Yeah they don't have a fighter jet, but the plane is flying.

20 years ago your theories might have been more relevant, but they just aren't anymore.

Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
The response also seemed a bit canned. Almost like how a religious person will repeat their testimony ad nauseum to anyone who would care to listen. "Neural Networks, Brains, Programmers, Go...". "Jesus, Heaven, Church, Go..."
More like how a scientist will repeat known research ad nauseum to people who claim such research doesn't exist.

Sorry it exists. It exists. It exists. I don't know how else to dress up that information. It exists.

Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
No thanks, you do not need repetition for me to acknowledge a concept. I say this for future reference.
Ok, but I don't really care if you merely acknowledge a statement of mine. I hope you would actually *think* about it, and try to absorb the information, rather than just rushing on to write a response.

Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
Of course, if you could acknowledge a few of the concepts I bring up by deigning to respond to them, that would be most appreciated.
I did, when you answer the questions I posed we can get deeper into it.
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 6th June 2012, 02:56 PM   #530
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Of course I am biased, being a programmer, but IMO it is the good programmers who understand more about our world than anyone else.

Needing to write your own code that numerically simulates/models a world tends to make you think about just exactly what that whole "world" thing entails.
Programmers have a certain set of skills. I guess you could say these skills are in the area of applied finite mathematics. Those skills do not give the programmer any preference to "understand more about our world than anyone else." I really doubt for instance you are going to come up with a new law of physics using string manipulation.

Programmers generally have to know much less about our world than do Medical Doctors. Most programmers that I have met really do not know much in the way of physics or chemistry beyond what you would expect an average person to know. In fact, I do not see any good reason why anyone should expect a programmer to know or get the "world" idea better than anyone else in any of the many disciplines out there. They are all just different ways of looking at things or doing things.

Perhaps though you are referring to the modeling mindset that programmers have. Well, many other disciplines share this same mindset too.
__________________
I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.

— Hitler, 1933
tensordyne 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 6th June 2012, 05:03 PM   #531
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
See Bolded: Sort of agree with this, from my purely scientific side, in terms of physically measurable experimental evidence being the essential precursor of any theory.

See italisized: And note purely the emphasis.

I honestly dont know how I can make you see my side of the argument without advocating doing something I don't like recommending to people unless they make that decision themselves.
It's not just purely scientific experimental evidence. There's no evidence of any type that consciousness exists anywhere except in brains on Earth.

I do see your side of the argument. I used to believe in universal consciousness, which I think is what you are advocating. Sorry, no evidence for it.

You don't have to advocate that I do something to get me to see your side of the argument. Just tell us what it is. If it's dangerous I won't do it, but it seems obvious that it will amount to an argument from personal experience, which would not constitute evidence of any sort. Testimony doesn't cut it.

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 6th June 2012 at 05:04 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 6th June 2012, 05:10 PM   #532
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
Sorry, this just bothers me, what the heck does SRIP stand for? "Soldier Robot Interface Project" is the best I could find online, so I at least did some searching before asking.
Self Referential Information Processing.

That, and read "I Am A Strange Loop" by Hofstadter, author of Godel Escher Bach.

None of it gets into the principles a brain uses to form consciousness.

ps. We have a poster who now writes conscious programs.
AlBell 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 6th June 2012, 06:13 PM   #533
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by AlBell View Post
ps. We have a poster who now writes conscious programs.
linky please?
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 6th June 2012, 07:31 PM   #534
quarky
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 20,121
An ant has a neural network, and an ant colony behaves like a meta neural network...even using chemicals to transmit information between units.
Is it safe to say that an ant colony is conscious?
How about the individual ant?

Is a network of humans conscious, beyond the consciousness of the individuals within?
Can an organization take on a life of its own, with its own agenda?
Is the Supreme Court conscious, for instance?
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 6th June 2012, 10:54 PM   #535
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Part I.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
I am not starting. You are starting. I have been in the current conversation, with the same people, for about 4-5 years.
Fantastic, it still does not change the fact that a simple "No" at the beginning of a post is ... I don't know, not conveying a lot except general disapproval. It seems kind of childish to me too, but perhaps that is just me.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
The people I consider authorities on the subject are the programmers that are actually doing the research trying to model the brain. Everyone else just has an opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.
Please indicate subject matter we are speaking of. I had issues with this before. I was looking for "... on the subject of xxx...".

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
This is a very silly group of statements, given that the brain is made of neurons that are networked. It doesn't "act like" a neural network, it IS a neural network,
The neural networks as you use them in a computer programming context are very different than the tissues of the brain. The brain is not just composed of neurons, and yet neural networks (computer-wise, AKA, artificial neural networks) do not address the space between the neurons. Or the exacting physics or chemistry of the brain. Or who knows what else. Most likely lots and lots of stuff (cell dynamics???).

