On Consciousness

[quarky]

Is this because you think science is just not ready enough to deal with consciousness? Or that, as it stands, consciousness is more a philosophy than a science?

Science needs to open its mind and be far more interdisciplinary than it is to deal with consciousness.

As I said before, I love the method, I merely dislike the human baggage that comes with it sometimes.

I'm so glad PLoS exists now!

http://www.plosone.org/home.action

Its not in science's realm, imo.
To force it in there does a dis-service to both.

Not everything fits into our schemes or our methodology.
Both teams will claim otherwise, of course, and one team will even insist that there is only one team.

 

[Belz...]

How you feel is equally irrelevant. Which a good reason to discount your posts.

That's my point.

I know you think it was clever, but I'm not sure it's supposed to mean anything.

But I'll humour you. What do you mean by this, seeing as I didn't talk about my feelings ?

 

[Belz...]

None of the above.

You don't investigate, go back to sleep, or panic ? What's your solution ?

I have no issue doubting my self, or 'self' in general.

Good, so you will agree that your observations can be discounted if the evidence contradicts it ?

Suppose you had witnessed a peculiar animal behavior, and you were a zoologist, involved in a study, and you saw something interesting, and it wasn't verifiable, yet, it wasn't implausible or particularly unheard of.
Do you discount it?

I would need a specific example to answer your hypothetical.

I have no issue discounting other observations; weird bright lights in the sky; noisy shadows in the woods; whatever. I default towards a scientific explanation. It was a weather satellite; a cow got loose; etc.

Examining consciousness is a different matter.

Why ? Why would consciousness be exempt from everything else, unless you assume it is "special" ?

 

[quarky]

You don't investigate, go back to sleep, or panic ? What's your solution ?



Good, so you will agree that your observations can be discounted if the evidence contradicts it ?



I would need a specific example to answer your hypothetical.



Why ? Why would consciousness be exempt from everything else, unless you assume it is "special" ?

Your abc quiz simply wasn't applicable to what I'm alluding to.
In your abc quiz; sure; I'd put a light on and examine it.
Observing an inner light simply doesn't translate well to the usual methods.
How would we go about verifying this?

(Oddly, said experience is (anecdotally) verified by all manner of explorers of inner space. Its remarkable how similar various accounts are, from all realms of human life.)

How might we explore a universe that had different rules than the empirical one? Or do we simply say, it doesn't exist?

 

[Fudbucker]

Interesting article by Christof Koch:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-theory-of-consciousness

Excerpts:

The reason is that we lack a coherent framework for consciousness. Although consciousness is the only way we know about the world within and around us—shades of the famous Cartesian deduction cogito, ergo sum—there is no agreement about what it is, how it relates to highly organized matter or what its role in life is.


Measured in bits, Φ denotes the size of the conscious repertoire associated with any network of causally interacting parts.

IIT is based on two axiomatic pillars. First, conscious states are highly differentiated; they are informationally very rich Second, this information is highly integrated.

One unavoidable consequence of IIT is that all systems that are sufficiently integrated and differentiated will have some minimal consciousness associated with them: not only our beloved dogs and cats but also mice, squid, bees and worms. [maybe computers?]

The theory does not discriminate between squishy brains inside skulls and silicon circuits encased in titanium. Provided that the causal relations among the transistors and memory elements are complex enough, computers or the billions of personal computers on the Internet will have nonzero Φ. The size of Φ could even end up being a yardstick for the intelligence of a machine.

 

[steenkh]

I just saw this episode of "Beautiful Minds" this morning, and apparently some scientists suggest that, since we make "conscious" decisions before we are conscious of them, perhaps consciousness itself is an illusion.

I have never understood the interpretations of those results. To me, it just says that the part of the brain that makes the decisions and the part that is responsible for consciousness are separate. The decision making part can still be rational, but it lacks self-awareness.

Programming a computer in that way would be easy, and it might even make sense, particularly because it could point to an evolutionary path from animals that are not self-aware.

 

[Fudbucker]

Indeed. Philosophy doesn't have much to do with reality, and it doesn't require any evidence, so it's a lot easier to do than science, and it allows you to believe whatever you want.

With that attitude, I'm surprised you gave Pixy a free pass when he cited Dennett as an expert on consciousness.

 

[quarky]

I have never understood the interpretations of those results. To me, it just says that the part of the brain that makes the decisions and the part that is responsible for consciousness are separate. The decision making part can still be rational, but it lacks self-awareness.

Programming a computer in that way would be easy, and it might even make sense, particularly because it could point to an evolutionary path from animals that are not self-aware.

What animals are not self-aware?
Must we now define self?

I sense a universal self. I'm not about to shove it down anyone's throat.
It is special. The universe is special. I'm not sure why its not allowed to be special, unless our analysis and paltry intellects have to be even more precious than the very existence of everything, including all that remains to be discovered.

 

[Fudbucker]

What animals are not self-aware?
Must we now define self?

I sense a universal self. I'm not about to shove it down anyone's throat.
It is special. The universe is special. I'm not sure why its not allowed to be special, unless our analysis and paltry intellects have to be even more precious than the very existence of everything, including all that remains to be discovered.

