Karma

[Nearly Sane]

You are confusing perception with reaction.  Perception is not defined by brain activity.

prove it

[Gordon]

You are confusing perception with reaction.  Perception is not defined by brain activity.

Not confusing at all, since my perception of something (say something visual) and my reaction to it both involve brain activity: there is nowhere else for me to process either perceptions or reactions. So you'll need to explain how I can perceive anything other than via the activity in my brain - do tell.

No doubt this where you throw in your favourite fallacious 'soul' assertion: we've been here before of course.

[torridon]

You are confusing perception with reaction.  Perception is not defined by brain activity.

Perception is mediated by brain activity and all forms of perception derive ultimately from reactions that can be described at the simpler levels of biochemical and bioelectrical chains reactions. Imagine when a gazelle opens its eyes and sees a lion - it is a chain reaction starting from photons interacting with light sensitive proteins passing through levels of ganglia in the retina reaching the optic nerve where corresponding patterns of excitation are delivered ultimately into the mass of neurons in the occipital lobe.  Visual perception is that flood of derivative information propagating back and forth across the brain and although we might not understand the whole story as to how qualia emerge from this, the mechanisms are very well understood at the cellular level and we are gaining knowledge all the time at the structural levels that help us to understand how simple subconscious perception forms the basis of more cognitive perception.  Humans process levels of perception in basically the same way as a gazelle as we have the same base brain structure just with added frontal cortex that underwrite our characteristically human propensities.  All animals that can see, also do cognitive perception.  There would be no point in having eyes otherwise.

[torridon]

Emergent properties are not conscious, just a higher arrangement of the base constituents. In this case neurons and electrical impulses; not consciousness.

Most examples of emergence are not conscious, but it would seem that consciousness is one such.  Perhaps it is the flagship, the ultimate acheivement of the principle of emergence.  I've got lots and lots of brain cells in my head and not a single one of them is intelligent.  Somehow intelligence emerges out of their interaction.

[torridon]

Bad comparison.  Scientists can easily demonstrate that the force of gravity is directly linked to the mass of an object, and can use this relationship to accurately predict movements and orbits in the cosmos.  There is no such demonstrable relationship to show that consciousness is defined by the physical brain.  If conscious awareness is derived solely from physical brain activity it will be possible to replicate it, but science can't even define what conscious awareness is.  Just labelling it as an emergent property does not define it.  As I have said in earlier posts, conscious awareness would appear to be perception of brain activity.  I leave it to you to ponder what it is that perceives the content of our brain cells.

Yes, but that is just wrong. An apple falling on Newton's head does not prove gravity, it provides evidence for it.  With neuroscience, we study neural correlates, again there is no proof that the correlation is cause, but as with gravity that is what the evidence suggests.  We can always posit invisible magic beings pulling apples down off trees but this approach to enquiry will not prove fruitful, trust me on this; any puns here are purely unintentional.

[torridon]

  I asked you what 'information' means in the technical way some use it here.
There you go again, 'information flow'....?

The thing is that image is being observed by you! There is a 'you' seeing an image in your mind's eye; a subject-object relationship. You can't get away from that. And that image can't be held in the brain/neurons because its make-up is not geared to display pictures.

We need to think outside the box somewhat. Does Stonehenge exist ?  Well clearly yes, we can identify it's coordinates in spacetime, something of its mass, its constitution.  Does Mahler's Second Symphony exist ?  How much does it weigh, what is its temperature or its speed ? We can't put a finger on any of the traditional properties of existence for the Mahler 2 yet I am sure it exists, I have heard it many times, got recordings of it and have the score for it also.  It exists in a sense, and that sense is in information terms; it is an information product, and to understand the subtleties of mental experience that seem to have no mass we have to think of mental experience as information flow across and through a brain. Conscious experience is what information feels like if you could touch it.

