the "the brain is a radio" analogy

[The Sparrow]

Well if you word it that way - nothing in my consciousness is an obvious brain function - that is, nothing appears to be the result of a calculation of a machine.

Could you elaborate on this:
What characteristics are typical of being the result of "machine calculation" and what characteristics are not?

 

[Nick227]

There is no reason for anyone to assume that processing is strictly the task of subconscious activity

It's not strictly the task of subconscious activity. It's just that it's not so easy to find functions for actual consciousness outside of it being a lingua franca for facilitating intercommunication between brain modules.

Thus the argument that the discovery of neural correlates demonstrate consciousness to be created by the brain is weakened.

any more than there is any particular reason to believe that the subconscious is not conscious...even that you (or what you think of as you) may not be in the least bit conscious of that.

It's true that, for example, the cerebellum may be conscious in it's own way. As could other areas of the brain or body not associated with consciousness. Though there are neuroscientists who assert that the pattern of interconnectivity in this area of the brain is significantly different from in areas of the brain more associated with consciousness, such as the cerebrum.

 

[Nick227]

Could you elaborate on this:
What characteristics are typical of being the result of "machine calculation" and what characteristics are not?

Experientially consciousness does not seem to be a brain function. I do not catch the smell of a flower and immediately feel like it's being produced by an array of neural assemblies.

And there are of course very good evolutionary reasons why this is so. Believing I'm a machine with no real control over anything does not help me to survive and procreate. So the brain engineers things to make it seem like I'm most definitely not this!

 

[Navigator]

Chopra puts out his ideas here. His quoted article from neuroscientist

From the Article:

It's a massive struggle to get neuroscientists to see these flaws. They are king of the hill right now, and so long as new discoveries are being made every day, a sense of triumph pervades the field. "Of course" we will solve everything from depression to overeating, crime to religious fanaticism, by tinkering with neurons and the kinks thrown into normal, desirable brain activity. But that's like hearing a really bad performance of Rhapsody in Blue and trying to turn it into a good performance by kicking the radio. ~ Chopra

That last statement seems to me to be a really bad analogy.

If the theory is that to map the brain and understand the how and why etc in order to perhaps correct human behavior by being able to tinker with neurons in order to achieve desirable brain activity...then what this vision of being able to do this thing is trying to achieve is to fix faults so that the person can behave better (more desirably etc...)

Without going into how that might be used in a dark way...what is being said does not amount to" kicking a radio which is playing a crappy piece of music,"

That is like Chopra is claiming that some consciousnesses are crappy regardless of what brain is being used...and such a claim cannot be substantiated because we don't even know for sure that consciousness IS independent of the brain so cannot even make assumptions that there are crappy consciousnesses and non crappy consciousnesses which exist independent of the brain - which Chopra through his analogy is implying.

The better analogy to use would be that the music the radio is picking up is fine but the radio not quite tuned into the station so it sounds worse than it actually is...

...so if the problem can be fixed, then the consciousness using the brain won't have a faulty brain whereby it behaves worse than it would if the brain was operating properly.

Fixing it not kicking it.

 

[Navigator]

It's not strictly the task of subconscious activity. It's just that it's not so easy to find functions for actual consciousness outside of it being a lingua franca for facilitating intercommunication between brain modules.

Thus the argument that the discovery of neural correlates demonstrate consciousness to be created by the brain is weakened.



It's true that, for example, the cerebellum may be conscious in it's own way. As could other areas of the brain or body not associated with consciousness. Though there are neuroscientists who assert that the pattern of interconnectivity in this area of the brain is significantly different from in areas of the brain more associated with consciousness, such as the cerebrum.

Perhaps if they thought about the possibility that what is recognized as 'subconscious' was itself actually conscious then they might look at what is being observed in another way/in a new light...?

What are the significant differences between what is seen as being associated with conscious activity and what is seen as subconscious activity?

Are they able to tell where both sub and surface conscious activity are both employed at the same time?

 

[Navigator]

Experientially consciousness does not seem to be a brain function. I do not catch the smell of a flower and immediately feel like it's being produced by an array of neural assemblies.

And there are of course very good evolutionary reasons why this is so. Believing I'm a machine with no real control over anything does not help me to survive and procreate. So the brain engineers things to make it seem like I'm most definitely not this!

Or:

You are the ghost in that machine and 'survival' is really all about having the machine working in optimum health for the sake of the ghost continuing the experience for as long as possible....which means keeping safe etc...

 

[LarryS]

(keeping it non academic) Experience does not seem or feel like a parcel of consciousness confined within my skull, there is not a persistent sense of alienation from reality, nor that there is one reality calculated in my brain that serves as a representation - and another reality outside my skull that only modulates my experience.

