The Hard Problem of Gravity

[PixyMisa]

It's both a meaningless question and not relevant to my assertion that there is no process going on in a working computer that isn't also going on in a heap of components lying on the floor, and the idea that there is something called "computation" that is happening in the one and not the other is not a physical theory.

But a heap of components lying on the floor is not a working computer?

So what's the difference?

 

[Nick227]

No, this is complete nonsense. The electromagnetic field generated by the brain is a side-effect of its electrochemical activity. So you can see broad patterns of neural activity by examining the field, which is precisely what we use EEGs to do.

The brain's EM field has no causal influence on cognitive processes. It is far far far far far too weak for that.

It's no doubt difficult to prove but it does appear that "brainwaves" can be entrained by light or sound stimulous. All sorts of people, from night-clubs to hospitals, buy these "light and sound" machines, usually to try and induce relaxation or to get people to enter drug-like states. Some even have real-time EEG monitoring, if I recall.

The only aspects of consciousness they seem to alter are the number and type of thoughts (inner speech) and mental imagery. I don't think anyone has ever suggested they alter sensory perception.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

It's no doubt difficult to prove but it does appear that "brainwaves" can be entrained by light or sound stimulous. All sorts of people, from night-clubs to hospitals, buy these "light and sound" machines, usually to try and induce relaxation or to get people to enter drug-like states. Some even have real-time EEG monitoring, if I recall.

I know. But I can find no evidence that this is anything but an alt-med scam.

That is, it's definitely an alt-med scam, but I can find no evidence that there is any scientific basis to it whatsoever.

What I'm not sure of is whether it's a scam like herbal medicine, nonsense but with a kernel of truth, or like homeopathy, nonsense all the way down.

The only aspects of consciousness they seem to alter are the number and type of thoughts (inner speech) and mental imagery. I don't think anyone has ever suggested they alter sensory perception.

Yeah. That's a red flag that the whole thing is baloney.

 

[Belz...]

That does not follow. The point of fundamental components is that they can be arranged in more complex ways.

Aku, if you can experience an experience, then you can have qualia about qualia. So clearly qualia are either ill-defined or they're not basic, because there could be MORE basic turtles qualia composing them.

One that would specifically define what they are physically and predict how they could be reproduced.

Here's that special pleading, again. You have simply no idea how experiences are produced, and you're trying to claim that there needs to be a new physical LAW to explain it. Are experiences that special to you ?

Whats the actual point of contention here? I get the impression that you're simply being contrary for contray's sake and arguing for the sake of arguing

Of course texts are basic.

Really ? I thought texts were composed of words composed of phonemes or letters. So much for basic.

I think you get the idea. Phonemes form the fundamental basis spoken and written language. Yet, here I am using language to refer to the fundamental components of language.

No, you're not. You talked about TEXT. Text is, by definition, composed of phonemes but phonemes are not composed of other phonemes. So texts are not analogous to qualia.

Not really. I've stated that qualia are the basic elements of subjective experience which, together, make up consciousness. This is in perfect agreement with the standard definition of the term:

No, it doesn't, actually.

An entity without qualia cannot be said to be conscious.

That only follows from YOUR definition of qualia, which is circular. Obviously, if qualia are the basic elements of consciousness then without them one cannot be conscious or, more precisely, if one is conscious he necessarily has them. But that's not what the definition you quoted says.

The definition is quite simple and clear. I don't understand why after over 70 pages of discussion you're still harping over this.

Quite simple, actually. Qualia don't exist. Under any definition. Experiences are not independent objects with their own laws of physics. They are actions.

Are you trying to have a genuine discussion or do you have some ulterior agenda? Can we move on or are you going to just keep picking at this issue because the term sounds too 'mystical' for you?

It doesn't "sound" mystical. It IS mystical. Your claim that it requires physics that aren't yet known makes it a supernatural claim until such laws are developped.

- By 'objective experience' I'm referring to general exposure or interaction of an object -- as in:
"system1 experiences [x] change in temperature; system2 experiences [y] change in viscosity..." etc. Things like temperature and viscosity are quantitative properties. Both conscious and unconscious entities can be said to 'experience' events in this sense.