And although there is a compelling feeling of a being 'inside' us giving rise to an intuition of dualism, that feeling of agency and personhood is itself a complex product of subliminal processes of consciousness according to neuroscience.  We know of this too from psychiatry - patients suffering from a breakdown of this process have a condition known as Cotard's syndrome, and they (quite wrongly) believe themselves to be dead, a most peculiar state of affairs,  These people are in effect real life philosophical zombies.  The mind is a focus of subjectivity and the sense of there being a 'person inside' arises from the brain's procurement, enrichment and synchronisation of that subjectivity.

[torridon]

I am not dismissing any true findings of science.

That the Self is an emergent property of biology is not a proven fact. It is an assumption made by science because it has nothing else to say.  In fact, the idea of 'emergent property' is itself iffy because no one knows why and how any emergent property arises.  It is just a 'cure all' plug that you can shove in anywhere.   It is a label we can fit onto anything that we don't understand. 

Life is a product of chemistry is again an assumption made by science. Not a proven fact. This is an 'emergent property' too. 

Science has not concluded or proved that consciousness is a product of the brain. It only assumes that because it has no other option, given its limited scope. Again an emergent property.

None of the above prove anything. Anything can be called an emergent property without the need to explain it further. A panacea for all ills!

Since when did science claim to deal in proofs ?  Science deals with evidence, with probabilities, but not certainties.  Sure, science has not proved this, that or the other, but that is no excuse for failing to take account of what the evidence suggests.  That's all you are doing, failing to do due diligence in respect of the body of knowledge that we have gained through enquiry and using the lack of total complete proof as your excuse for ignoring the evidence.  Better to value what we have learned, put education to good use, rather than ignore it and hope it will go away.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, but that is just wrong. An apple falling on Newton's head does not prove gravity, it provides evidence for it.  With neuroscience, we study neural correlates, again there is no proof that the correlation is cause, but as with gravity that is what the evidence suggests.  We can always posit invisible magic beings pulling apples down off trees but this approach to enquiry will not prove fruitful, trust me on this; any puns here are purely unintentional.

Where else would you find magical invisible beings pulling apples off a tree except in the post of a antitheist in need of a straw man?

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

Emergent properties are not conscious, just a higher arrangement of the base constituents. In this case neurons and electrical impulses; not consciousness.

The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons (or nerve cells) and many more neuroglia (or glial cells). Each neuron may be connected to up to 10,000 other neurons, passing signals to each other via as many as 1,000 trillion synaptic connections, estimated to be equivalent to a computer with a 1 trillion bit per second processor.

Why does it overstretch your credulity so much that from such astonishing complexity consciousness emerges?

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

You can't do that without explaining in detail why and where the opponents argument falls down. You can't just claim its an argument from personal incredulity and leave it at that. A valid response to this would be two extended fingers!!! Your approach here is like Labour's when they just shouted racist at anyone who raised the issue of immigration and expected them to shut up so they didn't have to discuss the matter.

First, what you accused me of was an ad hom, which I rebutted by explaining what the term actually means. As you’re now silent on that, I’ll take it that you’ve resiled from the charge.

Second, actually for the most part just identifying the logical flaw in an argument is sufficient. The assumption is that the protagonist knows enough logic to realise where he’s tripped over his laces and to withdraw. If you really want me to walk you through the logical fallacies you use when you use them though, I can readily do so. Your incredulity at consciousness emerging from the most complex structure in the universe we know of is a good example of one such. 

Neither can you throw in a load of jargon as if that clears things up. Something else politicians do: "We're progressive so that makes us good"   

Come on Blue you can do better than this.....yeah?

It’s hardly “jargon” I’d have thought, but ok. I’ll try to speak ore plainly in future.

