Karma

[Udayana]

You are mistaking mechanisms for causes. If a car accelerates, you can explain it as petrol pouring into the engine and pistons moving faster etc. That is the mechanism. Or you can say that the person driving the car wants to go faster. That is the cause.

Why does the driver want to go faster and what is the cause of that .. ad infinitum.. . You can consider anything/everything as mechanism or cause. That is the meaning of karma for me.

[Udayana]

Very interesting.  The stuff on emotions seems to show that although obviously we have individual experiences of them, there is a 'standard code' which is shared across people.   I don't fully understand all this, but I would have thought that experiences of beauty and the like might be involved here.   It amazes me, when this exciting kind of research is going on, that people are still bleating on about the soul and other undiscoverable stuff. 

I also wonder if mirroring is involved here, i.e. that we share emotions and feelings, and experience empathy.

Indeed. Whilst we keep going around in circles trying, mainly, just to agree on definitions of words, there are swathes of  fascinating stuff that we can actually research and understand.

ETA: Yes, if we are storing/processing experiences and emotions in similar ways this could open many windows onto new ways of sharing them and whole mechanism of mirroring/empathy.

[wigginhall]

Indeed. Whilst we keep going around in circles trying, mainly, just to agree on definitions of words, there are swathes of  fascinating stuff that we can actually research and understand.

That's it.  I was involved in a research project in a stroke clinic, looking at the effects of brain damage on speech and language, and it makes you sit up and pay attention, because there are real people here with real problems.   And even more important, they are being helped because of the research.    The woman I knew who woke up and couldn't remember who she was, was rushed to hospital and treated immediately, and recovered.  This results from all this research, not sitting around on our backsides wondering if there's a soul. 

[Walter]

Indeed. Whilst we keep going around in circles trying, mainly, just to agree on definitions of words, there are swathes of  fascinating stuff that we can actually research and understand.

ETA: Yes, if we are storing/processing experiences and emotions in similar ways this could open many windows onto new ways of sharing them and whole mechanism of mirroring/empathy.

even though I have a scientific background there are some subjects I have no real interest in, and this is one of em.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

The woman I knew who woke up and couldn't remember who she was...

I regret to say that on several occasions I've woken up with a woman and I couldn't remember her name either... does that mean that my soul was malfunctioning, or that it had packed up and left as I was clearly on my way to Hell in any case?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Incidentally, this reminds me that my Mum has in recent years suffered two episodes of Global Transient Amnesia (GTA). It was very odd - she'd say, "Oh hello love, how are you?", and seconds later would say it again. In the end her husband and I wrote down the day's events ("You're having a GTA episode", "You went to the doctor's this morning", "He said there was nothing to worry about and it will pass soon", "Then you came home and had a cup of tea" etc) and we'd hand it to her to read as if afresh every few minutes.

It was interesting to see her respond to the same info sightly differently each time ("Oh yes, a GTA episode - I had that once before didn't I?", "Oh, a GTA episode, but I thought the doctor said last time that it wouldn't happen again" etc) - it was if nothing was being written in her short term memory, but throughout she knew who I was for example. Sure enough, after a few hours everything re-booted as it were and she was good as new.

Not sure how this fits with the conversation here, but it was unsettling and fascinating in equal measure. 

[torridon]

Surely there is a big unproven assumption here in that cortisone levels in a haddock correspond with sadness and joy as experienced by humans.  Cortisone levels in humans may well correlate with feelings of sadness and joy, but I put it to you that there could be more to these human emotions than mere chemicals in the brain.

Like we keep saying, science doesn't deal in proofs, it never will prove the experience of one individual is the same as that of another even if the brain structures appear identical.  It is what the evidence suggests that counts in science.  If we follow the evidence then we can learn from it.  Blanket denials will enlighten us none whatsoever.

Just going back to perception - is there any evidence of animals just pausing to appreciate the beauty of a sunset, or any other of nature's wonders?

Probably not, clearly aesthetic sense is one of the characterising aspects of human behaviour.  That's not to say we cannot trace some origins.  Flowers evolved to be beautiful long before humans were on the scene; they evolved their beauty to attract bees and pollinating insects not humans.  We can infer from that that primitive precursors of aesthetic sense evolved first in the tiny brain of a bee, just one million neurons.  How cool is that.

[Udayana]

Wiggs,

I regret to say that on several occasions I've woken up with a woman and I couldn't remember her name either... does that mean that my soul was malfunctioning, or that it had packed up and left as I was clearly on my way to Hell in any case?

... hmm .. was it the same woman each time ... ?

[torridon]

You are mistaking mechanisms for causes. If a car accelerates, you can explain it as petrol pouring into the engine and pistons moving faster etc. That is the mechanism. Or you can say that the person driving the car wants to go faster. That is the cause.

And where does the driver's desire to go faster come from ? Desires don't appear out of the blue, they are part of cause and effect. If I want to eat a hamburger, there is a reason, it is because I am hungry. It's in such insights that the notion of god runs into trouble; why would a god have wants, why would a god have preferences; these attributes would suggest too that god is party to cause and effect just like us.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Udayana,

... hmm .. was it the same woman each time ... ?

I can't remember!

[SusanDoris]

I've had several TIAs but fortunately no memory loss involved.

[Sebastian Toe]

Learnt experience in animals is a similar concept to the way chess playing computer software is designed not to make the same mistake twice.

Similar concept but not necessarily the same mechanism that  produces the results. Is it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

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. 
   
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.

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?

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.

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.

