Consciousness - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on March 20, 2012, 07:22:26 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 19, 2012, 11:39:03 AM

So are we settled then and in agreement that qualia is not any of the following:

- The intake of sensory data by the body's sensory organs
- The filtering and translation of that data from one neuronal pattern to another
- The presence of that data in some pattern of neuronal pattern of activity in a brain
- The continued firing of neurons which change neuronal patterns from one pattern to another
- The resulting pattern of neuronal activity in a brain which causes one to lift a finger and do something

Qualia:

I don't think we should assume that qualia can be satisfactorily described with human language.

Most people seriously studying it don't seem to have that problem.

It's the sensation of experiencing something. Pretty damn simple.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 19, 2012, 11:39:03 AM

So are we settled then and in agreement that qualia is not any of the following:

- The intake of sensory data by the body's sensory organs
- The filtering and translation of that data from one neuronal pattern to another
- The presence of that data in some pattern of neuronal pattern of activity in a brain
- The continued firing of neurons which change neuronal patterns from one pattern to another
- The resulting pattern of neuronal activity in a brain which causes one to lift a finger and do something

Qualia:

I don't think we should assume that qualia can be satisfactorily described with human language.

check_status

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Web Dev, Db Admin, Computer Technician

The ability to be conscious of a thing, mentally, is the only manner through which anyone experiences anything!

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

So are we settled then and in agreement that qualia is not any of the following:

- The intake of sensory data by the body's sensory organs
- The filtering and translation of that data from one neuronal pattern to another
- The presence of that data in some pattern of neuronal pattern of activity in a brain
- The continued firing of neurons which change neuronal patterns from one pattern to another
- The resulting pattern of neuronal activity in a brain which causes one to lift a finger and do something

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on March 18, 2012, 06:23:20 PM

However, it is generally accepted that mental state can affect the functioning of all the tissue in the body, the question is how much.

Agreed.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: amencon on March 17, 2012, 07:39:26 PM

While perhaps not so pertinent to the hard problem, what do you guys think of Bruce Liption (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeZL72IStGo&feature=related)?

The marketing for his books and videos made me initially assume it was new agey nonsense (maybe it is). He purports that our perceptions physically drive our biology, then he goes on to conclude that through various methods we can learn to alter our own perceptions to gain at least some mastery over the biology in our bodies. The science he describes seems compelling however with only high school biology under my belt I feel completely unqualified to confirm or question in part or whole the science behind his work.

Honestly I have no idea how his conclusions are perceived by the science community. Is this fringe stuff or fairly widely accepted?

Would be interest in your reactions.
Thanks.

Almost everything he is saying is widley known and commonly accepted, so I am not sure why he paints himself as a contrarian. I think some of the metaphors he uses are more confusing than they need to be (i.e perception=interaction between cell and environment).

There is only very weak evidence for directed mutations, and all of it is from single celled organisms. He is making a quite a leap of faith in jumping from that to the idea that human perception can alter DNA in some targeted fashion. However, it is generally accepted that mental state can affect the functioning of all the tissue in the body, the question is how much.

amencon

sr. member

Activity: 410

Merit: 250

While perhaps not so pertinent to the hard problem, what do you guys think of Bruce Liption (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeZL72IStGo&feature=related)?

The marketing for his books and videos made me initially assume it was new agey nonsense (maybe it is). He purports that our perceptions physically drive our biology, then he goes on to conclude that through various methods we can learn to alter our own perceptions to gain at least some mastery over the biology in our bodies. The science he describes seems compelling however with only high school biology under my belt I feel completely unqualified to confirm or question in part or whole the science behind his work.

Honestly I have no idea how his conclusions are perceived by the science community. Is this fringe stuff or fairly widely accepted?

Would be interest in your reactions.

Thanks.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hazek on March 11, 2012, 12:50:35 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 11, 2012, 12:36:52 PM

Quote from: hazek on March 11, 2012, 12:29:25 PM

Did you watch this TED talk?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY

Also a question for you. Do you know of any computer on this planet as capable and running as many functions simultaneously as our brain is/does?

I watched part of the video.

