Indeed, Let's try and avoid philosophical terms and baggage - it would be beneficial to us all to work out our own terms and ideas.
> So where exactly in time is my "now"
This is a really cool question - especially in light of us trying to come to 'terms' with consciousness.
Consider: when you listen to a voice mail - time-wise - it's *almost* as if that person were speaking to you live, here and now.
Better example still: remember a cell phone call where the person you were speaking to was just outside of normal hearing distance, and then you came close enough together that you could hear each other without the phone? What do you experience everytime?
Right ! You immediately notice the echo - and then realize that you were *not* speaking to each other in real time - even though it *seemed* like real time during the phone call.
To me, this implies that "consciousness" or "understanding" that works as part of consciousness is more expansive, more complex than what we consider "time".
I won't say "consciousness is outside of time" - rather that in the 'set' of things, consciousness *may be* the bigger set which contains space and time.
At the very least, because Energy is time and space dependant (a consequence of E=mc^2), then Energy must be at least the same size 'set' as space plus time.
This makes sense, doesn't it?
Then, for consciousness to be "real" it must have a direct relationship to energy - otherwise we fall into dualism, etc.
Since Phil's toaster uses energy, it must have some level of consciousness. And our consciousness, if it really is "high level," must be pretty efficient because we don't burn like a Sun. (Perhaps the Sun - as a consciousness - is so high level, that we cannot understand it - or better, we don't understand it yet [noparse]:)[/noparse]
So the scientific search then becomes trying to understand the relationships between "energy" and "consciousness."
Would you all agree to at least that last statement?
So the scientific search then becomes trying to understand the relationships between "energy" and "consciousness."
Would you all agree to at least that last statement?
Yeah, I'll go along with that. I'm a little baffled by your cell phone scenario but energy and consciousness must be related. I doubt we've mapped out all the energies in the universe just yet. So I'll keep an open mind.
I don't see how the brain can be affected by external energy sources, apart from very powerful fields generated in the lab. Very strong magnetic fields have been shown to affect memory in rabbits, but that was because they altered blood flow in the brain.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
I don't see how the brain can be affected by external energy sources, apart from very powerful fields generated in the lab. Very strong magnetic fields have been shown to affect memory in rabbits, for instance, but that was because they altered blood flow in the brain.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Leon said...
I don't see how the brain can be affected by external energy sources, apart from very powerful fields generated in the lab. Very strong magnetic fields have been shown to affect memory in rabbits, for instance, but that was because they altered blood flow in the brain.
Leon
I was just using electromagnetics to illustrate how we are immersed in various fields of energy that aren't immediately or directly perceived. Besides, even with EM it could be just a question of getting the right coding or modulation or whatever. Look up and see the Andromeda galaxy - you've got photons from trillions of miles away and millions of years in the past. I'm just sayin.
Well, Leon, that would get back to a point Potatohead made earlier - obviously,·the energy would have to be in patterns - and clearly consciousness is complex.
Consider:
- that flashing strobe lights can trigger an epileptic to seizure;
- that very loud rock music can alter heart rhythms;
- that Electroencephalography works at all;
- that CAT scans and MRI scans can be used to observe brain activity.
Aren't these all energy state transistions that relate at least indirectly to consciousness?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Post Edited (CounterRotatingProps) : 9/10/2009 7:11:42 PM GMT
But they are perceived via the ordinary senses, or detected by electrodes and external sensors. I thought that he was referring to some sort of energy that could influence consciousness directly, at the neuronal level.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Leon said...
.... Very strong magnetic fields have been shown to affect memory in rabbits, for instance, but that was because they altered blood flow in the brain.
.
.
.
..... I thought that he was referring to some sort of energy that could influence consciousness directly, at the neuronal level.
Leon
Leon,
I hope I don't sound like I'm splitting hairs over your comments but I'm just curious why you feel the need to get down to the neuronal level as opposed to, say, the blood flow level of the brain's process? At what point is it "merely" blood flow and at what point is it something more substantial or more directly influential to consciousness? I'm wondering, for example, at what point would we be getting too close to the brain's process for our inquiry to make any sense?
I think that's clearly an area where we have difficulty.
There is a chasm that is difficult to cross because we don't yet have consistent tools with which to operate on it.
