On Consciousness

[Belz...]

Free will
Self awareness
Consciousness
Different biochemical interactions
Different topology
A human brain uses 10 Watts of power, where most computers we have made to try to get to the same level of information processing and memory storage need over 20 terawatts.
Different ... well different in every regard really apart from. Um. Um.

1) We don't know if computers can become conscious so it's an odd thing to mention.
2) Difference in structure is irrelevant to my question.
3) Difference is wattage is irrelevant to my question.

 

[Belz...]

comp.lit == "Crazy Cultist" resolves to true in this case.

Well I guess that's all the argument you need !

 

[dlorde]

<...snipped patient corrections...>
What's not possible, though, is for bosons alone to form complex structures or processes; you need Fermi-Dirac statistics for that, and that only applies to fermions.

Thanks Pixy; saved me additional face-palming

 

[quarky]

Are you claiming that what happens in the brain is not a reflection of reality?

I guess so. We filter the data via the limits of our mechanisms; our senses.
Obviously, our hearing range misses out on all sorts of racket.
We pick through the sum-total, and imply meaning to what's left for us.

Eye-witness testimony isn't even worth much.

Physics is.

 

[dlorde]

Optical illusions are a good demonstration of hallucination. Our brains fill in a lot of blanks in what we are perceiving. We assemble our conscious impressions from an incomplete data-base.

The concept of the brain 'filling in' blanks is arguable (see Is What You See What You Get?). It may be an intuitive idea that some kind of quasi-photographic internal representation of the world is created, but this isn't the case, and certain optical illusions actually support that (as described in the linked article).

 

[tensordyne]

Thanks Pixy; saved me additional face-palming

He didn't save you anything because never was there mention that bosons (photons) by themselves were to be the only parts of such a theory. Bringing up Fermi-Dirac (or Bose-Einstein) statistics is not relevant.

 

[tensordyne]

Well I guess that's all the argument you need !

Normally it would not be, but you cut out the part where I ref'd Piggy's arguments from before where he has made some pretty strong arguments that comp.lit is both not mainstream and deluded.

 

[tensordyne]

Eye-witness testimony isn't even worth much.

Physics is.

Don't mention physics! Your supposed to talk about how according to the Chruch-Turing hypothesis all computation is the same and the substrate does not matter to be a good comp.lit cultist. You are straying into dangerous territory by talking about physics as if it was not a part of computer science or something. P-shaw.

 

[dlorde]

He didn't save you anything because never was there mention that bosons (photons) by themselves were to be the only parts of such a theory. Bringing up Fermi-Dirac (or Bose-Einstein) statistics is not relevant.

No, it was the rest of the post I was referring to (the preceding patient corrections).

 

[tensordyne]

Sounds like you'd enjoy (if you're not already familiar with them) Alexander and Anne Shulgin's books, 'PiHKAL' and 'TiHKAL' (Phenethylamines/Tryptamines i Have Known And Loved). They each come in two parts, part one being lively descriptions of numerous experimental ingestions of various psychedelics; part two being a description of the chemistry and synthesis of these compounds. Part two of each is freely available online. You might find the part one's online, but they're available to purchase from Amazon, etc.

Oh, sorry I did not note this before. Thanks for the references!

 

[Belz...]

Normally it would not be, but you cut out the part where I ref'd Piggy's arguments from before where he has made some pretty strong arguments that comp.lit is both not mainstream and deluded.

I cut out nothing. Your comment speaks for itself.

 

[tensordyne]

I cut out nothing. Your comment speaks for itself.

I do not like liars.

comp.lit == "Crazy Cultist" resolves to true in this case. See Piggy refs above.

You cut out "See Piggy refs above." If you guys want to act like Cultists do not get pissed off when someone calls you on it.

 

[dlorde]

.. If you guys want to act like Cultists do not get pissed off when someone calls you on it.

Can you link to some posts that you consider to be the work of 'crazy cultists' here?

[I know you said "comp.lit == "Crazy Cultist" resolves to true in this case" in response to my opinion of qualia & free will, but at the time I couldn't see the relevance. Were you suggesting that those opinions are those of a 'crazy cultist'? if not, what?]

 

[tensordyne]

No, it was the rest of the post I was referring to (the preceding patient corrections).

And I patiently dealt with each of your criticisms. This comp.lit ideology needs to stop. It is unscientific. If you can understand why Physics is not a subset of Computational Physics then you can perhaps understand why comp.lit is nonsense. If not, good luck to you. I am tired of talking with ideologues.