Actually, by that definition subjective and objective are impossible to distinguish. I prefer Mercutio's "private" and "public" behaviour.

- By 'subjective experience' I'm referring to what you've earlier called 'internal behaviors' of a subject -- as in:
"critter1 experiences change in temperature as [x] sensation; critter2 experiences change in viscosity as [y] sensation" etc. Sensations of a particular experience are qualitative correlates of quantitative data originating from within/without the organism.

But that's completely uncalled for. Not only have you provided what seems to be completely arbitrary distinctions between the two, but now you're going to have to define "critter".

Depending on the conscious make-up of an organism, they may experience the same sensory data quite differently than another -- or not at all. As of now, we do not have a clear scientific understanding of what subjective experiences physically are, what exactly gives rise to them, or how they exist at all.

I don't understand why after over 70 pages of discussion you're still harping over this.

 

[Belz...]

Nothing in current physics deals with subjective experience.

Only when such words are defined by people like Aku and yourself as being outside the realm of physics which, of course, is circular reasoning.

 

[Belz...]

If such incredibly weak fields had any effect on consciousness, the Earth's own magnetic field would kill us all.

This bears repeating.

Aku, the "mind" is far from being seamless. Hell, your sight has A) a resolution and b) an fps.

 

[Nick227]

I know. But I can find no evidence that this is anything but an alt-med scam.

That is, it's definitely an alt-med scam, but I can find no evidence that there is any scientific basis to it whatsoever.

What I'm not sure of is whether it's a scam like herbal medicine, nonsense but with a kernel of truth, or like homeopathy, nonsense all the way down.

It seems to me pretty well established that the frequency of brainwaves does relate to aspects of our conscious state - particularly the degree of mental arousal or relaxation. There do seem to have been EEG studies.

Now, if you were to shut your eyes and have your ears filled with sound of a certain frequency (or your eyes with light of a certain frequency), it seems reasonable to me to suggest that the brainwaves would adjust to the frequency of the sound, assuming it's in a similar range.

Whether this is happening strictly through entrainment, or through so many workspace neurons passing this frequency to one another I don't know. It seems to me more likely the latter.

Nick

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Don't "brainwaves" usually chug along at about 15Hz? Would they be affected by something at presumably such high frequencies as MRI? Just a thought.

Nick

No. Name a frequency between 1 and 50 Hz and it is there. The dominant posterior frequency ranges between 8 and 12 (mostly around 9 or 10) with the dominant lower-voltage frontal frequencies being around 18-22 Hz. And that is just what we measure with EEG. That has nothing to do with action potentials, where neuronal firing can be (and generally is) much faster.

I don't see why an MRI would be expected to do anything to the actual frequency of neuronal activity. It makes it difficult to measure the frequencies, but if the "electrical activity" measured by EEG is due to summated EPSPs and IPSPs (as it is), then MRI would be expected to do next to nothing. Which is what we see.

 

[Belz...]

When you form a memory where exactly is it stored?

Certainly not in some mythical "field". Otherwise you'd lose all memories when you have a 5-second cardiac arrest.

If one where to isolate an idea what would it physically consist of?

What does "running" consist of, physically ?

 

[Belz...]

So you want every possible difference in behaviour between a drop of water and a snowflake? That would take a book. There are many, many differences.

And yet both have the same composition.

 

[Dancing David]

AMM,

I know I was het up, but I do know what I am talking about and here are two experiments and a thought experiment that are relevant

1. Extension cord: take a very long extension cord (for electrical appliances), while you have two assistants, an electrical outlet/socket and a lam standing by, wrap the extension cord around your head. If possible a turban will certainly look most impressive. (This is just meant as humor not a slam on you.) Then have the assistant place the male end of the cord in the socket for power and the lamp cord in the female end. Have the assistant now turn on the lamp.

Record all changes in consciousness. This will establish currents, magnetic fields and eddies that are 1,000 - 100,000 times stronger than the EM fields and effects in your brain.

2. Take a standard bar magnet, the stronger the better, hold it in close proximity to your head and against your head. Note any changes in consciousness.