CounterRotatingProps Very interesting questions!
I don't know that I know enough to agree with both your questions, however I do like the line of reasoning so far. Fair?
The "cell phone" deal is a point of fascination with me. Latency is something we endure. That has implications.
Actual perception is very fast. Awareness of it takes some additional time. Reasoning can happen in parallel, and augment the perception with experience, giving us then an optimal speed of interaction that feels real time. Quite often it isn't. What we think of as real time, so often just isn't.
Some simple and fun tests can highlight this. Take a stop watch, or some activity where reaction time can be measured and have the person doing some other tasks. Reaction time can be upwards of a full second! Also, make the event somewhat predictable, and the person very rapidly reaches a point where they do pattern recognition and anticipate the event with high accuracy, landing a response well inside the reaction time that would be in play, with no other information present. We sense these "patterns" at a low level just like we easily find the harmonic resonant frequency of things we manipulate, or are in proximity to. Ever notice how we will just "walk together" without even thinking?
That's all fun stuff, but it goes farther than that.
As people, we connect to other people. Right now, I'm operating a browser writing words to all of you, and it's not unlike a discussion where we are all in the same room. Time can compress, impressions bent to an idealized state, and then we can operate within that state as if it were the real state. There are a lot of abstractions that occur when this kind of thing happens. Powerful stuff, and something I don't think is all that well understood in the scientific sense. On the other hand, authors are one shining example of the art of it being understood in the "understanding" way I mentioned up thread.
It's literally possible to "connect" and identify with another mind that expressed itself far in the past, and get the same kinds of things we would get, if we were with them in the present time. The advent of technology, in my opinion, has made "real time" a far more arbitrary thing.
I know absolutely that if I took the time to write these words somewhere else. The word processor, piece of paper, or even with the net connection disabled where the illusion of "talking" in real time isn't present, my words are different. I'm writing then, not talking, as it were. Also, I seem to lose the mental constructs I have of all of you. Some I've met, others I've not, and still those constructs are there. Often, they are close too! Like when you walk into a room and recognize somebody you've only conversed with online. We can infer a lot through simple discussion.
Getting back to the "now", I submit that now is what we say it is then. With the phones it's a small disconnect, and we can be interactive because the latency is low. Here in the forum, the latency is quite high --even spanning days, and the conversation could proceed as though it were over a short span of time. I can tell you, for me, right now, in this instant, it's effectively "now". It's now because I am choosing to invoke and operate within the illusion of "speaking to you" live, here in this browser window. Rationally, I know it's not "now", but that's not important for the conversation to occur as it otherwise would.
It depends on whether consciousness is simply a result of complexity, or something else which presumably would be neuronal; like the microtubule theory of Hameroff and Penrose.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Actual perception is very fast. Awareness of it takes some additional time. Reasoning can happen in parallel, and augment the perception with experience, giving us then an optimal speed of interaction that feels real time. Quite often it isn't. What we think of as real time, so often just isn't. ....
Potato,
I'm guessing the rate differences of processing are big clues to how our minds are structured/layered/whatever you want to call it. Maybe we have reflex at some super low level, I-ness in the middle, and I'm guessing there's some other time processings that take place over larger and larger windows of time that don't include conscious awareness/ I-ness. I guess that might make us something akin to complex PID controllers But why I-ness seems to be limited to a narrow region of the PID window baffles me to no end.
To Leon,
Speaking of Penrose and his musings about quantum computational aspects of microtubules...IMHO, one of the most profound discoveries of the past 10 years has involved the possible quantum computational aspects of photosynthesis. If nature has figured out a way to suspend/delay a process until a "decision" can be made as to the most efficient route to take, then... whoa, dudes, what have we got here?
Leon> ... whether consciousness is simply a result of complexity, or something else which presumably would be neuronal ...
At the risk of venturing toward "man in the box" territory --- but trying to steer WAY CLEAR of Science versus Religion! ...
Our "I-ness" and "Now-ness" considerations point to consciousness being highly non-linear.
From the neuronal side: Considering the huge number of neuron connections and firings, that 'something else' also has to be non-linear.
The quantum mechanical activity EA's links consider in plants is a simple life process 'connection' to energy transformation. Which, in quatum mechanical terms means one of two possible things:
1. either the collapse of the (superpositioned) wavefunctions happens first - and then the "life" appears as a result
OR
2. that " something else " triggers the wavefunction collapse first and energy transformation follows.