[Alan Burns]

Perception is mediated by brain activity and all forms of perception derive ultimately from reactions that can be described at the simpler levels of biochemical and bioelectrical chains reactions. Imagine when a gazelle opens its eyes and sees a lion - it is a chain reaction starting from photons interacting with light sensitive proteins passing through levels of ganglia in the retina reaching the optic nerve where corresponding patterns of excitation are delivered ultimately into the mass of neurons in the occipital lobe.  Visual perception is that flood of derivative information propagating back and forth across the brain and although we might not understand the whole story as to how qualia emerge from this, the mechanisms are very well understood at the cellular level and we are gaining knowledge all the time at the structural levels that help us to understand how simple subconscious perception forms the basis of more cognitive perception.  Humans process levels of perception in basically the same way as a gazelle as we have the same base brain structure just with added frontal cortex that underwrite our characteristically human propensities.  All animals that can see, also do cognitive perception.  There would be no point in having eyes otherwise.

A computer can be programmed to react to image patterns just as a gazelle would, but there is nothing in the computer process which can be defined as conscious perception.  The flood of derivative information propagating back and forth across the brain just comprises lots of discrete chemical reactions.  This "derivative information" can only be described as such by human perception and interpretation of these patterns of chemical activity.  Human perception does not require physical reaction, just conscious awareness of what is in our brain.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

JK,

The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons (or nerve cells) and many more neuroglia (or glial cells). Each neuron may be connected to up to 10,000 other neurons, passing signals to each other via as many as 1,000 trillion synaptic connections, estimated to be equivalent to a computer with a 1 trillion bit per second processor.

Why does it overstretch your credulity so much that from such astonishing complexity consciousness emerges?

Yes but you could have that complexity without consciousness. So the question is how does consciousness come into it.
Just saying complexity .......and then hey presto.....consciousness seems inadequate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Bad comparison.  Scientists can easily demonstrate that the force of gravity is directly linked to the mass of an object, and can use this relationship to accurately predict movements and orbits in the cosmos.  There is no such demonstrable relationship to show that consciousness is defined by the physical brain.

No, it’s a good comparison. “Science” can observe the effects of gravity, just as it can now model at the quantum level cellular activity in the brain. The point though is that both are models, albeit hugely well supported by evidence. Science doesn’t deal in proofs.

If conscious awareness is derived solely from physical brain activity it will be possible to replicate it, but science can't even define what conscious awareness is.

That’s called a non sequitur. To duplicate the human brain we’d need a computer with a 1 trillion bit per second processor – something beyond our ability to construct just now.

Just labelling it as an emergent property does not define it.  As I have said in earlier posts, conscious awareness would appear to be perceptionof brain activity.  I leave it to you to ponder what it is that perceives the content of our brain cells.

It might well appear that way, but fortunately for human understanding those who actually study and think about these matters have long since realised that the Cartesian mind/brain separation is illusory.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Yes but you could have that complexity without consciousness. So the question is how does consciousness come into it.
Just saying complexity .......and then hey presto.....consciousness seems inadequate.

My advice to you is that same as that I gave to Sriram earlier on: try reading Steven Johnson’s “Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software”.

Seriously - it’s an entertaining read anyway, and it’ll also explain why your understanding of emergence is wrong. In short, there’s no Hey Presto! about it, for the same reason that termites don't need theodolites and blueprints (let alone a Hey Presto!) to build their mounds. I'll grant you that it's counter-intuitive to start with, but you'll get the hang of it I'm sure.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A computer can be programmed to react to image patterns just as a gazelle would, but there is nothing in the computer process which can be defined as conscious perception.

That's currently true, but probably wouldn't be if we had a computer complex enough to do the job. The human brain is essentially a meat computer - only a fantastically complex one.

[Walter]

AB,

That's currently true, but probably wouldn't be if we had a computer complex enough to do the job. The human brain is essentially a meat computer - only a fantastically complex one.

Blue

you meat head!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

My advice to you is that same as that I gave to Sriram earlier on: try reading Steven Johnson’s “Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software”.

Seriously - it’s an entertaining read anyway, and it’ll also explain why your understanding of emergence is wrong. In short, there’s no Hey Presto! about it, for the same reason that termites don't need theodolites and blueprints (let alone a Hey Presto!) to build their mounds. I'll grant you that it's counter-intuitive to start with, but you'll get the hang of it I'm sure.

