Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jstan
climber
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 06:08am PT
|
That we could have extended discussions about such questions as are other animals conscious pretty clearly indicates our own limitations. We are devoted to the idea that you can have perfect technical systems and that we are it. This prejudice causes us to act very foolishly. I have seen the design of technical systems in our defense industry where we go through perhaps a half dozen iterations; not the tens of thousands of iterations it took to design us. Frankly I would not want to be something designed by people. Like this thread, the track record is discouraging. Different specie have different functions so their design specifications can be presumed to be different.
There is not a single thing we might call "consciousness". But to paraphrase Joe, it does not take academic degrees to use this as a starting model. It is like we have yet to reach an understanding of what Darwin said.
The design for a human would seem to be as follows.
1. Like the B17 all control mechanisms feature redundancy. The brain is layered and averages are taken so the death of one cell does not cause total failure.
2. Control systems have to respond in tens of milliseconds.
3. The energy budget for the control system had to be kept below 20% of the total energy. For the night vision systems I worked with, the cost of the detector assembly, the system's eyes, had to be less than 15% of the total cost. With bad management we exceeded that and when we reached 30% the customers drifted away.
4. Survival is made more likely if based on prior experience. We can predict if a situation will become dangerous. Like a phase sensitive amplifier. We set the instrument to amplify signals with a given phase. In humans prior experience causes certain chemistries to be left in certain neural circuits so there is a resonance. Memory.
But back to my voltmeter analogy and the now heated illusion discussion. C'mon people. Nothing is ever perfect. Stop asking if the voltmeter reading is an illusion. It has its own limitations as to accuracy and precision. Live with it. And the system is designed simply for you to survive. If you are able to fog a mirror each morning, you got no grounds to complain.
(I am doing my Russ Walling imitation here.)
Edit:
About mirror fogging.
We all try to find some one thing in which we are exceptional. After nearly eighty years I have one last chance to avoid total failure. By moving my mirror fogging test each day to noon, I may demonstrate it took me more than six hours to realize I was dead.
I will have demonstrated the ultimate in insensitivity.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 07:00am PT
|
I liked your post healyje
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 07:11am PT
|
And the system is designed simply for you to survive
No, it isn't.
The material body (hardware) is not ever the self.
The self is never extinguished, cut, burned, etc. as it is not material ever.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 07:32am PT
|
The brain is finite, the mind infinite.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:12am PT
|
The brain is finite, the mind infinite.
That makes a nice metaphor MikeL and I think expressions like that can have some meaning. Maybe even important meaning in the way they can inspire us to try and reach beyond the limited condition in which we find ourselves. For example, to try and understand the mystery, like MH2 wants to do, even though the riddle may be unsolvable. There is something beautiful and remarkable about the apparent open ended nature of the human mind and it may be healthy for us to believe in it.
However, if we take these metaphors too literally, I can't help but wonder where the infinite mind goes if an asteroid strikes the planet and destroys the human race.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:39am PT
|
the apparent open ended nature of the human mind and it may be healthy for us to believe in it.
Actually I don't think it is healthy. The apparent open ended nature is a subjective reaction. Like our feeling that humans are created by the gods, we are perfect...... and all but god like ourselves. The word "infinite" keeps reappearing.
A voltmeter can't calibrate itself.
We have embedded within us a possibly fatal flaw.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:57am PT
|
The word "infinite" keeps reappearing.
My bad, jstan. In case you didn't know, I'm a mathematician. It turns out "infinite" is just about all we ever talk about. It's right there in the axioms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory#7._Axiom_of_infinity
Mathematicians tend to think "finite" is easy. Hell, computers can do that (at least when the finite is not too big). Anyways, I've been thinking it's time to get out of this thread and back to my work. I have something I think I can do that seems kind of interesting and I need to get focused. The problem I want to solve just reeks of infinity.
We have embedded within us a possibly fatal flaw. With that optimistic view of human nature, I'll make my adieu.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 10:30am PT
|
It has been good to have yanqui with us for a while.