The brain has about 100 billion neurons, each connecting to about 5,000 other neurons, giving about 500 trillion connections. It is these connections which are varying in strength which define our memory and how our brain will behave. In a simple computer model, you need to store both the strength of the connection, and the distance (to model synaptic timing). That's two values, preferably floats, which would require 4,000 terabytes. That would be a really simple model.

Get back to me, when you've seen the whole video, especially past the 11min mark, and get back to me when such a computer has been built.

Ummm, so I watched the video. He's doing good work - on the Easy Problem. No mention of the Hard Problem though. Get a solid understanding of the distinctions between those two problems, and then we can move on.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 11, 2012, 12:36:52 PM

Quote from: hazek on March 11, 2012, 12:29:25 PM

Did you watch this TED talk?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY

Also a question for you. Do you know of any computer on this planet as capable and running as many functions simultaneously as our brain is/does?

I watched part of the video.

The brain has about 100 billion neurons, each connecting to about 5,000 other neurons, giving about 500 trillion connections. It is these connections which are varying in strength which define our memory and how our brain will behave. In a simple computer model, you need to store both the strength of the connection, and the distance (to model synaptic timing). That's two values, preferably floats, which would require 4,000 terabytes. That would be a really simple model.

Get back to me, when you've seen the whole video, especially past the 11min mark, and get back to me when such a computer has been built.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hazek on March 11, 2012, 12:29:25 PM

Did you watch this TED talk?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY

Also a question for you. Do you know of any computer on this planet as capable and running as many functions simultaneously as our brain is/does?

I watched part of the video.

The brain has about 100 billion neurons, each connecting to about 5,000 other neurons, giving about 500 trillion connections. It is these connections which are varying in strength which define our memory and how our brain will behave. In a simple computer model, you need to store both the strength of the connection, and the distance (to model synaptic timing). That's two values, preferably floats, which would require 4,000 terabytes. That would be a really simple model.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Did you watch this TED talk?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMrzdk_YnYY

Also a question for you. Do you know of any computer on this planet as capable and running as many functions simultaneously as our brain is/does?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on March 11, 2012, 11:24:17 AM

I would nuance this. I don't think "neurons must be the answer", just that it is most plausible.

And just what the heck is it about a neuron and it's firing that makes consciousness whereas something else doesn't?

I'll say it again: the brain's structure and organization capitalize on and efficiently build our level of consciousness from the most basic and primitive components which essentially already possess a sort of proto-consciousness at a very fundamental level.

I absolutely do not think that it is logical to believe that a set of neurons and their wiring should produce qualia otherwise.

I do believe that neurons and their wiring can produce behavior and zombie like memory, but there would be no qualia without there being some intrinsic qualia like property built into the Universe already at a deep down level.

The brain amplifies the sensing of qualia and organizes it into millions of different experiences, but it does not create qualia out of nothing.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 09, 2012, 11:47:49 PM

Quote from: bb113 on March 09, 2012, 03:06:05 PM

First Ascent would disagree, but I would say stop thinking of consciousness as a binary phenomenon and start thinking of it as a spectrum that is related to how complex a system (organism, cell) is.

Bitcoinbitcoin113 almost has it right, but not quite. His advice is just a little simple.

Obviously consciousness spans a spectrum from being highly aware to being sort of aware. If you've ever been put under, you know what I'm talking about. You just slowly drift out of consciousness.

What bitcoinbitcoin113 fails to address or acknowledge is that even variable things have quanta - i.e. most all things with variable amounts of power are still composed of units at some basic level. Bitcoinbitcoin113 might argue that it's a neuron, but that's because he's a neuroscientist and he clings to this logically false ideal that because of that, neurons must be the answer to saying why we're conscious. If you give it some hard thought though, you'll see how silly that is.

Fundamentally, consciousness is likely composed of simpler units. I subscribe to the idea that consciousness is composed of tiny proto-conscious units which are fundamentally part of the Universe.

I would nuance this. I don't think "neurons must be the answer", just that it is most plausible.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

http://vimeo.com/38101676

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bb113 on March 09, 2012, 03:06:05 PM

First Ascent would disagree, but I would say stop thinking of consciousness as a binary phenomenon and start thinking of it as a spectrum that is related to how complex a system (organism, cell) is.

Bitcoinbitcoin113 almost has it right, but not quite. His advice is just a little simple.

