Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on August 20, 2019, 05:46:13 AM
-
Hi everyone,
A nice video on brain and mind...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sriram
You do realise that this video is on a Christian evangelism site whose Mission statement is;
"We love Jesus and spreading His message! We are a nonprofit Christian organization with the goal of spreading and defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We primarily do this in video form. We create videos to showcase a library of content that is creative and fun, yet will possess significant theological depth. This ministry intends to specialize in reaching the current generation, as well as future generations, with the power of digital video, social media, and whatever new technologies the future may bring."
It might be a tad biased, and I'm struggling to work out why something allegedly about neuroscience (and is full of neurosciency graphics) should involve 'theological depth'.
Just to add, some of the other stuff on this site is an absolute hoot - the videos in 'defence' of the Teleological argument are good for a laugh.
-
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/
**********
The majority of scholars accept consciousness as a given and seek to understand its relationship to the objective world described by science.
We seek, in particular, the neuronal correlates of consciousness (NCC), defined as the minimal neuronal mechanisms jointly sufficient for any specific conscious experience. What must happen in your brain for you to experience a toothache, for example? Must some nerve cells vibrate at some magical frequency? Do some special “consciousness neurons” have to be activated? In which brain regions would these cells be located?
If the spinal cord is completely severed by trauma to the neck region, victims are paralyzed in legs, arms and torso, unable to control their bowel and bladder, and without bodily sensations. Yet these tetraplegics continue to experience life in all its variety—they see, hear, smell, feel emotions and remember as much as before the incident that radically changed their life.
Or consider the cerebellum, the “little brain” underneath the back of the brain.
What happens to consciousness if parts of the cerebellum are lost to a stroke or to the surgeon's knife? Very little! Cerebellar patients complain of several deficits, such as the loss of fluidity of piano playing or keyboard typing but never of losing any aspect of their consciousness. They hear, see and feel fine, retain a sense of self, recall past events and continue to project themselves into the future. Even being born without a cerebellum does not appreciably affect the conscious experience of the individual.
Fierce debates have arisen around the two most popular theories of consciousness. One is the global neuronal workspace (GNW) by psychologist Bernard J. Baars and neuroscientists Stanislas Dehaene and Jean-Pierre Changeux.
GNW argues that consciousness arises from a particular type of information processing—familiar from the early days of artificial intelligence, when specialized programs would access a small, shared repository of information. Whatever data were written onto this “blackboard” became available to a host of subsidiary processes: working memory, language, the planning module, and so on. According to GNW, consciousness emerges when incoming sensory information, inscribed onto such a blackboard, is broadcast globally to multiple cognitive systems—which process these data to speak, store or call up a memory or execute an action.
Integrated information theory (IIT), developed by Tononi and his collaborators, including me, has a very different starting point: experience itself. Each experience has certain essential properties. It is intrinsic, existing only for the subject as its “owner”; it is structured (a yellow cab braking while a brown dog crosses the street); and it is specific—distinct from any other conscious experience, such as a particular frame in a movie. Furthermore, it is unified and definite.
IIT also predicts that a sophisticated simulation of a human brain running on a digital computer cannot be conscious—even if it can speak in a manner indistinguishable from a human being.
Consciousness cannot be computed: it must be built into the structure of the system.
*********
-
You don't need to clutch at straws, guys! The video is well presented and makes valid points.
The point I am making is that Consciousness is more and more being seen as an elemental substratum of the universe rather than as a product of physical processes. Not just by spiritual people but also by philosophers and even many scientists.
-
You don't need to clutch at straws, guys! The video is well presented and makes valid points.
I watched a bit of the video and it's typical woo peddling. For example, it quotes this paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538094/) and then turns a mystery into a "therefore woo-magic". The abstract says "There is significant continuing progress, partially masked by confusing the different versions of the NBP." I couldn't be bothered to watch the rest.
The point I am making is that Consciousness is more and more being seen as an elemental substratum of the universe rather than as a product of physical processes. Not just by spiritual people but also by philosophers and even many scientists.
Then, I've no idea why you quoted the Scientific America article - it's all about consciousness being produced by the brain - but it made for an interesting read (even though it somewhat misrepresents Dennett's view at the start).