Neural Networks are a model of one aspect of the brain. That is why they were invented as a concept in the first place. Neural Networks (computer science version) also usually do not have anywhere near the complexity and feedback that the networks of neurons, glial cells, etc. have in a real brain.

So no, your brain does not act like an artificial neural network and also is not an artificial neural network. Your brain has a network of neurons, it is not a neural network (if anything, the network connections are at times graph-like, at other times mostly like an artificial neural network, and at other points like long distance telephone wires.).

Simplifying the brain only down to neural networks does not seem right and proper in my book unless the dynamics you are trying to capture fits well within that model. I remain unconvinced that the Neural Network concept either encapsulates the main functioning of the brain or in any way helps to
figure out how consciousness operates.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Well, let me just ask you a few things.
By all means.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
1) Do you have any actual evidence of these things, or just speculation based on how neurons look similar to "other stuff," such as octopi and trees, in pictures?
Do not underestimate the investigative power of something looking like something else. Of course to really test this antenna idea you would have see if it could recieve or send signals. As far as I know, this has not been done yet (I would do it myself. Chances of me getting published even if I did
show it are nill is my guess. Plus, large octopi neurons are not easy to come by! I am not a biologist either...).

We do know that the brain responds to EM fields and that it even produces a Field of its own. The brain having its own field is how EEG works.

Quote:
Electroencephalography (EEG) is the recording of electrical activity along the scalp. EEG measures voltage fluctuations resulting from ionic current flows within the neurons of the brain.
When you have current flow you get - magnetic fields. I trust I do not have to explain how an electric field would come about in this type of situation (hint, ionic molecules of various kinds). That is just physics.

So, given the above, it seems pretty plausible to me that neurons are antennae. It is my pet theory, so take it or leave it. Even then, I do respect science, so I am not even going to completely believe it myself until it is printed up in a Journal somewhere (with positive follow up papers hopefully!).

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
2) Can you even begin to suggest why these things you speak of might be necessary for consciousness, that is, what the neural network alone could not manage?
Well, I hope you do not mind me going down the rabbit hole a bit on this one. You have asked me to guess, so I feel that there should be a certain amount of latitude in my response. I will understand if you do not find the ideas compelling. This question involves the basis of 'consciousness', so I have to readily admit anything I say now about that is at best educated speculation (that is true to the best of my knowledge for everyone on the planet).

That said, I think I know what consciousness is about. I do not know its actual basis. I guess I can say the following at least. If consciousness is of physical EM field origin, then while it may be useful as part of your greater model of the brain to include neural network elements, a neural network is not an EM field. Fields are defined for each point in a given space. The two mathematical structures are very different.

Here is the rabbit hole part. Perhaps our brains are like radio stations that pick up channel "consciousness". Inputs from sensing organs modulate the consciousness signal so that one experiences various sensations based upon various stimuli.

Yeah, I know. It is a bit out there. On the other hand, even if the above paragraph is wrong, the physical basis of consciousness could just as easily still be EM (other?). I go with the evidence whatever the case may eventually turn out to be. So far the evidence is that the brain is electrical and has EM fields. These are two essential facts of the situation.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
3) Can you even begin to describe how these things you mention might even work, in the context of the neural circuitry of the brain that we know quite a bit about? Merely saying "use field effects" isn't exactly a description.
Very true what is said above. The hallmark of a good analytic mind is to ask "how". To give some idea of how I think an animal brain would work in this schema, perhaps it is best to give a description of how I would perhaps invent an EM field effect brain myself.

First I would make a Faraday Cage the size of the brain (if you look up McFadden you can see the paper on CEMI where he explains how our brains are encased in a kind of Faraday cage). Perhaps to make this interesting I would hook up some wires to some form of sensor. To go with the robot theme maybe I would have output wires controlling a motor or something.

Next I would make a bunch of small antennae. Each antennae would be controlled by a central circuit (think neuron soma) of its own. There are many types of neurons so perhaps I would not just use antennae that only have one pole. In general though most of the antennae would have one large antennae part (think Axon). The antennae I would have would also have the ability to send out one or more direct wire signals to other antennae as a further means of inter-antennae communication (here think of Axon Terminals connecting to Dendrites).

Perhaps I would use a genetic algorithm to figure out how to hook up the antennae together. Or perhaps I would just try and approximate the general features of a given animal brain (a simple one at that). Each neuron/antennae would also be given the task of trying to figure out when it will receive a fire signal (defined appropriately) and try and fire just before that (maybe include some psuedo-random firing just to be safe).

Who knows, this would be research, so to a certain extent, one would just have to play around and see what happens (play in this sense would still have to be following the Scientific Method!). Each one of the parts and steps in creating the 'brain' above comes from actual physiological facts about biological brains (just like how neural network ideas came from the physiology of the brain). I hope this gives a decent picture of what I am thinking about.
__________________
I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.

