I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[barehl]

Continuing with things not my opinion:

This project of IBM's has been going since 2008 and has been funded by DARPA.

Shortly after IBM announced their cat-scale brain simulation, Henry Markram of the Blue Brain Project published a very strong criticism of the claim. He called it "a mega public relations stunt - a clear case of scientific deception of the public". As Markram wrote in an open letter, these simulations do not come close to the complexity of an ant brain, let alone that of a cat brain.

Markram's paper is here.

Markram is the neuroscientist who discovered spike timing dependent plasticity (STDP). He's also running the Blue Brain project at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.

Back in 2009, Jim Olds who is a neuroscientist (and who directs the George Mason University's Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study) said that what neuroscience was lacking was a unifying principle, "to lay out a fundamental theory of cognition." I'm not aware of any new theory since then.

 

[Belz...]

It may be no coincidence that chaotic behaviour has been observed both in neurons and some brain activity - but too early to say for sure.

Yes, though what I meant was that the unpredictability of a deterministic event means that the concept of free will is compatible with non-magical reality.

 

[Belz...]

I think it's kind of a losing battle trying to explain to people what they don't know so I'm not going to continue with that. And since the typical reaction to my posts is knee-jerk disagreement I'm also going to move away from my opinions.

The year is 2012: IBM and LBNL achieved an unprecedented scale of 2.084 billion neurosynaptic cores containing 53×1010 (530 billion) neurons and 1.37×1014 (100 trillion) synapses running only 1542 times slower than real time.

The cerebral cortex of the human brain contains about 20 billion neurons with about 10,000 synapse each. The entire human brain is about 80 billion neurons. So, 530 billion would be about six brains worth or 26 of just the cortex alone. So, you should end up with about 1 human brain power at about 1.7% the speed of a human brain. That was 2012. If there were international headlines about a neural network comprehending, say, the works of Shakespeare, I seem to have missed it.

Now, that was the old IBM neural chip. It was only 256 leaky integrate-and-fire neurons, 1024 axons, and 256×1024 synapses using an SRAM crossbar memory. It fit in a 4.2mm square area, using a 45nm SOI process.

IBM has had a new one since August last year. TrueNorth contains one million neurons and 256 million synapses implemented by an on-chip 64 by 64 mesh array (4096) of neurosynaptic cores. It fits 5.4 billion transistors in a 4.3 square centimeter die using a 28nm process. This chip only needs 72 milliwatts at full power.

A rat only has about 20 million neurons in its cerebral cortex. So, twenty of these chips should give you 1 rat brain power in terms of neurons--you might need 100 of these to get enough synapse. Although, like the first example perhaps it doesn't operate in similar time. So, where are the AI rat brains?

I'm not sure that I understand the point you are trying to make, here. I don't think that consciousness is a mere matter of scaling.

 

[Nonpareil]

Continuing with things not my opinion:

This project of IBM's has been going since 2008 and has been funded by DARPA.

Shortly after IBM announced their cat-scale brain simulation, Henry Markram of the Blue Brain Project published a very strong criticism of the claim. He called it "a mega public relations stunt - a clear case of scientific deception of the public". As Markram wrote in an open letter, these simulations do not come close to the complexity of an ant brain, let alone that of a cat brain.

Markram's paper is here.

Markram is the neuroscientist who discovered spike timing dependent plasticity (STDP). He's also running the Blue Brain project at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.

And this publicity stunt by a computer company indicates that computational neuroscience is hokum how, exactly...?

EDIT: And, once again, Markram is the head of the Blue Brain Project. Annnnoid made this same mistake earlier. Markram is a proponent of computational neuroscience. The entire project is founded on that idea, as they are attempting to create an artificial neural net by studying the architecture of the brain. He just pointed out that IBM didn't do what it said it did.

Back in 2009, Jim Olds who is a neuroscientist (and who directs the George Mason University's Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study) said that what neuroscience was lacking was a unifying principle, "to lay out a fundamental theory of cognition." I'm not aware of any new theory since then.

