On Consciousness

[Zeuzzz]

Epigenetic inheritance of states of mind clearly falsifies the idea of a purely genomic phenotype constrained evolution of consciousness.

 

[Dancing David]

An abiogenesis solution to the origin of life does not effect the fact of evolution.

What is the confusion?

The BBt concerns itself only with the universe after the BBe, it does not suggest at this time a cause of the BBe.

Sheesh.

 

[Dancing David]

Why do we dream pixy?

To consolidate memories, help the reverberations of associative pattern processing and random garbage generation.

 

[Dancing David]

Epigenetic inheritance of states of mind clearly falsifies the idea of a purely genomic phenotype constrained evolution of consciousness.

define states of mind as a clear metric, then cross survey and do regression analysis of epigenetic components vs. social learning in families, communities and societies.

Otherwise it is magic phrase you wave like flag.

 

[Mr. Scott]

...let's see...here we have a feast of fallacies. Anyone care to name a few?

No one has helped you on this yet, so I invite you to specify one. Start with the most glaring, if you will. I am eager to learn from my mistakes.

 

[annnnoid]

No one has helped you on this yet, so I invite you to specify one. Start with the most glaring, if you will. I am eager to learn from my mistakes.

….but Mr. Scott…I pointed one out quite explicitly.

Every feature of consciousness arose incrementally for the sole reason that it helped pass on the gene responsible for that feature.

- Where has it been scientifically established that we know ‘every feature’ of consciousness?
- Where has it been scientifically established that we know how these features were / are created (arose)?
- Where has it been scientifically established that we know the reason these features occurred?
- Where has it been scientifically established that there is a ‘sole reason’ and it is as you described?


But for the sake of argument…. we’ll just assume you’re correct. Provide a list of ‘features of consciousness’ and the genes they correspond to. When you’re done you can expect a call from the Nobel committee.

It's called scientism. The appropriate thread would be here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4

 

[Mr. Scott]

….but Mr. Scott…I pointed one out quite explicitly.

- Where has it been scientifically established that we know ‘every feature’ of consciousness?
- Where has it been scientifically established that we know how these features were / are created (arose)?
- Where has it been scientifically established that we know the reason these features occurred?
- Where has it been scientifically established that there is a ‘sole reason’ and it is as you described?


But for the sake of argument…. we’ll just assume you’re correct. Provide a list of ‘features of consciousness’ and the genes they correspond to. When you’re done you can expect a call from the Nobel committee.

It's called scientism. The appropriate thread would be here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4

You know that's an absurd request. Let me approach it this way, with a specific example. We know there's a brain module that identifies animals, because people who suffer damage to this module can't identify animals anymore. When we look at an animal, we become conscious of that animal's "kind," usually very quickly. This is what I am calling a "feature of consciousness." It's useful because it's important for animals to identify nearby animals so they can assess the dangers and opportunities (Is this creature good to eat? Will it try to hurt me? Or, compete for my territory?). So, when the module evolved, it proved so useful that the genes responsible for it were passed on. People who do not have a working version of this module are unconscious of animal IDs. Since this module is the same specific lump of brain matter in every person, there is good reason to believe it's produced by genes. If a research project were initiated to identify the genes responsible, I have little reason to doubt they'd be found. Fortunately, this work could be done with non-human animals. I strongly suspect this module we inherited originally evolved in fish, so we might be able to study it humanely on them.

Our brains are made up of hundreds to thousands of modules like that, which I called in the post "features of consciousness." Work on identifying these modules is at an early stage, but tremendous progress is being made. Have you studied the anatomy of the brain? It's full of modules that have very specific functions, and when these functions are knocked out, consciousness is impaired.

Now, you've mentioned, IIRC, God and Jesus in this thread, but declined to answer my question about how these beliefs affected your views on the nature of consciousness. Why?
You seem very passionate about knocking down evolutionary explanations for consciousness. Why?
Name one feature of consciousness that could not possibly have evolved naturally by mutation and natural selection.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Argument in favor of "A"

1. Brain and consciousness are one. (This is the difficult part)
Every aspect of conscious experience is dependent on the brain.
All our feelings, memories, sensations, movements, thoughts rely entirely on the brain. Destroy focal pieces of your brain, and your personality may change, interests may change, memories may be lost, sensations may be eliminated, or you may even lose the ability to recognize your mother. There is no aspect of conscious experience which is not subject to this effect. If anyone believes there is I would like to hear of it.

Stimulate the brain with microamp current through a tiny microelectrode (while you are awake), and depending on where the electrode is placed, your body will move, you will feel things on your skin, you will hear, or see things, remember things long forgotten, have sensations of deja vu, feel various emotions, or the sensation of floating above your body looking down. These things have been shown to occur in awake surgical patients, it cannot be denied that they are true.
Change a single amino acid in the opsin gene, and the perception of colors will be drastically altered. I cannot know, its true, whether another person "sees " red the same as I do, but it is quite clear that what a person sees is dependent on the molecular structure of pigmant protiens in the retina. Altering the molecules involved alters the conscious experience in a predictable reproducable way.
I don't see how you can draw any other conclusion than that the brain IS consciousness, they are not separate things. Proceeding from here:

2. Brain activity is at its most basic, ions crossing membranes driven by thermodynamic gradients.
This is basic neurobiology, not really in dispute, I hope.