I'm not against emergence....just your complete misunderstanding of it and your following confusions.
Firstly your confusion between processing power and consciousness.
Secondly your confusion between reductionism and emergence.
Lastly your almost universal Darwinian idea that emergence evolves from the previous layer rather than appearing as a novel property which has no analogue at the previous layer.

Actually it gladdens me that your posts turn out to be predictable and lightweight and masterworks in gussying up the bleeding obvious.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

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.

I ignored it because I had already explained that you can't just make an empty assertion that it is some fallacy without explaining why, and so I wasn't going to repeat myself!

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. 

No it is not. But I'll try it with in future and see if you just say, "Ok, you win."

So yes I want you to engage in the point of what an argument and discussion is for and substantiate your position and unfounded assertions.

Your incredulity at consciousness emerging from the most complex structure in the universe we know of is a good example of one such.

This assertion of yours, about consciousness, is totally without merit. It beholds your arrogance in stating something as a fact when it is not. You and science have no idea where consciousness comes from or what it is.

[Jack Knave]

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.

That has nothing to do with consciousness.

[Jack Knave]

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.

I'm starting to think that what they are calling consciousness isn't consciousness at all but some technical fudge to redefine it in their favour.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm starting to think that what they are calling consciousness isn't consciousness at all but some technical fudge to redefine it in their favour.

Just to be clear, what are you calling consciousness?

[Jack Knave]

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.

No it's not, what a load of bollocks!!! Consciousness is about being self aware over and above these factors.

[wigginhall]

No it's not, what a load of bollocks!!! Consciousness is about being self aware.

Surely, that's self-consciousness.  Many animals are conscious of their surroundings, but less self-conscious than we are, although some may have a degree of it, cf. mirror tests.

[Jack Knave]

is there anybody on here actually qualified to talk about this stuff or am I to continue to be disappointed with half truths , fantasy, and bullshit?
no offence...

If you aren't qualified and don't know what the answer is then how will you recognize the correct answer when it is displayed?

[Jack Knave]

Not sure what you mean by 'direct'.   The brain has been studied now for a century at least, and we know that brain damage, whether caused by injury or disease, can have devastating consequences for various cognitive functions.  For example, I know someone who woke up one morning not knowing who she was.  I suppose you might argue that that is not intelligence, but if you sit with some people with dementia, there seems little doubt that some of their mental faculties are impaired.   I suppose you could still argue that there is 'something else' which determines cognition and intelligence, such as the soul, but we are still waiting for a research project into that.

Studies of children also seem to show that the maturing brain leads to developments in cognition, for example, language ability, perceptual skills, conceptual resources, and so on.  Again, you could argue that it's not the brain wot done it, I guess.

What I mean is that looking at the brain and MRI's etc. you can never see intelligence on the screen. All one sees are the changes that gone on. It's like saying that when one sees a tree bend in the wind it remembers that this is what a tree should do when the wind blows. The scientists are guilty of the same flaws and arguments as our ancestors are accused of giving the elements of nature spirits and so on. They see a neuron flicker when a person has a thought etc. and say hey presto consciousness!!!

[wigginhall]

What I mean is that looking at the brain and MRI's etc. you can never see intelligence on the screen. All one sees are the changes that gone on. It's like saying that when one sees a tree bend in the wind it remembers that this is what a tree should do when the wind blows. The scientists are guilty of the same flaws and arguments as our ancestors are accused of giving the elements of nature spirits and so on. They see a neuron flicker when a person has a thought etc. and say hey presto consciousness!!!

That's a caricature.  Neuroimaging is not as crude as that.   But there seems little doubt that it is giving insights into brain architecture, as it is built up from infancy.   Perhaps you could indicate how you see intelligence.

[Jack Knave]

Granted 'emergence' is high level a concept term, and there will be detail lower level mechanisms that can be described of how it arises.  For instance we describe wetness or fluidity as an emergent property of when you have many molecules of H2O together and we can describe in detail the mechanisms at the molecular level that give rise to the emergent property at the higher level.

It occurs to me that what we call emergent properties are in many cases just qualia. 

No ant is intelligent but ant colony makes decisions that have an intelligence that emerges from the combined interactions of many ants. We are justified in using the concept of emergence to study intelligence in brains not least because of the striking parallels of similar if less sophisticated examples of emergence thougout nature. It is not an unwarranted assumption out of the blue, it is the best way to model such processes.  At Bristol and other places, they are using specifically live ant colonies to study decision making in a brain, in which individual ants stand as an analogue for individual neurons.

That is instincts, something else we don't understand but is closely related to consciousness.

This was brought to me when doing a falconry course. The class was told about their Harris hawks, which they had breed them in house, when they saw a dog for the first time reacted alarmingly as they would in the wild to prairie dogs. I have heard of many things like this in my life time. The weirdest is the cuckoo who never sees its parents and yet knows how to fly to Africa when it fledges; the parents having gone months before. 

[Jack Knave]

eh ?

I don't see anything controversial in that.  The vast majority of the processes of consciousness are subliminal.  The conscious experience, by contrast, is a contrived retrospective phenomenon which results from largely subliminal preconscious processes.

Subliminal means below consciousness. It's an oxymoron. They can't be the same thing. It would be like say the sky and see are the same because they are both blue.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

No it isn't. A million stupid ants will make a colony, will cut leaves to farm a fungus for food, will create cemeteries for their dead etc. No single ant can envisage or plan these things though. Numbers matter a lot, and the "content" is what emerges with no design whatever from the constituent parts that produce it. Have a look at the Steven Johnson book I've referred to a couple of times here to understand it better.

But what they come up with each time is the same thing. It is called instincts. Could they come up with a new discovery in physics like Einstein did?