— Hitler, 1933

Last edited by tensordyne; 6th June 2012 at 10:55 PM. Reason: Cause I wanna!
tensordyne 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 6th June 2012, 11:13 PM   #536
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Part II.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
And BTW chemicals affect how the neural network functions, so I don't see how various drugs and chemicals could advance any argument that it isn't all about neural networks.
OK, lets set things straight then. This is getting crazy because it feels like each paragraph based response is worthy of an essay all its own. You can take a square peg and if it is small enough fit it into a round hole. Something very similar is going on here.

When talking about neural networks we can either be referring to the artificial or biological kind. If we are talking about biological then drugs will most likely be a consideration of any experimental tissue model. Even then, tissue models are just that, models. They do not include other cells the brain has nor quite likely are they anywhere near as complex as real brain tissue is. If it was as complex there would not be much point in using the experimental tissue model.

If we are talking artificial neural networks and how they advance the argument that it is not all about neural networks, then we have an even worse case. A brain's neurons generally do not line up as perfectly in layers like an artificial network does. There is no well defined input, hidden or output layer. The topology is much more graph-like. Plus, network models (or graph models), only deal with connections.

Say you wanted to model the Electromagnetic Vector Field with neural nets. It does not make a lot of sense to do so. Or maybe you want to model various scalar fields such as chemical densities. Again, this does not work well or at all with neural nets. Or perhaps let's try and do some organic chemistry with neural networks. No, that does not make sense either. Yet, each of those aspects of the brain is no doubt important.

In general, you need more than one tool to analyse a real brain. All of those tools are not neural nets either. Square meet circle.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Last time I checked, so do human brains.
Interesting point. I was actually teasing out to see what you knew about the limitations of neural networks as a model of computation. See the quote by Dewdney below to get a taste of what I am referring to.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
But everything you said is irrelevant, given the fact that researchers are making robot brains out of neural networks, that function using the same principles as our brain.
What do you mean by 'brains'. Brains with the same capabilities as animal brains? Sorry, I do not find that to be at all likely. Most of the circuits we create, whether neural network or not, confine electrons to certain paths and damp out EM fields. The physics of any robot "brain" I know of works in quite a few ways differently than an animal brain does. This is a fact.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
You are basically telling the wright brothers that they need magic faerie dust to fly, after they already got the plane in the air. Yeah they don't have a fighter jet, but the plane is flying.
Nope, I am saying we have not figured out consciousness yet. That the people who will figure it out are the neuroscientists (with help from whatever fields are relevant). I am saying that my best guess, given all that I have read, is that consciousness has a physical basis (no magic faerie dust needed).

I hate to have to ding you because I know that you are using figures of speech to make your point. It is just that being able to restate accurately someone else's position is a large part of being intellectually honest. For instance, I think the Intelligent Design people are off their rocker. If I wanted to talk about them though I am going to use their own words, not a jestful recapitulation of what I think their position is like.

Please, at any time if I misquote you are otherwise misstate your concepts, let me know immediately. I do not want to be arguing against paper tigers.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
20 years ago your theories might have been more relevant, but they just aren't anymore.
Because 20 is when computational neuroscience really started taking off? Consider the following criticism I found through a simple Wikipedia search.

Quote:
A. K. Dewdney, a former Scientific American columnist, wrote in 1997, "Although neural nets do solve a few toy problems, their powers of computation are so limited that I am surprised anyone takes them
seriously as a general problem-solving tool." (Dewdney, p. 82)
Odd that. Seems like neural nets might not be all they are cracked up to be.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
More like how a scientist will repeat known research ad nauseum to people who claim such research doesn't exist.
There exists tons of research on all sorts of topics. I hope that was never at issue. Understanding the brain as primarily being a neural net is a good idea seems to me to be one of your main messages. If such is the case, I am not convinced of this.

I have read too much to know that the dynamics of neural nets is does not adequately cover how the brain functions. Additionally, I do not see how neural nets leads to consciousness either in principle or in some theoretical sense.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Sorry it exists. It exists. It exists. I don't know how else to dress up that information. It exists.
So do neuroscience journals that almost never talk much about neural nets ever. I think you have really grafted onto this idea of neural nets as being so important that it is a good idea to review why. I have seen this kind of behavior before. When Fractals were all the rage then everything was about fractals. Fractals, fractals everywhere.

Your models are too limiting. Being a physics minded person, if I had to model the brain as completely as I could maybe I would use a lattice model. Some other models or combination of known models would be my approach. There are lots of ways to model the brain. Neural nets are just one of many type of models. Most likely they are not even one of the most important ones.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
Ok, but I don't really care if you merely acknowledge a statement of mine. I hope you would actually *think* about it, and try to absorb the information, rather than just rushing on to write a response.
Oh, I have thought pretty hard on these subjects. Neural Nets are not new to me. I am pretty sure that maybe some of the things I have said are new to you though (I for instance would be interested in why you think we do not have to understand the Biology of Consciousness before we can recreate it artificially, if I understand your position correctly. Everything else that we recreated from Biology meets that requirement, I just do not see why we can skip past that requirement.). Either way, it is all good. We are not likely to solve it in a few pages in this format.