Those articles seem to at least grant the possiblity of #2.
I am beginning to think in all fairness that we cannot off-handedly dismiss that there might be at least a "plant in the box" ... you see we will always come back to some version of this several-hundred-year-old discussion. If we want to give it superfical lables - which make good sound-bites for arguments and bashing - but do little to promote sophisticated, nuanced discussion, then we can say
1. is traditional "Materialism" ("Matter (and energy), never Mind") - meant in the broadest brush stroke. Matter/Energy are all there is - life is a byproduct. Phil's "reductionist" explainer earlier in this thread gives a very clear and concise version.
OR
2. is traditional "Spiritualism" ("Mind, never matter") - again, in broad sweeps... "Life" (Vitalism, Mind, Soul, Spirit, whatever) exists first and controls/alters matter and energy.
Both of these have strengths and weaknesses... Since the birth of science, Materialism has gained leaps and bounds over Spiritualism. And most of us here probably accept some version of it for good reason. Some would say that Spiritualism doesn't really have any strenghts as it is illusionary, but consider art, music, self-sacrifice, etc. Again, I mean these terms as the broadest definition. ...
Here's my real take on this. I think #2 contains #1 ("Mind is Matter and Matter is Mind")·- BUT - the old terms "Spirit" "Soul" Religious-dogmas, etc. are just very worn out ideas pointing to some·realm, some area of activity, or set of processes, that science is just beginning to enter into. We will understand these things at some point. Human's search for knowledge is insatiable.· Forget the mumbo jumbo·- get real!
The science research EA's links show are, to me, examples of just this expanding of understanding by science into realms previously the sole domain of "spiritual activity"... please don't read that superficially - it needs to be taken in the context above.
We have to honestly admit that science really understands only a very SMALL portion of the realms of physics ... there is plenty of room for modern and future science to explore territories once belonging to the ancients.
Isn't it wonderfull?
- H
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Post Edited (CounterRotatingProps) : 9/11/2009 4:55:01 PM GMT
[noparse][[/noparse]quote]There have been experiments which show that the brain can initiate some action in response to a stimulus before there is a conscious experience. This isn't a simple reflex action which occurs when one picks up something hot.
My view is like this:
This is where the the little dedicated sensor micro controller comes into play. In other words... those other smaller and more dedicated parts of the brain kick into sprint/react mode must faster than the huge cognitive gray matter machine.
This all makes me think about just how far we really are from having a Star Trek style "Commander Data" robot coming into existence.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
There's nothing like a new idea and a warm soldering iron.
"Then we've got the identical twins, who claim to feel something when their other twin is killed. Interesting and entertaining stuff to be sure.
That kind of thing is why I say, "highly likely" and not just flat out voodoo! [noparse]:)[/noparse]"
I, unfortunately experienced this one when my dad died. After everything was over my dads twin brother was telling us how when he first awoken was almost the same time my dad died the first time about 2am.
Then about 4am he got up and started toward the phone which is when my brother gave him a call to tell him about the bad news.
The other spooky thing about twins...there where times when my dad would get up and head for the phone, pick it up and start talking to his brother without it ringing at all!
Will I dream?....
It's a line from SAL and HAL in 2001/2010 that I think of anytime when I see my dogs growling and making other strange noises in their sleep.
Dogs...
About three years ago I had a 11year old sheltie that died of cancer of liver and kidneys. My oldest niece had talked my mom and her dad into getting a replacement for my Micky. They had one already picked out before they dragged me along, they claimed they going to take me to a movie.
When made it to the breeders to pick up Molly, someone else was there looking at another group of puppies when one of these little black & white fuzz balls (which I named Mini) came running right for me and kept following me around the rest of the time I was there. So.. I ended up with two little shelties that day.
This goes to prove my theory about dogs adopting the human and not the humans adopting the dogs, because ever since then Mini has always followed me where ever I go.
-dan
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Arguing with myself--sometimes me, myself, and I don't always agree.