(Now having done these last night I can guarantee that you will not note any changes in consciousness, because the 'current' is based upon ion transfer across membranes and neurotransmission is based upon chemical transfer, except for the dendrite stuff using the connexor channels).

Now for the though experiment and the question I have asked through out this,

3. You have a wizard or someone from the future. They remove a number of neurons form you. They place them in configuration near and far from each other and have them fire in different arrays. The goal is to note what activity the firing in a neuron will have in relation to other neurons the stipulation being that they may not contact each other. The only possible means of having an effect is through EM transmission.

I hypothesize that there will be no discernable signal effect, because nerve transmission between neurons requires neurotransmitter of the dendrite contact.

You hypothesize that there will be an effect because neurons have a means of transmitting and sending a signal through EM forces at a distance.

Correct?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That is an interesting point. Even so, it seems relevant that an external EM source would have to be of a specific range of frequencies to have a direct effect on biological functioning, let alone mental states. There is a SciAM article that goes into more detail about that here.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation does not work by affecting a field around neurons. It works by setting up an electrical field that causes depolarization of neurons in a localized area. It is the depolarization of neurons that is important for neuronal funcitoning. We can affect the field created by EPSPs and IPSPs without causing neuronal depolarization by using smaller magnetic pulses. Those pulses have no effect on people. You have to give a pretty strong magnetic pulse to have any effect.

If a surrounding field was responsible for thought or consciousness or whatever, then we should be able to disrupt consciousness with simple pulses (completely irregardless of frequency -- why in the world would the frequency matter when discussing disruption of a field?) and people near power lines should be blithering idiots.

We should also be reading people's thoughts with an EEG or MEG. Berger was not happy when he learned that EEG could not do this since that is what he initially thought he was doing when he invented EEG.

I'm sorry, but this idea is totally bankrupt. I would advise giving it up now. It can only arise from lack of knowledge.

ETA:
I should also add that this totally neglects the simply elegant demonstration that stimulation of particular areas of the brain produce reliable effects on cognition, movement, etc. Knock out a particular brain area and you see loss of these functions. The very idea that consciousness is some mass action field is just wrong. The contents of consciousness are clearly the result of neuronal action. And I can knock out your consciousness by putting a needle into your upper brainstem while still leaving your EEG showing at least THETA range (and put it in the right place, ALPHA range) activity.

 

[PixyMisa]

It seems to me pretty well established that the frequency of brainwaves does relate to aspects of our conscious state - particularly the degree of mental arousal or relaxation. There do seem to have been EEG studies.

Yes. But that doesn't mean that you can induce this with sounds or flashing lights or whatever.

Now, if you were to shut your eyes and have your ears filled with sound of a certain frequency (or your eyes with light of a certain frequency), it seems reasonable to me to suggest that the brainwaves would adjust to the frequency of the sound, assuming it's in a similar range.

I'm not sure that it is reasonable. That would mean that very-low-frequency sounds would cause you to lose consciousness, which is simply not true.

But in general, there simply appears to be no evidence to support this. There's a lot of alt-med scam artists cashing in on it, and no scientific research backing it up - that I've been able to find.

Whether this is happening strictly through entrainment, or through so many workspace neurons passing this frequency to one another I don't know. It seems to me more likely the latter.

A neuron firing at a particular rate doesn't mean that adjacent neurons fire at that rate. They might. They might not.

But in general, again, there seems to be no evidence at all to support the idea of "brainwave entrainment", and indeed it appears to contradict what we know about brain function.

 

[Dancing David]

Did I say it was the same as an electrical wire or phone? Dave, you're putting words in my mouth :-X

And for there to be an effect there would have to be induction states similar to what happens in electrical currents in phone or power line. That is my point.

Okay, heres the rundown...

All cells maintain an internal negative charge relative to their external fluid media via active pumping off ions across their membranes creating a voltage called the membrane potential. When certain signal molecules trigger the opening of ion channels it allows an influx of positive ions into the cell, depolarizing the membrane and triggering the propagation of an electrical wave signal called the action potential along the cell membrane. It just so happens that neural cells [and certain kinds of heart cells] specialize in utilizing this method to quickly relay signals thru the body.

pretty much in agreement.

I know I was waving my arms and foaming yesterday.