I don't think we can make much progress without a definition of the "self". Good luck with that!

 

[PixyMisa]

If a simulated human brain wouldn't possibly ponder the uncomputability of its own qualia and lean towards dualist conclusions, then something's been left out, no?

"Possibly"? Sure, a simulated human brain might well make logical errors and leap to false conclusions. But it's certainly not a necessity that it make that particular mistake.

 

[PixyMisa]

I have never understood the interpretations of those results. To me, it just says that the part of the brain that makes the decisions and the part that is responsible for consciousness are separate. The decision making part can still be rational, but it lacks self-awareness.

Yes, they're saying specifically that conscious choice is an illusion, that choice happens unconsciously and then is reflected consciously.

Programming a computer in that way would be easy, and it might even make sense, particularly because it could point to an evolutionary path from animals that are not self-aware.

Yep.

 

[PixyMisa]

But really, PixyMisa suggested that since he does not feel the temptations of dualism, a simulated brain wouldn't either. It's magical thinking to assume a successfully simulated brain could not exhibit magical thinking.

Just the difference between would and might. A simulated person might display any of the behaviours a real person would (not much of a simulation otherwise) but would not necessarily display any particular behaviour unless there was a specific reason for that.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, saw The Einstein Effect a few days ago. Next on my list is "Daniel Tammet - The Boy With The Incredible Brain"

A savant who can describe the process, that's cool.

"...if it's true [what Tammet says he does] it blows away scientific theory"

I hate that sort of quote. It's either taken out of context or just plain dumb.

 

[PixyMisa]

Examining consciousness is a different matter.

Nope. That's just magical thinking.

Which is why, again, this thread should be in R&P.

Which is why, again, nope.

 

[Belz...]

Its not in science's realm, imo.

I'd like to have an explanation as to why not.

Your abc quiz simply wasn't applicable to what I'm alluding to.

Of course it was, unless you view consciousness as something beyond the laws of physics, or "special", as you seem to be alluding to in the previous quote.

Observing an inner light simply doesn't translate well to the usual methods.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inner light", except as the name of a Star Trek TNG episode.

How would we go about verifying this?

We already do. The first step is to understand that consciousness is a result of the objective, observable world, not the reverse.

(Oddly, said experience is (anecdotally) verified by all manner of explorers of inner space. Its remarkable how similar various accounts are, from all realms of human life.)

Explain.

How might we explore a universe that had different rules than the empirical one? Or do we simply say, it doesn't exist?

I'm not sure you are refering to something that's possible, even in principle, so it's hard to fathom how to go about answering your question. I don't think any possible world violates set theory or boolean logic, for instance.

 

[Belz...]

With that attitude, I'm surprised you gave Pixy a free pass when he cited Dennett as an expert on consciousness.

Citation, please, or retract your statement.

 

[PixyMisa]

Citation, please, or retract your statement.

I mentioned Dennett when asked for "an expert in a relevant field": http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8472869#post8472869

His relevant field is cutting through the nonsense propounded by other philosophers.

And of course, not all philosophy is worthless garbage. Apart from Dennett, there's Popper, and Hume, and... I had someone else in mind, but I've forgotten who it was. But at least three.

 

[PixyMisa]

Its not in science's realm, imo.

Is it real?

If so, it's a suitable subject for scientific enquiry.

If not... Then what's all the fuss about?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Interesting article by Christof Koch:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-theory-of-consciousness

Excerpts:

The reason is that we lack a coherent framework for consciousness. Although consciousness is the only way we know about the world within and around us—shades of the famous Cartesian deduction cogito, ergo sum—there is no agreement about what it is, how it relates to highly organized matter or what its role in life is.


Measured in bits, Φ denotes the size of the conscious repertoire associated with any network of causally interacting parts.

IIT is based on two axiomatic pillars. First, conscious states are highly differentiated; they are informationally very rich Second, this information is highly integrated.

One unavoidable consequence of IIT is that all systems that are sufficiently integrated and differentiated will have some minimal consciousness associated with them: not only our beloved dogs and cats but also mice, squid, bees and worms. [maybe computers?]

The theory does not discriminate between squishy brains inside skulls and silicon circuits encased in titanium. Provided that the causal relations among the transistors and memory elements are complex enough, computers or the billions of personal computers on the Internet will have nonzero Φ. The size of Φ could even end up being a yardstick for the intelligence of a machine.

More importantly, "Tononi’s integrated information theory of consciousness could be completely wrong." And we have no farkin way to find out 'cause the booger ain't falsifiable.

 

[quarky]

Is it real?

If so, it's a suitable subject for scientific enquiry.

If not... Then what's all the fuss about?

I should have worded it more like this:
There are realms of science that remain beyond our present tools of inquiry.
Examining one's own consciousness; self-inquiry, remains legitimate, yet beyond the reach of our empirical understanding.

QM is relatively new, and it has opened up a whole new approach to how things behave, and why. The experiment is far from wrapped up.