If Consciousness Is A Function Of Neurons ?

[Poppins]

The conundrum in all this is mostly that there's no good definition of "consciousness."

 

What's yours?

 

 

I used to wake up at 4 A.M. and start sneezing, sometimes for five hours. I tried to find out what sort of allergy I had but finally came to the conclusion that it must be an allergy to consciousness, :phones:

Buffy

 Sorry, I don't have the time to catch up through the entire thread at the moment. I agree with Buffy though.

 

Consciousness is an illusory term that is typically used by modern and pre-modern philosophers. One philosopher who likes to talk about consciousness is John Searle. I had the pleasure (or displeasure) of speaking with him. He's rude, to put it plainly. If you're interested in the idea of "consciousness", you should look into his work, but, if you're interested in a sort of unification between physics, biology, psychology, and neurscience, then you should look into computational theories of the mind. I think that consciousness (as we know it) is actually a byproduct of sweeping signals coming from the supramarginal gyrus and crossing the motor cortex. I like to think of it as an emergent property of thought. I have reasons to believe that based on experience in machine learning.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Poppins

[Poppins]

If images can be carried by light waves, if words can be carried by sound waves, why couldn't these informations be carried by another type of waves? Why couldn't the images that we see, and the sounds that we hear, be carried by the brain waves if those waves circulate endlessly in loops in the brain?

"Brain waves" is too vague. Every living creature has an electromagnetic field associated with them. One question that was raised by philosophers of mind was the "unification of consciousness", meaning that we see our world in a unified fashion (we don't see color as separate from objects that have the feature). I think that we can safely say, based on electrical wires, that our brain takes all data and throws it into the magnetic field so each neuron can experience it independently from the areas that specialize in any given input. The reason for that conclusion is based on how electricians use wires to transmit data. They have to rotate all the wires of a cord in different increments so that the data doesn't get skewed together. Our brains don't do that.

[pgrmdave]

If images can be carried by light waves, if words can be carried by sound waves, why couldn't these informations be carried by another type of waves? Why couldn't the images that we see, and the sounds that we hear, be carried by the brain waves if those waves circulate endlessly in loops in the brain?

I think you're missing the point - the data is just noise until we interpret it in a particular way.  There's nothing special about brain waves until we build a machine that can interpret them just like there's nothing special about bits on a hard drive until there's a machine that can interpret them.  Sound waves don't carry words, they carry sounds - talk to me in something other than english and there's no information in them.

[LeRepteux]

When you imagine an object, you see it in your mind as it was when you saw it with your eyes, and when you imagine words too. Everybody agrees that what they see for real is the same thing everybody sees. That coincidence is precisely what we call "reality". When we talk to each other, we understand each other, because the words that we use have almost the same meaning for everybody. But I am not talking about the meaning of the words, I am talking about the carrier of their information. If we can establish that brain waves can carry informations like images or words, then we might discuss the meaning of all that, which might turn out to be a philosophical issue. But if we begin talking philosophy, we will never be able to progress physically.

[LeRepteux]

"Brain waves" is too vague. Every living creature has an electromagnetic field associated with them. One question that was raised by philosophers of mind was the "unification of consciousness", meaning that we see our world in a unified fashion (we don't see color as separate from objects that have the feature). I think that we can safely say, based on electrical wires, that our brain takes all data and throws it into the magnetic field so each neuron can experience it independently from the areas that specialize in any given input. The reason for that conclusion is based on how electricians use wires to transmit data. They have to rotate all the wires of a cord in different increments so that the data doesn't get skewed together. Our brains don't do that.

The reason why wires are twisted is to give them flexibility and strength, it has nothing to do with information. Did you take some drug? The brain waves that I am talking about are those that we can register during an electroencephalogram, so they are quite well defined, but nobody has given them the property to carry information up to now.

[pgrmdave]

When you imagine an object, you see it in your mind as it was when you saw it with your eyes, and when you imagine words too. Everybody agrees that what they see for real is the same thing everybody sees. That coincidence is precisely what we call "reality". When we talk to each other, we understand each other, because the words that we use have almost the same meaning for everybody. But I am not talking about the meaning of the words, I am talking about the carrier of their information. If we can establish that brain waves can carry informations like images or words, then we might discuss the meaning of all that, which might turn out to be a philosophical issue. But if we begin talking philosophy, we will never be able to progress physically.