 

[The Man]

Perhaps if they thought about the possibility that what is recognized as 'subconscious' was itself actually conscious then they might look at what is being observed in another way/in a new light...?

What are the significant differences between what is seen as being associated with conscious activity and what is seen as subconscious activity?

Well, subconscious activity or what Freud call preconscious would be things that you are not currently aware of but could be, or information available for conscious processing that you are not directly aware of.

Are they able to tell where both sub and surface conscious activity are both employed at the same time?

One of the best examples of this (if it hasn't already been mentioned) is blindsight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

While not consciously aware of the visual stimuli some information about it is still available.


On the control end of things think about breathing you can be consciously aware of it or not, even consciously control it to some degree. That would fall into the generally subconscious or preconscious area of things when you weren't directly focusing on it.

Something like body temperature however that's something we don't have a direct awareness of or control over. Sure we can feel warm, hot or cool but that is more often just related to skin temperature. We can also assist in temperature regulation by moving generating more heat and blood flow in cold environments or relaxing and trying to restrict movement in hot environments but temperature regulation is functionally an unconscious process.

 

[Navigator]

We can also assist in temperature regulation by moving generating more heat and blood flow in cold environments or relaxing and trying to restrict movement in hot environments but temperature regulation is functionally an unconscious process.

So are you saying with this example that it has been observed through brain scanning that sub and surface consciousness are actually seen to be functioning together at the same time...

How is this accomplished? It won't be that the sub sends out a different color than the surface so is the frequency somehow different that they can be clearly recognized as one, the other, or both depending on the activity and other attributing factors?

or is the area being observed more 'busy'?

Does the sub behave any different from the surface in relation to scans?

Is there a way to tell that the sub is not involved with some (or perhaps even all) of the things that the surface is?

Is it assumed or is it known for sure that the sub is not self conscious and doesn't know what it is doing, even that the surface has no awareness of it being the case or is it simply assumed by the observer (surface) that the sub is not self aware and is simply an automation?

 

[The Man]

So are you saying with this example that it has been observed through brain scanning that sub and surface consciousness are actually seen to be functioning together at the same time...

Sorry I don't recall any brain scanning being particularly mentioned but I don't doubt it's been done somewhere.

How is this accomplished? It won't be that the sub sends out a different color than the surface so is the frequency somehow different that they can be clearly recognized as one, the other, or both depending on the activity and other attributing factors?

or is the area being observed more 'busy'?

Does the sub behave any different from the surface in relation to scans?

Is there a way to tell that the sub is not involved with some (or perhaps even all) of the things that the surface is?

I can only recommend that you read the linked article and its references. You may find what you're looking for in the following.


http://neur2201.unsw.wikispaces.net/Blindsight

Or just search for...

blindsight brain scans

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=blindsight brain scans

Is it assumed or is it known for sure that the sub is not self conscious and doesn't know what it is doing, even that the surface has no awareness of it being the case or is it simply assumed by the observer (surface) that the sub is not self aware and is simply an automation?

For that you might want to see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_hand_syndrome

In those cases normal communication between the hemispheres of the brain is damaged or cut off. However, things like that delve into our sense of ownership and agency as well.

 

[Nick227]

That is like Chopra is claiming that some consciousnesses are crappy regardless of what brain is being used...and such a claim cannot be substantiated because we don't even know for sure that consciousness IS independent of the brain so cannot even make assumptions that there are crappy consciousnesses and non crappy consciousnesses which exist independent of the brain - which Chopra through his analogy is implying.

The better analogy to use would be that the music the radio is picking up is fine but the radio not quite tuned into the station so it sounds worse than it actually is...

...so if the problem can be fixed, then the consciousness using the brain won't have a faulty brain whereby it behaves worse than it would if the brain was operating properly.

Fixing it not kicking it.

I also can't really figure what Deepak Chopra is trying to say with this analogy.

But, essentially, he and his neuroscientist co-author, are trying to propose the case for a return to Idealism - the philosophical position that consciousness is inherent and everything else, including matter, appears within it.

 

[Nick227]

Perhaps if they thought about the possibility that what is recognized as 'subconscious' was itself actually conscious then they might look at what is being observed in another way/in a new light...?

Well, the Great Illusion, to term it thus, is that someone is experiencing consciousness. In the grip of this illusion the mind of course assumes that it is witnessing consciousness, but cannot experience subconsciousness.

If the grip of the Great Illusion should slacken, then one new perspective that inevitably emerges is that it might be that the whole brain, or whole body, is actually conscious. It is simply that those other loops of consciousness are functionally disconnected from the one being labelled "me."

What are the significant differences between what is seen as being associated with conscious activity and what is seen as subconscious activity?