This is basic neuroscience. Do I have compile pages of citations to establish fact that you could easily look up yourself? Your questions regarding the CEMI model are perfectly legit but your insistence that action potentials are not electrical signals is downright bizarre and completely wrong.

because they are not electrical signals that will have action at a distance, there are no field effects that will occur between neurons at distance as in transmission lines and back current effects in romex cables.

Voltage is voltage and amps are amps. It doesn't matter if its in regards to power lines or cell membranes. I thought it would be sufficient just to list the general facts off the top of my head but I suppose you want me to look up specific figures.

The resting potential [i.e. on not propagating electrical signals] is usually between -60 and -80 milivolts and shiftinng towards a lil' over 60 mV during depolarization. This tiggers the propigation of the action potential which is a propagation of an electrical signal which happens to be generated by the passage of charged ions across the membrane. No, it is not the same kind of electrical signal that propagates along wires but I never claimed that it was

I know I was quite a sight yesterday, my wife wants the lampshade and soap box back, have you seen them?

Actually, my college and HS texts are in agreement that electrical signals are propagated along neural cell membranes; the college text just goes into much more detail.

You wouldn't happen to be just quizzing me, are you? -_O



The basic idea of the hypothesis [at least in McFadden's case] is that consciousness is the global EEM field of the brain and that activity of that field affects the charges across neural membranes and thus affecting the probability a given neuron, or group of neurons, will fire.

And that is where I call woo, his papers do not give any possible mechanism, nor do they offer one that is not refuted in common observation. Power company workers would have to wear helmets to shield their brains near transmission lines and near transformers if that was the case. The action potentials in their heads would be going crazy, and their hearts would stop.

As I've already pointed out before, the fact that intermodular and global brainwave patterns are directly linked to specific mental states itself lends strong evidence that consciousness is associated with, or identical to, the EEM activity of the brain.

No it does not, that is great speculation, but why don't people collapse and have seizures near high power transmission lines and in transformer stations?

Here are a few questions for you, Dave:

These I would take to another thread! They are great questions.

In short the brain manufactures perceptions, with the help of Gandalf the Plugger of Mysterious Gaps and Holes.

How do you propose that the release of neurotransmitters are translated to into conscious sensations?

Where is a thought in the brain and how and where are the disparate processes of brain modules brought together as conscious experience?

My answer is that they aren't. The smoothing of consciousness is probably like (in some vague and hand wavy way) like the persistence of vision.

When you form a memory where exactly is it stored? If one where to isolate an idea what would it physically consist of?

It isn't stored exactly anywhere, it fractured into disparate associations and then recreated. (Shot from the hip and I am to blame, I give love a bad name.)

If science were to isolate memes what would you propose would be the best way to do so? In your opinion, what would they most likely consist of?

I am not good with the meme theory, I would need to study it first. It sounds too neo-platonic for my concrete pragmatic self. Now is you ask my alter Whizzo the Sorcerer-Mystic and Wild Pagan Guy, I am sure he could whomp up a great string of spin.

I don't like the meme theory and would need to study it to give you good answer.

Like I said before, I can't do any better than make logical inferences from known neuroscience in support of the CEMI hypothesis and related postulations. If you want more comprehensive scientific papers you're going to have to cough up dough for subscription fees to the relevant journals. Either that, or I fly across the continent to where you live, book a tour of a neuroscience lab, and have a scientist or technician demonstrate to you that neurons actually propagate electrical signals. I don't have the time or the monies for all that >_<

\
Now need the main question is how does the EM directly impact other neurons? That is the question that bothers me, and that McFadden just ignores.

Why don't people have seizures in transformer stations? The magnetic fields there are billions of times more powerful than those in the head.

The evidence is there but the real problem is: how in the world are you proposing that I provide 'evidence' for the CEMI hypothesis when you won't even accept basic facts of neuroscience? Is it because I'M the one saying it? Sometimes I get the impression that you and others would argue with me if I said grass is green and the sky is blue just to be contrary

Tell me why people don't have seizures and die at transformer stations?

edit:Meh...its late here and I'm dead tired. I'll try to address your other responses later *_*

Cool, I have my bite stick ready in case I start ranting again
.

