On Consciousness

[quarky]

How does everyone know so much, yet can't punch through a paper bag?
I'm out of here, through disgust, not defeat, particularly.

 

[PixyMisa]

And pretty good, and relevant, argument from said authority, at that.

Nope. They're wandering afield into computation, mathematics, and physics, and they're simply getting it wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

I believe that I mentioned that my views on that could not be classified as science; that the debate is philosophical.

The debate I'm having is scientific. Anything else is your own problem.

Consciousness can be explored by the individual, without dissecting the brain or studying computers.

Nope. As I said, your own problem. That has been proven not to work.

I think Pixy is being silly. He/she thinks/knows he/she is correct.
I disagree. I don't see consciousness in any machines, thus far.
It surprises me that this is such a contentious view-point.

Per the definition I've provided (formulated by Dennett, Hofstadter and others), we know that consciousness happens in machines, because we program them for it explicitly.

Do you suppose the majority of scientists would disagree?

Do you suppose you will ever try to address the argument?

 

[Joey McGee]

Random idea from Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, forget when I heard him say it, (in as many words, of course) "to think about why evolution might have left us consciousness, let us first start thinking about what we could do without it"

To which, to you my friends I submit, not much.

 

[PixyMisa]

Random idea from Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, forget when I heard him say it, (in as many words, of course) "to think about why evolution might have left us consciousness, let us first start thinking about what we could do without it"

To which, to you my friends I submit, not much.

The sphex wasp might have a thing or two to say about that!

Or it would, if it were conscious and could understand the discussion....

 

[Tomas71]

Be skeptical about Daniel Tammet

Yea, I've watched the docu on Daniel Tammet, and the line "...if it's true, it blows away scientific theory" is complete nonsense just to impress naive viewers....

Tammet says that he can do complex calculations in his head without thinking by watching coloured shapes form. He is to my knowledge basically the only person in history to have ever claimed this ability, or at least the only one to have been studied, and there isn't a properly developed scientific explanation. So while it's perhaps hyperbole, I think the documentary is correct to highlight this as an exceptional claim.

Tammet's brain is clearly miswired between the visual/spacial/shape analysis are and the number area, as Ramachandran suggests. The miswiring apparently happened as a result of seizures Tammet had when he was four.

Evidence? A detailed study of Tammet and 9 others ("Routes to Remembering", Nature Neuroscience 2003) which included lots of tests and an fMRI scan found absolutely nothing unusual about the subjects' brains and said that the abilities of all ten subjects were explained by extensive training in conventional mnemonic techniques. That suggests his brain and abilities are not at all special.

This study is conveniently forgotten about in all Tammet's recent writings, and is not mentioned in the later studies of Tammet (from Ramachandran and others) which unconvincingly suggest that he has amazing abilities.

What's cool is how Tammet sends his math problem to his processing center, and he can watch the spectacular animation light show as it works on the problem.

It would be cool, if it were true, but it's reliant on Tammet's truthfulness. Joshua Foer's book "Moonwalking with Einstein" points out inconsistencies in his descriptions which suggest he could be making it all up.

Foer also shows that before Tammet claimed to have amazing calculation and memory abilities brought on by Epilepsy, he advertised as a phone-in psychic with a very similar story, saying that Epilepsy had given him psychic powers.

Tammets abilities are consistently wildly exaggerated in the media, and also in many scientific sources which should know better. For example, media claims that he can "learn a language in a week" should be looked at very skeptically. He has appeared on German TV claiming to have learned German in a week, conveniently neglecting to mention several years of study of German at school.

Tammet has been discussed on the JREF forum before, but I'm disappointed to see that none of the widespread evidence debunking him was mentioned. Even skeptical people are often far too easily fooled by apparent demonstrations of "genius" abilities. Skeptics should take a closer look at Tammet, as well as others claiming similar amazing abilities.

Tomas

 

[PixyMisa]

Welcome, Tomas, and thanks. Great first post.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, philosophical debates have there place, which is why I petitioned to have this thread moved to an appropriate sub forum.
If I tried to define consciousness, in would be mere hypothesis, from anecdotal observations. So far, it would disclude machines, but not out of meaness or envy or paranoia or tree-huggy spiritualism.

To suggest that consciousness is some sort of background radiation would do it a disservice. Though I strongly suspect that its closer to that than some convictions that it is mere electronics and mechanics, that we can, and have replicated.

Which brings it back to semantics: Is the definition of consciousness the one that Pixy has so forcefully insisted on?
Am I allowed to disagree?

Stop dodging and give us your definition, already.

 

[Belz...]

How does everyone know so much, yet can't punch through a paper bag?
I'm out of here, through disgust, not defeat, particularly.

Why does everybody on your "side" leave without actually giving us the most important bit of information that would lead to an intelligent debate ? Aside from incredulity, you have nothing.

 

[Dancing David]

Tomas

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Mr. Scott]

Tammet says that he can do complex calculations in his head without thinking by watching coloured shapes form. He is to my knowledge basically the only person in history to have ever claimed this ability, or at least the only one to have been studied, and there isn't a properly developed scientific explanation. So while it's perhaps hyperbole, I think the documentary is correct to highlight this as an exceptional claim.