As far as acknowledgement, no, but to skip wholesale as you did and then jump right into neural nets without even a lead up, well what do you want? It seemed kind of rude to me. Like you are basically saying, "naw, those other subjects do not matter".

Why? Not because you showed them to be really irrelevant in their given context. It was because in your own mind the only thing that is important is talking about robots controlled by neural nets or something.

I am sorry, I am not very impressed by neural network controlled robots. I find the subject to be worthy of study. It has helped in understanding the bigger picture of the universe. I wonder though, would you claim that because these robots have neural nets they are conscious? If so, you are going to have to do a lot more work to convince me of that supposed fact.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
I did, when you answer the questions I posed we can get deeper into it.
Very well. I appreciate your response.

Just a last quick word. I do not think rocketdodger that you understand what is meant by the word 'consciousness' as used when referring to what it is like to be something (what some call phenomenal consciousness). I think abstraction has occluded the reality of the concept of experience (or degraded it to the point that everything must be stated in terms of mental models).

I see this in Dennett too. I am not saying this to be disparaging. It kind of makes me sad in a way when someone, possibly because of prior training or just turn of mind, can not seem to grasp an important concept.

The world turns on though.
__________________
I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.

— Hitler, 1933

Last edited by tensordyne; 6th June 2012 at 11:17 PM.
tensordyne 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 6th June 2012, 11:21 PM   #537
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by AlBell View Post
Self Referential Information Processing.

That, and read "I Am A Strange Loop" by Hofstadter, author of Godel Escher Bach.

None of it gets into the principles a brain uses to form consciousness.

ps. We have a poster who now writes conscious programs.
Very good. Thanks for letting me know.
__________________
I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.

— Hitler, 1933
tensordyne 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 6th June 2012, 11:25 PM   #538
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
The neural networks as you use them in a computer programming context are very different than the tissues of the brain. The brain is not just composed of neurons, and yet neural networks (computer-wise, AKA, artificial neural networks) do not address the space between the neurons. Or the exacting physics or chemistry of the brain. Or who knows what else. Most likely lots and lots of stuff (cell dynamics???).

Neural Networks are a model of one aspect of the brain. That is why they were invented as a concept in the first place. Neural Networks (computer science version) also usually do not have anywhere near the complexity and feedback that the networks of neurons, glial cells, etc. have in a real brain.

So no, your brain does not act like an artificial neural network and also is not an artificial neural network. Your brain has a network of neurons, it is not a neural network (if anything, the network connections are at times graph-like, at other times mostly like an artificial neural network, and at other points like long distance telephone wires.).

Simplifying the brain only down to neural networks does not seem right and proper in my book unless the dynamics you are trying to capture fits well within that model. I remain unconvinced that the Neural Network concept either encapsulates the main functioning of the brain or in any way helps to
figure out how consciousness operates.
The search term you should be using is neuronal networks.

Quote:
Do not underestimate the investigative power of something looking like something else. Of course to really test this antenna idea you would have see if it could recieve or send signals. As far as I know, this has not been done yet (I would do it myself. Chances of me getting published even if I did
show it are nill is my guess. Plus, large octopi neurons are not easy to come by! I am not a biologist either...).

We do know that the brain responds to EM fields and that it even produces a Field of its own. The brain having its own field is how EEG works.

When you have current flow you get - magnetic fields. I trust I do not have to explain how an electric field would come about in this type of situation (hint, ionic molecules of various kinds). That is just physics.

So, given the above, it seems pretty plausible to me that neurons are antennae. It is my pet theory, so take it or leave it. Even then, I do respect science, so I am not even going to completely believe it myself until it is printed up in a Journal somewhere (with positive follow up papers hopefully!).

Well, I hope you do not mind me going down the rabbit hole a bit on this one. You have asked me to guess, so I feel that there should be a certain amount of latitude in my response. I will understand if you do not find the ideas compelling. This question involves the basis of 'consciousness', so I have to readily admit anything I say now about that is at best educated speculation (that is true to the best of my knowledge for everyone on the planet).

That said, I think I know what consciousness is about. I do not know its actual basis. I guess I can say the following at least. If consciousness is of physical EM field origin, then while it may be useful as part of your greater model of the brain to include neural network elements, a neural network is not an EM field. Fields are defined for each point in a given space. The two mathematical structures are very different.

Here is the rabbit hole part. Perhaps our brains are like radio stations that pick up channel "consciousness". Inputs from sensing organs modulate the consciousness signal so that one experiences various sensations based upon various stimuli.

