Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Piggy]

The researchers at Berkley didn't decode neural firings in the retina of the cat, they decoded neural firings in its lateral geniculate nucleus, which processes information received from the eyes so they were already at the place where sensory information becomes perception and this was 10 years ago.

What does this have to do with consciousness?

 

[KingofMadCows]

There's no reason to believe that it will prove impossible to figure out how consciousness is done.

But so what?

That (perfectly rational) presumption doesn't help us figure it out any faster.

What does this have to do with consciousness?

Given all that we know about neural transmitters, brain diseases, brain damage, split brain patients, etc., we can deduce that consciousness is in the brain.

We are beginning to decode neural firings in parts of animal brains that process information. The technology is advancing and we are developing methods to decode neural firings in other areas of animal brains. Once that technology has advanced to a sufficient point, we can use it on humans and decode the neural firings that cause consciousness.

 

[westprog]

Given all that we know about neural transmitters, brain diseases, brain damage, split brain patients, etc., we can deduce that consciousness is in the brain.

Yes, we're probably a lot more certain about it than we used to be, but "consciousness is in the brain" is something people have been fairly sure about for a couple hundred years now.

We are beginning to decode neural firings in parts of animal brains that process information. The technology is advancing and we are developing methods to decode neural firings in other areas of animal brains. Once that technology has advanced to a sufficient point, we can use it on humans and decode the neural firings that cause consciousness.

Exactly when consciousness becomes an entirely understood phenomenon remains an open question. Just being able to entirely track a process doesn't necessarily mean that it is fully understood.

 

[AlBell]

... Once that technology has advanced to a sufficient point, we can use it on humans and decode the neural firings that cause consciousness.

Agreed that that is going to occur. Now, what do you have with your displays of neuron firings?

If we construct a computer model of those firings, what will become conscious?

 

[Meed]

The researchers at Berkley didn't decode neural firings in the retina of the cat, they decoded neural firings in its lateral geniculate nucleus, which processes information received from the eyes so they were already at the place where sensory information becomes perception and this was 10 years ago.

Well, okay, I remembered the study wrong then. The LGN is one level ahead of the retinal neurons. Visual input goes retinal neurons -> LGN -> visual cortex (V1, ... V5). We can be confident visual perception does not occur in the LGN, because perceptual blindness occurs if V1 doesn't function properly.

 

[Meed]

Exactly when consciousness becomes an entirely understood phenomenon remains an open question. Just being able to entirely track a process doesn't necessarily mean that it is fully understood.

Yup this is very true. Tracking brain activity in detail is obviously a challenge, but even if we weren't hindered by this we'd still have a huge problem of analysis.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, okay, I remembered the study wrong then. The LGN is one level ahead of the retinal neurons. Visual input goes retinal neurons -> LGN -> visual cortex (V1, ... V5). We can be confident visual perception does not occur in the LGN, because perceptual blindness occurs if V1 doesn't function properly.

But blindsight is possible if the LGN is left intact.

 

[KingofMadCows]

Agreed that that is going to occur. Now, what do you have with your displays of neuron firings?

If we construct a computer model of those firings, what will become conscious?

They can already translate neural firings into something that we can understand. They're doing it in tiny chunks at a time but eventually they will be able to coalesce those chunks together and it's just a question of how many of those chunks you have to put together before you get consciousness.

With the advent of multicore processors, we might be able to do it with a computer network before we can do it with a human brain or an animal brain.

Well, okay, I remembered the study wrong then. The LGN is one level ahead of the retinal neurons. Visual input goes retinal neurons -> LGN -> visual cortex (V1, ... V5). We can be confident visual perception does not occur in the LGN, because perceptual blindness occurs if V1 doesn't function properly.

Perception may not occur in the LGN but the sensory input is processed everywhere along the visual pathway. The LGN doesn't just relay the information, it receives feedback from RAS and the visual cortex, which in turn modifies the sensory information that it passes along.

 

[Meed]

But blindsight is possible if the LGN is left intact.

Right, but that's not visual perception. Hence "blind". I'd also doubt blindsight is a function of the LGN itself, but rather the LGN sending information to other parts of the brain other than the visual cortex (but I'm just speculating).

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Right, but that's not visual perception. Hence "blind". I'd also doubt blindsight is a function of the LGN itself, but rather the LGN sending information to other parts of the brain other than the visual cortex (but I'm just speculating).

No evidence of the latter, and perception does occur in blindsight (hence, 'sight'). It simply isn't conscious perception.

The reality is that visual processing begins almost from initial photon capture. There is some degree of processing from the bipolar cells on.

 

[rocketdodger]

There's no reason to believe that it will prove impossible to figure out how consciousness is done.

But so what?

The spiritual implication of humans being able to "figure out" human consciousness are pretty large. In particular, it would imply that we could build another conscious entity -- a feat that doesn't agree with many worldviews.

I don't think it is coincidence that the lines in this discussion of consciousness, with no exceptions, happen to fall along spirituality.

Again, who are the people that don't think a robot could be conscious? Westprog, Frank, Malerin, Kaggen, etc. Who is spiritual and/or religious? Westprog, Frank, Malerin, Kaggen etc.

