Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Applesauce
Trad climber
Fort Collins
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 08:16am PT
|
I’m late to the discussion here, but let’s see if we can harvest something else, something new out of all this.
For now, I’ll avoid the engaging the banter around the eternal-ness of mind, because I think this is getting us away from the meat of the discussion at hand.
…
There’s been a bit of philosophical work lately on this very topic. A few years back, Alva Noe, a philosopher over at Berkeley, published Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness. Noe’s work is interesting – at least here, he writes in a thoroughly non-academic tone. He hopes to create something that is engaging, interesting, accessible. In a way, this is a breath of fresh air. But this also leaves a good deal to be desired in the rigors of his argument.
His work is a popular articulation of a movement known variously as enacted mind or extended cognition or embodied mind.
Noe depicts an active consciousness, not something that happens in the brain, but something that occurs only as a complex interaction with the whole:
“Consciousness is not something that happens inside us. It is something we do or make. Better: it is something we achieve. Consciousness is more like dancing than it is like digestion… The idea that the only genuinely scientific study of consciousness would be one that identifies consciousness with events in the nervous system is a bit of outdated reductionism” (xii)
“…to understand consciousness in humans and animals, we must not look inward, into the recesses of our insides; rather, we need to look to the ways in which each of us, as a whole animal, carries on the process of living in and with and in response to the world around us. The subject of experience is not a bit of your body. You are not your brain” (7)
He offers a critique of the perspective so often taken for granted in neuroscience. Here, we might as well just call it the scientistic endeavor, I suppose. On the face of it, his argument could fall prey to long-wrought criticism of behaviorism. But his argument isn’t that easy. It is not behavior alone that forms consciousness, he argues, but rather the intricate interaction between brain, body, and the external world. Consciousness, he argues, “is an achievement of the whole animal in its environmental context” (10).
In this way, Largo might actually agree with Noe, at least to an extent:
“Ed always asks: What's not physical?
Mind, for starters. It is not reductive to objective functioning, as we have seen. And when we default into saying that mind is entirely beholden to brain, and we keep reducing brain to atoms, we start seeing vast amounts of empty space between energy vortices.”
This, for Noe, is damn right. He opens with a careful critique of Francis Crick’s artful words: “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identify and free will, are nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules” (5). For Noe, brain without body can never give rise to consciousness. No circuit-board conscious entities here. But he also critiques a purely literary or interpretative bend in analyzing consciousness.
Noe repeatedly states that consciousness is like a dance. So, we might start to ask what this actually means. For the sake of this forum, it might be better to say that consciousness is like a climb. So, of what does a climb actually consist? When and where does a climb “show up”? To take but one example of many, it shows up on a near-blank granite face early one July morning deep in the Sierras. It shows up when one person ties in and places total faith in his or her belayer and sets feet and fingers to stone. The climb does not exist inside the brains of the climbers. You find nothing valuable about the climb by looking at neural activity inside the brain. What matters here is, yes, the internal states of the climbers, but also the temporal and social context of their activities.
Of course, climbing is not consciousness. But this is the sort of metaphor he has in mind when compares consciousness to dancing, or, for the sake of this audience, climbing. Internal states, and social and environmental context matter. It is brain, body, and world. Consciousness is never brain alone.
Noe’s critique is compelling, but, like the direction this thread seems to be going, never quite gets where to he hopes to, and leaves a lot unanswered. He tells us what consciousness is not, and starts in the direction of where it is, but never quite gets there. This might be because, for Noe, consciousness “isn’t a thing at all” (184).
This has a unique bearing on other discussions that haven’t come up here yet – in particular, the age-old debate on free will.
I’m at work, and shouldn’t be doing this at all, but I have much more to say. I’m certain that this argument lacks the rigor that, say, Hartouni requires. But I’m curious to hear what you all have to say.
- Mott
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 08:20am PT
|
This has a unique bearing on other discussions that haven’t come up here yet – in particular, the age-old debate on free will.
Mott
.....
"So far, SETI hasn't found anything. Does this mean that we are unique, rare, or common? We just don't know. All we can do is assume, but to assume that the entire universe belongs to us is just stellar bigotry."