I don't believe I gave a definition of emergence Hillside. Hopefully your recommended reading is not a rehash of reduction gussying up the power of the previous level and getting emergence merely by piling on more atoms, molecules or even neurons.At least you are man enough to admit you aren't up to th job of explaining.

You seem to be saying that processing power equals consciousness. That is warmed over reductionism. Piling on extra bits.

If my maths is right today's computers need to have 200 times more power  to be conscious.
It has been said that animals with far less brainpower have some consciousness. Why then do computers not have consciousness albeit lesser?

You seem to be mistaking intelligence for consciousness. In other worlds how can you be certain that processing speed results in emergence of consciousness? I'm afraid You are relying on a hey presto.

[Sriram]

Since when did science claim to deal in proofs ?  Science deals with evidence, with probabilities, but not certainties.  Sure, science has not proved this, that or the other, but that is no excuse for failing to take account of what the evidence suggests.  That's all you are doing, failing to do due diligence in respect of the body of knowledge that we have gained through enquiry and using the lack of total complete proof as your excuse for ignoring the evidence.  Better to value what we have learned, put education to good use, rather than ignore it and hope it will go away.

torridon,

You are still not getting the point....  Let me try one last time....

I have no problems with what science has discovered. I am not defending any religious mythology that conflicts with scientific findings.

I accept everything that science has to offer....but I don't think science has yet ...or will ever...find answers to questions that are fundamental. Now...please DON'T argue that... 'if science does not find suitable answers, then the questions themselves are wrong'. I cannot agree with that type of thinking. It has a fanatical ring to it that  hardly does any credit to  a person on a quest.

I am of the view that subjects like The Self, Consciousness, After-life, God etc. are not amenable for investigation by science...not just because we don't yet have the technology....but because they are fundamentally outside the scope that science has set for itself. But regardless of that, some overlapping areas can perhaps be touched by science and technology. NDE investigation, reincarnation surveys etc. are some examples of these overlapping areas.

Nobody has yet explained Consciousness or Self. Scientists just assume that it is something generated by the brain itself because that's all they can see.  Just because you see your computer  screen displaying my messages, it does not mean that your computer screen is generating these messages. There are lots of things that we cannot sense directly but which exist nevertheless.

Therefore, philosophical speculation (or even a hypothesis) is perfectly valid in such matters as long as they do not conflict with the findings of science.

As I have said earlier...Spirit/soul, God, After-life...are concepts that do not conflict with anything yet discovered by science. They however do explain many of our day to day experiences, as also many extraordinary ones like NDE's, spontaneous healing, paranormal phenomena, ESP and many other such things. Life and death  acquire a meaning and purpose.

These concepts also explain many evolutionary, biological and physical observations ....such as....

1. DNA replication and the very existence of the survival, procreation and parental instincts.   

2. The fact that tiny molecules such as DNA can perform such feats as we can see is a miracle in itself.

3. Arising of complexity...all the way up to humans.

4. The Unconsciousness mind and its powerful influence in our lives. The unconscious mind virtually leads and the conscious mind follows.

5. Bizarre quantum phenomena such as entanglement, non local influence, observation affecting quantum states etc.

6. The uncanny coordination and interdependence in the eco system

7. The Anthropic Principle and the fine tuning of the universe.

and many other observations...

Also, present day scientists are beginning to think of such ideas as Biocentrism, Participatory Anthropic Principle, Simulated universe etc...which lend support to the idea that the world is not what it seems. There are many underlying forces and influences that are not apparent to us and these cannot be explained purely by relying on the Brain, Natural Selection, Emergent property and such other simplistic cure-all explanations that mainstream scientists have hitherto managed with.

That is all I have to say in the matter.

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

A computer can be programmed to react to image patterns just as a gazelle would, but there is nothing in the computer process which can be defined as conscious perception.  The flood of derivative information propagating back and forth across the brain just comprises lots of discrete chemical reactions.  This "derivative information" can only be described as such by human perception and interpretation of these patterns of chemical activity.  Human perception does not require physical reaction, just conscious awareness of what is in our brain.

