On Consciousness

[Mr. Scott]

What if you dream, but don't remember (as happens to most of us every night)?

What if I rearrange my desk, and later can't remember where I put a particular document? Was I unconscious while I did the rearranging (but remember doing it) or only unconscious when I filed that document? Or was I conscious the whole time, but can no longer access the memory?
How about the common experience of driving a familiar route to a destination while engaged in thought, and arriving with no recollection of the experience of driving there? Was an unconscious automaton driving the vehicle, or was it "me"?

If my short term memory fails completely, so I form no more memories of current events, do I become permanently unconscious? Or like a dog, "conscious but not self aware"?

I used to wonder about this. If you don't remember being conscious, were you conscious? I'd say you were, you just don't remember. Memory is not a prerequisite of consciousness, as explained in this terrific video lecture. Sorry, I haven't time right now to locate the quote.

 

[Wowbagger]

Yet it's still either on or off. As an analogy, an electron represents consciousness being on. If there is no electron at all around the atom nucleus, then the state of consciousness is off. And when an electron is present, it can take on different energy levels, similar to different levels of consciousness.

I don't think that's a very useful analogy.

Learning about the levels of consciousness, and how they emerge as a property of brain states, grants us the opportunity to learn more about how consciousness works, how it evolved, how it might continue to evolve.

Insisting that it's "either on or off" removes that richness. It makes one more prone to accept various bad ideas, that have been promoted since the dawn of humankind: From the early concepts of "being granted by God", to the middle-age problems of "mind-body duality", all the way on up to more modern "quantum brain" theories. None of them seem to get anywhere.

Emergent concepts are the best bet, so far, in unraveling these sorts of mysteries. There are already hypothetical and theoretical evolutionary pathways being worked out based on that, that can eventually be empirically tested more thoroughly. They could be wrong, but in finding out why, they could tell us a LOT more than claiming "it's like an on/off switch".

There are a good bunch of books about this I can recommend, if you'd like.

 

[quarky]

I don't think that's a very useful analogy.

Learning about the levels of consciousness, and how they emerge as a property of brain states, grants us the opportunity to learn more about how consciousness works, how it evolved, how it might continue to evolve.

Insisting that it's "either on or off" removes that richness. It makes one more prone to accept various bad ideas, that have been promoted since the dawn of humankind: From the early concepts of "being granted by God", to the middle-age problems of "mind-body duality", all the way on up to more modern "quantum brain" theories. None of them seem to get anywhere.

Emergent concepts are the best bet, so far, in unraveling these sorts of mysteries. There are already hypothetical and theoretical evolutionary pathways being worked out based on that, that can eventually be empirically tested more thoroughly. They could be wrong, but in finding out why, they could tell us a LOT more than claiming "it's like an on/off switch".

There are a good bunch of books about this I can recommend, if you'd like.

Good stuff, Wowbagger.
Emergent concepts rock.

 

[Anders Lindman]

I don't think that's a very useful analogy. ...

Insisting that it's "either on or off" removes that richness. ...

I actually agree with you on the first point, but I would go in the other direction, lol, and claim that consciousness is purely an on/off state so I take the electron analogy back.

The reason is that I see consciousness as a pure subject. If several states are allowed then consciousness becomes an object. As I see it, thoughts are objects, not the subject which is aware of the thoughts. Emotions are objects, and consciousness is the state that is aware of the emotions. All experiences are objects, are content experienced by the subject which is consciousness.

This still allows for essentially an infinite variety and richness of experiences and states of mind, such as dreaming, awake and so on. It also allows for richer experiences of higher levels of mind and lower levels. Dreaming is a lower level of mind than the waking state for example.

Mind and consciousness are not the same 'thing'. Mind can be defined as consciousness plus the content experienced in consciousness such as thoughts and emotions etc.

 

[Anders Lindman]

In the video with Christof Koch I posted earlier he talked about something called Integrated Information Theory:

"The Integrated Information Theory is a recently formulated theory which attempts to quantitatively measure consciousness. It was developed by psychiatrist and neuroscientist Giulio Tononi of the University of Wisconsin–Madison." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Information_Theory

The definition looks a bit complicated but the basic idea seems to be that consciousness comes from lots of information and a high integration of that information.

That looks pretty interesting. I will do some searches to see if I can find some simpler explanation about the theory. Hopefully a video which can be a lazy way of learning about it.

