On Consciousness

[!Kaggen]

How is that a corollary?

I rest my case

 

[PixyMisa]

I rest my case

Well, if by "corollary" you mean "non sequitur" and by "rest" you mean "lose", then sure.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You think?
african masks

Yes, we are plenty creative now.

 

[rocketdodger]

You think?
african masks

lol

Ok, lets be specific about this. There are two aspects to what people normally call "creativity."

First, there is the ability of a person to take the experiences they have had, and reorganize them, and generate something new or unique from those prior experiences.

Second, there is the set of experiences a person has access to.

I don't claim that the internet has advanced the first aspect.

However it is plainly obvious that the internet has exponentially advanced the second.

Case in point: while those masks you linked to may seem "creative" given the things the tribesmen had to work with, it is clear from even a cursory examination that the creative "diversity" among just the avatars of this forum alone far exceeds that of the entire set of all African masks ever made.

Are we more creative than the tribal artists? It depends. We certainly have a far greater number of experiences to draw from, and that should count for something.

 

[tensordyne]

I am ordinarily ...

Blah, blah, blah. Put up or shut up. Inform us oh wise one of your views on consciousness, biology, whatever. Making excuses for using a known type of fallacious argument does not add to your credibility.

Who knows, maybe if you give me your arguments on the topic at hand I might be swayed. That is if you are willing to give it a try. On the other hand, if you do not want to give it a go, that is your business and I will completely understand. This weak sauce of just saying I am soooo wrong without even trying to show why bores me.

All the best to you all!

 

[Mr. Scott]

Creativity and Consciousness

We've been through this before. It's been implied that no machine could have the fine arts magic bean, therefore no machine could be conscious, but the unfortunate implication is that someone who can't create like a Dali or a Mozart is not conscious.

When someone says that the music I write comes "from God" it pisses me off, because I'm quite conscious of how hard I work to create music.

Here's how I do it:

1) Pick an emotion to express.
2) Recall existing pieces of music that evoke that feeling and solve for their underlying patterns responsible for that evocation.
3) Pick a series of notes and chords. Parts that sound good, keep and embellish. Parts that don't, forget.
4) If a part reminds me of existing music, change it.
5) Package it in familiar musical sequences of repeats and beginning, middle, and end.
6) Perform for friends, record, write down, or enter into a sequencer.

Notice that step #3 is exactly the process of the evolution of life: keep and embellish on what works, discard what doesn't. No god or magic bean required.

Because I can be quite conscious of my process, I can break it down into steps on a path towards demystifying and replicating it in machines that some say only use meaningless numbers, though my brain does it with meaningless action potentials.

FWIW the process is quite similar to computer programming, and both result in concocting of a sequence of events that play out in time.

 

[tensordyne]

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.

I want to make a point here about the exposition above. Leaving completely aside for the moment whether neurons can effect each other through an em field, which is what the first paragraph above is about, the second paragraph has a definite bias in it.

EM fields are real things. They are real just like neurons, axons and dendrites are. The EM field concept is one of the cornerstones of scientific exploration. There is no cop out involved in analyzing the possible consequences of the EM field inside a brain (beyond just the connectionist paradigm). This is a legitimate scientific question.

It seems pretty evident as well that if there is a place for the EM field to affect neurons and be affected by neurons, then the computational complexity just went up a notch.

There seems to be some controversy about the spelling of this, neuron versus neurone, neural versus neuronal, for me, neuron just sounds better so that is what I will use. If you do not like that then just add it in mentally when you see it (add an 'e' or 'on' here or there as appropriate).

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Blah, blah, blah. Put up or shut up. Inform us oh wise one of your views on consciousness, biology, whatever. Making excuses for using a known type of fallacious argument does not add to your credibility.

Who knows, maybe if you give me your arguments on the topic at hand I might be swayed. That is if you are willing to give it a try. On the other hand, if you do not want to give it a go, that is your business and I will completely understand. This weak sauce of just saying I am soooo wrong without even trying to show why bores me.

All the best to you all!

I am sorry that "no" is difficult to understand. If you're having trouble finding information on a particular topic, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction, but engaging directly - no.

If you'd like a hint for where to go first, several people have recently pointed out that we are routinely exposed to EM frequencies which, if neurons actually did act as antennas, should leave us all in grand mal seizures. Yet we aren't. Why do you suppose that is?

There seems to be some controversy about the spelling of this, neuron versus neurone, neural versus neuronal, for me, neuron just sounds better so that is what I will use. If you do not like that then just add it in mentally when you see it (add an 'e' or 'on' here or there as appropriate).