Of the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
I don't disagree. But I know people who don't believe in coincidence and that everything that happens happens for a reason. We're hard-wired for this, though, the same way we're programmed to interpret "faces" in clouds and on slices of burnt toast. Biology may not be destiny, but it certainly creates strong predispositions. Noetheless, it's incumbent upon us to temper our smugness with an acknowledgment that there are "unknown unknowns".
I'm not sure y'all will be able to open this link, but it's an interesting study on remembering without knowing. One of those I-ness vs. "others parts of the mind" issues we were debating earlier.
without knowing why I'm remembering it [noparse]:)[/noparse], the pattern [noparse]:)[/noparse]) of that article reminds me of the instances where individuals, who were born blind, having had their sight restored surgically were basically unable to make sense out of the sense of seeing *). Often, they would then prefer to sit in the dark or turn the lights off to get around - well at least that makes sense --- habits are hard to break. But not being able to do much with their new found ability is strange - especially considering how much we rely on sight. (* Yes, I should find references.)
IMHO, our brains are mostly plastic when we are younger. The engine required to process sight into meaningful information develops early. The later we end up seeing, the more difficult and less high level this information is. Some of this depends on the person too. In a sense, we are somewhat hard wired. I think this is true for a lot of our senses. With music, for example, there is a beat that happens when two discordant notes are heard. If people are exposed to this when they are young, they can pitch match easily and without thinking. Older people take considerable time to do this, and often have to trial and error, moving pitch high or low until they home in on the match. Some cannot do it at all. That is tone deafness. With other people it happens with faces. They are not able to associate a face with a person easily, or at all. Voice and other cues work for them however.
An example is some people being able to adapt to seeing with their ears or skin or tongue. The latter has been used as a 3D spatial locater device in some test subjects where small electrical pulses are "tasted" and mapped into the space surrounding the person. Some of us can easily do this, others can't.
Kittens need to see early, or they suffer fairly serious visual impairment as cats, for another example.
One that's relevant to a lot of us is dual analog video game controllers. I find these somewhat limiting compared to a space ball or keyboard mouse combination. Kids, who are gaming these days, develop the mapping skills that lets them break motion ideas into the components necessary to manipulate both sticks at the same time. I often find myself using a smaller set of motion vectors because I can't always break down more complex motions into the vectors of simultaneous motion required for input. The older we get, the more rigid we become in these things. (and I've taken up exploring different input means and methods because of this. I've seen some additional skill improvement, but not as much as I would have 20 years ago.)
I can relate to the blind people in a way. When I'm forced to work on the car, often it's from the bottom. Of course, dirt, grit and fluids are going to get in your eyes, sometimes even with safety goggles on. So, I do most of that work eyes closed! This was a transition I made as a young kid working on cars. Saw an older mechanic do it, and he said he could "see" the car just fine by touch. After a go or two, he was totally right. Been doing it ever since. My younger son has seen this a time or two and calls it "freaky". The most interesting thing about that is being able to map out the car without actually having line of sight. Normally one would use mirrors or physical contortions to see the point of engagement. Holding a tool, or just using fingers to check out the area builds up a picture for me that's often significantly better than what I would have seen had I gone looking.
On the car I have, a partial engine removal and lift is required to replace the starter. Well, I don't have that. I just take the starter apart, move the pieces into the void where it would otherwise fit, then assemble the starter again, then fit it to the car. This job usually takes me about two hours. I'll just lay down under the car, distribute the tools around me radially, get a head prop pillow, and just close my eyes and go at it.
I suspect the blind people have adapted so many alternative input means and methods to deal with their environment that the extra sense is a point of conflict they don't have the low level skills to make sense of. In a way, some of this stuff is handy. I often navigate our home at night, getting something to drink, etc... and do it in near dark. Waking the kids and the animals is just a mess, so it's better to just go and do it in the dark. After a few times, I ended up with a mental picture of where things were and really don't have a lot of trouble. For the drink, a finger partially in the cup serves to locate the level, preventing an over pour. That's one very easy thing sighted people can do that works well. There have got to be a ton of others non-sighted people use.
Animals adapt this way too. We hear about amazing blind animals all the time. I've watched them work by smell, sound and touch and it's very effective. Dogs are so darn good with their nose that fetch is possible with just sound and smell!
To me, these things reinforce some of what I wrote earlier about the intelligence being molded by the container that houses it.
We've got definite structure to how we are, and we've got some adaptability built in too.