When I want to hear about consciousness, I want to hear about the only one sane people (leaders in the field of neuroscience) recognize us such, our own. So if you want to talk about that, let's talk. Otherwise, I am just not convinced or interested.

 

[dlorde]

And I patiently dealt with each of your criticisms.

And Pixy saved me the trouble of responding.

This comp.lit ideology needs to stop. It is unscientific. If you can understand why Physics is not a subset of Computational Physics then you can perhaps understand why comp.lit is nonsense. If not, good luck to you. I am tired of talking with ideologues.

Pardon my ignorance, but 'comp.lit'? (comparative literature?? - I did google it) and who said that physics is a subset of computational physics? - certainly not me. I sense another straw man...

When I want to hear about consciousness, I want to hear about the only one sane people (leaders in the field of neuroscience) recognize us such, our own. So if you want to talk about that, let's talk.

Er, that's exactly what we have been doing... what did you think we were talking about?

 

[PixyMisa]

If neither of you are willing to expand on your ideas and opinions about the real science of this, then all we have is a shouting match and a thread of no real value.

Well, I already have, but sure.

Consciousness is self-referential information processing.

First, the definition:

• Consciousness is informational: It's about the processing and interpretation of information, and decision making. It's not about bulk physical properties.
• Consciousness is a process. Not an event. Not a thing.
• Consciousness is self-referential. It's about introspective (technically, reflective) analysis of the processing going on in the brain (not all of it, of course, it's not all accessible to conscious awareness), including itself.

So, what we mean when we say consciousness is self-referential information processing. That's how the word is used. We might also imply other things, like natural language or intentionality; I have no problem with that; I'm just defining the core concept that distinguishes a conscious system from a non-conscious one.

Now, why is this reasonable?

• The brain is a computer, a pulse-coded switched network.
• The brain is structured such that self-referential loops are clearly possible.
• Sensory perception is known to be structured as a series of progressively abstract, representational filters. Consciousness need be nothing more than a filter that feeds back into itself.
• Requires no new biology.
• Doesn't contradict known biology.
• Requires no new physics.
• Doesn't contradict known physics.
• Accounts for all observed behaviours.
• Doesn't predict behaviours not observed.
• Is logically consistent.

Is it a fully detailed operational theory of how the human brain gives rise to human consciousness?

No.

Is it clearly the right place to start?

Yes.

 

[Zeuzzz]

This threads an amazing example of lack of interdisciplinary understanding between disparate fields of science.

The programmers assume synonymity with binary code and programming algorithms based on turing (neural, series, parrallel, or other wise)

The biologists tend to ignore the thread as consciousness is just an emergent property of the brain that means nothing of significance.

The physicists will argue based on energy, watts and quantum ideas, and say we dont really understand the physics of the brain yet.

The religious people come here laugh at how silly we are as we are not sure about this subject now, without realising the irony of their position.

The meta physicists will claim there is a field of consciousness that we tap in to but can not currently detect.

The linguistic may say that the very word "consciousness" is just an arbitrary word we have made up that has no meaning.

The psychonaut will think that consciousness precludes the brain and material reality in some way we currently do not understand and current brain > consciousness models have the cause and effect the wrong way round.

The materialist doesn't even accept that consciousness exists or means anything worthy of discussion.

I love how stupid we all are

 

[Jeff Corey]

... Accounts for all observed behaviours...

I didn't know that. I still don't.

 

[Jeff Corey]

This threads an amazing example of lack of interdisciplinary understanding between disparate fields of science.

The programmers assume synonymity with binary code and programming algorithms based on turing (neural, series, parrallel, or other wise)

The biologists tend to ignore the thread as consciousness is just an emergent property of the brain that means nothing of significance.

The physicists will argue based on energy, watts and quantum ideas, and say we dont really understand the physics of the brain yet.

The religious people come here laugh at how silly we are as we are not sure about this subject now, without realising the irony of their position.

The meta physicists will claim there is a field of consciousness that we tap in to but can not currently detect.

The linguistic may say that the very word "consciousness" is just an arbitrary word we have made up that has no meaning.

The psychonaut will think that consciousness precludes the brain and material reality in some way we currently do not understand and current brain > consciousness models have the cause and effect the wrong way round.

The materialist doesn't even accept that consciousness exists or means anything worthy of discussion.

I love how stupid we all are

What do you think psychologists think?

 

[Zeuzzz]

What do you think psychologists think?

I should be in a padded cell.