Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:17am PT
|
Figuring out consciousness is easier than figuring out how to climb well.
That, and it's raining cats and (sentient) dogs, here.
Haven't you gotten the word? Dogs 'receive' the universal sentience field - everything living does - just doggy style. It's like the Higgs, only stinkier. Or simpler. Or something-er.
Depends on the woo-ologist.
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:19am PT
|
My brain hurts....
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:23am PT
|
My Brain Hurts
[Click to View YouTube Video]
You've come to the right place. This is the the mind specialist thread ;o)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:28am PT
|
'In a religious or spiritual view, the “experienceness,” the consciousness itself, is a non-physical substance, something like plasma. It is ectoplasm. It is spirit. In new age thinking, it is energy or life force. In traditional Chinese medicine, it is Chi. On introspection people describe it as a feeling, a sense, an experience, a vividness, a private awareness hovering inside the body. In the view of Descartes (1641), it is res cogitans or “mental substance.” In the view of the eighteenth century physician Mesmer and the many practitioners who subscribed to his ideas for more than a century, it is a special force of nature called animal magnetism (Alvarado, 2009). In the view of Kant (1781), it is fundamentally not understandable. In the view of Searle (2007), it is like the liquidity of water; it is a state of a thing, not a physical thing. According to many scientists, whatever it is, and however it is caused, it can only happen to information that has entered into a complex, bound unit (Baars, 1983; Crick & Koch, 1990; Engel & Singer, 2001; Tononi, 2008).'
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:32am PT
|
We're just a fancy marquee plagued by burned out light bulbs and broken hearts.
And dogs.
God those things can be a pain in the ass.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:36am PT
|
Sidebar on orangutans: I friend once visited an Indonesian preserve for them. One tried to wrest his backpack from him. He retreated into a restroom stall, locked the door, and stood on a commode in an attempt to hide.
The orangutan chased after him, grabbed a broom, and tried 'sweeping' him out of the stall .
Man the tool user indeed.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:40am PT
|
If our minds were so simple that we could understand them, we would be so simple that we could not.
If the universe were so small we could see it we would be too big to live in it.
Think again, Port.
Going climbing is a good idea, though.
If you want to look at how we are different from other animals, look at how much variety there is in what we can do. Most people can learn to shoot a bow and arrow, play chess, play the violin, paddle a canoe, read and write, juggle, drive a car, play rock/scissors/paper, and so on.
Animals behavior is much more specialized, harder to train, and nowhere near as various as human behavior. We are the best generalists by a big margin.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:43am PT
|
"...something like plasma. It is ectoplasm."
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:44am PT
|
'Non-physical' and 'non-solid' seem to get mixed up a lot.
This is what happens when the unscientifically minded take to throwing terms like 'energy' and 'fields' and such around.
Not that they don't have non-scientific meanings, but the pseudo-scientific usages can get to be a bit baroque.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:49am PT
|
Well, the first one is, anyway.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 12:52pm PT
|
https://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/Kelly_Graziano_2014.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1401201111
Attributing awareness to oneself and to others
Yin T. Kelly, Taylor W. Webb, Jeffrey D. Meier, Michael J. Arcaro, and Michael S. A. Graziano
This study tested the possible relationship between reported visual awareness (“I see a visual stimulus in front of me”) and the social attribution of awareness to someone else (“That person is aware of an object next to him”). Subjects were tested in two steps. First, in an fMRI experiment, subjects were asked to attribute states of awareness to a cartoon face. Activity associated with this task was found bilaterally within the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) among other areas. Second, the TPJ was transiently disrupted using single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). When the TMS was targeted to the same cortical sites that had become active during the social attribution task, the subjects showed symptoms of visual neglect in that their detection of visual stimuli was significantly affected. In control trials, when TMS was targeted to nearby cortical sites that had not become active during the social attribution task, no significant effect on visual detection was found. These results suggest that there may be at least some partial overlap in brain mechanisms that participate in the social attribution of sensory awareness to other people and in attributing sensory awareness to oneself.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
|
Just downloaded Graziano's latest book on consciousness
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 01:21pm PT
|
It's a bit more complicated than either statement.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 01:24pm PT
|
"Things exist" is similarly logical.
When painted with a broad enough brush, logical statements loose any real meaning.
How completely 'subjective' experience can be ported to be experienced by another intelligence 'objectively' remains to be seen.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 02:21pm PT
|
How completely 'subjective' experience can be ported to be experienced by another intelligence 'objectively' remains to be seen.
