Dynamical Neuroscience: Wiki Article Entry - Input Needed

[rhody]

And there are no surprises in Damasio's talk - except where he says the optic nerve apparently exits throught the foveal pit.

You are a stickler for the smallest slip or detail, aperion, I imagine Damasio would not like to work for you.

Rhody...

 

[Pythagorean]

chaos, stable chaos, or transient chaos[/B] (Pythagorean, did I get your attention ).

The interesting thing I read in the abstract of that paper, just in general (ignoring for a moment the brain and "focusing" on the whole universe) is that irregularity can arise from a system that is not either chaotic or stochastic. (you had me at "free!").

 

[rhody]

I'd be interested to know what you think of Holland and Goodman's proposal.

Thanks atty, concerning the topic of "self", I scanned sections of Holland's and Goodman's proposal. I think this section pretty much sums it up, my interpretation, from page 14. In 1999, Damasio proposed a neurologically based theory of consciousness, summarized by Churchland in 2002 in a paper examining self-representation in nervous systems:

...that the self/nonself distinction, originally designed to support coherencing, it ultimately responsible for consciousness. Simply put, a brain whose wiring enables it to distinguish between inner-world and outer-world representations and to build a metarepresentational model of the relation between out and and inner entities is a brain enjoying some degree of consciousness.

Essentially that the self-representation's relations to representation of things in the world lead's to consciousness.

I like efficient, pithy language to describe human consciousness, and the concept of "self". Whether or not this theory lives up to testable/repeatable experiment(s) is another matter. I for one would like to see a "test for consciousness" and "test for self" created. It may not be possible, because it challenges my notion of what is possible, and that cannot be a bad thing.

P.S. I am listening to Patricia Churchland's talk now...

Rhody...

 

[rhody]

atty,

Thanks for The Science Network link, circa 2009. Churchland's talk was interesting as was the follow on speaker's. A whole new sandbox of characters to consider, I loved the hosts comment's at one point during question and answer, "Another addition to our mound of bafflement's". Pretty much sums up my thoughts. I did learn one thing, the thought process into what attributes that collectively contribute to what we recognize as "consciousness" is farther outside of the box by these researcher's than I ever imagined.

Example, a certain species of fly sleeps, and has been shown to twitch it's lower legs during sleep. The implication here is that REM sleep is necessary for consciousness and that this species of fly shares that with human's. Suggesting that REM sleep and insect leg twitching are somehow related. I would say that is outside the box, wouldn't you ?

Rhody...

 

[atyy]

rhody, my own view is that consciousness is essentially solved - I'll buy the Damasio, and Holland and Goodman approach. Maybe high tc superconductivity is more mysterious.

I would like to know how I am a strange loop fits in though. It seems closely related, but I am not sure whether inifinity is needed - perhaps as some sort of limit, analogous to phase transitions in which the thermodynamic limit exists in theory, but not exactly in real life - or the reflections in a pair of mirrors where true infinity is spoilt by atomic structure.

 

[Pythagorean]

A Good Grounding paper:

The Complex Systems Approach: Rhetoric or Revolution
Chris Eliasmith
Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo
Received 4 February 2011; accepted 14 February 2011

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01169.x/pdf

rhody, my own view is that consciousness is essentially solved - I'll buy the Damasio, and Holland and Goodman approach.

Would you mind posting some references and your own summary of the solution? Due next Friday. : )

 

[rhody]

Would you mind posting some references and your own summary of the solution? Due next Friday. : )

Cute Pythagorean, I like it.

Rhody... :tongue:

 

[PPagan]

Hello All,
I am a newbie here--happened to be passing through and got interested. Apologies in advance if this is not the right venue for this question, but I was struck by the claim that the problem of consciousness is solved. Do you distinguish between the question of how self-representation is achieved by the brain, and the question of how actual conscious experience ("qualia", if you like) arises out of brain function?
Thanks

 

[atyy]

Good lord, do people have no sense of humour?

 

[Pythagorean]

Good lord, do people have no sense of humour?

You mean that watery fluid in the eye between the lens and the cornea?

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't really have a sense for it, but I memorized the humorism table

 

[PPagan]

OK extremely embarrassed...

 

[Pythagorean]

"Is There Chaos in the Brain?", parts I and II:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11558325

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14694754

 

[Pythagorean]

Currently, the top featured paper this month for Nature Neuroscience is:

Bump attractor dynamics in prefrontal cortex explains behavioral precision in spatial working memory
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v17/n3/full/nn.3645.html

 

[AgentSmith]

Consciousness

atty,

Example, a certain species of fly sleeps, and has been shown to twitch it's lower legs during sleep. The implication here is that REM sleep is necessary for consciousness and that this species of fly shares that with human's. Suggesting that REM sleep and insect leg twitching are somehow related. I would say that is outside the box, wouldn't you ?

Rhody...

The implication makes at least two, perhaps three assumptions. Further, the use of the word consciousness in this discussion as if there was only one kind and of one degree is unwarranted.