The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach

[quantumcarl]

Doctordick

I really think you should do some reading on these issues. The relationship between science and philosophy is far more subtle than you seem to think, and in the end they cannot be considered separate modes of enquiry, but interdependent ones.

On consciousness you're way off. If the issues were as simple as you say they are then there wouldn't be a scientific 'problem of consciousness'. Professional scientists and philosophers are not such fools that they haven't considered the arguments that you're making here. They have considered them thoroughly and they don't work. Certainly you can't just say that doing things to brains affects conscious experience and this proves that consciousness is explicable by neuroscience. Would that it were so simple.

If you doubt this then try coming up with a means by which a we could demonstrate scientifically that consciousnesas exists, or coming up with a scientific definition of it. You'll find yourself in trouble almost immediately.

Crick, for instance, finds the definition problem so hard that he proposes that scientists should not try to define it until they know what it is. In the meantime we're stuck with 'what it is like', which is not a scientific definition.

At this time it is not necessary for anybody to prove that conscious has a non-physicalist explanation. Rather it is up to scientists to prove it possible that it could have a strictly physicalist explanation, whatever the technical details. So far all attempts have failed. They will always fail, because you cannot explain the existence of something using a method that is not capable of showing that the thing exists.

Hi Canute, I'm not sure if you're the guy who told me about how its impossible to say the sky is blue due to the "problem of consciousness". I have capitulated somewhat toward your side of the plate on the matter in that:

Two choices: Experience is valid as evidence. Experience is invalid as evidence.

Consciousness is a result of experience/stimulation. (A brain is a big wad of mush without stimulation and furthermore, experience).

Individually, singularly and personally each person experiences a consciousness of, say, the barometer dropping, the VU meter jumping or the light changing colour or the cornflakes being stale.

This is the individual's experience. There's no way to prove the experience happened. You could hook up to an EEG or MRI or CT scan and you might see EEG needles moving and visual confirmation of areas of the brain at work but, there is no evidence that an experience has taken place or that a consciousness has been implemented. There's no picture of a stale Tony The Tiger, draped in milk, hovering over the cerebral cortex.

In fact there exists no proof that a VU meter has fallen, a barometer has risen, a light changed or cornflakes exist. Its all hear-say. Someone tells you the light changed; if you didn't see it yourself did it change? And if you did see the light change there's no telling whether or not you changed your perception of the light's colour by some subconscious desire. Does the light actually exist?

You have to prove, beyond the reasonable doubt, that evidence (interpretations, publications, verbal reports and so on) of experiences is proof that an experience happened and that a conscousness perceived the experience.

No one can do that. If they can, please explain.

 

[Canute]

I think it all depends on what you mean by 'proof'. Normally what we mean is 'proof by demonstration', by which definition you are right, we cannot demonstrate that experience/consciousness exists.

However we know from philosophers and mathematicians that certain knowledge is not attained via this sort of proof, but rather from self-evidence (as you say, we cannot prove the meter has fallen etc.) That is, our reasoning about the world must start from axioms or assumptions, and the very best we can ever hope to get for a secure axiom is one that is self-evident, one that is therefore not provable by demonstration.

So, as you say, it is true that we cannot demonstrate that experiences exist. However it is self-evident to us that they do exist, and therefore we can be more certain of their existence than we can of of the existence of anything else. (This is equivalent to saying that solipsism is unfalsifiable). So although we cannot derive a proof that experiences exist by deriving their existence from some axiom-set within a formal system of symbols and logical rules we can nevertheless verify with certainty that they do exist, i.e. prove it to ourselves.

Because of this it is not quite correct to say that nobody can prove beyond reasonable doubt that experiences exist. Nobody can demonstrate it, but anybody can verify it beyond possible doubt. By analogy, I know what a piano sounds like, but I can't demonstrate to someone else what it sounds like. Either they have had the experience of hearing one and know what it sounds like, or they haven't and don't. But one cannot argue from this that a piano doesn't have a sound.