Our current breed of desktops I agree fall way short of the complexity required for conscious perception, but that is because they are not architected and programmed with that end in mind.  But things are moving in that direction; there are already companies that have an artificial intelligence machine on their board with equal voting rights to the human directors.  There is nothing special about carbon compounds in their ability to host information flow which is what consciousness is at base. And in nature it is not a human-only thing; we are conscious because mammals are conscious and we are mammals and have a mammalian brain. Any gazelle that was incapable of conscious perception would quickly become lunch and exclude its genes from the pool.  We share common ancestry with the gazelle and so have inherited the same base cognitive abilities that are widespread throughout the animal kingdom.

[torridon]

Also, present day scientists are beginning to think of such ideas as Biocentrism, Participatory Anthropic Principle, Simulated universe etc...which lend support to the idea that the world is not what it seems. There are many underlying forces and influences that are not apparent to us and these cannot be explained purely by relying on the Brain, Natural Selection, Emergent property and such other simplistic cure-all explanations that mainstream scientists have hitherto managed with.

Sriram

Maybe it is the 'simplistic' explanations that we should be seeking.  In the sense that complexity arises from simpler origins, to understand something complex we need to understand its constituents.  Long ago, we used to think that the diversity of life forms were too complex and too varied to be explained by anything other than divine intervention.  But now we know that speciation happens through repeated simple insentient processes.  In fact now we can admit that the wonders of life are too wonderful and complex to have been 'designed' by an 'intelligent designer' - this is known as Orgel's Second Rule - 'evolution is smarter that you are' meaning that design through blind trial and error and selection is better than design by intelligent thinking in the long run.  This is such a profound insight and it speaks to the exact heart of why the entire concept of theism is wrong headed.  It is to the simpler underlying processes we should be looking to understand rather than positing some impossible being or beings who made everything just because they are really really clever. 

The concept of emergence too is related; it is not some convenient get out trick for diehard god-dodgers, it is fundamental to understanding why simpler things lead to more complex things and has wide application from biochemistry to cellular biology all the way up to the Gaia hypothesis, possibly.  Because of emergence, a cosmos will tend to produce complexity in the short and medium term, this is a logical inevitability.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe it is the 'simplistic' explanations that we should be seeking.  In the sense that complexity arises from simpler origins, to understand something complex we need to understand its constituents.  Long ago, we used to think that the diversity of life forms were too complex and too varied to be explained by anything other than divine intervention.  But now we know that speciation happens through repeated simple insentient processes.  In fact now we can admit that the wonders of life are too wonderful and complex to have been 'designed' by an 'intelligent designer' - this is known as Orgel's Second Rule - 'evolution is smarter that you are' meaning that design through trial and error and selection is better than design by intelligent thinking in the long run.  This is such a profound insight and it speaks to the exact heart of why the entire concept of theism is wrong headed.  It is to the simpler underlying processes we should be looking to understand rather than positing some impossible being or beings who made everything just because they are really really clever. 

The concept of emergence too is related; it is not some convenient get out trick, it is fundamental to understanding why simpler things lead to more complex things and has wide application from biochemistry to cellular biology all the way up to the Gaia hypothesis, possibly.  Because of emergence, a cosmos will tend to produce complexity in the short and medium term, this is a logical inevitability.

You seem to be mistaking intelligence for consciousness.
Am I right in thinking though that consciousness is down to the organisation of neurons rather than number?

[torridon]

You seem to be mistaking intelligence for consciousness.
Am I right in thinking though that consciousness is down to the organisation of neurons rather than number?

The two concepts are related and both are related to brain size to some degree.  Consciousness is measured in neuroscience by the degree of integration of cross brain neural processes, known as the perturbational complexity index, or PCI for short.

[SusanDoris]

That our biology extends to being able to think in visual terms without an immediate visual stimulus: in your mind s eye, so to speak. I certainly thing I dream visually so that seems like an example of an emergent property, and I'd be interested to know if blind people who were previously sighted are still able to imagine in a visual sense.