Words have meaning because we have an agreed upon meaning.  Reality has existence regardless of agreed upon existence.  Brain waves are simply a potential way to use an external device, if properly calibrated, to attempt to determine what a particular brain's activity was.  The fluctuations in electromagnetic energy contain no information on their own - only after we're able to interpret them do they.  The reason I bring up computer data is because that's data that is *seemingly information*, because if I, say, open up a .txt file I can read it.  But if I can only read it because there's already a machine designed to interpret it in a particular way.  There's no inherent *reason* why a particular order of bits is translated as an 'A'. There's nothing special about it.  There's no particular *reason* why particular patterns of electromagnetism may indicate certain aspects of thought when read from a particular person's brain except that we've come to the conclusion that it should.  Those same patterns of electromagnetism coming from somewhere else will contain no meaning, because there's nothing special about them.

 

Words can have meaning when spoken.  If wind were to blow through a canyon in such a way that it was indistinguishable from a person repeating the Gettysburg Address it would still contain only as much meaning as wind ever does (even if it would be an impressive curiosity).

[zazz54]

And there it is; as pgrmdave wrote earlier: "The bits on a hard disk are completely meaningless until there's a program designed to read and interpret them in a particular way." This is the essence of what I'm saying. Until we can understand the manual - in its entirety, we could never produce an artificial being as "natural" as the real one. And again, why would we want to?

 

I'd like to know if that is the goal though -- to build an AI that would be considered a new created being? I'm sure there are research institutes with different goals, but is this the overall objective? If not, what is the objective in creating an AI?

Edited November 20, 2014 by zazz54

[LeRepteux]

To me, the first goal would be a fundamental one: to know more about intelligence. But at the same time, if AI could do things that a natural intelligence couldn't do, why not: if intelligence became more diversified, it might increase its chances to survive.

[LeRepteux]

Pgrmdave, you said:

 

"Words have meaning because we have an agreed upon meaning".

 

I think that we can agree on the idea that, fundamentally, any information that an animal has in mind only helps him to move properly in order to feed and to defend himself. But we are fundamentally animals with a better mind. One of the things we do better is talk, but talk is still a motion. When we think, we prepare a future move, otherwise it would be useless to think. For us, reality is about our own survival and the survival of our own specie, whether we agree on the same reality or not, we still have to survive in the same environment.

There's no particular *reason* why particular patterns of electromagnetism may indicate certain aspects of thought when read from a particular person's brain except that we've come to the conclusion that it should.

The main reason is that communication between members of the same specie is better for survival than not. It is a fact that we communicate, and we do so because we have developed what is needed to do so.

Those same patterns of electromagnetism coming from somewhere else will contain no meaning, because there's nothing special about them.

There is something special for us because we developed the tools that can manipulate the informations, which were already there otherwise we couldn't have. Its another subject, but I developed the idea here that atoms could also use the information carried by light, and in one sens, this information is also about telling them how to move to survive. Now, if we were able to evolve technically  to observe light waves, if our eyes were able to evolve biologically to perceive light waves, why would the brain not have been able to evolve biologically to develop and manipulate its own waves?

 

Could we agree on the idea that anything we think is fundamentally about moving?

Edited November 20, 2014 by LeRepteux

[Poppins]

And there it is; as pgrmdave wrote earlier: "The bits on a hard disk are completely meaningless until there's a program designed to read and interpret them in a particular way." This is the essence of what I'm saying. Until we can understand the manual - in its entirety, we could never produce an artificial being as "natural" as the real one. And again, why would we want to?

 

I'd like to know if that is the goal though -- to build an AI that would be considered a new created being? I'm sure there are research institutes with different goals, but is this the overall objective? If not, what is the objective in creating an AI?

The objective is to prolong life, satisfy the user, and ease the pain of rejection.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Poppins

[Poppins]

The reason why wires are twisted is to give them flexibility and strength, it has nothing to do with information. Did you take some drug? The brain waves that I am talking about are those that we can register during an electroencephalogram, so they are quite well defined, but nobody has given them the property to carry information up to now.

I'm not going to argue my point. I've done research on this and know that you are wrong. Your argument here is fallacious in two ways, it's an argument from incredulity and also ad hominem. 

[zazz54]

The objective is to prolong life, satisfy the user, and ease the pain of rejection.

Is this an answer from the scientific community, tasked with such a project, or your opinion? And don't get me wrong, I think that answer is probably the essence of what may be their objective, and if so then I would ask, what satisfies the user? Would not the AI be forever insatiable? Which I would add, is worrisome in some respect - very useful in others.