Come to think of it, it might be a valid idea to flat out state that rigid systems can't be conscious, but could be intelligent. We see so many examples of adaptation across those things we deem intelligent that it loops back around to the idea that consciousness is a manifestation of being where the being exhibits sufficient complexity so as to be self-aware.
It must be the season for this sort of thing: summer's nearly over, self-reflection starts to intrude on externalities. Now, even Reddit is getting into the act:
It depends on whether consciousness is simply a result of complexity, or something else which presumably would be neuronal; like the microtubule theory of Hameroff and Penrose.
This thread is the beginning of a long strange trip to the looney bin.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ VIRAND, If you spent as much time SPINNING as you do Trolling the Forums,
you'd have tons of awesome code to post! (Note to self)
Comments
> So where exactly in time is my "now"
This is a really cool question - especially in light of us trying to come to 'terms' with consciousness.
Consider: when you listen to a voice mail - time-wise - it's *almost* as if that person were speaking to you live, here and now.
Better example still: remember a cell phone call where the person you were speaking to was just outside of normal hearing distance, and then you came close enough together that you could hear each other without the phone? What do you experience everytime?
Right ! You immediately notice the echo - and then realize that you were *not* speaking to each other in real time - even though it *seemed* like real time during the phone call.
To me, this implies that "consciousness" or "understanding" that works as part of consciousness is more expansive, more complex than what we consider "time".
I won't say "consciousness is outside of time" - rather that in the 'set' of things, consciousness *may be* the bigger set which contains space and time.
At the very least, because Energy is time and space dependant (a consequence of E=mc^2), then Energy must be at least the same size 'set' as space plus time.
This makes sense, doesn't it?
Then, for consciousness to be "real" it must have a direct relationship to energy - otherwise we fall into dualism, etc.
Since Phil's toaster uses energy, it must have some level of consciousness. And our consciousness, if it really is "high level," must be pretty efficient because we don't burn like a Sun. (Perhaps the Sun - as a consciousness - is so high level, that we cannot understand it - or better, we don't understand it yet [noparse]:)[/noparse]
So the scientific search then becomes trying to understand the relationships between "energy" and "consciousness."
Would you all agree to at least that last statement?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Yeah, I'll go along with that. I'm a little baffled by your cell phone scenario but energy and consciousness must be related. I doubt we've mapped out all the energies in the universe just yet. So I'll keep an open mind.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
I was just using electromagnetics to illustrate how we are immersed in various fields of energy that aren't immediately or directly perceived. Besides, even with EM it could be just a question of getting the right coding or modulation or whatever. Look up and see the Andromeda galaxy - you've got photons from trillions of miles away and millions of years in the past. I'm just sayin.
Consider:
- that flashing strobe lights can trigger an epileptic to seizure;
- that very loud rock music can alter heart rhythms;
- that Electroencephalography works at all;
- that CAT scans and MRI scans can be used to observe brain activity.
Aren't these all energy state transistions that relate at least indirectly to consciousness?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Post Edited (CounterRotatingProps) : 9/10/2009 7:11:42 PM GMT
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Leon,
I hope I don't sound like I'm splitting hairs over your comments but I'm just curious why you feel the need to get down to the neuronal level as opposed to, say, the blood flow level of the brain's process? At what point is it "merely" blood flow and at what point is it something more substantial or more directly influential to consciousness? I'm wondering, for example, at what point would we be getting too close to the brain's process for our inquiry to make any sense?
There is a chasm that is difficult to cross because we don't yet have consistent tools with which to operate on it.
CounterRotatingProps Very interesting questions!
I don't know that I know enough to agree with both your questions, however I do like the line of reasoning so far. Fair?
The "cell phone" deal is a point of fascination with me. Latency is something we endure. That has implications.
Actual perception is very fast. Awareness of it takes some additional time. Reasoning can happen in parallel, and augment the perception with experience, giving us then an optimal speed of interaction that feels real time. Quite often it isn't. What we think of as real time, so often just isn't.