You say that consciousness is the result of stimulation, by which I take it you mean caused by brain. I agree that the differences between our states of experience may be caused by differences between brain-states. We know that there is a high degree of correlation between brain and mind. However it does not follow from this that consciousness is caused by brain. This is because the consciousness that experiences all these different states is common to all of them and is therefore more fundamental than any of them. In other words, brain states may explain the contents of consciousness, what we are conscious of at any time, but as yet there is no evidence that they cause consciousness itself, the container of the contents, our ability to experience such states.

 

[quantumcarl]

I think it all depends on what you mean by 'proof'. Normally what we mean is 'proof by demonstration', by which definition you are right, we cannot demonstrate that experience/consciousness exists.

However we know from philosophers and mathematicians that certain knowledge is not attained via this sort of proof, but rather from self-evidence (as you say, we cannot prove the meter has fallen etc.) That is, our reasoning about the world must start from axioms or assumptions, and the very best we can ever hope to get for a secure axiom is one that is self-evident, one that is therefore not provable by demonstration.

So, as you say, it is true that we cannot demonstrate that experiences exist. However it is self-evident to us that they do exist, and therefore we can be more certain of their existence than we can of of the existence of anything else. (This is equivalent to saying that solipsism is unfalsifiable). So although we cannot derive a proof that experiences exist by deriving their existence from some axiom-set within a formal system of symbols and logical rules we can nevertheless verify with certainty that they do exist, i.e. prove it to ourselves.

Because of this it is not quite correct to say that nobody can prove beyond reasonable doubt that experiences exist. Nobody can demonstrate it, but anybody can verify it beyond possible doubt. By analogy, I know what a piano sounds like, but I can't demonstrate to someone else what it sounds like. Either they have had the experience of hearing one and know what it sounds like, or they haven't and don't. But one cannot argue from this that a piano doesn't have a sound.

You say that consciousness is the result of stimulation, by which I take it you mean caused by brain. I agree that the differences between our states of experience may be caused by differences between brain-states. We know that there is a high degree of correlation between brain and mind. However it does not follow from this that consciousness is caused by brain. This is because the consciousness that experiences all these different states is common to all of them and is therefore more fundamental than any of them. In other words, brain states may explain the contents of consciousness, what we are conscious of at any time, but as yet there is no evidence that they cause consciousness itself, the container of the contents, our ability to experience such states.

This is a very well thought out response. Thank you. I could only add that consciousness seems to need an environment to exist. The vessel of consciousness could be all of the physical universe, including neurons, neurotransmitters and regulating genes. It may be one of those things where the sum of the parts equals the whole (of consciousness).

However, your point about the self-evident reminded me that perception is required for self-evidence and perception is often mis-leading to the point of being down right incorrect. Cross-referencing can help but who's to say the references are not simply self-directed and biased illusions?

 

[Canute]

Perhaps consciousness needs an environment to exist. Certainly our human selves need such an environment. However it seems likely that there is at least one thing that exists that is capable of providing its own environment, otherwise nothing would exist. This is because the scientific evidence suggest that once space and time did not exist and, unless one accepts ex nihilo creation, this implies, or at least suggests, that there may be something that can exist without even spacetime for an environment.

I agree that on the evidence the physical universe as a whole could be a vessel for consciousness but then on the evidence, in principle at least, it could be the other way around.

To say that self-evidence requires perception is not correct. All it requires is a self and some experiential evidence. The evidence of our senses is not trustworthy, as you say, so inevitably any knowledge of the physical universe gained through our senses cannot be considered self-evident knowledge. However, having said that it seems self-evident that we have the ability to perceive, even if we are mistaken about what we are perceiving. For instance, everything that Neo perceives in the Matrix is an illusion, but his ability to perceive is not an illusion.

 

[Philocrat]

The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach, by Christof Koch

"Product Description:
Consciousness is one of science’s last great unsolved mysteries. How can the salty taste and crunchy texture of potato chips, the unmistakable smell of dogs after they have been in the rain, or the exhilarating feeling of hanging on tiny fingerholds many feet above the last secure foothold on a cliff, emerge from networks of neurons and their associated synaptic and molecular processes? In The Quest for Consciousness, Caltech neuroscientist Christof Koch explores the biological basis of the subjective mind in animals and people. He outlines a framework that he and Francis Crick (of the "double helix") have constructed to come to grips with the ancient mind-body problem. At the heart of their framework is a sustained, empirical approach to discovering and characterizing the neuronal correlates of consciousness – the NCC – the subtle, flickering patterns of brain activity that underlie each and every conscious experience."