Yeah, I know. It is a bit out there. On the other hand, even if the above paragraph is wrong, the physical basis of consciousness could just as easily still be EM (other?). I go with the evidence whatever the case may eventually turn out to be. So far the evidence is that the brain is electrical and has EM fields. These are two essential facts of the situation.

Very true what is said above. The hallmark of a good analytic mind is to ask "how". To give some idea of how I think an animal brain would work in this schema, perhaps it is best to give a description of how I would perhaps invent an EM field effect brain myself.

First I would make a Faraday Cage the size of the brain (if you look up McFadden you can see the paper on CEMI where he explains how our brains are encased in a kind of Faraday cage). Perhaps to make this interesting I would hook up some wires to some form of sensor. To go with the robot theme maybe I would have output wires controlling a motor or something.

Next I would make a bunch of small antennae. Each antennae would be controlled by a central circuit (think neuron soma) of its own. There are many types of neurons so perhaps I would not just use antennae that only have one pole. In general though most of the antennae would have one large antennae part (think Axon). The antennae I would have would also have the ability to send out one or more direct wire signals to other antennae as a further means of inter-antennae communication (here think of Axon Terminals connecting to Dendrites).

Perhaps I would use a genetic algorithm to figure out how to hook up the antennae together. Or perhaps I would just try and approximate the general features of a given animal brain (a simple one at that). Each neuron/antennae would also be given the task of trying to figure out when it will receive a fire signal (defined appropriately) and try and fire just before that (maybe include some psuedo-random firing just to be safe).

Who knows, this would be research, so to a certain extent, one would just have to play around and see what happens (play in this sense would still have to be following the Scientific Method!). Each one of the parts and steps in creating the 'brain' above comes from actual physiological facts about biological brains (just like how neural network ideas came from the physiology of the brain). I hope this gives a decent picture of what I am thinking about.
No. No to all of this. No to each and every sentence. No.
Beelzebuddy 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 7th June 2012, 12:50 AM   #539
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
The search term you should be using is neuronal networks.
Good point. I do not see that it makes much difference in terms of the analysis already given though.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
No. No to all of this. No to each and every sentence. No.
A lazy if complete response. I am sorry that I have insulted your religious sensibilities. I only say that because, in my experience, someone does not at least give a reason for disagreement only when one touches upon certain tenets of that person's faith. Since these tenets of faith can not really be logically defended, the best response is just a repeated 'no'. Just a guess.

On the other hand, perhaps I should just respond to the argument and not the arguer. I would if I could. No arguments were given. This is a classic fallacy BTW. It is called "refusal to reason".

Let me know if you want to engage in actual debate that involves reasoned arguments at some point in the future.
__________________
I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.

— Hitler, 1933
tensordyne 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 7th June 2012, 12:54 AM   #540
blobru
Philosopher
 
blobru's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,900
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
--- First I would make a Faraday Cage the size of the brain (if you look up McFadden you can see the paper on CEMI where he explains how our brains are encased in a kind of Faraday cage). ...

Johnjoe McFadden's CEMI summary page (scroll down for links to three of his articles).
__________________
"Say to them, 'I am Nobody!'" -- Ulysses to the Cyclops

"Never mind. I can't read." -- Hokulele to the Easter Bunny
blobru 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 7th June 2012, 03:25 AM   #541
Itztli
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 80
I don't see the point of the CEMI field theory. The EM field generated by moving ions in the brain is very weak, and therefore unlikely to have any effect on the behavior of the person, and if it doesn't have any effect, there's no sense assuming it's even present.
Itztli 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 7th June 2012, 06:16 AM   #542
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
neuronal neurones


Originally Posted by Itztli View Post
I don't see the point of the CEMI field theory. The EM field generated by moving ions in the brain is very weak, and therefore unlikely to have any effect on the behavior of the person, and if it doesn't have any effect, there's no sense assuming it's even present.
I am not sure how to look up or determine the strength of the EM field created by the action potential of a neuron firing. Conceivably it makes sense to say it is pretty weak. However, I can see two possibilities at least for how those fields might make effects appreciable on the macro scale.

The first way is if one considers the cumulative effect of many neuron EM fields on a given other neuron. This effect could quite conceivably be strong enough to affect the operation of that other neuron.

The second way that EM fields of neurons could lead to macro effects is if one just considers short range EM effects. If the EM field of a single neuron firing is only strong enough to effect the firing of neurons close by, then when one of the affected neurons fires it also sends out its signal through the dendrites of still other neurons, thus leading to the cascades of firing that are seen in animal brains (a macro effect).

I do not know myself what any of the CEMI types think about this, or perhaps even what is supposed to be the well known answer to such questions. Either way, unless someone has a good argument on why either of the two cases above are not possible (probably have not thought of all the ingenious ways that mother nature might still have neuron firings have macro-scale effects), I must conclude that, for the moment, the overall physical basis for such ideas is still sound.