Some simple and fun tests can highlight this. Take a stop watch, or some activity where reaction time can be measured and have the person doing some other tasks. Reaction time can be upwards of a full second! Also, make the event somewhat predictable, and the person very rapidly reaches a point where they do pattern recognition and anticipate the event with high accuracy, landing a response well inside the reaction time that would be in play, with no other information present. We sense these "patterns" at a low level just like we easily find the harmonic resonant frequency of things we manipulate, or are in proximity to. Ever notice how we will just "walk together" without even thinking?
That's all fun stuff, but it goes farther than that.
As people, we connect to other people. Right now, I'm operating a browser writing words to all of you, and it's not unlike a discussion where we are all in the same room. Time can compress, impressions bent to an idealized state, and then we can operate within that state as if it were the real state. There are a lot of abstractions that occur when this kind of thing happens. Powerful stuff, and something I don't think is all that well understood in the scientific sense. On the other hand, authors are one shining example of the art of it being understood in the "understanding" way I mentioned up thread.
It's literally possible to "connect" and identify with another mind that expressed itself far in the past, and get the same kinds of things we would get, if we were with them in the present time. The advent of technology, in my opinion, has made "real time" a far more arbitrary thing.
I know absolutely that if I took the time to write these words somewhere else. The word processor, piece of paper, or even with the net connection disabled where the illusion of "talking" in real time isn't present, my words are different. I'm writing then, not talking, as it were. Also, I seem to lose the mental constructs I have of all of you. Some I've met, others I've not, and still those constructs are there. Often, they are close too! Like when you walk into a room and recognize somebody you've only conversed with online. We can infer a lot through simple discussion.
Getting back to the "now", I submit that now is what we say it is then. With the phones it's a small disconnect, and we can be interactive because the latency is low. Here in the forum, the latency is quite high --even spanning days, and the conversation could proceed as though it were over a short span of time. I can tell you, for me, right now, in this instant, it's effectively "now". It's now because I am choosing to invoke and operate within the illusion of "speaking to you" live, here in this browser window. Rationally, I know it's not "now", but that's not important for the conversation to occur as it otherwise would.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
It depends on whether consciousness is simply a result of complexity, or something else which presumably would be neuronal; like the microtubule theory of Hameroff and Penrose.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
Potato,
I'm guessing the rate differences of processing are big clues to how our minds are structured/layered/whatever you want to call it. Maybe we have reflex at some super low level, I-ness in the middle, and I'm guessing there's some other time processings that take place over larger and larger windows of time that don't include conscious awareness/ I-ness. I guess that might make us something akin to complex PID controllers
To Leon,
Speaking of Penrose and his musings about quantum computational aspects of microtubules...IMHO, one of the most profound discoveries of the past 10 years has involved the possible quantum computational aspects of photosynthesis. If nature has figured out a way to suspend/delay a process until a "decision" can be made as to the most efficient route to take, then... whoa, dudes, what have we got here?
www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/PBD-quantum-secrets.html
www.energy.gov/discovery/photosynthesis.html
If the lowly plants can do that, just think what our brains might be capable of.
> photosynthesis.html
as Spock would say, "Fascinating"
Leon> ... whether consciousness is simply a result of complexity, or something else which presumably would be neuronal ...
At the risk of venturing toward "man in the box" territory --- but trying to steer WAY CLEAR of Science versus Religion! ...
Our "I-ness" and "Now-ness" considerations point to consciousness being highly non-linear.
From the neuronal side: Considering the huge number of neuron connections and firings, that 'something else' also has to be non-linear.
The quantum mechanical activity EA's links consider in plants is a simple life process 'connection' to energy transformation. Which, in quatum mechanical terms means one of two possible things:
1. either the collapse of the (superpositioned) wavefunctions happens first - and then the "life" appears as a result
OR
2. that " something else " triggers the wavefunction collapse first and energy transformation follows.
Those articles seem to at least grant the possiblity of #2.
I am beginning to think in all fairness that we cannot off-handedly dismiss that there might be at least a "plant in the box" ... you see we will always come back to some version of this several-hundred-year-old discussion. If we want to give it superfical lables - which make good sound-bites for arguments and bashing - but do little to promote sophisticated, nuanced discussion, then we can say
1. is traditional "Materialism" ("Matter (and energy), never Mind") - meant in the broadest brush stroke. Matter/Energy are all there is - life is a byproduct. Phil's "reductionist" explainer earlier in this thread gives a very clear and concise version.