I am impressed by the brief review of this. Up till today many philosophers and scientists still regard JOHN LOCKE's maxim 'THE MIND IS LIKE A BLANK TABLET UPON WHICH EXPERIENCE WRITES' as intellectually naive or some sort of iddle talk. One issue that neuroscience must subsequently decide is how visual states are produced by these hierarchically structured classes of neurons and projected upon what may be vaguely construed as something equivalent to Locke's 'Blank Tablet Mind'. Infact, there is more to this than just being a single blank screen upon which neurally composed visual states are projected. Analogously, it is something equivalent to a blank screen or tablet, but scientifically it is MULTI-MODAL in scope and in substance.

"To me, the most astonishing aspect of this theory is that it is astonishing to anyone. Where else could the mind be but in the brain? Nevertheless, finding the neuronal correlates of consciousness (NCC) has proved elusive, so instead of concocting a grand unified theory, Koch and Crick undertook a very specific research program focusing on the visual system, to understand precisely how photons of light striking your retina become fully integrated visual experiences. Koch and his colleagues, for example, discovered a single neuron that fires only when the subject sees an image of President Bill Clinton. If this neuron died, would Clinton be impeached from the brain? No, because the visual representation of Clinton is distributed throughout several areas of the brain, in a hierarchical fashion, eventually branching down to this single neuron. The visual coding of any face involves several groups of neurons--one to identify the face, another to read its expression, a third to track its motion, and so on. This hierarchy of data processing allows the brain to economize neural activity through the use of combinatorics: "Assume that two face neurons responded either not at all or by firing vigorously. Between them, they could represent four faces (one face is encoded by both cells not firing, the second one by firing activity in one and silence in the other, and so on). Ten neurons could encode 210, or about a thousand faces... It has been calculated that less than one hundred neurons are sufficient to distinguish one out of thousands of faces in a robust manner. Considering that there are around 100,000 cells below a square millimeter of cortex, the potential representational capacity of anyone cortical region is enormous." Given that the brain has about 100 billion neurons, consciousness is most likely an emergent property of these hierarchical and combinatoric neuronal connections. How, precisely, the NCC produce qualia remains to be explained, but Koch's scientific approach, in my opinion, is the only one that will solve the hard problem."

If things are as so described here, you also need a SECOND-CATIGORY CLASS OF NEURONS that minitor and ochaestrate all the identified and described classess of neurons reponsible for the actual visual composition of all these mutli-modal visual states. Consequently, this would manifest into a MULTI-MODAL VISUAL COMPOSITION OF VISUAL DATA AND A MULTI-MODAL PROJECTION INTO MULTI-MODAL VISUAL SCREENS. For example, does the raw visual data obtained from the eyes neuro-computationally manipulated and projected back to the same eye for the final process of perceiving, recognising and understanding what is seen, or are they projected elsewhere? Are PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDES (Awareness About Awareness), for example, created and projected in this way?

NOTE: The fundamental philosophical and scientific issue at stake here is not about how visual states, propositional attitudes and the lots are neuro-computationally composed in a multi-modal manner as so described, rather it is all about:

1) How the resulting visual states so composed are MULTI-MODALLY PROJECTED FOR PERCEPTUAL INSTANTIATION

and;

2) Identifying the actual MULTI-MODAL SCREENS UPON WHICH THEY ARE PROJECTED AND PERCEPTUALLY INSTANTIATED.

In my opinion, the researchers in neuroscience should home in on their search in these two directions. One of the issues that also need to be dealt with in the process is to scientifically determine:

3) Whether MEMORY is located in a single place in the body or whether it is POOLED FROM DIVERSE VISUAL/MEMORY CENTRES;

4) And how MULTI-MODALLY COMPOSED VISUAL DATA by all the successfully identifeid hierarchically structured classess of neurons are mapped onto such a Memory for creating and maintaining what I sometimes call 'LIFE-CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE BASE' for a successful and progressive life.