As always though, open and ready for critical reevaluation.
All the best to you all!
__________________
I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.

— Hitler, 1933

Last edited by tensordyne; 7th June 2012 at 06:39 AM.
tensordyne 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 7th June 2012, 06:24 AM   #543
Mr. Scott
Under the Amazing One's Wing
 
Mr. Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
Evidence of Consciousness

Say, an alien arrives on Earth and gets to chatting with us. What evidence would be look for to determine if it had true consciousness or was just a high functioning clever alien, e.g a Philosopher's Zombie?

Suppose we implemented a computer that had every feature of consciousness we could think of. What evidence would we look for to know whether or not we were successful?
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 7th June 2012, 06:44 AM   #544
Itztli
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 80
The cumulative effect of the different fields of all the ions is just a superposition of the fields, weakened by inverse square and additional attenuation through the tissue. If there's any effect, it will be mostly from nearby signals, and only effect neurons which happen to be on the trigger edge. In electronic circuits, the same thing happens, and it's called 'crosstalk'. Engineers try to avoid it, as it makes the circuit behave unreliably.

The whole thing seems superfluous. We have a huge amount of neurons, and and even bigger network of 'wired' connections between them. I don't see how adding another layer of wireless communication would make consciousness easier to explain. It seems more like a cop-out. Replace 'EM field' with 'Magic Smoke', and read the article again, and that pretty much how it sounds to me.
Itztli 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 7th June 2012, 06:44 AM   #545
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
We do know that the brain responds to EM fields and that it even produces a Field of its own. The brain having its own field is how EEG works.



When you have current flow you get - magnetic fields. I trust I do not have to explain how an electric field would come about in this type of situation (hint, ionic molecules of various kinds). That is just physics.

So, given the above, it seems pretty plausible to me that neurons are antennae. It is my pet theory, so take it or leave it. Even then, I do respect science, so I am not even going to completely believe it myself until it is printed up in a Journal somewhere (with positive follow up papers hopefully!).

Not to really argue, as I just lurk in these threads anymore.
The electromagnetic fields in our neurons are very very very small, they are caused by osmotic pressure differentials across the cell membranes.

They are not used anywhere from what we can tell to create signals. The 'signal' of the neuron is a phase shift in the channels of the cell walls that allow ions on the inside to flow out into the intra cellular space, this phase shift travels down the axon and causes the release of the neurotransmitters.

the neurotransmitters are the way that the neurons communicate with each other, there is zero evidence that there is any sort of EM communication between neural cells.

If there was any meaningful transmission of information that way within the cells of the brain electrical field of your CRT or having an MRI of your brain would cause you to have major seizures.

Just clarifying this point as I have in the past in many threads.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 7th June 2012, 07:08 AM   #546
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post

Perhaps though you are referring to the modeling mindset that programmers have. Well, many other disciplines share this same mindset too.
Yes I agree.

Keep in mind I am just being defensive against !Kaggen.
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 7th June 2012, 07:36 AM   #547
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
Understanding the brain as primarily being a neural net is a good idea seems to me to be one of your main messages. If such is the case, I am not convinced of this.

I have read too much to know that the dynamics of neural nets is does not adequately cover how the brain functions. Additionally, I do not see how neural nets leads to consciousness either in principle or in some theoretical sense.
This paper is 7 years old.

http://www.aist-pain.it/en/files/CON...magination.pdf

There are others that I will dig up, that offer research in a similar vein, but this is my favorite because it offers not only some good research but a very compelling discussion regarding many aspects of consciousness.

The take away conclusion is this: wiring high-quality attractor networks together in the right way leads to a network that is capable of simulating 1) the percepts that actions lead to and 2) the actions that percepts may lead to, and furthermore using that simulation to choose the best current action by evaluating these possible sequences of future actions and percepts.

And that behavior is fundamentally the hallmark of animal consciousness -- we continuously simulate sequences of future actions and the percepts that they lead to.

Now you can argue that this isn't the robot writing poetry, and I agree, but I also don't see how it isn't plainly obvious to anyone that reads the paper that this kind of thing isn't a huge step in the right direction.

If you read this paper, and actually understand it, and still feel that the neural network aspect of the brain isn't clearly the primary driver of consciousness, then I don't really know what to say. I guess I would say that you didn't actually understand the research ?
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 7th June 2012, 07:40 AM   #548
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
linky please?
Yeah, I should have expected that. Sorry, too many threads that I don't have time to reread or capability to effectively search.

Pixy, where are you? IIRC you did finally agree a thermostat is not conscious.
AlBell 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 7th June 2012, 01:17 PM   #549
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
That doesn't really make sense.

To understand X implies the ability to reduce X into simpler concepts and see how those simpler concepts work together to produce the behavior of X.

Repeat that, and eventually you arrive at "reducing the world to numbers."