Evidence? A detailed study of Tammet and 9 others ("Routes to Remembering", Nature Neuroscience 2003) which included lots of tests and an fMRI scan found absolutely nothing unusual about the subjects' brains and said that the abilities of all ten subjects were explained by extensive training in conventional mnemonic techniques. That suggests his brain and abilities are not at all special.

This study is conveniently forgotten about in all Tammet's recent writings, and is not mentioned in the later studies of Tammet (from Ramachandran and others) which unconvincingly suggest that he has amazing abilities.



It would be cool, if it were true, but it's reliant on Tammet's truthfulness. Joshua Foer's book "Moonwalking with Einstein" points out inconsistencies in his descriptions which suggest he could be making it all up.

Foer also shows that before Tammet claimed to have amazing calculation and memory abilities brought on by Epilepsy, he advertised as a phone-in psychic with a very similar story, saying that Epilepsy had given him psychic powers.

Tammets abilities are consistently wildly exaggerated in the media, and also in many scientific sources which should know better. For example, media claims that he can "learn a language in a week" should be looked at very skeptically. He has appeared on German TV claiming to have learned German in a week, conveniently neglecting to mention several years of study of German at school.

Tammet has been discussed on the JREF forum before, but I'm disappointed to see that none of the widespread evidence debunking him was mentioned. Even skeptical people are often far too easily fooled by apparent demonstrations of "genius" abilities. Skeptics should take a closer look at Tammet, as well as others claiming similar amazing abilities.

Tomas

Welcome, Tomas. Forgive me for challenging you, but we are on JREF after all

For what you say to be true there has to be a lot of lying and distortion by the documentary producers as well as Tammet, and many others. IIRC it was his mom who said Tammet math savantry after his seizures, and Ramachandran and his assistants, at least within the documentary, give him their seal of approval. One attempt to make a living as a psychic does not suggest he's an all-around phony -- just that he may have had money problems and attempted something unsavory once.

Have you seen the documentary? He recited PI to 22,500 digits with witnesses and learned Icelandic in a week and demonstrated it on live TV.

I'm open minded about Tammet, but the extent of falsity in the documentary you are suggesting is far-fetched (though of course not impossible).

I'm curious that your first post here is to trash Tammet. Do you have an ulterior motive? Do you have links to information that challenges Tammet's claims?

I wonder if any of his claims qualify for the Randi challenge.

FWIW his examination by Ramachandran and colleagues reminded me of how Geller and others scammed Stanford.

I'll check for other threads on Tammet, but at this point, it's off topic.

 

[PixyMisa]

Welcome, Tomas. Forgive me for challenging you, but we are on JREF after all

A quick bit of Googling turned up some interesting stuff:

http://infopractical.livejournal.com/77298.html
http://mnemotechnics.org/x/forums/daniel-tammet-840.html

This looks like the book mentioned in that second post, but I haven't read it:

http://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-Einstein-Science-Remembering-Everything/dp/159420229X

And a reminder that we need to be skeptical is always on topic.

Edit: This post: http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.com.au/2011/10/about-daniel-tammet-excerpt-from-my.html covers the subject in detail and with lots of further links and references.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Nope. They're wandering afield into computation, mathematics, and physics, and they're simply getting it wrong.

I wonder if you have ploughed all the life out the field you are working in yet, and if you are going to open up your borders to other fields of science any time soon?

I don't see your lines of reasoning here making much headway, apart from claiming everyone else as 'wrong' without ever really explaining why.

Saying someone has wandered afield into other aresas of science is not a good argument to discount their findings, they are just as respectable fields of science as yours is.

 

[Tomas71]

Welcome, Tomas. Forgive me for challenging you, but we are on JREF after all

Hi everyone! And no problem, I like a challenge

Have you seen the documentary? He recited PI to 22,500 digits with witnesses and learned Icelandic in a week and demonstrated it on live TV.

His excellent memory for digits is not in doubt, but that does not prove special abilities. He used to compete in memory competitions (before changing his name and claiming to be a savant), and did very well but not extraordinarily well (fourth place in the 2000 World Memory Championships, and a current "world ranking" of about 120). Such performances do not imply special abilities - Joshua Foer, the journalist who debunked Tammet in his book, trained from scratch to compete in these competitions and achieved results not far off Tammet's after a year or so of intensive practice. As Joshua Foer documents in his book, Tammet originally claimed to have developed his abilities through this kind of training, before he later switched to claiming to be a savant.

The evidence for extraordinary language ability is unconvincing. He studied languages at school and did only moderately well (getting B grades in French and German at Advanced level after several years' study).

I'm open minded about Tammet, but the extent of falsity in the documentary you are suggesting is far-fetched (though of course not impossible).

Is it far fetched? There are documentaries that have supported all kinds of dubious ideas - homeopathy, UFO's, psychics, and so on.