 

[saltydog]

Well, I read them all again. I'd like to see consciousness approached from the bottom up. Canute asked:

"What does your neuronal representation of an elephant look like?"

I suspect they look similar to the same representations occurring whey you look at a real elephant or even a picture of one.

I'm familiar with an experiment of modeling the 28 neurons involved with a lobster chewing its food. The simulation models the rhythmic pattern of the real lobster. The pattern "emerges" from the architecture of the network.

I'm confident that a successful approach to defining consciousness will occur through continuing progress in modeling more and more complex networks of artificial neurons (the bottom-up approach). And like many phenomena in nature, a "critical point" will be reached in which consciousness will precipitate into existence.

And please, spare me any wave-equation jokes ok?

 

[Mentat]

Well, I read them all again. I'd like to see consciousness approached from the bottom up. Canute asked:

"What does your neuronal representation of an elephant look like?"

I suspect they look similar to the same representations occurring whey you look at a real elephant or even a picture of one.

I'm familiar with an experiment of modeling the 28 neurons involved with a lobster chewing its food. The simulation models the rhythmic pattern of the real lobster. The pattern "emerges" from the architecture of the network.

I'm confident that a successful approach to defining consciousness will occur through continuing progress in modeling more and more complex networks of artificial neurons (the bottom-up approach). And like many phenomena in nature, a "critical point" will be reached in which consciousness will precipitate into existence.

And please, spare me any wave-equation jokes ok?

saltydog,
Are you saying that consciousness can be exhaustively explained in terms of increasingly complex neural patterns? Even self-consciousness, morality, knowledge, belief...all of it?

 

[saltydog]

saltydog,
Are you saying that consciousness can be exhaustively explained in terms of increasingly complex neural patterns? Even self-consciousness, morality, knowledge, belief...all of it?

Well, you know "exhaustive" means perfect and that's another issue. I've already stated my claim of "marble mind" elsewhere here that caused . . . some awkwardness: I lack proof. But in response to your question, I think it can. Let's take an ephemeral one: human emotions like love and hate. Some would say that human emotion could never be represented as an equation. I think it can. It's a pattern of, dare I speak the word, "dynamics" of neural assemblies. If we were to artifically replicate similar dynamics in some machine, it too, in my humble opinion, would exhibit qualities we could equate to love and hate. But this is a sophisticated example. Simple ones will occur first and during this experimental work, our concept of "consciousness" will undergo radical changes; we will de-anthropomorphize it!

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

You have to prove, beyond the reasonable doubt, that evidence (interpretations, publications, verbal reports and so on) of experiences is proof that an experience happened and that a conscousness perceived the experience.

No one can do that. If they can, please explain.

Like many have said before, you are mis-leading yourself. If anyone tried to prove concsioussness they would be trying to prove something that is not measurable. It is the only thing that is not measurable in this universe, the only thing! So, when you want PROOF of a consciousness, your never going to get it, it just can not be measured which means no one will ever see, hear, or calculate it.

_____________________________________
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

 

[Dayle Record]

One of the big buzzes of last year, was the MRI. MRI for determining brain changes from meditation, MRI for determining what our brains are really doing when we are "in love", MRI in politics Reps vs Dems brains. With the super computers we have there is room, with enough tests, to map many behaviors in terms of brain activity. That is this culture, then there are other cultures, whose brains do not work the way that ours do. I have read, that when a western person hears a baby cry, it is in the right brain, when a Japanese person hears a baby cry it is in the left brain. Now interrogators can tell about the mindset of the interrogated.

I just think that Crick and his friend, can gather a lot of data, about the nature of consciousness, and I am quite sure it will not serve us. It will not serve the random, quirky quality of life to be over categorized, by people with all the right credentials. There is a huge net loss for the pleasure of living, in store for us. What if we aren't like they say we are? What if physics steps up and proves that we do receive energy emanations at large, and sometimes in ways that are not handily explained? I just think that I would rather that science gave me a public vaginal exam, before they decided how my consciousness works, for what ever future plan they have, for that very personal information.