At a functional level, it is clear that certain higher order brain functions seem to require actual consciousness. They can't take place in the dark, so to speak. Grasping higher levels of meaning, performing math which requires 2 or more separate operations, this kind of thing.

However, it is quite possible that these only require consciousness because consciousness facilitates inter-brain communication.

In addition consciousness allows processing to continue for longer. Subconscious processing typically lasts for only as long as action potentials remain at a neural level, so I understand.

Are they able to tell where both sub and surface conscious activity are both employed at the same time?

Well, it would be great for materialists if we could actually find a "place in the brain" where consciousness takes place. We haven't done so and from what I understand it seems highly unlikely this is going to happen.

The brain processes multiple strands of information concurrently. Certain brain modules monitor all this processing and decide which streams of information are important. Those deemed to be so can be broadcast around the brain, and it is this act of broadcasting that appears to be conscious. And this seems to be as close as anyone can get to determining just what consciousness is, at a neural, functional level.

This is why Dan Dennett famously termed consciousness "fame in the brain." The multiple contestants (processing streams) on Brain's Got Talent get assigned value according to their social usefulness, and the winner gets to be propagated all over the place, gets to go viral.

 

[Nick227]

Or:

You are the ghost in that machine and 'survival' is really all about having the machine working in optimum health for the sake of the ghost continuing the experience for as long as possible....which means keeping safe etc...

For sure... the brain will reinforce whatever beliefs it needs to help it best accomplish its tasks.

Personally, I always liked Materialism because it suits my temperament. I'm practical. I used to work in construction. I like things to be nice and solid. So mostly I'm a Materialist, as this perspective appeals to my sense of values.

But then there is another side where I like to challenge the status quo, so it's good to sometimes be an Idealist also.

The brain will merrily reinforce whichever belief it feels best suits its illusory sense of personal selfhood. Until sufficient evidence comes along to sway the see-saw one way or the other. And that hasn't remotely happened yet.

 

[Nick227]

I get the impression that the brain is as well known as the universe is...

It seems to be getting very well known. And we haven't found consciousness yet. The likely options seem to be...

* it's an emergent, and we can't find it because it's emerging in a manner which will require an expansion of TLOP - see Koch.

* many of the qualities that we attribute to consciousness are actually illusory to the point where it doesn't really exist, merely seems to - see Churchlands, Dennett, Graziano

* we need to wait for a major revelation at a neural or quantum level

* the materialist perspective is actually not correct, see for example Donald Hoffman

 

[MuDPhuD]

Giving rise to "mind" is one thing. But "consciousness" or "conscious processing" or "conscious access" is a different thing. As I pointed out to Myriad earlier in this thread, much of what appears in consciousness has also been demonstrated to be processed unconsciously. Thus if we're talking about consciousness - as in conscious experience - it would be useful to find processing that only occurs within consciousness. And ideally track that to the brain.

When you take out the role of consciousness as a symbolic language to facilitate communication between brain modules, what do you propose as being specific to it's function, and how do you track that to the brain?

Chopra puts out his ideas here. His quoted article from neuroscientist Don Hoffman is online here.

Unless your define these terms I have no idea what you are talking about. I used the terms "mind" and "consciousness" as synonyms, and you are saying they are not the same. I am using my definition, poor as it may be. What definition are you using? What is the difference between "mind" and "consciousness to you?
If I put an electrode in your brain and activate a system of neurons by passing a microcurrent, and and you hear music, recall a memory, or report that you are floating above us looking down, and that goes away when the current is off, what is your explanation? My explanation is that the activated neural circuit generated a conscious experience; neural activity=conscious experience. How would you explain it?

This is from Chopra's article to which you linked:

"The flaws in current reasoning can be summarized with devastating force:
1. Brain activity isn't the same as thinking, feeling, or seeing.
2. No one has remotely shown how molecules acquire the qualities of the mind.
3. It is impossible to construct a theory of the mind based on material objects that somehow became conscious.
4. When the brain lights up, its activity is like a radio lighting up when music is played. It is an obvious fallacy to say that the radio composed the music. What is being viewed is only a physical correlation, not a cause. "