ETA: Yay! I found this video: Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness, Giulio Tononi [full lecture] -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfv_uZEkUPg

 

[Anders Lindman]

Hmm... If Giulio Tononi is correct, then computers could have consciousness. And it's possible I think, because physical reality is ALREADY an integrated wholeness, so if an information system could get equally high value for the integration function Φ as the human brain in an awake conscious state, then that system would be conscious too!

Tononi said in the video (from about 1:02:30) that the World Wide Web for example doesn't seem to have a high enough value for Φ as a single system to be conscious. Because the system needs to be connected in certain ways in order for the value of Φ to be high. But what if such connections would be made on the Internet? Could the Internet become a conscious system then?

 

[Mr. Scott]

physical reality is ALREADY an integrated wholeness

That's so Chopra. How do you know this? How does it add to a scientific or technical discussion of consciousness?

 

[Anders Lindman]

The Integrated Information Theory looks very interesting but messy. I wonder if it would be possible to come up with a much simpler definition of integrating information. For example, the simplest integration would be between two bits, with a function between them that determines how the bits depend on each other's values.

Also, Ray Kurzweil said that a very recent scientific study shows that the brain is (at least the neocortex I think it was) connected in groups of about 100 neurons instead of only individual neurons being connected. And each group of neurons can perform its own pattern recognition. So in addition to integration, the hierarchy of connections, or at least small-world network connectivity, seems to be crucial, but maybe the integrated information theory already takes that into account.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That's so Chopra. How do you know this? How does it add to a scientific or technical discussion of consciousness?

I did an amateur observation about that: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8853303&postcount=3518

Also the fact that no systems are truly isolated shows that the whole universe is a single system.

This makes consciousness potentially possible in computers! Because the bigger context, the universe as a whole interconnected system, is provided as the same foundation for both human brains and complex computer systems/networks.

 

[Dancing David]

I think it would be more useful, and perhaps accurate, to think of consciousness as an emergent property. There is no single "state", such as "on" or "off", but rather a continuous set of circumstances by which we can gradually become more, or less, aware of our surroundings and able to act as independent agents within them.

And, there might be different types of consciousness awareness. Lucid dreaming, non-lucid dreaming, and fully awaken could be 3 of such different forms. Certain types of seizures and/or drug effects might yield a few more.


ETA: The evidence for this is primitive, at the moment. But, this is the sort of thing one would expect, if consciousness is a natural occurance, and the result of natural processes (including, but not necessarily limited to, evolution by natural selection).

[/lurk]
Bravo
[lurk]

 

[Anders Lindman]

That's so Chopra. How do you know this? How does it add to a scientific or technical discussion of consciousness?

Lol @ Chopra comment.

Deepak Chopra, Michael Shermer, Chapman University -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WA76VTq3O8

My position is kind of neither Chopra nor Shermer. I believe the mind is nonlocal but that's because physical reality is nonlocal. And consciousness is simply a state of being self-aware. And the nonlocal aspect of the mind is very much blocked by the brain which is a division making machine, but I believe the nonlocal abilities can be awakened and made much stronger.

 

[Wowbagger]

The reason is that I see consciousness as a pure subject. If several states are allowed then consciousness becomes an object. As I see it, thoughts are objects, not the subject which is aware of the thoughts. Emotions are objects, and consciousness is the state that is aware of the emotions. All experiences are objects, are content experienced by the subject which is consciousness.

I think you might be using the words "object" and "subject" a little loosely, there. But, I have no time to debate the finer points of semantics and equivocations and stuff, right now.

Mind and consciousness are not the same 'thing'. Mind can be defined as consciousness plus the content experienced in consciousness such as thoughts and emotions etc.

From what I have been informed: The mind is what the brain does. Consciousness is a property of the mind, and by extension the brain.

In the video with Christof Koch I posted earlier he talked about something called Integrated Information Theory:

At first glance, I think the "observations" Integrated Information Theory makes are actually flawed:

"The first is that every observable conscious state contains a massive amount of information. A common example of this is every frame in a movie."​

If you care to read a good, modern book on the science of neurology and/or consciousness, such as those written by Susan Blackmore, or Richard Wiseman: You will discover experimental evidence that we are NOT, in fact, aware of a massive amount of information at any one time. Only a very, very small percentage of information thrown at us, such as from a frame of a movie, do we actually become conscious of. The rest is filled in by the narrative-reconstructive aspects of our brains, powered by (heavily biased) pattern recognition systems, etc.

I think Giulio Tononi is working off the wrong premise, if we wishes to unravel the mysteries of consciousness.