Yes it remains to be seen.
The one theory I see as holding the greatest promise for attaining anything remotely close to a peek into another's subjective experience is Steven Sevush's Single Neuron Theory of Consciousness
Here is the abstract:
By most accounts, the mind arises from the integrated activity of large populations of neurons distributed across multiple brain regions. A contrasting model is presented in the present paper that places the mind/brain interface not at the whole brain level but at the level of single neurons. Specifically, it is proposed that each neuron in the nervous system is independently conscious, with conscious content corresponding to the spatial pattern of a portion of that neuron's dendritic electrical activity. For most neurons, such as those in the hypothalamus or posterior sensory cortices, the conscious activity would be assumed to be simple and unable to directly affect the organism's macroscopic conscious behavior. For a subpopulation of layer 5 pyramidal neurons in the lateral prefrontal cortices, however, an arrangement is proposed to be present such that, at any given moment: (i) the spatial pattern of electrical activity in a portion of the dendritic tree of each neuron in the subpopulation individually manifests a complexity and diversity sufficient to account for the complexity and diversity of conscious experience; (ii) the dendritic trees of the neurons in the subpopulation all contain similar spatial electrical patterns; (iii) the spatial electrical pattern in the dendritic tree of each neuron interacts non-linearly with the remaining ambient dendritic electrical activity to determine the neuron's overall axonal response; (iv) the dendritic spatial pattern is reexpressed at the population level by the spatial pattern exhibited by a synchronously firing subgroup of the conscious neurons, thereby providing a mechanism by which conscious activity at the neuronal level can influence overall behavior. The resulting scheme is one in which conscious behavior appears to be the product of a single macroscopic mind, but is actually the integrated output of a chorus of minds, each associated with a different neuron.
http://www.stevensevush.com
If Sevush is right then his model reduces the complexity somewhat. Instead of a SciFi downloading of an entire messy brain all you'd have to download is one lone cell and its dendrites.
I love these speculations put forth in an earlier paper---it's broader context is contained in the "Additional Considerations" section.
The possible involvement of quantum mechanics in consciousness has been summarily dismissed by many authors because the entanglement would, it is usually supposed, have to extend across macroscopic distances and involve spatially dispersed neuronal populations.� The difficulties imposed by such large distances, together with the lack of a plausible mechanism by which entanglement might "jump" across synapses, has been argued to render quantum mechanical theories of consciousness untenable (Grush and Churchland 1995).� With the single-neuron theory, however, the proposed entanglement would need to extend only throughout a portion of the dendritic tree of a single neuron.� While still a formidable proposition, the speculation that quantum mechanical effects might be relevant to consciousness might nevertheless gain in plausibility.
http://cogprints.org/3891/1/snt-9html.htm
Furthermore:
As has been noted by Bieberich, who has articulated an argument similar to the one being offered here (Bieberich 2002), entangled intraneuronal events could conceivably support a complexity of information processing comparable to that attributable to the whole brain in the neural network models.� Such entangled events could, in turn, act as indivisible Whiteheadean subject/object entities with subjective aspects serving as units of conscious experience and with objective aspects contributing to the information content of outgoing electrochemical messages at the axon hillock.� In the final model, then, a single subjective experience would correspond not to the activity of a single neuron but to the occurrence of a single entangled event within a single neuron.� In a logical extension of the single-neuron theory, an individual's brain would be construed as comprising a multiplicity of subjective experiences corresponding not just to the multitude of neurons within that brain, but to the larger number of entangled events within all those neurons.� In sum, the combination problem would be solved by avoiding altogether the need to combine the individual consciousnesses.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 04:06pm PT
|
Suvesh's picture is what I'd assumed had to be happening, although I wouldn't describe a single neuron as being 'conscious' (which requires self awareness by its most common definition), but rather as having some state of ON.
An interesting experiment would be to gradually turn on the neurons involv
ed in various sequences and see how consciousness wakes up with them. I don't think we have a way to do that right now.
We really are a 3D marquee.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 05:53pm PT
|
although I wouldn't describe a single neuron as being 'conscious'
Huh?
You mean you don't think a lone neuron, operating all on its own,could wake-up, shave, shower, go to work,vote ,pay taxes, and raise a family of familial neurons?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 07:07pm PT
|
A lot of interesting blather going on here, but one thing is certain:
When my Corgi, Jake, stares at me - into my eyes - so intently, he is projecting ethereal rays of energy that emanate from the Power of His Mind.
All else pales.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|