I want to elaborate on something he said:
For example, to try and understand the mystery, like MH2 wants to do
I only want to try and understand small parts of the mystery, not the whole thing.
For an example:
The protozoan Paramecium has no nervous system but it has capabilities similar to our own neurons that let it sense what is around it and communicate from one part of itself to another so as to react appropriately by moving toward or away from things around it.
These one-celled creatures are astoundingly complicated. We are fortunate to have learned a little bit about how they operate.
figure is from
Introduction to Nervous Systems
Theodore Holmes Bullock
Richard Oakland
Alan Grinnell
1977
W.H. Freeman and Company
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 11:53am PT
|
DMT:
Thanks for the note. I was not aware of the true RMS reading multimeter. But I looked up the specs on its accuracy.
AC Voltage
60mV, 600mV, 6V, 60V : + (1.0%+3)
600V : + (1.5%+3)
On the 60V scale it appears to be accurate to +- 3.6 volts
You want better than that you have to get a better standard resistor. The correctness of my statement comes down to what accuracy you require.
Yanqui:
I agree it is not good to linger on worst cases. But I read the newspapers. Sometimes it is best to at least have an idea as to what may be coming.
MH2:
Very interesting. Sometime ago I pondered our lack of knowledge as to whether even protozoa might have some sort of consciousness. It is all in the chemistry!
Makes me sad really. I may not be around to hear whether or not there are many universes.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 11:58am PT
|
With that optimistic view of human nature, I'll make my adieu.
"...You can check out any time you like,
But you can never leave!"
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 03:41pm PT
|
MH2 - yes, a surprisingly different number of 'solutions' to sense/response can be found in single cell organisms.
MikeL: The brain is finite, the mind infinite.
Well, that's a fine, if vague assertion. And I'd reply that, sure, what you can imagine is infinite and a 100 trillion dynamic connections taken together can produce a number of brain activation patterns essentially indistinguishable from 'infinite' both for that purpose and for consciousness in general.
That and your assertion unavoidably harks back to that Victorian arrogance and abhorrence of any hint of the notion we are just animals. Oh, the humanity! We are special with infinite god-like powers and values which rise above common meat, the squalor in which it lives, and the inherent violence of such a mean existence (ignoring of course the fact we are the most ruthless killing machine ever devised).
yanqui: I liked your post healyje / I'll make my adieu...
Thanks, but Ed is right, I've tried to leave several times now...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 05:23pm PT
|
the fact we are the most ruthless killing machine ever devised
Another stoopid ignorant statement made by clueless fools.
We were never "devised" that way.
If we were devised then there would be a devisor, and the devisor never makes someone that way.
YOU do it to yourself since you go against natures laws.
One only becomes that way when one ignorantly becomes covered by gross materialism.
Stoopid people think they are animals and not a human being.
Human beings consciousness is developed above animalistic consciousness.
Human beings do not maintain industrialized animal slaughterhouses and mistreat animals only stoopid humans who have devolved into worst than animal consciousness.
Animal slaughterhouses create violent karmic reactions against humanity and the planet.
Thus humanities consciousness due to industrialized animal slaughter and eating them has devolved into worst than an animal's consciousness.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 09:03pm PT
|
A few pages back someone, perhaps MikeL, made a passing comment: Why do we have consciousness? This is a good question and a search of "Why is consciousness necessary" reveals a number of arguments. One argument in Psychology Today is simply so that we can discuss consciousness, which seems a bit of a cop-out.
Why aren't we non-conscious robotic creatures, like zombies, reacting and planning on a non-conscious level? If you are familiar with Jayne's bicameral mind theory we were not really conscious until several thousand years ago. However, I think his theory has been somewhat debunked in recent times. Nevertheless, one approach to mind and consciousness would be an analysis of necessity.