Integrated information theory. I have linked you to this previously. For the rest of you, Doctor Giulio Tononi pioneered the field in December of 2008. He, Christof Koch, and others are still carrying on research today.

 

[tsig]

And this publicity stunt by a computer company indicates that computational neuroscience is hokum how, exactly...?

EDIT: And, once again, Markram is the head of the Blue Brain Project. Annnnoid made this same mistake earlier. Markram is a proponent of computational neuroscience. The entire project is founded on that idea, as they are attempting to create an artificial neural net by studying the architecture of the brain. He just pointed out that IBM didn't do what it said it did.



Integrated information theory. I have linked you to this previously. For the rest of you, Doctor Giulio Tononi pioneered the field in December of 2008. He, Christof Koch, and others are still carrying on research today.

Let's see:

Claims to have worked a long time on his project

Will revolution science

Vague about details

Seems the crank points are piling up.

 

[annnnoid]

You seem to have an issue with assigning extra meanings to what I say.

You know nothing about computer or cognitive science.

…I wonder how many ‘extra meanings’ there are to the word ‘nothing’?

There is an extremely simple and coherent definition. I just gave it. Consciousness is the capability to experience. It is the ability to feel.

Is it necessary to spell it out for you…
….yet again!!!!!!!

Provide a definition of consciousness for which there is a scientific consensus. How many scientists would accept that nonsense as a definition of consciousness?

I’ll give you a hint. It rhymes with hero and starts with the letter ‘z’.

Your issue is not that my definition is not coherent, but that you dislike it.

No…my issue with your worthless definition…besides the fact that it is worthless… is that you continually avoid providing what has been asked for, innumerable times.

… a definition of consciousness that has achieved scientific consensus.

As mentioned previously, you have to keep terms vaguely defined and hazy, and, ideally, as "philosophically" complex as possible. The moment that things are nailed down is the moment that all your claims are exposed for the nonsense that they are.

…and your definition is ‘nailed down’! Is that a joke?

“Consciousness is the ability to experience… to feel.”

Is it worth pointing out the blindingly obvious? That we don’t have a scientific definition (or a scientific understanding) of those words (experience, feeling) either!

For this reason, you resort to phrases like "science will never understand human nature",

I would demand that you provide a link to my use of this statement, but I know you never will, so feel entirely free to lie about what I’ve said.

as if that statement actually has any meaning.

Of course it doesn’t, and I never said it.

You assign dozens of extraneous, hazy add-ons to the idea of consciousness that are not actually part of its definition.

Really????

Where…precisely…have I assigned ‘dozens of extraneous, hazy add-ons to the idea of consciousness’.

…or shall we have to conclude that you’re making this up…yet again.

BTW…what, precisely, is the accepted definition of consciousness (that I've been adding so much to). Just so we all know what its actual definition actually is….actually. Seeing as you…actually…are the only one on the planet who seems to think that the situation has been resolved.

You categorically reject the idea of there being a workable definition,

Really. When did I reject the idea of working definitions of consciousness. There are lots of those. We’re not interested in those. What we’re interested in …like I’ve said at least a couple dozen times already… is a scientific consensus.

What…it (consciousness) is!

not because there isn't one, but because you dislike the implications of one existing.

…yes of course. That must be it. The fact that there isn’t actually a scientific consensus is simply trivial. I’m sure all those hundreds of thousands of scientists are avoiding a resolution of this issue just because they all know that I would be displeased.

I'm afraid, however, that the universe is not actually particularly complicated. It's certainly complex - there are a lot of moving parts working in it, and keeping track of all of them is difficult - but very little in it is actually complicated.

Is there any point in asking how something can be complex and not complicated at exactly the same time?

…probably not.

Rocks fall because of gravity. Stars burn, atoms spin, electricity blazes, and minds think because of understandable forces playing out according to established rules.

Understandable forces??? Every neuroscientist I've heard of (including MudPhud) has agreed that there is no understanding of how the brain produces consciousness. How do you get from there to the word 'understandable'......????