I foresee enslaved tissue, at receptionists desks everywhere. The ever pleasant voice generated from trained neuronic communication interfaces. Pleasant brain in a box, comes with the new Sony corporate communication system. I see control agendas, I see something awful happening to children in schools, condemned by MRI, to a certain level of education. I see corporations hiring those who are willing to bare all nervous circuitry at loyalty vettings. I don't care what kind of spin they put on this, the very idea, indicates that these guys don't know what it is to live.

 

[Dayle Record]

I should have said that a quest for consciousness should be a private matter. Do these guys find themselves so repugnant that they have to project themselves into other peoples conscious activities? What a projection, their version of consciousness applied to every other sort of consciousness.

So far science dissects the brains of cetations, and monkeys, and elephants, and many other species that have great consciousness, because they value their consciousness more than the consciousness of other species. It was not that long ago that we discriminated grossly in our society based on skin color. I think there is a well established track record, of callousness in regards to everyone else but White Male Scientists, and their take on consciousness, unfortunately, is liable to stand, or win merit in the eyes of our government. How handy it would be to tweak the science of this to get more funding, to find the things that "they", want them to find. Recent example, president of Harvard, I bet he received plenty of calls in support of his dismissal of female intellect.

This is not sacred ground, but it is very private and individual, and should remain so.

 

[loseyourname]

I should have said that a quest for consciousness should be a private matter. Do these guys find themselves so repugnant that they have to project themselves into other peoples conscious activities? What a projection, their version of consciousness applied to every other sort of consciousness.

Could you at least try to present something relevant to the thread, instead of just infecting it with your ceaseless negativity? What the hell is wrong with the quest for understanding? Consciousness is one of the few remaining scientific mysteries, one that enthralls a good many people and that deserves explanation, if one is forthcoming at all. Neuroscience has already given us a lot and promises to alleviate a great deal of human suffering in the form of neurological disorders. Understanding scientifically how our consciousness works can do a lot to help us understand why we see things the way we do, why we have the prejudices and dispositional tendencies that we do, and how we might be able to alter these for the better. How can we ever learn to see clearly if we don't know how it is that we see at all?

Jesus, woman, look on the bright side of things for once in your PF life.

 

[Philocrat]

I should have said that a quest for consciousness should be a private matter. Do these guys find themselves so repugnant that they have to project themselves into other peoples conscious activities? What a projection, their version of consciousness applied to every other sort of consciousness.

So far science dissects the brains of cetations, and monkeys, and elephants, and many other species that have great consciousness, because they value their consciousness more than the consciousness of other species. It was not that long ago that we discriminated grossly in our society based on skin color. I think there is a well established track record, of callousness in regards to everyone else but White Male Scientists, and their take on consciousness, unfortunately, is liable to stand, or win merit in the eyes of our government. How handy it would be to tweak the science of this to get more funding, to find the things that "they", want them to find. Recent example, president of Harvard, I bet he received plenty of calls in support of his dismissal of female intellect.

This is not sacred ground, but it is very private and individual, and should remain so.

The Fundamental Epistemological and Metaphysical Categories at stake here are:

1) The Projection of Raw visual data (regardless of source) upon SUBJECTIVE VISUAL SCREEN of multi-modal kind for personal visualisation and understanding of the world.