OR
2. is traditional "Spiritualism" ("Mind, never matter") - again, in broad sweeps... "Life" (Vitalism, Mind, Soul, Spirit, whatever) exists first and controls/alters matter and energy.
Both of these have strengths and weaknesses... Since the birth of science, Materialism has gained leaps and bounds over Spiritualism. And most of us here probably accept some version of it for good reason. Some would say that Spiritualism doesn't really have any strenghts as it is illusionary, but consider art, music, self-sacrifice, etc. Again, I mean these terms as the broadest definition. ...
Here's my real take on this. I think #2 contains #1 ("Mind is Matter and Matter is Mind")·- BUT - the old terms "Spirit" "Soul" Religious-dogmas, etc. are just very worn out ideas pointing to some·realm, some area of activity, or set of processes, that science is just beginning to enter into. We will understand these things at some point. Human's search for knowledge is insatiable.· Forget the mumbo jumbo·- get real!
The science research EA's links show are, to me, examples of just this expanding of understanding by science into realms previously the sole domain of "spiritual activity"... please don't read that superficially - it needs to be taken in the context above.
We have to honestly admit that science really understands only a very SMALL portion of the realms of physics ... there is plenty of room for modern and future science to explore territories once belonging to the ancients.
Isn't it wonderfull?
- H
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Post Edited (CounterRotatingProps) : 9/11/2009 4:55:01 PM GMT
My view is like this:
This is where the the little dedicated sensor micro controller comes into play. In other words... those other smaller and more dedicated parts of the brain kick into sprint/react mode must faster than the huge cognitive gray matter machine.
This all makes me think about just how far we really are from having a Star Trek style "Commander Data" robot coming into existence.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
There's nothing like a new idea and a warm soldering iron.
LOL
and then, there will be this encounter with an earlier, archaic AI object:
(Thanks to Agent for posting that before!)
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
That kind of thing is why I say, "highly likely" and not just flat out voodoo! [noparse]:)[/noparse]"
I, unfortunately experienced this one when my dad died. After everything was over my dads twin brother was telling us how when he first awoken was almost the same time my dad died the first time about 2am.
Then about 4am he got up and started toward the phone which is when my brother gave him a call to tell him about the bad news.
The other spooky thing about twins...there where times when my dad would get up and head for the phone, pick it up and start talking to his brother without it ringing at all!
Will I dream?....
It's a line from SAL and HAL in 2001/2010 that I think of anytime when I see my dogs growling and making other strange noises in their sleep.
Dogs...
About three years ago I had a 11year old sheltie that died of cancer of liver and kidneys. My oldest niece had talked my mom and her dad into getting a replacement for my Micky. They had one already picked out before they dragged me along, they claimed they going to take me to a movie.
When made it to the breeders to pick up Molly, someone else was there looking at another group of puppies when one of these little black & white fuzz balls (which I named Mini) came running right for me and kept following me around the rest of the time I was there. So.. I ended up with two little shelties that day.
This goes to prove my theory about dogs adopting the human and not the humans adopting the dogs, because ever since then Mini has always followed me where ever I go.
-dan
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Arguing with myself--sometimes me, myself, and I don't always agree.
Of the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Post Edited (icepuck) : 9/12/2009 1:13:13 AM GMT
Seriously, there are plenty of confirmed phenomena that we don't adequately understand.
-Phil
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Suzuki SV1000S motorcycle
I don't disagree. But I know people who don't believe in coincidence and that everything that happens happens for a reason. We're hard-wired for this, though, the same way we're programmed to interpret "faces" in clouds and on slices of burnt toast. Biology may not be destiny, but it certainly creates strong predispositions. Noetheless, it's incumbent upon us to temper our smugness with an acknowledgment that there are "unknown unknowns".
-Phil
sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/910/4?etoc
without knowing why I'm remembering it [noparse]:)[/noparse], the pattern [noparse]:)[/noparse]) of that article reminds me of the instances where individuals, who were born blind, having had their sight restored surgically were basically unable to make sense out of the sense of seeing *). Often, they would then prefer to sit in the dark or turn the lights off to get around - well at least that makes sense --- habits are hard to break. But not being able to do much with their new found ability is strange - especially considering how much we rely on sight. (* Yes, I should find references.)