#1 Who says they are not the same? The evidence is that they are the same, as I alluded to above.
#2 This is completely irrelevant to the body of evidence which indicates that "consciousness" is brain function. Molecules do not "aquire the qualities of mind", the activity of circuits in the brain generates "mind".
#3 No it isn't. In fact, if you make the hypothesis that "mind" is in fact brain activity (not that "matter becomes conscious"), then you acquire enormous explanatory and predictive power. Psychoactive drugs work on the "mind" because they alter synaptic activity in the brain. It becomes possible to develop drugs which effect mood, memory (i.e. qualities of the mind) in predictable ways by understanding the synaptic circuits involved. It becomes possible to treat diseases of the "mind" like schizophrenia with targeted therapies, instead of voodoo and exorcism.
#4 "When the brain lights up" is a meaningless phrase. Is he talking about PET scans, or fMRI I suppose? Yes, I agree that taken in isolation functional scans which demonstrate focal brain activity during cognition are correlative and do not establish causation. Unfortunately for Chopra's reasoning, however, there are a number of other lines of research (need I go over them all again?) all of which taken together provide a consistent picture of brain as the source of mind.
Far from "devastating force" I find his reasoning to be a list of meaningless phrases, with no power whatsoever.

 

[MuDPhuD]

His quoted article from neuroscientist Don Hoffman is online here.

Here is the abstract (highlighting and underlining mine):
"Despite substantial efforts by many researchers, we still have no scientific theory of how brain activity can create, or be, conscious experience. This is troubling, since we have a large body of
correlations between brain activity and consciousness, correlations
normally assumed to entail that brain activity creates conscious
experience. Here I explore a solution to the mind-body problem
that starts with the converse assumption: these correlations arise
because consciousness creates brain activity, and indeed creates all
objects and properties of the physical world. To this end, I develop
two theses. The multimodal user interface theory of perception
states that perceptual experiences do not match or approximate
properties of the objective world, but instead provide a simplified,
species-specific, user interface to that world. Conscious realism
states that the objective world consists of conscious agents and
their experiences; these can be mathematically modeled and empirically
explored in the normal scientific manner"

Where have I heard that before?
Not understanding "how" it does it, is different than establishing that the brain in fact does do it. When all the independent lines of investigation point in the same direction then we are justified in coming to a conclusion, in this case that the brain is giving rise to "mind". The next step is to investigate "how". In short, it is not troubling at all that we have not established "how" our brain creates consciousness; that is likely to be a very difficult and time consuming investigation. It certainly does not justify jumping down the rabbit hole to idealism where an undefined entity called "consciousness" creates the material universe.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Well if you word it that way - nothing in my consciousness is an obvious brain function - that is, nothing appears to be the result of a calculation of a machine.

Can you please describe some of the things in your consciousness?

 

[LarryS]

Can you please describe some of the things in your consciousness?

All potential differences between you and I aside (gender/cultural/preferences) - pretty much the same stuff you got.

 

[Nick227]

Unless your define these terms I have no idea what you are talking about. I used the terms "mind" and "consciousness" as synonyms, and you are saying they are not the same. I am using my definition, poor as it may be. What definition are you using? What is the difference between "mind" and "consciousness to you?

I'm allowing for the concept of unconscious processing. It's applicable in this specific context - that of discussing whether the brain is actually creating consciousness.

As I pointed out earlier, neuroscientists have demonstrated that large amounts of higher order processing can be carried out unconsciously. Thus when you point to NCC being absolutely demonstrative of the brain producing consciousness this needs to be factored in. It weakens the argument.

It means that in order to still assert the brain basis for consciousness you need to either...

* alter the laws of physics, as Christof Koch is proposing
* travel a long way down the eliminative road, to pretty much ludicrous ends
* await a miracle

If I put an electrode in your brain and activate a system of neurons by passing a microcurrent, and and you hear music, recall a memory, or report that you are floating above us looking down, and that goes away when the current is off, what is your explanation? My explanation is that the activated neural circuit generated a conscious experience; neural activity=conscious experience. How would you explain it?

Certainly it is activating content of consciousness.

 

[Nick227]

Where have I heard that before?
Not understanding "how" it does it, is different than establishing that the brain in fact does do it. When all the independent lines of investigation point in the same direction then we are justified in coming to a conclusion, in this case that the brain is giving rise to "mind". The next step is to investigate "how".

The next step?! The next step!?

It's the biggest prize in science, man. You get to follow Darwin and Einstein into immortality. What could be more alluring for the illusionary sense of self?

Scientists have been trying to work out "how" for ages. They haven't got there yet. And that's a fact.

As far as I know, only one materialist has proposed a solution to the combination issue - Mike Graziano. And it's hardcore eliminativist to the nth degree.

In short, it is not troubling at all that we have not established "how" our brain creates consciousness; that is likely to be a very difficult and time consuming investigation. It certainly does not justify jumping down the rabbit hole to idealism where an undefined entity called "consciousness" creates the material universe.

So... you propose every philosopher and scientist who isn't a materialist just puts all research and theorizing on hold, apparently ad infinitum, until the materialists can work it out?

I put it to you that with such an approach Darwin and Einstein wouldn't be household names.