3. Imagine for a moment, standing inside a single synaptic cleft, peering into a gated channel, observing the conformation changes as a transmitter molecule binds, and an ion is carried through to other side of the membrane, it really does all look like ropes and pulleys, but there are an awful lot of them even in a single channel within a synapse!

4. Construct a rope and pulley mechanism encompasssing not just this synapse but all of them(10¹⁴), and all the axonal, dendritic and somatic membrane channels on every neuron (100 billion of them or so) involved in a working human brain, and voila, it will be conscious! It seems self evident. The problem, of course, is in generating that kind of complexity with our clumsy hands, and the limited space we have to work with (our solar system).

 

[Zeuzzz]

What if consciousness inhabits the brain and gives rise to it, so it's not that the brain produces conscious experience but consciousness that produces the brain?

How would you test this reverse causality for something that is inherently non physical and untestable?

 

[Zeuzzz]

define states of mind as a clear metric, then cross survey and do regression analysis of epigenetic components vs. social learning in families, communities and societies.

Otherwise it is magic phrase you wave like flag.

The physiological changes that states of mind induce is certainly quantifiable and metric to extents.

It's been shown that in the children of mothers who got PTSD after the 9/11 attacks that they were much more likely to also have similar symptoms when they grow up, for example. I can give more.

It might save you time to watch this documentary in the meantime (Horizon - Epigenetics - The Ghost In Your Genes), if you have missed my previous threads on the topic.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The physiological changes that states of mind induce is certainly quantifiable and metric to extents.

It's been shown that in the children of mothers who got PTSD after the 9/11 attacks that they were much more likely to also have similar symptoms when they grow up, for example. I can give more.

It might save you time to watch this documentary in the meantime (Horizon - Epigenetics - The Ghost In Your Genes), if you have missed my previous threads on the topic.

Epigenetics is really interesting, but I've seen little if anything to suggest it has a significant role in the nature of consciousness. Have you?

PS: MuDPhuD -- great post!

 

[MuDPhuD]

What if consciousness inhabits the brain and gives rise to it, so it's not that the brain produces conscious experience but consciousness that produces the brain?

How would you test this reverse causality for something that is inherently non physical and untestable?

How would someone test something which is "untestable"? I hope that's not a serious question.

What is this thing you imagine consciousness to be?
Without its brain it cannot see or hear, has no emotion, no memory, no personality. What's there before it "gives rise" to it's brain? Apparently nothing.
The "brain as conduit" hypothesis is consistent with the effects of brain damage, but it does not do so well at explaining the results of direct brain stimulation. If artificially stimulating neural activity generates conscious experiences related specifically to which brain region is stimulated, where does that leave your pre existing entity?

 

[!Kaggen]

3. Imagine for a moment, standing inside a single synaptic cleft, peering into a gated channel, observing the conformation changes as a transmitter molecule binds, and an ion is carried through to other side of the membrane, it really does all look like ropes and pulleys, but there are an awful lot of them even in a single channel within a synapse!

4. Construct a rope and pulley mechanism encompasssing not just this synapse but all of them(10¹⁴), and all the axonal, dendritic and somatic membrane channels on every neuron (100 billion of them or so) involved in a working human brain, and voila, it will be conscious! It seems self evident. The problem, of course, is in generating that kind of complexity with our clumsy hands, and the limited space we have to work with (our solar system).

I see, so clumsy hands and the size of our solar system is stopping us from building conscious words. I mean wtf is 'it' in this sentence " and voila, it will be conscious"

 

[MuDPhuD]

I see, so clumsy hands and the size of our solar system is stopping us from building conscious words. I mean wtf is 'it' in this sentence " and voila, it will be conscious"

Sorry if English is not your primary language. "It" in the final phrase refers to the initial object of the sentence, the impossibly complex imaginary rope and pulley mechanism which imitates the actions of our brains down to the level of its molecular mechanisms.
As I know you are aware, others here have already argued that complex machines much smaller than ropes and pulleys are also capable of imitating the computational actions of the brain, and these may very well achieve sufficient complexity and appropriate design for producing consciousness in much less space than would be required for ropes and pulleys.
My point was directed at the much earlier discussion here regarding rope and pulley Turing machines and their potential for being conscious.

Incidentally, if you believe "consciousness" has some component(s) which are not ultimately dependent on the activity of specific brain structures I would be grateful to hear about them.

 

[trebor]

What if consciousness consisted of non-corporeal invisible nano-squirrels which invade brain neurons...
How would you disprove this?

 

[!Kaggen]

What if consciousness consisted of non-corporeal invisible nano-squirrels which invade brain neurons...
How would you disprove this?

Well at least your words are poetic.