I am not totally blind, as you know, but some colours, even if I turn my head to the left so that they are right at the right-hand edge, are almost impossible to see.   In dreams, the colours remain as bright as they were when I was sighted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

I don't believe I gave a definition of emergence Hillside. Hopefully your recommended reading is not a rehash of reduction gussying up the power of the previous level and getting emergence merely by piling on more atoms, molecules or even neurons.

There’s nothing “gussying up” about it. It’s an observable fact that complex arrangements come from simple but related components. If, say, you want to open a silk pyjamas shop you probably won’t want a rival silk pyjamas shop to open next door and taking some of your business. On the other hand, if people think the area is the one to go to for their silk pyjamas that’ll attract more customers in your general direction. The optimum therefore is to have a rival nearby, but not so nearby that he takes away business from you.

And that’s exactly what happens – over time complex patterns of retail locations will emerge (and maybe silk weavers will move it too, and then silk lingerie sellers and so on). And if demand in general is high enough, competitors will tend to be close to each other – think of the restaurants in Chinatown for example – and vice versa.

The point though is that no-one designs it that way. There’s no “reductionism” from a master planner – it’s all bottom up, which essentially is how emergence is defined. 
   

At least you are man enough to admit you aren't up to th job of explaining.

Don’t be ridiculous. I’ve explained it to you several times, but you just ignore the explanations and repeat your misunderstanding of it. That’s why I pointed you to a book in the hope that it’ll finally sink in.

You seem to be saying that processing power equals consciousness. That is warmed over reductionism. Piling on extra bits.

It’s no such thing because there’s no need for anything to reduce from. Is the fact of sophisticated termite mounds made by much simpler components (the termites) “warmed over reductionism” in your view too?

Why not?

If my maths is right today's computers need to have 200 times more power  to be conscious.

It has been said that animals with far less brainpower have some consciousness. Why then do computers not have consciousness albeit lesser?

First, that’s not the way computers have been designed (at least historically, though machine consciousness is an active area of research now) but second, it depends what you mean by “conscious”. We already have computers that are as “conscious” as, say, some insects, and there’s no reason to think that the trend won’t continue up the evolutionary scale.

You seem to be mistaking intelligence for consciousness. In other worlds how can you be certain that processing speed results in emergence of consciousness? I'm afraid You are relying on a hey presto.

Then you’re afraid wrongly, as you’d know if you bothered reading about the subject. Emergence happens pretty much everywhere you look where there are connected simple components – insects, city planning, software heuristics, you name it.  It’s a well-understood and well-evidenced phenomenon, and there’s evidence for it too in simple forms of consciousness. It provides a perfectly rational and comprehensible model for human consciousness, and the objections to it seem to be to be solipsistic and romanticised: “But I can’t be just an arrangement of stuff. I’m me!” etc. 

However much incredulity and misapprehension you throw at it, and however much you have not one jot of reason or evidence for something instead to reduce from, them’s the facts nonetheless.

[Nearly Sane]

Being is the driver of peace.

Chi is a constant. We grow, we believe, we are reborn.

The quantum matrix is calling to you via sonar energy. Can you hear it?

It is in summoning that we are reborn. We must learn how to lead mystical lives in the face of selfishness. We are being called to explore the cosmos itself as an interface between love and freedom.


You may be ruled by illusion without realizing it. Do not let it eradicate the knowledge of your path. Illusion is born in the gap where life has been excluded. Yes, it is possible to confront the things that can shatter us, but not without aspiration on our side.

We exist as sonar energy. Nothing is impossible. By condensing, we heal.

It can be difficult to know where to begin.
Consciousness consists of supercharged waveforms of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a redefining of the eternal. This life is nothing short of a summoning quantum shift of consciousness-expanding divinity. The quantum matrix is overflowing with morphogenetic fields.

The grid is approaching a tipping point. We must strengthen ourselves and inspire others. Shiva will enable us to access Vedic science.

http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/