Those trying to know what consciousness is and how it works need to explain how raw visual data find their ways into the perceiver, how visual states resulting from these raw visual data are mulit-modally projected onto MULTI-MODAL SCREENS of some sort for INSTANTIATING SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE. In computers, regardless of diverse sources of data, all resulting outputs, from texts to graphics images, are always outwardly projected onto an RGB SCREEN for outward viewing by the user of that computer. But the computer itself usually uses its own internal memories (ROM, RAM, HARD DRIVES, FLOPPY DISKS, CD ROMS, FLAHSH MEMORY etc.) for internally projecting these same Output for its own internal awareness of the existing of such output data. At the moment it seems very difficult for people to comprehend the notion of AWARENESS from the point of view of a computer generating its own output data and being aware of them. Maybe if the RGB SCREENS (VDUs) are redesigned to make them DOUBLE-SIDED so that ouputs can be displayed on both sides for both the computer to read its own result internally and for the users to read the same output data externally, perhaps this would make it easier for people to understand the notion a 'COMPUTER BEING INTERNALLY AWARE OF ITS OWN OUTPUT DATA'. With regards to subjective awareness in humans, the researchers tend to be suggesting that although we know how raw visual data get into the perceiver, how they are neuro-computationally manipulated and transformed into visual states such as PROPOSITIONAL ATTITUDES, FEELINGS, TASTES, etc, nevertheless we do not know how and where they are projected for instantiation as subjective experience or awareness. Where are the Blank Tablets or Blank Projection Screens that JOHN LOCKE's thesis analogously predicted? Personally, I think that the researchers should search for these blank tablets and projection screens. My own bet is on a SINGLE-LOCATION MEMEORY or a POOLED MEMORY, if we can identify and verify which one is the case in the first place, and how output visual data are mapped onto such a memory. Above all, it is now time for scientists to search for the 'MIND'S EYE' that ancient philosophers metaphorically proposed (the Mind's Eye that sits in your head and viewing John Locke's Blank Projecttion Tablet or Screen)!

2) The PROJECTION OF SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE upon the OBJECTIVE VISUAL SCREEN of a multi-modal kind for COLLECTIVE or PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORLD.

This is metaphysically and epistemologically unavoidable because there is a fundamental need to know and ascertain that we are SEEING, FEELING, SENSING, RECOGNISING, INTERPRETING, UNDERSTANDING and KNOWING THE SAME THING. People who alwasy try to play down or undermine this fact with dudgy arguments are just plain stupid. I just can't see any other word with which to qualify this class of people who go down this route of foolishly trying to convince you and I and everyone esle that 'HUMAN BEINGS, CAUSALLY AND RELATIONALLY HELD IN THE SAME SPACE AND TIME LOCALITY, CANNOT COLLECTIVELY PERCEIVE AND KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEMSELVES AND THE WIDER WORLD.

NOTE: The SUBJECTIVE - TO - OBJECTIVE Transimition of experiential information to and from each other is often crticised by some philosophers because it relies on REPORTS, which they claim are capable of being wrong. Yes, no one disputes this, nearly every philosopher accepts this, yet this does not completely rule out the fact that we do succeed in telling and explaining to each other how and what we feel inside us, and what we perceive, think and understand of the world around us. It is absolutely unaccpetable when this class of philosophers present the case in a way that appears as if though the humans are incapable of communicating anything about the world to each. This is intellectually wrong, and it is twice as bad when we teach this to our youngsters in this misleading way. Yes, there is still much to be done scientifcally to know more about each other and the world, yet this is no license for us to dsitort facts about the way things really are.

 

[saltydog]

I mean, even before I read Francis Crick's book, "The Astonishing Hypothesis", I didn't think it was astonishing: Just a bunch of highly connected massively fed-back neurons. I realize some here attribute consciousness to some higher plan and in fact cherish this notion. I don't enjoy challenging things dear to someone. I just have a different opinion. May I propose an analogy for memory and subsequently, a framework for consciousness? Here goes:

Imagine a big 3-D matrix, say 20 feet on a side with thousands of butterflies, one at each point, flapping their wings randomly. It looks like a mess. Now imagine all of a sudden, they begin flapping their wings synchronously. That would be one memory. A different synchronous pattern; a different memory: A beautiful sight! I think maybe that's how memory works, and its composite: mind. Oh my God, he's gone from marbles to butterflies in the brain. We're loosing him . . .

 

[Dayle Record]

Well, after authoring a dark post about the search for consciousness, I ran across this interesting thing today.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

It deals with a random number generator that somehow, is set to pick up on the global mind.

 

[saltydog]

Well, after authoring a dark post about the search for consciousness, I ran across this interesting thing today.
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

It deals with a random number generator that somehow, is set to pick up on the global mind.

Thanks, that's very interesting: A journey begins with a first step.