So what we CAN say however is this: there are 14k star systems within 100 light years. 14,000. None of them are broadcasting in radio waves that we should be able to easily detect. How come? Given EM's usefulness and ubiquity when employed as a basic communications medium this seems to say a lot don't you think?
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 08:21am PT
|
^^Join the fray! This thread has gone quiet lately, but a lot of thought went into most of the posts.
What does this part of your posted statement mean?
we start seeing vast amounts of empty space between energy vortices.”
Is that a physics view? That atoms are mostly composed of empty space?
edit: This has a unique bearing on other discussions that haven’t come up here yet – in particular, the age-old debate on free will.
Oh... free will is very much a debate here. I would suggest you go to youtube and type in "Sam Harris free will." Then watch what he has to say. Then see if you buy it.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 08:30am PT
|
BASE, aren't you a multitude of cells?
Point to a cell or point to any component of any cell whose behavior at the microlevel is not (a) 100% constrained by prior causes or (b) 100% obedient to the underlyding chemistry and physics.
I gotta go, but there's a great deal more compelling lines of evidence that contravene libertarian free will than the libet experiment. All of biochemistry, eg. All of physiology too. Pass that on to McHale please.
Remember if you're going to ascribe libertarian free will to humans (based on stochastics, lol) then you have to ascribe it to a coin toss and the Plant Kingdom as well.
I don't know, plants appear pretty mechanistic, obedient to chemistry and celluar biology to me. But what do I know.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 08:31am PT
|
As per Paul's notion of mind being a part of the fabric of the universe, I think he needs to back off a little from the mind part. He is talking about human minds. All animals have minds.
Good grief, if mind isn't part of the fabric of what is, that is the universe, then what is it? How can mind not be eternal if that fabric is eternal (infinite). Does the individual soul/mind exist or continue after the body dies? How the hell should I know, I don't know how the can opener works.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 08:44am PT
|
Hey I just want to show you guys my fancy latest new tool. I love it.
Eat your heart out Toolman Taylor!
Highly recommended. A fine addition to your workshop.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 08:46am PT
|
"How the hell should I know, I don't know how the can opener works."
With all due respect, speaks volumes.
.....
"As for science having questions rather than answers, that's the ideal but not always practiced just as compassion and mercy are religious ideals not always practiced."
This is just awful phrasing. With all due respect.
"Rather than answers"? That's the ideal? The pursuit of answers is a fine and worthy aim of science. It's every bit as much the ideal as posing the questions, running the experiments in accordance with the s method, collecting the data, etc..
Sheesh.
.....
All six episodes of The Brain w David Eagleman (2015) are now avail at PBS.
I esp enjoyed the Chinese Room insight as he depicted it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
(btw, wikipedia: thumbs up!!)
It's nice to learn that my own thinking on these subjects are pretty much in-line with his which are pretty much in-line with the bulk of modern neuroscience by and large. Consensus by way of science edu in these tumultuous times especially is a great thing. It's great support for one's beliefs if you're a "science type."
.....
Don't sneak.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wHjJUdN16k
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 09:56am PT
|
ugh...
what ever a "thing" is, it is not "no-thing"
that is a construction, and can be considered "word play," it is fun to play with words, and part of that play sharpens what we are trying to communicate, and even can help us develop our ideas.
Warning: such play may not result in agreement.
"Mind" whatever it is, is definitely the consequence of a physical process... as such, I'd define it as "physical."
If you can show an instance where some aspect of "mind" has no physical cause, you can falsify my assertion above.
Go for it...
In the meantime, you might look at the recent issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B a special issue on ‘Homology and convergence in nervous system evolution’
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1685
as far as we know, a nervous system is an important prerequisite to "mind"
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 10:23am PT
|
Doesn't the whole "strong" vs. "weak" AI issue seem to be overthinking it?
Do simple animals with basic nervous systems and tiny brains possess mind or merely "model" it?
Could there be some kind of Cambrian Explosion in AI one day, or not?
All opinions are welcome.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 11:02am PT
|
I am watching a Daniel Dennett lecture regarding free will right now. One of his arguments is that ideas can be physically observed BEFORE the person is aware of it. So that is like the tail wagging the dog. The tail being the brain, and the dog being a person.