[zazz54]

To me, the first goal would be a fundamental one: to know more about intelligence. But at the same time, if AI could do things that a natural intelligence couldn't do, why not: if intelligence became more diversified, it might increase its chances to survive.

I read your explanation of inertial motion, and think I understand basically what you were saying. However, I'm trying to understand how you go from motion to information. I apologize that I don't have the knowledge you folks obviously have in physics, or other sciences. As I wrote earlier, I'm just an old newspaper man attempting to understand things way above my pay grade - and that, because it intrigues me.

 

Allow me to repeat in very raw/rough form what I think you mean about the process for an AI to gain more intelligence, which is already part of a working system - that we don't completely understand. You say that in order to create cerebral waves, which carry the information needed, we're going to need the programming that electronically manipulates the signals. The information is passed on because the waves have memory...(I'm probably really screwing it up here), in order to produce a "being"/AI that will know how to survive just about anything, and will increase in knowledge, exponentially.

Edited November 20, 2014 by zazz54

[LeRepteux]

I read your explanation of inertial motion, and think I understand basically what you were saying. However, I'm trying to understand how you go from motion to information. I apologize that I don't have the knowledge you folks obviously have in physics, or other sciences. As I wrote earlier, I'm just an old newspaper man attempting to understand things way above my pay grade - and that, because it intrigues me.

The explanation for motion in physics is mass: inertial motion is due to massive bodies resisting to any change in direction or speed. So the main characteristic of motion is resistance to change. But the main characteristic of mind is also resistance to change: resistance to change its information (memory) and resistance to change its automatisms (subconsciously). If you add to that observation that animal mind only serves to move to get food or to run away, to me, the analogy of motion being produced by bodies exchanging information between them, and evolution of ideas being produced by mind exchanging information with other minds, is evident.

 

Allow me to repeat in very raw/rough form what I think you mean about the process for an AI to gain more intelligence, which is already part of a working system - that we don't completely understand. You say that in order to create cerebral waves, which carry the information needed, we're going to need the programming that electronically manipulates the signals. The information is passed on because the waves have memory...(I'm probably really screwing it up here), in order to produce a "being"/AI that will know how to survive just about anything, and will increase in knowledge, exponentially.

Not electronically, but "neuronically". Electromagnetic waves can be manipulated electronically, sound waves can be manipulated by matter (a music instrument is designed to amplify the sounds that it produces), and brain waves could be amplified or concentrated or diffracted or refracted or reflected by a specific formation of neurons. This device would not have to be programmed to do its job: when a wave encounters an obstacle, it can be reflected, refracted, diffracted, concentrated and so on, without any programming to tell it what to do.

 

If such a device would have been good for the survival of an individual, then it would have developed by natural selection. Wave Reflection is about thinking instead of acting, wave concentration is about observing and amplifying part of the brain waves, refraction is about departing waves of a different wave length, as with a prism for light, which might have to do with departing our ideas from one another, and diffraction is about interference between two waves of the same length, which might have something to do with comparing or mixing two comparable ideas to form only one.

 

If we would succeed to build an artificial brain with those properties and it would be able to learn and to create new things, then I think that we would have proven that we know how intelligence works.

Edited November 20, 2014 by LeRepteux

[zazz54]

A lot to chew on. I'll get back to you, after I have gone back to school. Interesting stuff though, something for my semi-retired mind to contemplate on. Thanks!

[LeRepteux]

Welcome! And don't hesitate to ask questions. This idea belongs to anyone who is able to think. It has not maths in it, only knowledge of simple physics principles and their application to different kinds of motion.

[zazz54]

LeRepteaux, you wrote: "...brain waves could be amplified or concentrated or diffracted or refracted or reflected by a specific formation of neurons..." I'm trying to understand that the specific formation of neurons isn't exactly programmed in our model AI.

 

If I understood what you were saying, brain waves have the capability to amplify or concentrate, diffract, refract and reflect, correct? And we are attempting to build a "device" that utilizes these capabilities by setting up a specific formation of neurons - right? Aside from the possibly obvious responses in brain activity; i.e, stimulate this nerve ending, make a finger move, type of response - if that is the same ballpark, how would we know what the specific formation is? And I suppose that would be determined by what task we were trying to accomplish. But overall, do we have that kind of knowledge, where we could build a device/AI that utilizes brain waves the way humans use them?

 

And I realize that no, we don't have all the knowledge necessary, yet. However, I'm curious as to what we do have that we might, at least fundamentally, set up the neurons in specific formation?

Edited November 21, 2014 by zazz54