Topic: Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland - page 2. (Read 20356 times)

Hmmmmmmmm, I'm not convinced.

I don't understand why the concept of protoconsciousness needs to be introduced.


I would say: All matter at the lowest possible level of complexity (quantum, perhaps) interacts with it's environment, the rules by which matter interacts lead to the formation of structures* of increasing complexity. These structures have at least one more degree of freedom in how they can respond the external environment than the sum of the individual degrees of freedom. I would term this "emergence". The brain happens to have a very large set of possible responses packed into a small space, which gives rise to the possibility of human-type consciousness. From our discussions I have come to think of consciousness as a function of degrees of freedom/volume, maybe information density is a better term.


*As a very loose definition: by structure I mean collections of  matter that receive more information about (are more influenced by) within-structure matter than external.

The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the informational content of all the objects which have fallen into the hole can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon.

All matter at the quantum level is thought to be proto-conscious; the brain is but where the potentialities of protoconsciousness might become a full-fledged consciousness

That's the thing. Emergence is bullshit. At least with regard to consciousness. Nature (evolution) merely found a good structure (the brain) to harness what was already there.

I think there is likely a continuum of "consciousness" so it does not "emerge" at a certain point.

Spier and Thomas also argue that 'microtubules are too unstable to account for consciousness' While this is true of non-neuronal dividing cells, whose microtubules radiate from centrioles and are (as Spier and Thomas describe) dynamically unstable, neurons in the brain don’t divide, their microtubules do not radiate from centrioles, and they do not manifest dynamic instability11. Brain microtubules are quite stable and interlinked in complex cytoskeletal networks.

Finally, and in reference to the first quoted statement of yours in this post, do not confuse your brand of emergence with my ideas. Tell me, at what point does the emergence of consciousness occur?

Well it looks like hammeroff takes issue with your ordering in the other thread as well.

I scanned this (get the pdf if you can, it is formatted much better):

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

It does not answer my initial question, maybe you can point me in the right direction. All cells have microtubules, so why is it only those in the brain that are giving rise to consciousness?

I am somewhat familiar with philosophical zombies and turing machines. I just learn best by asking questions... So, with regards to experience: Would you say "experience is the result of physical processes"?

I must misunderstand you. Are you claiming Scientific American is proper scientific literature but the IPCC reports are not?

Is there a review article you recommend?

Well at least we are both consistent.

I think your way of understanding is faulty, you think mine is. To each their own I guess. I would say that you are also applying selective choice in assimilating knowledge. It is a necessary problem due to having a limited time on this earth. The real choice is how to spend it. I choose to focus on how data/arguments fit in my schema and accommodate when the schema no longer works, you seem to assess complete arguments and assimilate them into your schema according to "what satisfies you". Both of us probably dabble in the other (I know I do).

And you are right, Chalmer's would only have so much patience with me. I am the same with others with regards to "alkaline diets" and "sub-clinical candidiasis," etc. That is why it is best to figure out the exact source of disagreement ASAP. If it is based on trusting authority or consensus, then most likely we will be wasting our time arguing about logical sounding narratives and ambiguous/misunderstood definitions. I probably will read chalmers one day though.

That is why it is best to figure out the exact source of disagreement ASAP. If it is based on trusting authority or consensus, then most likely we will be wasting our time arguing about logical sounding narratives and ambiguous/misunderstood definitions.

This is what is wrong with your methods. You apply the same methodology to your understanding of climate change. Stop looking for passages relevant to what you are looking for. You're not going to prove anything to anyone, least of all yourself, by applying selective choice to your assimilation of knowledge.

Reading Chalmers (or books on climate change) is not an endeavor engaged in for the purpose of answering some specific and most likely ill defined question that you have posed to yourself. Instead, it's about gaining an invisible companion for ten or so hours, as he or she tells you stories and shares with you their thought processes, in a complete argument which is greater than the sum of the parts.

Rather than searching through his work for the passages relevant to what I have said, it would be easier (for me) if you addressed them directly.

If I was talking to Chalmer's would he tell me to just read his books?

If his response to my specific claims would be so complex as to require a book-length response, then I have to say it is probably convoluted. If you simply don't feel like putting forth the effort to explain it, then ok.

That is not evidence, it is a list of systems with large numbers of degrees of freedom. I am interested in the ideas of others, but learn best when I am able to ask questions. You are here and seem to have taken the time to understand these philosophers, they are not accessible to me.

We're back to panpsychism, Chinese populations, economies, silicon neurons, Turing machines, and Chinese Rooms. I think your synopsis and analysis of the problem and suggestions for methods are premature given your general lack of knowledge regarding discussion on the subject, notably the concepts listed in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Read Chalmers, Searle, Hofstadter, and others.

Is there any evidence that the timing and structure of the information flow is independent of physical processes? How does this evidence compare to the evidence that it is dependent?

Without addressing anything else you have said at this point in time, let's clarify:

Without regard to the method of information transmission, is it strictly the timing and structure of the information flow independent of the physical process which facilitates it which gives rise to conscious experience?

Since we will never have complete information about the universe, in the end there will always be an aspect of subjectivity (i.e., more spiritual people will give the unknown process hypothesis a higher prior probability). All we can do is look for support of the hypothesis that experience can be accounted for due to known physical processes. In other words, need more data.

What is consciousness? How do physical processes in the brain give rise to the self-aware mind and to feelings as profoundly varied as love or hate, aesthetic pleasure or spiritual yearning? These questions today are among the most hotly debated issues among scientists and philosophers, and we have seen in recent years superb volumes by such eminent figures as Francis Crick, Daniel C. Dennett, Gerald Edelman, and Roger Penrose, all firing volleys in what has come to be called the consciousness wars. Now, in The Conscious Mind, philosopher David J. Chalmers offers a cogent analysis of this heated debate as he unveils a major new theory of consciousness, one that rejects the prevailing reductionist trend of science, while offering provocative insights into the relationship between mind and brain.

Writing in a rigorous, thought-provoking style, the author takes us on a far-reaching tour through the philosophical ramifications of consciousness. Chalmers convincingly reveals how contemporary cognitive science and neurobiology have failed to explain how and why mental events emerge from physiological occurrences in the brain. He proposes instead that conscious experience must be understood in an entirely new light--as an irreducible entity (similar to such physical properties as time, mass, and space) that exists at a fundamental level and cannot be understood as the sum of its parts. And after suggesting some intriguing possibilities about the structure and laws of conscious experience, he details how his unique reinterpretation of the mind could be the focus of a new science. Throughout the book, Chalmers provides fascinating thought experiments that trenchantly illustrate his ideas. For example, in exploring the notion that consciousness could be experienced by machines as well as humans, Chalmers asks us to imagine a thinking brain in which neurons are slowly replaced by silicon chips that precisely duplicate their functions--as the neurons are replaced, will consciousness gradually fade away? The book also features thoughtful discussions of how the author's theories might be practically applied to subjects as diverse as artificial intelligence and the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

All of us have pondered the nature and meaning of consciousness. Engaging and penetrating, The Conscious Mind adds a fresh new perspective to the subject that is sure to spark debate about our understanding of the mind for years to come.