Oh…I get it. For the people who are writing science books for kindergarten classes, the universe is very simple. For those who waste decades getting advanced degrees, it’s complicated.

…but hang on a second there. What’s this thing ‘rules’. Where are the rules? I don’t see any rules. You’re telling me that all this stuff happens because of established rules.

Where…are…the…rules?

There's no magic in the brain, or in the mind, or in the soul, because souls don't exist.

…and you know this how?

Magic doesn't exist, either. The universe doesn't work like that. There is no life after death. Out of body experiences are just the brain hiccuping. Psychic powers are pure fantasy. And so on and so on.

…and so on and so on. I have a cousin who’s a physics prof at Cambridge. Next time he wants to write another paper I’ll be sure and tell him not to waste his time. It’s all simple. Just ask Nonpareil.

 

[Nonpareil]

<snip pointless ranting>

I've addressed these points before. You don't pay attention to the answers. All you do is post more and more demands for irrelevant repetitions of rebuttals to things that I, and other posters, have already said to you ad nauseam in other threads - like your obsession with the Noam Chomsky quote about human nature, your equivocation between "human nature" and "consciousness" and its "all but infinite range of variations and nuances".

You make up terms like "subjective evidentiary primacy" and claim that there are other, valid epistemologies under which things like OBEs and idealism are supported. Of course, you never define such things; when actual definitions are offered to you, you dismiss them as "worthless" out of hand without actually considering them, because concrete definitions are anathema to your position.

When actual evidence is supplied to you, you either attempt to dismiss it outright, claim that it still isn't sufficient for no adequately-explained reason, or betray your complete lack of understanding on the subject and claim things like Christof Koch discarding the provably true idea of modularity of mind, the Blue Brain project lead claiming that they are entirely ignorant of the thing they've been studying for the past three years, and so on. More commonly, you simply ignore it.

There is nothing that anyone can say to make the slightest bit of difference to you. You are not here to discuss. You are not here to learn, or to contribute anything to the efforts of others to do the same. You are here to heckle, and to act superior, and play pointless word games to feed your own ego.

For whatever reason, you've latched on to me as the primary target of your attacks, but I honestly don't care. You're just wasting everyone's time at this point, and I'm not interested in playing your games. Frankly, it's boring.

Until you actually post something other than mockery, god of the gaps fallacies, and ranting, I'm done with you.

 

[annnnoid]

I've addressed these points before. You don't pay attention to the answers. All you do is post more and more demands for irrelevant repetitions of rebuttals to things that I, and other posters, have already said to you ad nauseam in other threads - like your obsession with the Noam Chomsky quote about human nature, your equivocation between "human nature" and "consciousness" and its "all but infinite range of variations and nuances".

So you admit you made it up. What a surprise. Not.

You make up terms like "subjective evidentiary primacy" and claim that there are other, valid epistemologies under which things like OBEs and idealism are supported. Of course, you never define such things; when actual definitions are offered to you, you dismiss them as "worthless" out of hand without actually considering them, because concrete definitions are anathema to your position.

!!!!!!!!!!....and this

Consciousness is the capability to experience. It is the ability to feel.

…is this what you refer to as a ‘concrete definition’ ?????????

Why don’t you make an effort to discover just how worthless your ‘concrete definition’ actually is. Here’s a link to the cognitive neuroscience faculty page at Harvard ( http://www.hms.harvard.edu/dms/neuroscience/fac/Faculty.php ). Gotta be at least 40 or 50 of them there. Every one of them has an email address.

Send each one of them your ‘concrete definition’ and see how many actually take you seriously.

Rhymes with the word ‘hero’…starts with the letter ‘z’.

Do let us know when you come upon this scientific consensus that you never stop claiming exists….somewhere.

 

[Belz...]

So you admit you made it up. What a surprise. Not.

Speaking of making it up, that's not what he said.

 

[barehl]

Integrated information theory. I have linked you to this previously. For the rest of you, Doctor Giulio Tononi pioneered the field in December of 2008. He, Christof Koch, and others are still carrying on research today.