So what you're saying is, you never bothered to investigate the term I gave you, believing it to be just an alternate spelling. If you can't be arsed to read a wikipedia link, you can hardly demand others care about your ideas in return.

 

[Dancing David]

I want to make a point here about the exposition above. Leaving completely aside for the moment whether neurons can effect each other through an em field, which is what the first paragraph above is about, the second paragraph has a definite bias in it.

EM fields are real things. They are real just like neurons, axons and dendrites are. The EM field concept is one of the cornerstones of scientific exploration. There is no cop out involved in analyzing the possible consequences of the EM field inside a brain (beyond just the connectionist paradigm). This is a legitimate scientific question.

It seems pretty evident as well that if there is a place for the EM field to affect neurons and be affected by neurons, then the computational complexity just went up a notch.

There seems to be some controversy about the spelling of this, neuron versus neurone, neural versus neuronal, for me, neuron just sounds better so that is what I will use. If you do not like that then just add it in mentally when you see it (add an 'e' or 'on' here or there as appropriate).

That is silly as you would know if you read my prior post, the means of neuron activation is chemical on a very very very low voltage. The transmission is chemical through neurotransmitters.

That is the science, it is not electron flowing through a wire. there is nothing like an antenna in the neuron, so while it is great speculation, it is just that speculation.

Just because your car's spark wire make an appreciable EM filed does not mean they have anything to do with synchronizing the pulses through antenna.

If you want to know the actual science say so, there are a trillion neurons and they have on average 2,000 contacts with other neurons.

So why does an MRI or a strong electrical field not give someone seizures?

 

[Roboramma]

Case in point: while those masks you linked to may seem "creative" given the things the tribesmen had to work with, it is clear from even a cursory examination that the creative "diversity" among just the avatars of this forum alone far exceeds that of the entire set of all African masks ever made.

That's not clear to me at all.

Are we more creative than the tribal artists? It depends. We certainly have a far greater number of experiences to draw from, and that should count for something.

It's also not clear to me that we "have a far greater number of experiences to draw from", unless you mean vicarious experiences.

 

[quarky]

The age of experience may be a thing of the past.

Imagine our ancestors killing a giant ground sloth, as they did where I live...
We don't even have a decent video game of that experience.

 

[rocketdodger]

That's not clear to me at all.

Well just look at the images -- all the masks are pretty much similar.

Contrast that with our avatars. I have a flaming nazi zombie monster ( I don't care for nazis, this is just my favorite AI I have worked on ). Beelzebuddy has a dancing chicken. Mr. Scott has a kid with blue hair holding some magical light, I presume a still from some studio Ghibli movie. I can't even tell what your's is, and !Kaggen has a freaking winged albino eating a heart. If that isn't creative diversity, I don't know what is.

It's also not clear to me that we "have a far greater number of experiences to draw from", unless you mean vicarious experiences.

I don't mean experience in the commonly used sense, I mean "any remembered information that one can draw from".

If you told me to come up with 10 masks, I would be able to get quite a bit of inspiration from the images and movies I can find on the internet. I know this because I have spent days scouring the internet for inspiration every time I design a level, a character, or any system really, for any of the games I work on. So does any savvy creative professional these days.

I don't just sit in front of a blank piece of paper and wait for something to come to me. However tribal artists don't really have a choice -- their inspiration can come only from the things they have seen with their own eyes. They don't even have photographs to help them.

 

[rocketdodger]

We don't even have a decent video game of that experience.

It is only a transient setback. The next generation will be killing giant ground sloths in virtual worlds like the matrix. Full circle.

 

[tensordyne]

So why does an MRI or a strong electrical field not give someone seizures?

Sorry I am not addressing all of your post. I am not sure why an MRI does not give one a seizure, but I have read that strong EM fields will cause hallucinations. There is a professor who has a helmet (think it is called the god helmet or something) that when you put it on it makes you experience spooky feelings or even the sense of a presence as reported by some.

Now, to be completely fair, various em fields should probably have an effect in the current consensus model (as I take it you are advancing), in my pet theory and in McFadden's CEMI. I say this question should be looked more into if this is a point of contention.

As for how em fields can effect things on a macroscale, read McFadden's paper. See if you find his reasoning persuasive or not. If you can not find it let me know.

 

[tensordyne]

I am sorry that "no" is difficult to understand. If you're having trouble finding information on a particular topic, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction, but engaging directly - no.

If you'd like a hint for where to go first, several people have recently pointed out that we are routinely exposed to EM frequencies which, if neurons actually did act as antennas, should leave us all in grand mal seizures. Yet we aren't. Why do you suppose that is?

In answer to the last question, I do not find the logic given thus far persuasive about the grand mal seizure idea. As far as the first paragraph goes, it is not really worthy of response.