"All of the information you have gleaned from conscious states is highly, and innately, integrated into your mind. It is impossible for you to see the world apart from all of the information that you are conscious of."​

I think it is more accurate to say much of the information you have gleaned, from conscious states, is made up by various parts of the mind, as best it could from the scraps of information you actually got from your senses.

Technically, I guess you could say it is true that the information is "highly, and innately, integrated into your mind", but for reasons very different from what is implied by the Integrated Information theory.

The statement "it is impossible for you to see the world apart from all of the information that you are conscious of" is demonstrably false, given experiments that have verified the existence of blindsight. There are some forms of information you might not be conscious of, that can still tell you something about what you are sensing.

If one seeks to quantitatively measure consciousness, the more direct approach might be to measure how successfully an agent can act independently within its environment. Or even better: Find a way to determine how aware someone is of their own existence. But, both are rather tricky to do, right now. Just measuring information processing, though easier to achieve, is not really broaching the subject very much.

Hmm... If Giulio Tononi is correct, then computers could have consciousness.

I also think computers could have consciousness, at least potentially. But, because of very different reasons than Tononi.

If we can isolate the algorithms and systems in the mind that generate and sustain consciousness awareness, there is no reason why we would not be able to, eventually, incorporate those things into computers. There is probably nothing "magical" about biological systems that would make them the only things capable of consciousness.

 

[quarky]

Some fields of 'science' are such stunning b.s., that I may as well be the spokesperson.

Just ask me.

I'm the authority on this one.

It's a bit hilarious to observe this absurd charade of claimed knowledge.

It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ philosophy, people.
Mods,
Please move this whole crapola pile to where it should have been from the beginning.

If you do,
I'll be able to add some good stuff.

 

[Anders Lindman]

If you care to read a good, modern book on the science of neurology and/or consciousness, such as those written by Susan Blackmore, or Richard Wiseman: You will discover experimental evidence that we are NOT, in fact, aware of a massive amount of information at any one time.

Actually, Giulio Tononi says the opposite (about one important aspect):

Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness, Giulio Tononi [full lecture] -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfv_uZEkUPg

An example he uses is when we are visually aware of only a totally dark room. The fact that we are aware of the total darkness means that we at the same time are aware of all experiences that are NOT darkness. A photo receptor being able to detect light and darkness only has the 'awareness' of a single bit of information.

The idea is that consciousness is a single integrated entity that is aware of a huge amount of well-integrated information. That's what the Phi function is about. Phi is a value that gets higher the more such information is available to a single integrated system. The value of Phi can be low for a huge amount of information that is randomly connected. The information needs to be integrated is special ways, in addition to be plenty, for the value of Phi to be high.

It's true that our conscious mind only has access to 40 bits/second of information or something like that. That's a super low bandwidth. But it's because it's a very high abstraction level. On the lower subconscious level the brain processes millions of bits/second. That information still contributes to what consciousness is aware of. Think of consciousness as Barack Obama getting a concentrated amount of information gathered by the entire U.S. government! Instead of Obama having to read million of pages of text every day, he only needs to read a couple of pages.

 

[Frank Merton]

There was a time during my career that I worked for an AI software developer, and then was hired away from them by a major corporation to work on their efforts to apply this (then) new and exciting technology to all their activities.

It was a tool looking for an application, and, although it was very much in my interest not to see this, it became clear to me that there was nothing this approach could achieve that could not be achieved, generally with less computer time and much easier maintenance, with standard sequential COBOL code.

This was, oh, at least thirty years ago. At the time the world was abuzz with talk of thinking machines by the turn of the century.

It appears the wishful thinking continues, considering the results of this poll, where an overwhelming majority think thinking machines are possible, which of course implies that human beings are thinking machines too.

Well, I don't know. Saying that we are something other than thinking machines implies, but doesn't necessarily require, that there is a fundamental flaw in the skeptical, rationalist view of things -- that mind is outside the physical scheme (without any idea what that might mean).

Still, it is way out of bounds to say that thinking machines are coming, because they are not. Our understanding is no further along, nor our capabilities, than they were in my day. To be sure, machines that get close to certain human activities, such as face recognition and natural language, are better, but solely because of bigger, faster machines. That is a far cry from things like sentience, let alone consciousness.

So, the view expressed by the vast majority here is rationally necessary in the prevailing world view, but it is not supported by the evidence (of course contrary views are not supported either). My view is necessarily one of extremely puzzled and even disturbed fence-sitting.