Seems such a simple suggestion we probably discussed it in detail sometime in the past! In my old age, I forget.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 12:17am PT
|
Another stoopid blah, blah, blah.
As ever I await, rapt and awestruck at the edge of my seat, for your pithy retorts...
Why do we have consciousness? This is a good question...
And that question has been the basic thrust of my comments on the evolution of sophisticated nervous systems and big brains. To wit: why bother? Particularly so given the high evolutionary costs involved with having them. In my opinion the only viable answer is for the advantages of the advanced behaviors conveyed by consciousness.
Evolution of complex higher brain centers and behaviors: behavioral correlates of mushroom body elaboration in insects.
Sarah M. Farris
Abstract
Large, complex higher brain centers have evolved many times independently within the vertebrates, but the selective pressures driving these acquisitions have been difficult to pinpoint. It is well established that sensory brain centers become larger and more structurally complex to accommodate processing of a particularly important sensory modality. When higher brain centers such as the cerebral cortex become greatly expanded in a particular lineage, it is likely to support the coordination and execution of more complex behaviors, such as those that require flexibility, learning, and social interaction, in response to selective pressures that made these new behaviors advantageous. Vertebrate studies have established a link between complex behaviors, particularly those associated with sociality, and evolutionary expansions of telencephalic higher brain centers. Enlarged higher brain centers have convergently evolved in groups such as the insects, in which multimodal integration and learning and memory centers called the mushroom bodies have become greatly elaborated in at least four independent lineages. Is it possible that similar selective pressures acting on equivalent behavioral outputs drove the evolution of large higher brain centers in all bilaterians? Sociality has greatly impacted brain evolution in vertebrates such as primates, but it has not been a major driver of higher brain center enlargement in insects. However, feeding behaviors [ healyje: i.e. predation] requiring flexibility and learning are associated with large higher brain centers in both phyla. Selection for the ability to support behavioral flexibility appears to be a common thread underlying the evolution of large higher brain centers, but the precise nature of these computations and behaviors may vary.
And some folks here seem not to understand or underestimate the sheer power of evolution in terms of innovation and ability to deal with complexity. Maybe it would help to think of it in terms of running simulations of biological functions or cells on a supercomputer while varying a model's parameters between iterative runs of the simulation. In fact, after decades of modeling cellular processes in isolation, there are now lots of humans working in computational biology striving to accurately model a single whole cell and it's hard to convey just how ambitious of a goal that is. The reality is it's currently quite beyond both our understanding and computational reach other than in the most crude forms.
But nature is running those same iterations in real life trillions of times a day and has been doing so for billions of years - every single life is an iteration. The 'computational' or 'modeling' power of evolution in that regard is staggering almost beyond human comprehension. And to be honest, that's the real problem with humans ever recreating consciousness - we will never [ ever] have access to the requisite computational capabilities and time necessary. Hell, we're likely still several decades from being able to model just the physical processes internal to a single e coli cell.
Consciousness [iteratively] evolved over billions of years and as far as I'm concerned it's the height of folly to think we can reproduce it computationally or in any other manner in 10, 100 or even a 1000 years - it's so far beyond the scope of our understanding, capabilities and resources as to be an entirely laughable proposition. But to dismiss nature's ability to do so via evolution is a mistake of ego and arrogance.