 

[westprog]

Only when such words are defined by people like Aku and yourself as being outside the realm of physics which, of course, is circular reasoning.

No, I mean that the subject is not dealt with in Physics texts. I'm not making some argument on philosophical principle, I'm addressing the scientific consensus.

And it's easily rebutted by anyone who has a chapter on subjective experience in his physics textbook.

 

[Dancing David]

:Looks around thread and at the destruction wrought by himself, hands on head:

Oh my lovely goddesses, was I doing jello shots yesterday?
Where are my car keys?

And whose monkey is this?

 

[PixyMisa]

No, I mean that the subject is not dealt with in Physics texts.

Neither is chemistry, biology or geology. So what?

[quoteI'm not making some argument on philosophical principle, I'm addressing the scientific consensus.[/quote]
No, you're just making stuff up. Here is what everyone else in the world means by physical science. Physical theories are theories in any of the physical sciences. Indeed, we can broaden that further, because theories in the biological science are also physical theories.

And it's easily rebutted by anyone who has a chapter on subjective experience in his physics textbook.

Wrong.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It seems to me pretty well established that the frequency of brainwaves does relate to aspects of our conscious state - particularly the degree of mental arousal or relaxation. There do seem to have been EEG studies.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by that because the situation is much more complicated than you seem to imply. Do you, for instance, know that someone can be in deep coma and have an alpha rhythm in their frontal region? Do you know that folks with Parkinson's disease can walk around with a 6 Hz background, while the same activity in another is associated with stupor?

Now, if you were to shut your eyes and have your ears filled with sound of a certain frequency (or your eyes with light of a certain frequency), it seems reasonable to me to suggest that the brainwaves would adjust to the frequency of the sound, assuming it's in a similar range.

And you would be completely wrong. Sound frequencies have no effect on the gross frequencies seen in an EEG. There are people who will show a photic driving response to various frequencies of flashing light and others who will not. Regardless, there is no effect on consciousness or behavior in association with the presence or absence of any of these EEG findings.

 

[Nick227]

Yes. But that doesn't mean that you can induce this with sounds or flashing lights or whatever.

It seems to me reasonable that you can, but not necessarily through entrainment, see below.

I'm not sure that it is reasonable. That would mean that very-low-frequency sounds would cause you to lose consciousness, which is simply not true.

Yes. I think the frequency would need to be consciously accessible. I don't suppose 4Hz is.

But in general, there simply appears to be no evidence to support this. There's a lot of alt-med scam artists cashing in on it, and no scientific research backing it up - that I've been able to find.

Seems like there are a few companies. I think they work, but I doubt it's entrainment. If you're stressed and sit in a very quiet room, I'm sure your brainwaves change.

A neuron firing at a particular rate doesn't mean that adjacent neurons fire at that rate. They might. They might not.

I don't know enough here, but is it not that in global access a high degree of synchronous firing would be expected amongst the neurons involved?

But in general, again, there seems to be no evidence at all to support the idea of "brainwave entrainment", and indeed it appears to contradict what we know about brain function.

Yes, the final statement seems reasonable. Light and sound machines don't really test whether entrainment happens, as I see it, because they so flood consciousness with stimuli it's reasonable to suppose that the neurons themselves simply adjust their firing frequencies (or whatever else it is that gives rise to EM), as opposed to the EM itself driving the change. To test for entrainment, presumably one would have to use a stimulus that impinged far less upon actual consciousness.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

And you would be completely wrong. Sound frequencies have no effect on the gross frequencies seen in an EEG. There are people who will show a photic driving response to various frequencies of flashing light and others who will not. Regardless, there is no effect on consciousness or behavior in association with the presence or absence of any of these EEG findings.

So you're saying that if pretty much your whole consciousness is filled with sound or light of a certain frequency and your eyes are shut then there's no effect on conscious report** or EEG? I used to have one of the machines and it did seem pretty relaxing. I did also have a primitive EEG thing about 15 years ago, electrodes on the temples, but I can't recall if I connected it up at the same time. I recall that it seemed to be possible to alter the brainwaves consciously, through inducing relaxation via deeper breathing.

** aside of saying my eyes are filled with light!

Nick