 

[saltydog]

Thanks, that's very interesting: A journey begins with a first step.

Wait a minute, I spoke too soon and have spent time reading the web site: They are implying that "collective thought" of people around the world affects random number generators thought some "conscious field" DIRECTLY affecting the random number generator. I don't know about that one and I don't want anyone telling me my cup of tea is full either. It just reminds me of a essay I read in college about this idea that if millions of people simultaneously think "boil", then they could get a pot of water boiling without heat. Well, I must say, my cup ain't got much room for that one.

Really though, I was thinking of something different: Sampling data on the internet randomly and trying to pick up patterns which differed from randomness depending on what was happening in the world. This is different than some direct affect on random number generators.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Last year there was evidence that a few entries from the source lab, at Princeton, had skewed the results in the direction of significance.

 

[saltydog]

Last year there was evidence that a few entries from the source lab, at Princeton, had skewed the results in the direction of significance.

Why am I not supprised?

You know, I like the idea of using the internet as a "petri dish" for studying the "emergence" of consciousness (still might not be complex enough though). I know it's been talked about before but is anybody "really" doing something about it? They have to remember that the "consciousness" they find, if any, will be "strangely" different from anything we've seen before.

Don't look for "human" consciousness: In a machine, it's going to look like something else . . .

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

Dayle Record, do you believe that humans have no moral judgement what so ever? You see the world as becoming souly controlled by the government, or a total rule what ever it may be. What if independence that the intelligence of the individual rises above that. If that does happen (which it is second by second accrues the world) and continues to happen then the world would be the exact opposite. Society would be like what you said before(relating to an advanced civilization), in "harmony and simplicity".

What you talk about here sounds like something that would happen in a world of robots. You are talking about intelligence (where SELF RECOGNITION is a major player) hurting the further advancement of the civilization by introducing horrid a ANTI-INDIVIDUAL world.
____________________________________________
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

 

[saltydog]

Found something interesting that perhaps you guys already know since I've seen Dennett's name about the group:

Daniel Dennett, director of the Centre for Cognitive Studies at the University of Medford, Massachusetts, commented that "the global communication network is already capable of complex behaviour that defies the efforts of human experts to comprehend".

I think I shall have to look him up.

 

[loseyourname]

Found something interesting that perhaps you guys already know since I've seen Dennett's name about the group:

Daniel Dennett, director of the Centre for Cognitive Studies at the University of Medford, Massachusetts, commented that "the global communication network is already capable of complex behaviour that defies the efforts of human experts to comprehend".

I think I shall have to look him up.

Do you mean Tufts University in Medford? Yeah, there are neural networks floating out there on the web that not only display fairly complex behavior, but are very capable of self-intiation of action and are autonomous entities for all practical purposes.

 

[Mentat]

Well, you know "exhaustive" means perfect and that's another issue. I've already stated my claim of "marble mind" elsewhere here that caused . . . some awkwardness: I lack proof. But in response to your question, I think it can. Let's take an ephemeral one: human emotions like love and hate. Some would say that human emotion could never be represented as an equation. I think it can. It's a pattern of, dare I speak the word, "dynamics" of neural assemblies. If we were to artifically replicate similar dynamics in some machine, it too, in my humble opinion, would exhibit qualities we could equate to love and hate. But this is a sophisticated example. Simple ones will occur first and during this experimental work, our concept of "consciousness" will undergo radical changes; we will de-anthropomorphize it!

Are you sure there's nothing more to it? I mean, if we replicated our "love" program into a "machine", would it really be able to "love"? What about the social aspect of our own mental evolution? Can a full-blown conscious program exist without having first evolved (developed) and gained "life-experience"?

 

[Mentat]

saltydog,
You say you're interested in Dennett? The reason I asked that part about it "evolving" (developing) within the context of "world-experiences" is because Dennett seems to think that this is necessary. He agrees with you about consciousness being nothing more than complex relationships among neurons...but he doesn't think that those complex relationships can be created properly ex nihilo, but that they require the ability to interact (and the past of having interacted) with an environment conducive to the development of conscious abilities.