A couple of hints at the the challenges and scale of the complexity involved with whole cell modeling let alone whole brains:
Abstract of Challenges in structural approaches to cell modeling
Computational modeling is essential for structural characterization of biomolecular mechanisms across the broad spectrum of scales. Adequate understanding of biomolecular mechanisms inherently involves our ability to model them. Structural modeling of individual biomolecules and their interactions has been rapidly progressing. However, in terms of the broader picture, the focus is shifting toward larger systems, up to the level of a cell. Such modeling involves a more dynamic and realistic representation of the interactomes in vivo, in a crowded cellular environment, as well as membranes and membrane proteins, and other cellular components. Structural modeling of a cell complements computational approaches to cellular mechanisms based on differential equations, graph models, and other techniques to model biological networks, imaging data, etc. Structural modeling along with other computational and experimental approaches will provide a fundamental understanding of life at the molecular level and lead to important applications to biology and medicine. A cross section of diverse approaches presented in this review illustrates the developing shift from the structural modeling of individual molecules to that of cell biology. Studies in several related areas are covered: biological networks; automated construction of three-dimensional cell models using experimental data; modeling of protein complexes; prediction of non-specific and transient protein interactions; thermodynamic and kinetic effects of crowding; cellular membrane modeling; and modeling of chromosomes. The review presents an expert opinion on the current state-of-the-art in these various aspects of structural modeling in cellular biology, and the prospects of future developments in this emerging field.
Interactome
Molecular interactions can occur between molecules belonging to different biochemical families (proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, carbohydrates, etc.) and also within a given family. Whenever such molecules are connected by physical interactions, they form molecular interaction networks that are generally classified by the nature of the compounds involved. Most commonly, interactome refers to protein–protein interaction (PPI) network (PIN) or subsets thereof. For instance, the Sirt-1 protein interactome and Sirt family second order interactome[4][5] is the network involving Sirt-1 and its directly interacting proteins where as second order interactome illustrates interactions up to second order of neighbors (Neighbors of neighbors). Another extensively studied type of interactome is the protein–DNA interactome, also called a gene-regulatory network, a network formed by transcription factors, chromatin regulatory proteins, and their target genes. Even metabolic networks can be considered as molecular interaction networks: metabolites, i.e. chemical compounds in a cell, are converted into each other by enzymes, which have to bind their substrates physically.
In fact, all interactome types are interconnected. For instance, protein interactomes contain many enzymes which in turn form biochemical networks. Similarly, gene regulatory networks overlap substantially with protein interaction networks and signaling networks.
...
The yeast interactome, i.e. all protein–protein interactions among proteins of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, has been estimated to contain between 10,000 and 30,000 interactions. A reasonable estimate may be on the order of 20,000 interactions. Larger estimates often include indirect or predicted interactions, often from affinity purification/mass spectrometry (AP/MS) studies.[6]
...
In 2010, the most "complete" gene interactome produced to date was compiled from about 5.4 million two-gene comparisons to describe "the interaction profiles for ~75% of all genes in the budding yeast", with ~170,000 gene interactions.
...ad nauseam, and inter-cellularly the permutations and combinations get exponentially more numerous and complex from these basic starting points.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 06:14am PT
|
The exceptions are not the rule...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 06:34am PT
|
healyje -- "And some folks here seem not to understand or underestimate the sheer power of evolution..."
And some folks here seem not to understand or underestimate the sheer power of de-evolution by the sheer force of their own devolved consciousness ......
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 07:11am PT
|
Why aren't we non-conscious robotic creatures, like zombies, reacting and planning on a non-conscious level?
Although I'm not sure I take this too seriously, I'm predisposed to Ed's theory here (edit to add: sexual selection, that is). Non-conscious robotic zombies just don't cut it, in my book. (Yeah, I know: ha-ha, real funny).
sycorax (mischievous satellite that appears light-red in the visible spectrum): you erased your bizarre post ridiculing my misuse of the word of metaphor! After consulting the google scribe I see that MikeL's rhetorical technique is in fact called "antithesis". My bad. Despite my rather pathetic attempt at interpretation, I think jstan's reply was worth the price of admission.
Ok, that's it! I'm sitting at my desk and should be getting to work. This thread is like a drug. I'm outta here.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 08:01am PT
|
My troll is to bitch slap the long-winded who write poorly
LOL .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 09:20am PT
|
sycorax wrote:
Plenty of Victorian thinkers beloved we were animals.
beastiality at Bloomsbury?
spell check word completion?
what's the modern term for a "typo" that your cell phone makes?
is there such a thing as a "witch slap"?
what's with the question marks??
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|