If you mean that looking at the brain in a narrow sense like this implies no knowledge of things the brain can do such as art and poetry, well I would agree. But I don't see how knowing about art and poetry means one knows "more" about the brain.
The idea that you can reduce something to numbers starts with the idea that there is something meaningful to reduce in the first place.
Numbers are meaningless.
The numbers could map to anything.
That is why they are useful, not because they mean something.
Somehow modellers get hypnotized by the power of numbers to be so meaningless they can represent any meaning and they eventually think that numbers create meaning. Forgetting that the meaning existed before the numbers.
Its called Platonism.
Mathematics was invented.

Of course the result of this is that meaning is vanishing. Art, music and poetry; the high points of meaning are being sidelined as unimportant in human knowledge development and renegaded as simply entertainment.
Interestingly it is imagination which suffers and it is imagination which drives great scientific discover. The ability to combine unrelated concepts. To see the opportunities in imprecision.

There is no doubt computers are getting more intelligent, but the corollary is that humans are getting less imaginative. Eventually we will only be intelligent. In other words it is less that our computers are becoming like us and more that we are becoming like our computers.
I have said it before and I say it again the Turing Test cuts both ways.
__________________
"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 7th June 2012, 02:31 PM   #550
tensordyne
Muse
 
tensordyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
This paper is 7 years old.

http://www.aist-pain.it/en/files/CON...magination.pdf

There ...
Good. This is the way to do debating. Thank you very much for the link. I will give it read. That is all I can promise for the moment. Thanks again.
__________________
I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party.

— Hitler, 1933
tensordyne 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 7th June 2012, 02:55 PM   #551
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
A lazy if complete response. I am sorry that I have insulted your religious sensibilities. I only say that because, in my experience, someone does not at least give a reason for disagreement only when one touches upon certain tenets of that person's faith. Since these tenets of faith can not really be logically defended, the best response is just a repeated 'no'. Just a guess.

On the other hand, perhaps I should just respond to the argument and not the arguer. I would if I could. No arguments were given. This is a classic fallacy BTW. It is called "refusal to reason".

Let me know if you want to engage in actual debate that involves reasoned arguments at some point in the future.
I am ordinarily more than happy to elaborate on neurobiology. However, a detailed response to your post would have to start with "you don't understand how neurons work," continue through "you don't understand how consciousness works," dip into "you don't understand how scientific analogies work," and conclude with tearing down your little proposed experiment into the pile of unrelated jargon you built it from. I'm just not that mean of a person. So, "no."

It's also clear that you're doing the common thing of asserting inadequate evidence for a scientific theory and in its place trying to substitute your own which has no evidence at all. As if all uncertainties are equally likely to happen. We get this a lot with people trying to argue for the existence of a creator. It doesn't work well for them either, but the real problem is it's impossible to talk to them about it. They've got their theory, and if all the evidence to its contrary was not enough to convince them, what can you possibly say to influence their thought process? So, "no" for that as well.
Beelzebuddy 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 7th June 2012, 03:23 PM   #552
rocketdodger
Philosopher
 
rocketdodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post

There is no doubt computers are getting more intelligent, but the corollary is that humans are getting less imaginative. Eventually we will only be intelligent. In other words it is less that our computers are becoming like us and more that we are becoming like our computers.
You must not be familiar with that thing called the internet, because even a cursory examination of it's contents makes it clear that we are more creative and imaginative now than we have ever been.

For example, just look at everyone's avatars here on the forum. Are you suggesting that the act of finding some sort of creative image, or making your own, that you want to represent you, is less imaginative than not doing so? Because before computers I don't think people did that sort of thing.

Last edited by rocketdodger; 7th June 2012 at 03:26 PM.
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 7th June 2012, 03:50 PM   #553
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by quarky View Post
Thank god Zeuzzz is here, to take the heat for me.

Ha, no worries.

I no longer get burnt by anything on this forum in the slightest, I take a step back and just stay warm; only occasionally poking to check.

Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
Zeuzzz, are you referring to giving DMT a try? It is a fascinating subject this molecule DMT. I have not tried it myself. I want to though (even though it sounds scary as hell).

A lot of people are scared of it, or go in with false expectations, and end up not get much worthwhile or meaningful out of it.

Seen people do the exact same amount of DMT before (60mg smoked) and the person who has tried a lot of other mind altering things and is able to stay mentally relaxed when normal reality starts to evaporate is always the one who leaves with some sort of insight or good experience, the person that tenses up and fight the effects will be the one that learns nothing, maybe even has a bad trip, and thus is reluctant to ever try again. 60mg smoked is a lot for your lungs to handle anyway, especially if your not a smoker. Plugging it is the best way, as orally you need an MAOI and DMT (salt or Hcl) is usually way too caustic to snort. If you want more information then PM me, its probably in some plants in your garden, but you will at least need to know some cursory chemistry to extract it.