Properly scrutinised peer reviewed science is the gold standard for evaluating these sorts of claims - not TV documentaries. The peer reviewed science available at the time the documentary was made contradicted the documentary (the "Routes to Remembering" paper in Nature Neuroscience I mention above). I know which one I'd rather believe.

In particular, the published information by Ramachandran and the other scientists studied in the documentary (just a poster, rather than a peer reviewed paper) carries a caveat that Tammet's performances could have been achieved by standard memory techniques - a crucial caveat that never made it into the documentary and was never mentioned in the interviews shown.

One attempt to make a living as a psychic does not suggest he's an all-around phony -- just that he may have had money problems and attempted something unsavory once.... I'm curious that your first post here is to trash Tammet. Do you have an ulterior motive?

To be clear, I'm not here to trash Tammet. I can't prove that he doesn't see coloured shapes in his head and do calculations with them. There's no way of proving or disproving something like that.

When Tammet started out his savant claims, he was unemployed and likely on benefits. When he found the opportunity to being flown around the world for a documentary, interviews, and fame and fortune, he took it. I don't blame him, whether or not his claims are true - I think plenty of people would have done the same.

But I do challenge the media and scientists who appear to have failed to subject his claims to proper scrutiny, and present a wildly exaggerated account of his abilities. And I came here because I saw people uncritically commenting on Tammet and using it as evidence in this discussion on consciousness, without knowledge of the skeptics' viewpoint.

Do you have links to information that challenges Tammet's claims?

The best places to start are Joshua Foer's book "Moonwalking with Einstein", which features a chapter on Tammet with a fairly thorough debunking, and the links posted above by PixyMisa, and in particular the Mnemotechnics forum which I have been posting to for a while.

I wonder if any of his claims qualify for the Randi challenge.

No, he hasn't claimed any paranormal abilities (at least not since his dabbling with being a phone-in psychic).

I'll check for other threads on Tammet, but at this point, it's off topic.

I appreciate this is getting a bit off topic, though there's lots more that could be said on the subject. Is there a more appropriate thread to take this conversation to, or could we start a new one?

Tomas

 

[Mr. Scott]

I came here because I saw people uncritically commenting on Tammet and using it as evidence in this discussion on consciousness

Oh, I didn't think I was using Tammet as evidence of anything regarding consciousness, rather, just thought provoking. It's absurd the way people like to throw around phrases like, "blows away scientific theory" LOL. I think it's an emotional appeal to those jealous of scientists' knowledge and skill, IOW, "here's a tidbit of knowledge that knocks down those ivory tower nerds a notch and will make you feel less threatened by 'em."

I've been involved in documentary production, and many TV producers are totally immoral. Their mission is to end up with a compelling documentary and accuracy and honesty are irrelevant. Once the producers of the Tammet show saw dollar signs, reality became irrelevant. They made a little skeptical dance, but Tammet's history of fraud was never hinted at.

Oh, there was another bit that bothered me. They showed how Tammet saw in his mind two numbers as shapes with a space between them, and the new shape that appeared in the space was the product of the two, like a jigsaw piece was created to match the multiplier and the multiplicand. There was something about this that bothered me, and now it really seems made-up.

Jump to 9:20



It's still clear the brain does a huge amount of data processing we are completely unconscious of, as explained in Shankar Vedantam's overall interesting book The Hidden Brain.

What do you think, technically, is the difference between the brain's unconscious processing, and the processing that bubbles up to the place where it's available for us to discuss in detail?

 

[Fudbucker]

Citation, please, or retract your statement.

You never responded. Fair to bring Dennett into the discussion? Or is your view of philosophy in flux?

 

[Fudbucker]

That would be Henry Markram, whose field of specialty is computational modeling of the brain on one of the world's largest supercomputers. What we've been talking about here, he's beginning to do.

It's good to see you've been keeping up with the thread. I'm curious to know if the last few pages have been informative at all regarding cautious language and its tendency (however well-meaning) to invite dualistic arguments in informal settings.

It's been informative about the skeptical culture here. Many posters (in this thread at least), are comfortable with downright wooish claims: computers and cars are conscious. I expected more vigorous debate.

 

[Mr. Scott]

This one looks like fun, from the current Scientific American:

"Proof That the Brain Creates the Conscious Mind: The death of the brain means subjective experiences are neurochemistry"

 

[Zeuzzz]

what is the brain doing when we are asleep? Ya know, that state of mind that's uber-evolutionary as every living thing does it to an extent, the altered state of consciousness we spend half of our lives in.

Why is the brain just as active when we are asleep, and not even REM dreaming, as it is when awake?

 

[PixyMisa]

It's been informative about the skeptical culture here. Many posters (in this thread at least), are comfortable with downright wooish claims: computers and cars are conscious. I expected more vigorous debate.

Given the definition being used (per Dennett and Hofstadter), it's not only not wooish, it's easily demonstrable. See !Kaggen's posts on working with car engine controllers, for example.

If you have a problem with this definition, feel free to present it. But you should only bother to take issue with it once you've shown that you understand it - what it means and why it's accepted.