What do you all make of this?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
IMHO, our brains are mostly plastic when we are younger. The engine required to process sight into meaningful information develops early. The later we end up seeing, the more difficult and less high level this information is. Some of this depends on the person too. In a sense, we are somewhat hard wired. I think this is true for a lot of our senses. With music, for example, there is a beat that happens when two discordant notes are heard. If people are exposed to this when they are young, they can pitch match easily and without thinking. Older people take considerable time to do this, and often have to trial and error, moving pitch high or low until they home in on the match. Some cannot do it at all. That is tone deafness. With other people it happens with faces. They are not able to associate a face with a person easily, or at all. Voice and other cues work for them however.
An example is some people being able to adapt to seeing with their ears or skin or tongue. The latter has been used as a 3D spatial locater device in some test subjects where small electrical pulses are "tasted" and mapped into the space surrounding the person. Some of us can easily do this, others can't.
Kittens need to see early, or they suffer fairly serious visual impairment as cats, for another example.
One that's relevant to a lot of us is dual analog video game controllers. I find these somewhat limiting compared to a space ball or keyboard mouse combination. Kids, who are gaming these days, develop the mapping skills that lets them break motion ideas into the components necessary to manipulate both sticks at the same time. I often find myself using a smaller set of motion vectors because I can't always break down more complex motions into the vectors of simultaneous motion required for input. The older we get, the more rigid we become in these things. (and I've taken up exploring different input means and methods because of this. I've seen some additional skill improvement, but not as much as I would have 20 years ago.)
I can relate to the blind people in a way. When I'm forced to work on the car, often it's from the bottom. Of course, dirt, grit and fluids are going to get in your eyes, sometimes even with safety goggles on. So, I do most of that work eyes closed! This was a transition I made as a young kid working on cars. Saw an older mechanic do it, and he said he could "see" the car just fine by touch. After a go or two, he was totally right. Been doing it ever since. My younger son has seen this a time or two and calls it "freaky". The most interesting thing about that is being able to map out the car without actually having line of sight. Normally one would use mirrors or physical contortions to see the point of engagement. Holding a tool, or just using fingers to check out the area builds up a picture for me that's often significantly better than what I would have seen had I gone looking.
On the car I have, a partial engine removal and lift is required to replace the starter. Well, I don't have that. I just take the starter apart, move the pieces into the void where it would otherwise fit, then assemble the starter again, then fit it to the car. This job usually takes me about two hours. I'll just lay down under the car, distribute the tools around me radially, get a head prop pillow, and just close my eyes and go at it.
I suspect the blind people have adapted so many alternative input means and methods to deal with their environment that the extra sense is a point of conflict they don't have the low level skills to make sense of. In a way, some of this stuff is handy. I often navigate our home at night, getting something to drink, etc... and do it in near dark. Waking the kids and the animals is just a mess, so it's better to just go and do it in the dark. After a few times, I ended up with a mental picture of where things were and really don't have a lot of trouble. For the drink, a finger partially in the cup serves to locate the level, preventing an over pour. That's one very easy thing sighted people can do that works well. There have got to be a ton of others non-sighted people use.
Animals adapt this way too. We hear about amazing blind animals all the time. I've watched them work by smell, sound and touch and it's very effective. Dogs are so darn good with their nose that fetch is possible with just sound and smell!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
We've got definite structure to how we are, and we've got some adaptability built in too.
Come to think of it, it might be a valid idea to flat out state that rigid systems can't be conscious, but could be intelligent. We see so many examples of adaptation across those things we deem intelligent that it loops back around to the idea that consciousness is a manifestation of being where the being exhibits sufficient complexity so as to be self-aware.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Post Edited (potatohead) : 9/15/2009 1:08:37 PM GMT
····www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9ktnz/how_the_hell_does_my_electrically_saturated_glob/
'Some interesting links in that thread, BTW...
-Phil
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
Neurons???
I don't need no stinking neurons!
sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/121/1
And lest we not forget: this particular species is a ONE celled organism. It's "veins" etc. and entire mass is a lone, single sprawling cell.
Post Edited (ElectricAye) : 1/22/2010 8:09:51 PM GMT
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
VIRAND, If you spent as much time SPINNING as you do Trolling the Forums,
you'd have tons of awesome code to post! (Note to self)