 

[!Kaggen]

Sorry if English is not your primary language. "It" in the final phrase refers to the initial object of the sentence, the impossibly complex imaginary rope and pulley mechanism which imitates the actions of our brains down to the level of its molecular mechanisms.
As I know you are aware, others here have already argued that complex machines much smaller than ropes and pulleys are also capable of imitating the computational actions of the brain, and these may very well achieve sufficient complexity and appropriate design for producing consciousness in much less space than would be required for ropes and pulleys.
My point was directed at the much earlier discussion here regarding rope and pulley Turing machines and their potential for being conscious.

Incidentally, if you believe "consciousness" has some component(s) which are not ultimately dependent on the activity of specific brain structures I would be grateful to hear about them.

As I thought "it" is no-thing at all.
Unlike a human which certainly is some-thing.

 

[Dancing David]

This post edited to remove incivility, I am sorry for it.

The physiological changes that states of mind induce is certainly quantifiable and metric to extents.

It's been shown that in the children of mothers who got PTSD after the 9/11 attacks that they were much more likely to also have similar symptoms when they grow up, for example. I can give more.

It might save you time to watch this documentary in the meantime (Horizon - Epigenetics - The Ghost In Your Genes), if you have missed my previous threads on the topic.

Show me the research and controls Zeuzzz, how did they control for the mothers expressed symptoms of PTSD influencing the child through social modeling.

It would probably be best to look at the actual research.
Let me guess, you don't have research, you only have a video because as usual you have not actually looked into the details.

If the research is by Yehuda you need to read this and tell me exactly where the epigentics is


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21508514

Or at least link to the alleged research.


It seems that an ordinary developmental mechanism that has been known for at least 60 years may be in effect,
or if it is this one, you again did not go to the source and just went with the woo explanations handed you:
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/90/7/4115.full

The data suggest that effects of maternal PTSD related to cortisol can be observed very early in the life of the offspring and underscore the relevance of in utero contributors to putative biological risk for PTSD.

So this is bog simple in utero development and if we read further, it will not be passed on to future generations.

Sigh, so a hormone that effects development of an infant in utero becomes 'epigenetics', NO Zeuzzz it becomes 'development of the fetus.

Stress-induced increases in glucocorticoids during pregnancy influences fetal brain development, producing permanent changes in glucocorticoid programing in offspring in both human and animals, that are, in part, dependent on the gestational age of the fetus

Both stress exposure during pregnancy and reduced activity of placental 11β hydroxycortisteroid dehydrogenase type 2, the enzyme that catalyzes rapid conversion of maternal cortisol to inert cortisone, result in an increased exposure of the fetus to glucocorticoids, resulting in low birth weight and the subsequent development of metabolic syndrome and other diseases

And if you actually read the paper you would know this:

On the other hand, the similarity between correlations observed in the current study of 1-yr-old offspring and adult offspring of Holocaust survivors should not preclude longitudinal investigation of these effects because even effects related to in utero programing and/or early stress can change over time. For example, elevated salivary cortisol levels in offspring were observed at 3 yr but not 7 yr (20). Thus, there are likely to be contributions to cortisol levels based on the offspring’s own development history. The current cohort provides an opportunity to examine the longitudinal development in cortisol over time in relation to both remitted or ongoing maternal symptoms and factors related to child development and, accordingly, to disentangle the contributions of genetic, prepregnancy, in utero, and postpartum influences on offspring cortisol levels in a sample where the intensity, frequency, and duration of the stressor is clearly defined, and the symptoms are clearly quantified in a prospective manner."

Epic fai!

This would not effect the cortisol levels of the children of the mother when they have their own babies, it would be dependent upon them also have a severe trauma during pregnancy, ergo, it is not epigenetics.


I again regret my incivility Zeuzzz, I apologize.

 

[Mr. Scott]

As I thought "it" is no-thing at all.
Unlike a human which certainly is some-thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong on the following:

You would call a non-working human brain an "it." After we fire it up with oxygenated blood containing nutrition and energy so that it functions just like yours and mine, you'd call it some-thing, rather than an "it." Why?
Would you say something like this about one of these proto-conscious robots? Turned off, it's an it, but turned on, it's some-thing?

These are not simple yes/no or short quip questions for you, !Kaggen. They are invitations for you to elaborate your thoughts on consciousness and educate us mechanists (Mechanism (philosophy)^WP).

Hey, search youtube for "conscious robot" there's some really neat stuff!

 

[!Kaggen]

Correct me if I'm wrong on the following:

You would call a non-working human brain an "it." After we fire it up with oxygenated blood containing nutrition and energy so that it functions just like yours and mine, you'd call it some-thing, rather than an "it." Why?
Would you say something like this about one of these proto-conscious robots? Turned off, it's an it, but turned on, it's some-thing?

These are not simple yes/no or short quip questions for you, !Kaggen. They are invitations for you to elaborate your thoughts on consciousness and educate us mechanists (Mechanism (philosophy)^WP).

Hey, search youtube for "conscious robot" there's some really neat stuff!

You can talk rubbish all day long, but I am not impressed yet.