On Consciousness

[tensordyne]

... Do you guys have any idea how creepy that is?

Interesting statements here and there. I do want to defend the position I take about learning about consciousness first in ourselves before we try to figure it out on other entities.

I am not for causing harm. I do not think that humans are "special". The mechanisms that allow us to be conscious should work anywhere else as well, whatever they may be.

The weird thing about the post is how odd it is, like it is scatter-brained or something, as well as a bit creepy in its own right because of it. The correct place for emotion is when discussing what one values and why. I see emotion being used in the post by quarky about subjects that do not have any need to be addressed as such since they are of technical/logical origin.

All the best to you quarky!

 

[Dancing David]

There are an appealing notion to me because they are physical and not just about information.



If EM fields of various kinds give rise to consciousness (something yet to be established), in terms of consciousness they give you consciousness (wet computer versus dry computer). EM fields send information at close to the speed of light, a definite advantage over slower chemical processes of the action potential, which would be evolutionary advantageous as well.

In terms of information processing, the "wired connections" (I was critiqued on this so I put it in quotes to let it be known that I mean whatever the consensus connectionist model is about axons, dendrites and neurons, etc. is and am only using the terms metaphorically) store and process information in something like a logic gate way?

EM fields obey the principle of superposition so you would have wave-like processing in space. This is a much richer form of computation in that it allows for more 'computation' with the same amount of resources (in a kind of similar way to how Quantum Computing is richer than Turing style computing).

There is no EM transmission in the brain, period.

The 'logic' of the brain is conditioned. They are not anywhere near like computers. They are more like a large analog array.

Current theory is that as neurons fire, some neuron attenuate each other and some attenuate each other. This creates the 'switching' for an individual neuron.

But please cease and desist with the EM nonsense, did you actually try to understand what I was saying, in trans cranial magnetic stimulation (which cause a large scale polarization/depolarization of the neurons) and an MRI the field strength is about one Tesla from what I can tell, the neurons potential would be measured in pico tesla's.

One one trillionth, this is absurd speculation and foolish to say any neuron could remotely respond to the faint EM field of another neuron..

An array of neurons that is one trillion in size and on average had 2,000 connections per neuron is quite a bit.

No need to add EM fairies and angels.

 

[Dancing David]

Also probably noteworthy that our brains are, to an extent, connected to the universe at large via the electromagnetic field and ion flow of electric currents that permeate the universe. If consciousness is no more than simple computation of electrical signals between molecules then the universe is brimming with similar consciousness. This electrical information is not only everywhere but at every scale; from a synapse firing all the way up to interstellar electric currents. Cosmic scale electric current systems are certainly more mechanical and deterministic than synapse firings; but both are in essence similar types of electrical information. To infer a common consciousness derived model for information processing on such different scales sounds preposterous on its face, but its not. The uniquely scale invarient and translationally invarient nature of maxwells electromagnetic equations allow this. The wonders of biological evolution here on earth may have enabled the electromagnetic information we find throughout the universe to evolve over time into far more complex and condensed type systems here on earth.

No, the brain is biochemical, it is not electromagnetic.

 

[Dancing David]

I can see in the quote above some Plasma Cosmology ideas kind of circling around. It is an interesting post.

And Plasma Cosmology is trash.

 

[Dancing David]

If such is known, tell me the setup (lets call it a machine for definiteness) one needs to see red or any other experience. Also, I would like to see some kind of proof of some kind, even if it is tenuous at best, that said machine really does experience what it is claimed it experiences, whatever that may be.

To see red you need photo receptors, a retina, an optic nerve and a visual cortex. That are exposed to and grow while exposed to the color 'red'.

 

[tensordyne]

There is no EM transmission in the brain, period.

The 'logic' of the brain is conditioned. They are not anywhere near like computers. They are more like a large analog array.

Current theory is that as neurons fire, some neuron attenuate each other and some attenuate each other. This creates the 'switching' for an individual neuron.

An acceptable recapitulation of the current view of what I would guess is the current consensus view.

But please cease and desist with the EM nonsense, did you actually try to understand what I was saying, in trans cranial magnetic stimulation (which cause a large scale polarization/depolarization of the neurons) and an MRI the field strength is about one Tesla from what I can tell, the neurons potential would be measured in pico tesla's.

One one trillionth, this is absurd speculation and foolish to say any neuron could remotely respond to the faint EM field of another neuron..

An array of neurons that is one trillion in size and on average had 2,000 connections per neuron is quite a bit.

You do not measure potentials in Teslas but in Volts. Even if a single neuron has the magnetic field strength of pico teslas (pT) that is 10^-12 T and there are 80 to 120 billion neurons for a combined max possible strength on the order of something like milliteslas (this would have to be attenuated by some amount).