 

[Anders Lindman]

It appears the wishful thinking continues, considering the results of this poll, where an overwhelming majority think thinking machines are possible, which of course implies that human beings are thinking machines too.

Check out IBM's Watson:

IBM's Watson supercomputer destroys all humans in Jeopardy -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFR3lOm_xhE

Even though that's far from real human intelligence, Watson shows what computers are capable of already today.

Information technology is progressing exponentially. That means very slowly for a long period of time, and then it goes faster and faster. An example Ray Kurweil has used is that many experts said something like: "I told you this project wouldn't be finished on time. Half the time of the project has gone and only 1% of the DNA has been sequenced." Kurzweil replied (about the Human Genome Project) that 1% meant that the project was almost completed! And that it would be complete within 7 years and not the hundreds of years the experts claimed. Kurzweil turned out to be correct. Why? Because he knew about the exponential progress. About 7 doublings of 1% means 100% and with an exponential progress of doubling every year, the project would be completed within around 7 years.

Kurzweil said that even software is showing an exponential progress. I don't remember, it could be in this presentation:

Ray Kurzweil "How to Create a Mind", Authors at Google -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zihTWh5i2C4

 

[Frank Merton]

Exponential progress or no, bigger and faster machines do not seem to be what is called for. What you cite struck me mainly as hype.

Better software doesn't seem to help; different software, or maybe something beyond software, seems to be needed.

Of course, if what I suspect is true is true, it will be a property of existence that is there but can neither be proved nor disproved from within existence, so we can never know, and there can always be doubters no matter how "smart" the machines get. (Although such machines are at best a long way off).

In sum, the progress you talk about is quantitative, the difference I talk about seems to be qualitative.

I do not dare argue against the majority view here; I have no basis for doing so. What I argue is that the majority view has no basis for its position either.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Is consciousness a nonlocal phenomenon? I would say consciousness is primarily a local phenomenon. The brain together with the nervous system and the rest of the body is pretty much an isolated system. And the vast majority of the information processing giving rise to the state of consciousness goes on within the biological system of the body.

Rupert Sheldrake has shown that telepathy is possible between people, especially between people who know each other well. Is that form of telepathy a nonlocal phenomenon? Yes. Is information being transmitted telepathically between people's minds? No. The nonlocal phenomenon of telepathy is a correlation function.

The Schrödinger equation shows that all of physical reality consists of waves. A particle for example, is a wave packet, not some separate pellet or something like that.

The Fourier transform shows that all the wave packets can be broken down into individual sine waves of different wavelengths, amplitudes and phases. Each sine wave is nonlocal! Each individual sine wave stretches across the entire universe. This is so because as the Fourier transform shows, the individual sine waves remain the same across the dimension(s) even though when summed up they can form for example a local wave packet.

This is how the nonlocal effect works: as an illustration, take an oscillator generating a sine wave. That sine wave is a local effect, yet the wave is also represented as the individual sine wave that stretches across the entire universe. And then another oscillator is started that generates the same sine wave hundreds of miles away from the first oscillator. The two oscillators are correlated by the fact that they represent tiny parts of the universal sine wave of that same frequency.

So when the second oscillator starts up, it affects, due to this correlation, the amplitude of the first oscillator in a nonlocal way. No information is transmitted and the effect is simply a result of the oscillators sharing the universal sine wave of that frequency. The effect is utterly miniscule.

The human brain has trillions and trillions of waves of different frequencies. And when two people know each other well, their neural patterns are correlated so that their wave patterns share many frequencies. And although the nonlocal correlation effect is tiny for individual waves, the sum of the effect of a huge number of individual correlations makes telepathy possible.

 

[Frank Merton]

No information is transmitted and the effect is simply a result of the oscillators sharing the universal sine wave of that frequency. The effect is utterly miniscule.

Then how can you say anything about it? Indeed, how can you even say it's there?

The human brain has trillions and trillions of waves of different frequencies. And when two people know each other well, their neural patterns are correlated so that their wave patterns share many frequencies. And although the nonlocal correlation effect is tiny for individual waves, the sum of the effect of a huge number of individual correlations makes telepathy possible.

One supposes. So where is it?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Then how can you say anything about it? Indeed, how can you even say it's there?

One supposes. So where is it?

The entire brain is a composite wave packet! Everything physical is waves. And when broken down into the individual sine waves there are a gazillion number of waves. When people know each other well, then the combined correlation gives rise to a nonlocal effect which in some cases is large enough to be registered in consciousness. That's what we call telepathy.