-
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-consciousness/
**********
The majority of scholars accept consciousness as a given and seek to understand its relationship to the objective world described by science.
We seek, in particular, the neuronal correlates of consciousness (NCC), defined as the minimal neuronal mechanisms jointly sufficient for any specific conscious experience. What must happen in your brain for you to experience a toothache, for example? Must some nerve cells vibrate at some magical frequency? Do some special “consciousness neurons” have to be activated? In which brain regions would these cells be located?
If the spinal cord is completely severed by trauma to the neck region, victims are paralyzed in legs, arms and torso, unable to control their bowel and bladder, and without bodily sensations. Yet these tetraplegics continue to experience life in all its variety—they see, hear, smell, feel emotions and remember as much as before the incident that radically changed their life.
Or consider the cerebellum, the “little brain” underneath the back of the brain.
What happens to consciousness if parts of the cerebellum are lost to a stroke or to the surgeon's knife? Very little! Cerebellar patients complain of several deficits, such as the loss of fluidity of piano playing or keyboard typing but never of losing any aspect of their consciousness. They hear, see and feel fine, retain a sense of self, recall past events and continue to project themselves into the future. Even being born without a cerebellum does not appreciably affect the conscious experience of the individual.
Fierce debates have arisen around the two most popular theories of consciousness. One is the global neuronal workspace (GNW) by psychologist Bernard J. Baars and neuroscientists Stanislas Dehaene and Jean-Pierre Changeux.
GNW argues that consciousness arises from a particular type of information processing—familiar from the early days of artificial intelligence, when specialized programs would access a small, shared repository of information. Whatever data were written onto this “blackboard” became available to a host of subsidiary processes: working memory, language, the planning module, and so on. According to GNW, consciousness emerges when incoming sensory information, inscribed onto such a blackboard, is broadcast globally to multiple cognitive systems—which process these data to speak, store or call up a memory or execute an action.
Integrated information theory (IIT), developed by Tononi and his collaborators, including me, has a very different starting point: experience itself. Each experience has certain essential properties. It is intrinsic, existing only for the subject as its “owner”; it is structured (a yellow cab braking while a brown dog crosses the street); and it is specific—distinct from any other conscious experience, such as a particular frame in a movie. Furthermore, it is unified and definite.
IIT also predicts that a sophisticated simulation of a human brain running on a digital computer cannot be conscious—even if it can speak in a manner indistinguishable from a human being.
Consciousness cannot be computed: it must be built into the structure of the system.
*********
I note your opening comment, 'The majority of scholars', I just asked Mr Google about scholars of 'Star Trek', there's, 'The Klingon Dictionary', 'The Physics of Star Trek', The Star Trek Book' and more a plenty lots of scholars there.
I dare say if you were to look hard enough you'd be able to find a collection of scholars that specialise on almost any subject there's bound to be some, you'd probably even find scholars heavily into woo, mind you Sriram the world is inclined and highly likely to be your oyster virtually everywhere you look for scholars of woo.
I forgot to say, wouldn't your horoscope have mentioned this post of mine to you today?
Cheers old boy, regards, ippy.
-
To sum up, atoms and molecules produce reactions. Reaction is not perception. Perception comprises awareness of reactions, not the reactions themselves.
-
AB,
To sum up, atoms and molecules produce reactions. Reaction is not perception. Perception comprises awareness of reactions, not the reactions themselves.
No.
-
To sum up, atoms and molecules produce reactions. Reaction is not perception. Perception comprises awareness of reactions, not the reactions themselves.
Awareness itself is a reaction, possibly to other reactions. If not, what do you think it is?
-
To sum up, atoms and molecules produce reactions. Reaction is not perception. Perception comprises awareness of reactions, not the reactions themselves.
Drivel.
-
To sum up, atoms and molecules produce reactions. Reaction is not perception. Perception comprises awareness of reactions, not the reactions themselves.
To sum up: you're still flogging the same old dead horse.
-
Awareness itself is a reaction, possibly to other reactions. If not, what do you think it is?
A miraculous gift from God which is beyond all human understanding.
-
AB,
A miraculous gift from God which is beyond all human understanding.
Thank you for your expression of incoherent, un-evidenced, un-argued, internally contradictory expression of blind faith.