 

[!Kaggen]

The spiritual implication of humans being able to "figure out" human consciousness are pretty large. In particular, it would imply that we could build another conscious entity -- a feat that doesn't agree with many worldviews.

I don't think it is coincidence that the lines in this discussion of consciousness, with no exceptions, happen to fall along spirituality.

Again, who are the people that don't think a robot could be conscious? Westprog, Frank, Malerin, Kaggen, etc. Who is spiritual and/or religious? Westprog, Frank, Malerin, Kaggen etc.

Still theorizing without supplying evidence?
Oh well why stop now, you thrive on it and it would be wrong of me to stop your spiritual growth

P.S. Look up geistig

 

[Piggy]

Given all that we know about neural transmitters, brain diseases, brain damage, split brain patients, etc., we can deduce that consciousness is in the brain.

We are beginning to decode neural firings in parts of animal brains that process information. The technology is advancing and we are developing methods to decode neural firings in other areas of animal brains. Once that technology has advanced to a sufficient point, we can use it on humans and decode the neural firings that cause consciousness.

I was getting at something rather more particular. Specifically, understanding perception is not the same as understanding consciousness.

I certainly agree that consciousness is theoretically understandable in terms of brain function.

But we need to be careful not to conflate an understanding of perception with an understanding of consciousness, since the former can exist without the latter.

 

[Piggy]

The spiritual implication of humans being able to "figure out" human consciousness are pretty large. In particular, it would imply that we could build another conscious entity -- a feat that doesn't agree with many worldviews.

I don't think it is coincidence that the lines in this discussion of consciousness, with no exceptions, happen to fall along spirituality.

Again, who are the people that don't think a robot could be conscious? Westprog, Frank, Malerin, Kaggen, etc. Who is spiritual and/or religious? Westprog, Frank, Malerin, Kaggen etc.

That's not how I've been reading these threads.

I haven't seen that Westprog or cornsail have denied that conscious machines are possible.

If I'm wrong, I reckon they can correct me.

But do keep in mind, saying that conscious machines are possible is not the same thing as saying that conscious programs are possible.

 

[Piggy]

Btw, my birthday present to myself this year was a set of books that will help me catch up on some of what's been going on in the last few years.

I've got Gazzaniga's "Human" as well as his "The Cognitive Neurosciences, 4th Edition", significantly renamed from its previous title "Cognitive Neuroscience".

Also Rita Carter's "The Human Brain Book" so I can keep track of what's where, and Baars and Cage's "Cognition, Brain, and Consciousness, 2nd Edition".

It's a nice mix, and I look forward to digging into it. I'm already into "Human" and enjoying it immensely.

 

[Malerin]

The spiritual implication of humans being able to "figure out" human consciousness are pretty large. In particular, it would imply that we could build another conscious entity -- a feat that doesn't agree with many worldviews.

I don't think it is coincidence that the lines in this discussion of consciousness, with no exceptions, happen to fall along spirituality.

Again, who are the people that don't think a robot could be conscious? Westprog, Frank, Malerin, Kaggen, etc. Who is spiritual and/or religious? Westprog, Frank, Malerin, Kaggen etc.

Where have I said conscious robots are impossible?

 

[AkuManiMani]

I'm becoming more and more of the view that creating "conscious robots" is a matter of getting a conscious entity to directly interface with some hardware platform. Before thats possible we've gotta figure out what consciousness is and how it interfaces with our own meat bodies.

 

[PixyMisa]

The spiritual implication of humans being able to "figure out" human consciousness are pretty large. In particular, it would imply that we could build another conscious entity -- a feat that doesn't agree with many worldviews.

I don't think it is coincidence that the lines in this discussion of consciousness, with no exceptions, happen to fall along spirituality.

Again, who are the people that don't think a robot could be conscious? Westprog, Frank, Malerin, Kaggen, etc. Who is spiritual and/or religious? Westprog, Frank, Malerin, Kaggen etc.

True, but both sets map directly to holding false premises and/or inability to construct a logical argument. So correlation <> causation.

 

[KingofMadCows]

I was getting at something rather more particular. Specifically, understanding perception is not the same as understanding consciousness.

I certainly agree that consciousness is theoretically understandable in terms of brain function.

But we need to be careful not to conflate an understanding of perception with an understanding of consciousness, since the former can exist without the latter.

Perception is not separate from consciousness. One may not be entirely a part of the other but there's definite overlap. The areas of the brain that process sensory information don't just relay the action potentials, there is processing at those levels based on feedback from "higher order" brain functions as well as "lower order" brain functions.

 

[westprog]

Again, who are the people that don't think a robot could be conscious? Westprog

Still theorizing without supplying evidence?
Oh well why stop now, you thrive on it and it would be wrong of me to stop your spiritual growth

P.S. Look up geistig

And saying things that he knows not to be true. I've never stated that a robot couldn't be conscious. Indeed, I've said that if the physical process which creates consciousness could be understood, then it could potentially be reproduced.

I suppose that RD will accuse me of dishonesty now - the usual response when he's caught out himself. However, I won't be reading it.