So what you're saying is, you never bothered to investigate the term I gave you, believing it to be just an alternate spelling. If you can't be arsed to read a wikipedia link, you can hardly demand others care about your ideas in return.

Nope, I did do a Google search of "neuronal network" as soon as I read about this but it just kept coming up with "neural network". After the third page I gave up looking. Try for yourself or let me know where I should be looking that I have not been. Everyone, try it for yourself if you do not believe me.

But, who knows, maybe I am missing something here??? Either way, on McFadden's page he used the word neurone where I would have just used neuron. Is this a 'color' versus 'colour' thing? Or by neuronal network are your specifically trying to refer to biological networks of neuron(e)s?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Are the EM fieldies arguing for just more information processing within the brain, or for brain-to-brain or brain-to-universe communication?

As far as I know, there's no evidence that neurons communicate with each other via EM fields -- only chemicals (neurotransmitters), nor that brains communicate with other brains directly, nor the universe at large. The electrical currents are extremely feeble, and the fields leaving the brain reach only a few millimeters past the edge of the scalp (carrying only murky thought information) before they vanish into the extra-cranial ocean of EM noise.

*rocketdodger is correct, my avatar is the title character from Howl's Moving Castle, by Miyazaki / Ghibli, in a flashback to when the fire demon stole the boy Howl's heart.

 

[!Kaggen]

It is only a transient setback. The next generation will be killing giant ground sloths in virtual worlds like the matrix. Full circle.

Nope, "virtual worlds" is a misnomer to deceive one that it is a replica of the world. It's not, "virtual worlds" are based on logic. There is no evidence that the world is based on logic at all.

 

[!Kaggen]

*rocketdodger is correct, my avatar is the title character from Howl's Moving Castle, by Miyazaki / Ghibli, in a flashback to when the fire demon stole the boy Howl's heart.

I am surprised you don't see the difference between computers and humans if your a Ghibli fan like me.
The difference Pixar and Ghibli sums up my arguments nicely.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry I am not addressing all of your post. I am not sure why an MRI does not give one a seizure, but I have read that strong EM fields will cause hallucinations. There is a professor who has a helmet (think it is called the god helmet or something) that when you put it on it makes you experience spooky feelings or even the sense of a presence as reported by some.

Now, to be completely fair, various em fields should probably have an effect in the current consensus model (as I take it you are advancing), in my pet theory and in McFadden's CEMI. I say this question should be looked more into if this is a point of contention.

As for how em fields can effect things on a macroscale, read McFadden's paper. See if you find his reasoning persuasive or not. If you can not find it let me know.

I looked at McFadden's web page, they are wrong right off the bat neurons are not electric circuits.


So they are wrong.

And the induced hallucination effect is at what magnetic strength? Do you understand the difference in the 1 tesla of TCM and what order of magnitude taht is different from the very small em field of the neuron?

For example the earth's magnetic field
"The intensity of the field is greatest near the poles and weaker near the Equator. It is generally reported in nanotesla (nT) or gauss (G), with 1 G = 100,000 nT. It ranges between approximately 25,000 and 65,000 nT (0.25–0.65 G).[10][11] By comparison, a strong refrigerator magnet has a field of about 100 G."

Now what is the magnetic moment of neuron?

This is silly tensordyne, you are woolgathering, there is absolutely no evidence that human neurons respond to the field strength of adjacent neurons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(magnetic_field)

"10−12 picotesla 0.1 - 1.0 pT 1 - 10 nG human brain magnetic field"

So if TCM produces a response at one tesla, the brain field is 10^-12 times smaller.

that is one trillion times smaller, 1/1,000,000,000,000

Now a conventional radio that uses transistor amplification can pick up very faint radio signals, however it is a lot larger than a neuron.

 

[Roboramma]

Well just look at the images -- all the masks are pretty much similar.

Contrast that with our avatars. I have a flaming nazi zombie monster ( I don't care for nazis, this is just my favorite AI I have worked on ). Beelzebuddy has a dancing chicken. Mr. Scott has a kid with blue hair holding some magical light, I presume a still from some studio Ghibli movie. I can't even tell what your's is, and !Kaggen has a freaking winged albino eating a heart. If that isn't creative diversity, I don't know what is.

A similar argument suggests that the old world monkeys are a more diverse group than, say, all the life that can be found in two clumps of soil, one from madagascar and another from the amazon.

But the soil's life is more diverse than the old world monkeys.

Are our avatars more creative and diverse than african masks? I don't know, but I'm not an art critic, nor an artist. The differences in details of those masks, even though they look superficially alike from my perspective, may be huge.

My avatar is my Brazilian Jiu Jitsu purple belt, by the way.