Anyway I'm not advocating use of it (doing that would be like teaching someone to dive by chucking them out of an aeroplane first) or suggesting it has some sort of mystical special role any more than a lot of other strong psychoactive tryptamines or related drugs; but it's most certainly the quickest way to get to the state of mind I described before, even if only for the more experienced psychonaut.

Last edited by Zeuzzz; 7th June 2012 at 03:57 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 7th June 2012, 11:07 PM   #554
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by rocketdodger View Post
You must not be familiar with that thing called the internet, because even a cursory examination of it's contents makes it clear that we are more creative and imaginative now than we have ever been.

For example, just look at everyone's avatars here on the forum. Are you suggesting that the act of finding some sort of creative image, or making your own, that you want to represent you, is less imaginative than not doing so? Because before computers I don't think people did that sort of thing.
You think?
african masks
__________________
"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 8th June 2012, 01:42 AM   #555
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
You think?
african masks
A better and more reasonable point would have been fewer people did that sort of thing.

There's a decent argument to be made that the internet has made people, on average, more creative. I'm not sure I agree with it: for instance, I suspect that people spend more time, on average, writing now than they did pre-internet. But on the other hand I suspect that they also spend less time honing the craft of writing. Most of us in the discussion spend a relatively large amount of time writing forum posts. Pre-internet would we have spent as much time writing essays, letters, or poetry? Probably some of that time would have gone into creative pursuits, but I doubt all of it would.

Of course, the degree of creativity and imagination that goes into posts on internet forums, blogs, and youtube videos is up for debate. But we can't compare the average quality or degree of creativity in such things with the average in, say, published works from prior generations, if there was an equal output, most of it wasn't published, and thus what was should likely be of higher quality.

ETA because looking at the above I seem to be arguing a position that I don't actually hold: I suspect that the creativity of people in general has been for the most part constant over time. Things that would have affected it are situational: for instance being freed from manual labor, having more time on ones hands, would likely open up time for creative work. But I suspect that people with such time on their hands used whatever tools were available to them as creative outlets, be that as high tech as internet or as low tech as simple daydreams.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

Last edited by Roboramma; 8th June 2012 at 01:45 AM.
Roboramma is online now   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 8th June 2012, 06:17 AM   #556
jenkoul
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 14
Originally Posted by quarky View Post
Consciousness might be a background energy field that we tap into, like radio receivers. Perhaps it is carried by the Higgs Boson or the graviton.
Maybe it precedes matter altogether.

I suspect that we know almost nothing on the subject.
It wasn't all that long ago that various ruling classes considered darker skinned people to be lacking in consciousness and other traits of being a human being.

When i was circumcised, it was widely believed that babies didn't feel pain.
My college biology professor tried to convince me that frogs couldn't feel pain.

There still exists an amazing propensity for humans to assume that consciousness resides in their realm only. I doubt we'll ever see straight until we overcome our anthropomorphic chauvinism. Having the crown of creation title is heady stuff, and it pumps up some serious confirmation bias.

Fortunately, other animals have been getting smarter over the years. I've heard that even crows have been solving some problems. They didn't use to solve problems, back in the days when we were focused solely on how to kill them.

Imho, quarks are conscious. The whole shebang is. Philosophy, yes.

How would we go about proving that atoms are not conscious?
Sounds like you're espousing a Strawsonesque panpsychism (Galen Strawson et al., Consciousness and its Place in Nature, Imprint Academic 2006).

Certainly a defensible position, though a little too over the top for my taste. Personally, I prefer Bernard d'Espagnat's brand of neutral monism (in, e.g., Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Present-Day Quantum Mechanical Concepts, Westview, 2003).
jenkoul 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 8th June 2012, 06:18 AM   #557
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
Numbers are meaningless.
The numbers could map to anything.
Oh really?

The firing of a neuron is meaningless. Its action potential could map to anything.

Last edited by Mr. Scott; 8th June 2012 at 06:20 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 8th June 2012, 06:21 AM   #558
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by !Kaggen View Post
There is no doubt computers are getting more intelligent, but the corollary is that humans are getting less imaginative.
How is that a corollary?
__________________
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 8th June 2012, 06:25 AM   #559
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by tensordyne View Post
I am not sure how to look up or determine the strength of the EM field created by the action potential of a neuron firing. Conceivably it makes sense to say it is pretty weak. However, I can see two possibilities at least for how those fields might make effects appreciable on the macro scale.
Can't happen. The EM field generated by neural activity is weaker than common environmental fields impinging on the neurons. If it were of any significance at all you'd have a seizure the moment you came within ten yards of a fluorescent light.
__________________
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 8th June 2012, 06:31 AM   #560
!Kaggen
Illuminator
 
!Kaggen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott View Post
Oh really?

The firing of a neuron is meaningless. Its action potential could map to anything.
Not quite meaningless but getting closer.
__________________
"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
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 01:41 AM.
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.