The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach

[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.

 

[saltydog]

A conscious moment

I've been reading John Searle's "Consciousness"

He proposes the "Unified Field Theory" suggesting that consciousness is spread across a portion of the brain called the thalamocortical system. Searle states, "we should look for consciousness as a feature of the brain emerging from the activities of large masses of neurons, and which cannot be explained by the activities of individual neurons".

In my humble opinion, that statement hints of "Emergence". Allow me to offer a slightly changed version of an analogy I stated earlier:

Imagine all the ways thousands of butterflies trapped in a 3-D matrix could flap their wings in synchronicity. Not just all at once but in a symphony of "flowing" patterns (a large 3-D matrix). Imagine in it's past, a breeze passed through the matrix. The pattern of beating wings shifted in response to the force of the breeze propagating through the matrix. Now the wings, in the absence of a breeze, shift back to that pattern as the matrix experiences a conscious moment.

 

[Mentat]

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.)

Quite correct (and admirably succinct).