That is pretty weak sauce. Look at my computer. I can run a gridding algorithm in 30 minutes. The data is about 50 miles square, and contains, say, 30,000 data points. 20 years ago, we used to leave the old 486 computers running all night to perform a grid that is tiny by today's standards.
So what if thought precedes awareness? It takes my computer a lot of time to perform this function, which is quite simple...but dense.
I do not see how decisions are made a few seconds before awareness equates to us being beholden to the physical brain. Right now, here I am, questioning it. It is hardly proof of the absence of free will. It only says that it takes time to process an idea and make a decision.
Again, I rely on truly random processes. Brownian movement can move a cell or virus. If there is ANY randomness in how our brains work, then the biochemical robot theory fails.
Even the act of a human female egg being fertilized is random in a sense. 250 million sperm swim through a viscous liquid chasing that egg. Only one gets through...if you are lucky. We know that liquids are turbulent, and something as small as a sperm cell is affected by Brownian movement. Then you have the fertilization: The combination of all that genetic material. The same egg and the same sperm could have many different outcomes, so fertilization has a little randomness in it.
I don't see a universe that is absolutely predictable. Yes, you can make statistical models which closely relate, but I don't think that you can start knowing the initial conditions of every particle in the universe and then precisely model its future, even if it were computationally possible.
I read in Harris's wiki bio that he is a compatibilist. Daniel Dennett disagrees with this.
Compatibalism: Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent.[1] Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics
Determinism: Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event, including human interactions, there exist conditions that could cause no other event. "There are many determinisms, depending on what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event or action."[1] Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have sprung from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. Some forms of determinism can be empirically tested with ideas from physics and the philosophy of physics. The opposite of determinism is some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called nondeterminism). Determinism is often contrasted with free will
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 11:13am PT
|
A lot of people here are talking about consciousness as though it were the product of a one off physical object. Homonin brains have generally expanded over time, and man's technological prowess has increased accordingly. The major exception is instructive however. Neanderthals had larger brains that we currently do, but less sophisticated technology than the smaller brained Homo sapiens who eventually, one way or the other, did them in. How to account for that if consciousness is entirely dependent on the brain?
The way anthropologists account for it is that Homo sapiens had language and therefore a more intricate social life and the beginning of culture (art and religion). Language enabled more efficient food gathering, deeper social bonding and the ability to hand knowledge down through the generations more efficiently. But is language a thing?
One must have a brain and nervous system to develop it, but when we send impulses into space, looking for other life with language, aren't we extending our consciousness outside the body? And when we broadcast mathematical formulas, hoping they will be recognized, are we broadcasting our own consciousness only or a deeper truth that permeates the universe of which we are one part?
I think we do need to spend the next ten years looking at the brain in the current reductionist fashion, but I also believe that when that doesn't explain everything, we will have to look for new paradigms. My guess is that neuroscience will be a lot like cancer - multiple intricate inter-related causes that are extremely difficult to track down. I'm also guessing that Noe's work will be taken more seriously ten years from now than it currently is.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 11:21am PT
|
"Mind" whatever it is, is definitely the consequence of a physical process... as such, I'd define it as "physical."
Can you imagine the non physical at all? What exists that is non physical? I think you can make the argument that all things are physical depending on your definition of that term. But you can also define experiences associated with the brain, such as dreams, that are in another sense non physical. Once again it depends on the meaning you ascribe to physical.
If you consider the source of mind as the physical structure of the universe and those laws associated with that physical structure, the product of that mind is at least ephemeral in that any idea is subject to storage.
How can a thought be a material thing? For example, if one develops a thought as a formula, say I’m first to develop or discover the formula for determining the area of a circle. I show it to nobody. I write said formula down on a piece of paper and then die. Where is that thought? Is it simply stored/recorded in the paper and graphite of my writing or does it exist separately from those entities and enjoy a kind of life of its own? Can the thought be said to be the chemical makeup of the paper and graphite or is it the conditioned order of the graphite in contrast to the white of the paper and does it exist only as a potential communication in need of a conscious being to receive it… or is the thought’s existence waiting only to be discovered as I did, apart from any physical form in the realm of as of yet un-experienced ideas. When an efficacious idea or formula is revealed it is often said to have been discovered; does such a thought only exist when finally experienced by a human being? Certainly the formula for the area of a circle and the numerical pi existed as a relationship prior to their “discovery.”