Really though, just read McFadden's papers if you want to see your arguments addressed, as I remember he covers many such arguments with the references to other papers to back it up.

The human brain consists of approximately 100 billion electrically active neurones that generate an endogenous electromagnetic (em) field, whose
role in neuronal computing has not been fully examined.

That is the assessment of a doctoral researcher in the field of biology. If it has not been fully examined, who the hell are you to say it has? Not sure myself either way.

Decide for yourself, here is his paper: http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/cemi_theory_paper.pdf

Oh yeah, did you not read my special note about coming back to this topic after a while? Guess you could not wait.

No need to add EM fairies and angels.

No need to be a dick either. You just have to say "No need to add in EM," or something to that effect (the neutral voice is always the best voice to use). In any case, I do not advocate for EM faeries or angels, and I am pretty sure neither does Dr. Johnjoe McFadden. Stop being intellectually dishonest (or witty, 'cause it is not, I have heard that one before).

 

[Pulvinar]

Really though, just read McFadden's papers if you want to see your arguments addressed, as I remember he covers many such arguments with the references to other papers to back it up.

I couldn't find a reference in his paper to thalamocortical circuits, which are much more likely to do the global synchronization he's theorizing EM is needed for.

See Recurrent_thalamo-cortical_resonance#thalamocortical_circuits

 

[tensordyne]

From the paper I gave the link to:

There is considerable evidence that neurones do indeed communicate through
the em field (known as field coupling). Ephaptic nerve transmission describes
the phenomenon whereby neurone firing is modulated by the firing of adjacent
neurones and has been demonstrated in vitro when neurones are brought into
very close proximity under conditions that exclude synaptic transmission.
Ephaptic transmission has been implicated in a number of pathological conditions
such as tinnitus and peripheral neuropathy and is strongly suspected to be
involved in the synchronisation of neurone firing that is seen in ‘field bursts’
within hippocampal slices maintained in vitro (Buzsaki et al., 1992), and in epileptic
seizures (Bawin et al., 1986; Jefferys, 1981; Konnerth et al., 1986; Richardson
et al., 1984; Snow and Dudek, 1984).

 

[tensordyne]

I couldn't find a reference in his paper to thalamocortical circuits, which are much more likely to do the global synchronization he's theorizing EM is needed for.

See Recurrent_thalamo-cortical_resonance#thalamocortical_circuits

Thank you!

 

[quarky]

Interesting statements here and there. I do want to defend the position I take about learning about consciousness first in ourselves before we try to figure it out on other entities.

I am not for causing harm. I do not think that humans are "special". The mechanisms that allow us to be conscious should work anywhere else as well, whatever they may be.

The weird thing about the post is how odd it is, like it is scatter-brained or something, as well as a bit creepy in its own right because of it. The correct place for emotion is when discussing what one values and why. I see emotion being used in the post by quarky about subjects that do not have any need to be addressed as such since they are of technical/logical origin.

All the best to you quarky!

Yeah.

You too.

(Spoken in non-computer voice.)

 

[tensordyne]

Yeah.

You too.

(Spoken in non-computer voice.)

LOL

 

[Roboramma]

Problem of induction^WP

I'm aware of the problem of induction. But once again, you didn't answer my very specific question.

Your response seems to indicate that you do think there's no reason to believe that the predictions of, say, quantum electrodynamics, will continue to be accurate, but I'm trying not to put words in your mouth so it would help if you'd just answer the question.

 

[Itztli]

I am not sure what is meant by p-zombie in this context. Are you saying that people who respect the primacy of sensory experience as a means of gaining knowledge and in terms of sensory experience think it is the sine qua non of consciousness (Searle), have no sensations and are in fact philosophical zombies (phenomenal? the p needs explication) denying such to themselves that in fact they experience nothing and are mindless robots haunting the universe with their meaningless ramblings?

I mean there's only an Easy Problem of consciousness. Once you have completely solved the easy problem, you could explain people's behavior to every little detail, even why they would tell you about experiencing red. In a way, you've explained how they function as p-zombies. Now, the Hard Problem is just a mental leap that there's nothing more than that, in other words, we are all p-zombies.

 

[Itztli]

EM fields obey the principle of superposition so you would have wave-like processing in space. This is a much richer form of computation in that it allows for more 'computation' with the same amount of resources (in a kind of similar way to how Quantum Computing is richer than Turing style computing).

If you mean "richer" in the sense that a Turing style computer could do the same thing, but with more resources, then you haven't really gained much. The brain has more "conventional" resources than we can imagine, so I'm wondering why you think that's not enough.