Obviously consciousness spans a spectrum from being highly aware to being sort of aware. If you've ever been put under, you know what I'm talking about. You just slowly drift out of consciousness.

What bitcoinbitcoin113 fails to address or acknowledge is that even variable things have quanta - i.e. most all things with variable amounts of power are still composed of units at some basic level. Bitcoinbitcoin113 might argue that it's a neuron, but that's because he's a neuroscientist and he clings to this logically false ideal that because of that, neurons must be the answer to saying why we're conscious. If you give it some hard thought though, you'll see how silly that is.

Fundamentally, consciousness is likely composed of simpler units. I subscribe to the idea that consciousness is composed of tiny proto-conscious units which are fundamentally part of the Universe.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: RodeoX on March 09, 2012, 10:06:06 AM

Quote from: bb113 on March 08, 2012, 09:20:25 PM

I think it's most likely life arose multiple times independantly on the early earth, but then one form was best and completely out-competed the others for resources. I've got no data for that though.

Quote from: RodeoX on March 08, 2012, 02:40:15 PM

Here is something to think about. You probably learned in school that you think with your brain. signals are sent along neurons and processed by vast arrays of cells. That makes sense, but it can not be entirely correct. Consider the amoeba. It is a single celled organism with no neurons at all. Yet under my microscope I can watch them hunt, avoid things, even make choices about what to do next. How?

F#(K if I know???

Amoebas will move along chemical gradients towards food and away from deleterious stimuli. Their responses to these things are pretty much (ignoring epigenetics for now) hard coded in their DNA. They have receptors on their surface that change conformation in response to binding external molecules, the internal portion of the receptor then has a different most stable conformation and thus begins a chain of reactions (with all sorts of feedbacks) that alter the cytoskeleton giving movement. This is well known, so what exactly are you looking for an explanation for?

I also doubt that life on Earth is a One-off. Since planets and stars everywhere look similar, why should life here be special? Maybe it did not even start here.
What I want to know about the amoeba is... Is it conscious? Or perhaps, when is the benchmark of consciousness crossed? A human is clearly conscious, an amoeba could be considered to be; but what about a chemical reaction? My guess is that consciousness and what makes something alive are closely related.
P.S. Don't get me started on the epigenome! Wow, there a lot of undiscovered knowledge on that topic!

First Ascent would disagree, but I would say stop thinking of consciousness as a binary phenomenon and start thinking of it as a spectrum that is related to how complex a system (organism, cell) is.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Quote from: hazek on March 09, 2012, 10:38:31 AM

Did you watch that video yet?

no

but i will, i promise.

Fascinating stuff guys.

I like to think there is other life out there. However I am not down with the UFO nuts. If some lander ever found a life form in space, my first question would be; Is it DNA based? If yes then I would assume it is related to Earths life forms. Perhaps part of a panspermia system.
If it is not DNA based I would tend to think that life is all over the universe and that there are many paths to achieving living status. I would also think that wherever life comes from is deeper than chemistry. Maybe life is a sub-atomic/quantum phenomenon?

I have a lot of reading to do.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Also, consider that the universe is about 14 billion years old and for the first 10 billion or so of those years there were not enough heavy elements to support the formation of rocky planets. Our local star is part of the third generation (about 5 billion years per generation) of stars, which is the first generation that could have rocky planets in orbit.

It really is possible that we are just the first species to develop space-faring technology.

cncguru

member

Activity: 117

Merit: 10

Mining since difficulty 157,426 !

That (mostly) annoying emergent property that comes between naps.

Wink

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: FirstAscent on March 09, 2012, 12:10:07 PM

2. Just DNA life is bound to happen, given a primordial soup.

3. Life is common in the Universe, and technology wielding life is common, and they have spread through their home galaxy in a diaspora.

3. Even a moderate fraction of light speed is not possible. Consider our technology. Our fastest spacecraft would require something like 70,000 years to reach the nearest star, and it's only 4.5 light years away, as opposed to stars in our own galaxy that are nearly a hundred thousand light years away. Still, consider generation ships migrating outwards, or utilizing the resources in the Oort Cloud to hop our away across the void between the stars the way the Pacific Islands were colonized.

Those three sound the most plausible to me. But I'm just guessing.

Topic: Consciousness - page 2. (Read 9000 times)