I understand a thought as a series of ordered synapses in the brain: change the order and the thought is changed, but the thought itself seems somehow separate from that mechanism of synapses in the same way it is separate from the graphite and paper. Graphite and paper store it and present it while at the same time not being it but rather a supporting structure. Don’t the ordered synapses and structure of the brain and the graphite and paper need an experiencer: the bystander or observer that finally registers the understanding? The thought is not the observer; the thought is not the understanding. The understanding seems to be in the realm of the observing entity paring what is appropriate out of all that incoming information.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 11:31am PT
|
Dreaming is observed in many, if not all, animals.
We know that if you don't sleep, you will eventually die. It isn't just all sleep, it is REM sleep in particular, the time when we dream. If you prevent REM sleep, the animal will die.
Is it a thing? How do you define thing? I would say, of course. Dreams are a thing, or process, that brain does. Again, we see the need for sleep in all animals. Somehow it is tied to a healthy brain, or it wouldn't kill you if you did without. If it can physically kill you, it must be physical. As to content, I leave that to others.
Scientific American just ran an issue dedicated to sleep. It was pretty cool.
Also, I love Jan's posts. She has a lot of experience, so I always listen to her.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 11:49am PT
|
I'm convinced we're going to HAVE TO find the physical basis for mind (yes that includes thoughts and feelings) or we're never going to hear the end of it from these ghost in the machine supernaturalists.
How's that for incentive.
.....
BASE, I've noticed you're not unlike Largo, avoiding those questions that can put you in the corner.
C'mon, aren't you more interested in the truth, what's real? than being right?
BASE, are you a multitude of cells?
PS...
Dennett is the compatibilist, not Harris.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 12:00pm PT
|
I'm convinced we're going to have find the physical basis for mind (yes that includes thoughts and feelings) or we're never going to hear the end of it from these ghost in the machine supernaturalists.
Such a mighty faith.
|
|
allapah
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 12:58pm PT
|
the map and the territory are both physical, but the relationship between the two is not physical
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 01:07pm PT
|
"the relationship between the two is not physical"
Says who? Frank Graham? Chopra? Oprah?
"Show me the evidence."
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 02:00pm PT
|
The major exception is instructive however. Neanderthals had larger brains that we currently do, but less sophisticated technology than the smaller brained Homo sapiens who eventually, one way or the other, did them in. How to account for that if consciousness is entirely dependent on the brain?
The larger Neanderthal brain ( 1450 vs 1345 cubic centimeters) is now thought to be primarily accounted for by much larger visual cortices (and a somewhat greater requirement dedicated to control of their highly muscular stockier anatomy in a glaciated multi-form environment studded with mountains ,valleys and rivers).
It is the rear portion of the skull which contains the visual cortex. This feature is known as the "occipital bun"
Again it is thought the Neanderthals required much greater visiual processing than AMHs as an adaption to very low light conditions in a severely frozen environment at high latitudes.
http://www.tested.com/science/life/454072-why-bigger-neanderthal-brains-didnt-make-them-smarter-humans/
It is by no means a settled matter as to AMHs role in the extinction of Neanderthals. Any assertions along those lines are pure speculation.
My own speculation is that repeated glaciation in Europe resulted in increasing isolation of Neanderthal groups which no doubt resulted in inbreeding which severely affected their adaptive fitness especially as regards low light conditions= production of inadequate Vit. D =malabsorption of calcium= poor bone semiconductivity.Their immune systems had also become hugely compromised, needless to say.
The extinction of Neanderthals in warmer, lower latitude Asia may have taken a different course and timeline.
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 02:45pm PT
|
How many shades of blue do you suppose they could see?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2015 - 03:19pm PT
|
Neanderthals required a much greater light-gathering capacity hence their larger eyes and visual cortex. The various ranges of blue may not have been as important as simple detection of blue and other frequencies in the nm ranges required for health/survivabilty-- given the huge resource drain their eyesight must have required.
In fact, some researchers believe this to have been a possible reason for their demise.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-03/eyes-have-it
BTW blue eyes, along with fair skin is thought to be light mediated adaptions which AMHs inherited from Neanderthals.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!