 

[Dancing David]

An acceptable recapitulation of the current view of what I would guess is the current consensus view.



You do not measure potentials in Teslas but in Volts. Even if a single neuron has the magnetic field strength of pico teslas (pT) that is 10^-12 T and there are 80 to 120 billion neurons for a combined max possible strength on the order of something like milliteslas (this would have to be attenuated by some amount).

Really though, just read McFadden's papers if you want to see your arguments addressed, as I remember he covers many such arguments with the references to other papers to back it up.



That is the assessment of a doctoral researcher in the field of biology. If it has not been fully examined, who the hell are you to say it has? Not sure myself either way.

Decide for yourself, here is his paper: http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/cemi_theory_paper.pdf

Oh yeah, did you not read my special note about coming back to this topic after a while? Guess you could not wait.



No need to be a dick either. You just have to say "No need to add in EM," or something to that effect (the neutral voice is always the best voice to use). In any case, I do not advocate for EM faeries or angels, and I am pretty sure neither does Dr. Johnjoe McFadden. Stop being intellectually dishonest (or witty, 'cause it is not, I have heard that one before).

Okay, no need for EM dragons and unicorns in the brain!



McFadden is wrong.

 

[!Kaggen]

For those interested in a thorough argument against computationalists this book by programmer Stephen Talbott will prove most interesting

http://netfuture.org/fdnc/

 

[!Kaggen]

I'm aware of the problem of induction. But once again, you didn't answer my very specific question.

Your response seems to indicate that you do think there's no reason to believe that the predictions of, say, quantum electrodynamics, will continue to be accurate, but I'm trying not to put words in your mouth so it would help if you'd just answer the question.

The scientific method is really not about the future, but about the past.
Let me try explain.
What we are predicting is that new data, which is always after the fact i.e. in the past, will map into our model of older data.
It does not account for the future, but a hypothesis of a future.

The scientific method is not about predicting all possible futures i.e. the future, but a particular future which is simply an abstract hypothesis of the past. Abstract in that it can be projected into the future, but it is not "the future".

The accuracy of this method in mapping to new data is surely hypnotic and can give the impression of a prediction of "the future", but it is not "the future" its an abstraction of the past. A powerful one for sure.

As Goethe said " The history of science is science itself".

Difficult to realize, but critical in understand the scientific methods limitations. Which makes it a human endeavor and not a theistic one.
This is the one point many in science refuse to acknowledge and why science has many theists still in its ranks.
Idolatry, the worship of the abstract, still has humanity well and truly by the scruff of the neck and it still runs the show.

 

[Itztli]

Difficult to realize, but critical in understand the scientific methods limitations.

The limitation doesn't just show in the scientific method. If you're thirsty, you may have a nice glass of cold water, making an assumption that it will get rid of your thirst, like it did in the past, instead of killing you instantly this time.

 

[tsig]

The scientific method is really not about the future, but about the past.
Let me try explain.
What we are predicting is that new data, which is always after the fact i.e. in the past, will map into our model of older data.
It does not account for the future, but a hypothesis of a future.

The scientific method is not about predicting all possible futures i.e. the future, but a particular future which is simply an abstract hypothesis of the past. Abstract in that it can be projected into the future, but it is not "the future".

The accuracy of this method in mapping to new data is surely hypnotic and can give the impression of a prediction of "the future", but it is not "the future" its an abstraction of the past. A powerful one for sure.

As Goethe said " The history of science is science itself".

Difficult to realize, but critical in understand the scientific methods limitations. Which makes it a human endeavor and not a theistic one.
This is the one point many in science refuse to acknowledge and why science has many theists still in its ranks.
Idolatry, the worship of the abstract, still has humanity well and truly by the scruff of the neck and it still runs the show.

Idolatry, the worship of ignorance, still has humanity well and truly by the scruff of the neck and it still runs the show.

 

[Zeuzzz]

And Plasma Cosmology is trash.

Hate to bring up a largely irrelevant point here about PC but ...

I agree. PC as you see it, as a disparate bunch of theories that were developed on totally different starting assumptions than the big bang theory (Infinite universe with no creation date) has been largely falsified due to data contradicting the theories that were proposed, and a lack of recent alternate explanations of the data to support the PC approach.

However, the facts I mentioned before about the attributes of the EM field, are totally correct still, even if the PC theories they were used in support of are now in conflict with modern data.

From a epistemic viewpoint and a framework to work with, the main ideas still stand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194
* An origin in time for the universe is rejected,[11] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[12]
* Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution (see static universe).

Which is I think what tessordyne was getting at. Not the specific theories, but the general philosophy of this approach to the universe at large.