Okay, I've gone over this theory and we can discuss it if you like. However, I'm not sure that the theory is what you think it is.

 

[punshhh]

Except that consciousness demonstrably is produced by the information processing in the brain. Stop the information processing, and consciousness is no longer present, save when you try (completely pointlessly) to equivocate between "consciousness" and "organic life".

As I have already agreed this is correct in regard to self-consciousness.

In the absence of a demonstration of computational consciousness (or perhaps you will point to one?). It is assumed that it is the "computation" in the brain which results in consciousness and self-consciousness.

It is well known and acknowledged that scientists don't understand the body sufficiently to say which material in the body produces consciousness and how (or perhaps you can name one?).

Except that we can plainly see that it does. Take away the brain, and you have no consciousness.

This is a naive conclusion. All that it demonstrates is that a dis-functional body does not produce consciousness. It certainly can't tell us which material in the body produces consciousness.

No, they aren't. More primitive brains are still brains. Remove a monkey's brain, and it is no longer conscious.

How do you know that organisms which haven't evolved a brain are not conscious, as an entity present and active in the world into which it is born. Surely such a being is in a basic way conscious of its environment. Your presumption that such organisms aren't conscious is based on your naive assumption that it is produced in the "computation" in the brain. Therefore creatures without brains cannot be conscious. This is naive and smacks of the naivety of regarding the particular brand of consciousness found in humans as the only kind and form of consciousness to be found in the universe.

Even in an idealistic universe, we experience something. There is no meaningful way to describe that something as anything other than an external, materialistic universe. To say that it is "really" an idealistic one is a meaningless statement which relies on word games.

I still can't discern a relevant point here. As I pointed out, if we are in an idealist universe our experience is identical to what it would be if it were a materialistic universe.

As I said before, logically it is undeniable that a philosophical enquiry into our existence would result in the possibility that the medium through which we percieve both our own existence and that of the world around us, is the primary or fundamental substrate out of which both originate.

If that is a word game, it looks like philosophy is out of the window(pram) now.

Meaningless word salad.

You brought up "is" and failed to make it relevant to the debate. Perhaps you will now.

 

[Nonpareil]

Okay, I've gone over this theory and we can discuss it if you like. However, I'm not sure that the theory is what you think it is.

If you're going to try and claim that your "work" has falsified this as well, you're going to need to back it up with more than "really, I have falsified it, guys, you gotta believe me".

 

[Nonpareil]

As I have already agreed this is correct in regard to self-consciousness.

You still have yet to provide any sort of meaningful distinction between self-consciousness and... whatever it is that you think consciousness is that relies solely on being organic life.

In the absence of a demonstration of computational consciousness (or perhaps you will point to one?). It is assumed that it is the "computation" in the brain which results in consciousness and self-consciousness.

It is concluded. Really, we've been over this enough times.

It is well known and acknowledged that scientists don't understand the body sufficiently to say which material in the body produces consciousness and how (or perhaps you can name one?).

The brain.

There is not a single biologist, neuroscientist, or whatever type of scientist that you care to name who will pretend for one second that your idea of anything else producing it is anything other than utter nonsense. Opinions on how, precisely, the brain does this differ, but computational neuroscience is the only field with any actual supporting evidence.

This is a naive conclusion. All that it demonstrates is that a dis-functional body does not produce consciousness. It certainly can't tell us which material in the body produces consciousness.

Except that it does. You can leave the stem, if you like - the bit that controls the autonomic functions. This leaves the subject alive, but in a non-conscious vegetative state.

We've been over this before as well.

How do you know that organisms which haven't evolved a brain are not conscious, as an entity present and active in the world into which it is born. Surely such a being is in a basic way conscious of its environment.

Only if they have a nervous system of some sort - which I have mentioned before as well. For the purposes of this discussion, I have been using "brain" to denote both fully-developed brains and primitive central nervous systems, as they serve what is essentially the same function.

Organisms without this sensory capability are not conscious, of course, as there is no sensory input for them to be conscious of.

I still can't discern a relevant point here. As I pointed out, if we are in an idealist universe our experience is identical to what it would be if it were a materialistic universe.