 

[saltydog]

Do you mean Tufts University in Medford? Yeah, there are neural networks floating out there on the web that not only display fairly complex behavior, but are very capable of self-intiation of action and are autonomous entities for all practical purposes.

That's interesting. I've written neural networks (well only 256 nodes), just enough to recognize a number with training. I'll search for them. Can you give me a link?

Salty

 

[saltydog]

saltydog,
You say you're interested in Dennett? The reason I asked that part about it "evolving" (developing) within the context of "world-experiences" is because Dennett seems to think that this is necessary. He agrees with you about consciousness being nothing more than complex relationships among neurons...but he doesn't think that those complex relationships can be created properly ex nihilo, but that they require the ability to interact (and the past of having interacted) with an environment conducive to the development of conscious abilities.

Well, I'm just starting to read Dennett but I too believe AI will have to "grow" an artificial mind. But I think time to grow is a "secondary requirement" that's needed in natural minds to establish the connections between neurons and it may be the "easiest" initial approach for us to simulate. As I suspect a functioning mind is a consequence of architecture (connections), then if for some reason the arcitecture could be established from the start, a growth period would not be needed. Might be a lot easier to just grow it though.

I must admit, both Chalmers and Dennett, what I've read so far (and I plan to continue), are both well, not very specific on suggesting experimental models that might shed light on consciousness one way or the other. Seems Chalmers is more interested in "spiritual" connections to consciousness; Dennett, a biochemical one. Me, well, unless I see differently, more a dynamical and architectural one.

 

[loseyourname]

Network security is the best example I can think of. Synchronized encryption is another. I was running a search right now to see what I could find for you, and this came up. It's pretty interesting. University researchers in Britain have developed a robot that can infer hypotheses and experiments and has been set to work on scientific tasks that are often considered too tedious for humans.

 

[saltydog]

Are you sure there's nothing more to it? I mean, if we replicated our "love" program into a "machine", would it really be able to "love"? What about the social aspect of our own mental evolution? Can a full-blown conscious program exist without having first evolved (developed) and gained "life-experience"?

Yea, I know love is a tough one. That's why I choose it. We may well have to grow an artificial mind and as Rodney Brooks said, "not want to turn it off". But I still think the growth period is a secondary consequence of the time needed to establish an architecture. Surely there are biochemical changes which occur during development as well but I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that mind is contained in the biochemistry inside of the neuron. Certainly the biochemistry affects the function of neurons, but it seems to me to be a "localized" affect and not a global one; consciousness seems to be a "global phenomenon" don't you think? Everything I've read points to the neural-architecture as the seat of consciousness. If this turns out to be true, then if the architecture could be established from the start, growth would not be needed. And yes, I do believe that a sufficiently complex architecture could exhibit behavior that is similar to love.

 

[loseyourname]

saltydog,
You say you're interested in Dennett? The reason I asked that part about it "evolving" (developing) within the context of "world-experiences" is because Dennett seems to think that this is necessary. He agrees with you about consciousness being nothing more than complex relationships among neurons...but he doesn't think that those complex relationships can be created properly ex nihilo, but that they require the ability to interact (and the past of having interacted) with an environment conducive to the development of conscious abilities.

To elaborate on what salty said, imagine that we can reconstruct your own brain, neuron by neuron, to the point where the architecture and functionality of the second brain was exactly the same as yours. Would it not believe it was you? It would have your memories filed away and your behavioral tendencies programmed into it (including any tendency to love in a particular way). It would also hold all of the same beliefs that you do. Now imagine we did this same thing, but instead of using organic neurons, we used silicon chips that performed exactly the same computations and behaved exactly like human neurons. Wouldn't the outcome be the same? We'd have created a robot Mentat, complete with your past and your social constructs. (You'll have to put aside the practical impossibility of ever doing this, of course.)

 

[saltydog]

Network security is the best example I can think of. Synchronized encryption is another. I was running a search right now to see what I could find for you, and this came up. It's pretty interesting. University researchers in Britain have developed a robot that can infer hypotheses and experiments and has been set to work on scientific tasks that are often considered too tedious for humans.

Thanks, I've done a lot of work with RSA encryption as well.