On Consciousness

[Itztli]

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.

 

[tensordyne]

neuronal neurones

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!

 

[Mr. Scott]

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?

 

[Itztli]

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.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

 

[rocketdodger]

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]

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/CONSCIOUSNESS/Consciousness,_Emotion_and_Imagination.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 ?

 

[AlBell]

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.

 

[!Kaggen]

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.

 

[tensordyne]

This paper is 7 years old.

http://www.aist-pain.it/en/files/CONSCIOUSNESS/Consciousness,_Emotion_and_Imagination.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.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

 

[Zeuzzz]

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.

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.

 

[!Kaggen]

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

 

[Roboramma]

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.

 

[jenkoul]

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).

 

[Mr. Scott]

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.

 

[PixyMisa]

There is no doubt computers are getting more intelligent, but the corollary is that humans are getting less imaginative.

How is that a corollary?

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

 

[!Kaggen]

Oh really?

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

Not quite meaningless but getting closer.