That is my point. Idealism is a garage dragon.

There is no meaningful way to say that idealism is true. Therefore, by definition, it is false.

You brought up "is" and failed to make it relevant to the debate.

No. I failed to make you understand how it is relevant.

Unfortunately, I can only do so much. After a certain point, the burden of understanding rests on you.

 

[tsig]

I've addressed these points before. You don't pay attention to the answers. All you do is post more and more demands for irrelevant repetitions of rebuttals to things that I, and other posters, have already said to you ad nauseam in other threads - like your obsession with the Noam Chomsky quote about human nature, your equivocation between "human nature" and "consciousness" and its "all but infinite range of variations and nuances".

You make up terms like "subjective evidentiary primacy" and claim that there are other, valid epistemologies under which things like OBEs and idealism are supported. Of course, you never define such things; when actual definitions are offered to you, you dismiss them as "worthless" out of hand without actually considering them, because concrete definitions are anathema to your position.

When actual evidence is supplied to you, you either attempt to dismiss it outright, claim that it still isn't sufficient for no adequately-explained reason, or betray your complete lack of understanding on the subject and claim things like Christof Koch discarding the provably true idea of modularity of mind, the Blue Brain project lead claiming that they are entirely ignorant of the thing they've been studying for the past three years, and so on. More commonly, you simply ignore it.

There is nothing that anyone can say to make the slightest bit of difference to you. You are not here to discuss. You are not here to learn, or to contribute anything to the efforts of others to do the same. You are here to heckle, and to act superior, and play pointless word games to feed your own ego.

For whatever reason, you've latched on to me as the primary target of your attacks, but I honestly don't care. You're just wasting everyone's time at this point, and I'm not interested in playing your games. Frankly, it's boring.

Until you actually post something other than mockery, god of the gaps fallacies, and ranting, I'm done with you.

I got tired of abusive rants only vaguely on topic but larded with enough vitriol to bait a response.

 

[annnnoid]

Speaking of making it up, that's not what he said.

Nonpareil presented this quote:

"science will never understand human nature"

and attributed it to me. I never said any such thing.

Ergo…he made it up. Is there some other conclusion to come to? Is it possible someone hijacked Nonpareils ISF account? Probably not. Is it possible that Nonpareil is currently possessed by some non-corporeal identity? Impossible to determine those odds… but I’m betting it’s not happening. Is it possible Nonpareil has suddenly become schizophrenic and Napoleon Bonaparte now resides therein? A bit farfetched.

…so, it’s the exact same Nonpareil who is constantly producing unsupported assertions … ‘yet again’ (like the claim that there is some kind of scientific consensus around the definition of the word ‘consciousness’). This time it’s just more flagrant. Attributing explicit statements to me that I have never made is just slightly questionable.

I got tired of abusive rants only vaguely on topic but larded with enough vitriol to bait a response.

You don't have to declare victory because your modus operandi is to make vague, meaningless, irrelevant statements in the fond belief that they make you appear intelligent.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

A good alternate to materialism would be something like.... say.... being able to cure your headache grow a limb you had amputated, using only the power of suggestion.

 

[Nonpareil]

I got tired of abusive rants only vaguely on topic but larded with enough vitriol to bait a response.

Essentially.

 

[dlorde]

Yes, though what I meant was that the unpredictability of a deterministic event means that the concept of free will is compatible with non-magical reality.

Yes, quite; I was just suggesting that explicitly chaotic unpredictability might play a role.

 

[LarryS]

There's been plenty of abuse to go around - and hopefully we all can look beyond that - I know I've enjoyed the thread (sometimes I admit like a good train wreck) and learned much from it. It's obvious that folks are passionate about their thoughts on these subjects.

 

[Belz...]

Nonpareil presented this quote:

"science will never understand human nature"

and attributed it to me. I never said any such thing.

You're moving the goalposts. I addressed your post which interpreted Nonpareil's paragraph as admitting he made it up when it did no such thing. Perhaps you meant to quote some other part ?