Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 109 posts

Re: Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics

#91

Post by mach1ne »

juliangamble wrote: post #88
mach1ne wrote: post #87

I find that it's disingenuous to propose attributes of consciousness when consciousness hasn't even properly been defined. There is not a shred of evidence that something like our concept of consciousness even exists.

Disagree. As a science, Psychology is largely based on self-reporting.

And incidentially the field has a huge problem with pseudoscience, with studies that are not replicable, lying with statistics, theories which aren't falsifiable...

The problem with consciousness is that the only evidence it exists is that individuals claim to experience it, without even really defining what it is they experience. This "evidence" has a much simpler explanation than the existence of an almost-magical consciousness.

It's not that there can't be something like consciousness, but there is currently nothing to indicate this.

Re: Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics

#92

Post by martopix »

mach1ne wrote: post #87

I find that it's disingenuous to propose attributes of consciousness when consciousness hasn't even properly been defined. There is not a shred of evidence that something like our concept of consciousness even exists.

Consciousness here means being in a conscious state, i.e. not sleeping, not fainted, not in an altered psychedelic state. It is clearly defined. Regrettably the word consciousness also refers to the "hard-problem of consciousness" thing.

Re: Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics

#93

Post by ctchocula »

ghostly_s wrote: post #8

What does "a critical point or phase transition [of the] electrodynamics of the cortex" mean? Electricity doesn't have "phases" AFAIK (well there's two/three-phase power but I don't think that's what they're talking about).

A link on HN yesterday that talks about critical points and phase transitions:

* A mathematician explains what Foundation gets right about predicting the future (spoiler: critical points!): https://www.sciof.fi/a-mathematician-explains-psychohistory/

And if you're still interested, there's a more in-depth explanation with mathematical formulas and all. Even if I understood only 10-20% of what Ken Wilson was talking about, he gives a lucid motivation for why critical points are important and why they can be found in practice using renormalization groups, and not computer simulations:

* Ken Wilson's Nobel Prize lecture: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/wilson-lecture-2....

Re: Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics

#94

Post by hoseja »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #78
jquery wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this research is super interesting, and it's disappointing such a blaze, dismissive comment is at the top. Cosmologists: we literally took a picture of a black hole! Someone: So? I already knew they existed. Besides, it's not a picture of a black hole, it's just the ring around the black hole. yawn Cosmologists: oh... sorry for wasting your time.

I was far more interested in the algorithms they used than the actual picture of the black hole.

And the imaging instrument.

Re: Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics

#95

Post by hoseja »

idiocrat wrote: post #68
markhahn wrote: post #24

This strikes me as totally unsurprising. How could it be otherwise? It's basically saying that a brain normally operates in an interesting dynamical mode: not chaotic, and not very regular. Wow? If it were chaotic, we wouldn't have coherent or consistent behavior at any scale. If overly regular, we'd be incredibly dull and unable to respond to the environment. You could do this with a computer. If your signals coming…

Interestingly, this is how (surgical) sedatives usually work. They increase the average activity of all neurons, so the brain is losing consciousness, because no coherent thoughts can circulate anymore.

That sounds like it would scramble your brain long-term.

Re: Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics

#96

Post by kylebyproxy »

csee wrote: post #83
kylebyproxy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm asking if there's a proof for determinism itself. I was under the impression that we've only ever been inferring consistency is a property of reality. If you can QED me to a conclusion that yes, in fact, the sun will rise in the morning, I would genuinely find that useful.

If the underlying physics is deterministic, then a chaotic system (e.g. the Three Body Problem) is just a collection of deterministic parts interacting with each other, and is therefore itself deterministic. The overwhelming complexity and unpredictability we observe is just a commentary on our own ignorance and limitation as humans. There was never room for any non-deterministic thing to magic itself into the system…

I appreciate the good faith engagement (cue side glare sigstoat), and I'm in agreement with everything but the use of "never" in the your closing sentence.

> There was never room for any non-deterministic thing to magic itself into the system

Depending what you mean by "into the system," existence itself is a glaring counterexample.

How did any of it get here in the first place? Was there an uncaused cause? Is entropy reversible?

Until we can explain-away these types of questions, it'd be prudent to remain noncommittal on the topic. The type of determinism that sigstoats expect might not even make sense in other regions or eras of reality. Things get profoundly hazy past Planck Era.

Re: Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics

#97

Post by kylebyproxy »

sigstoat wrote: post #80
kylebyproxy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm asking if there's a proof for determinism itself. I was under the impression that we've only ever been inferring consistency is a property of reality. If you can QED me to a conclusion that yes, in fact, the sun will rise in the morning, I would genuinely find that useful.

> I'm asking if there's a proof for determinism itself. sounds like you tried to take a flying leap away from the mathematically sound, and pedestrian statement of darawk into philosophy. you should warn people about that, so that people know not to bother. > If you can QED me to a conclusion that yes, in fact, the sun will rise in the morning, I would genuinely find that useful. if "gravity" isn't enough of an answe…

> darawk

Nice word. Does it have a definition?

Re: Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics

#98

Post by csee »

kylebyproxy wrote: post #96
csee wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the underlying physics is deterministic, then a chaotic system (e.g. the Three Body Problem) is just a collection of deterministic parts interacting with each other, and is therefore itself deterministic. The overwhelming complexity and unpredictability we observe is just a commentary on our own ignorance and limitation as humans. There was never room for any non-deterministic thing to magic itself into the system…

I appreciate the good faith engagement (cue side glare sigstoat), and I'm in agreement with everything but the use of "never" in the your closing sentence. > There was never room for any non-deterministic thing to magic itself into the system Depending what you mean by "into the system," existence itself is a glaring counterexample. How did any of it get here in the first place? Was there an uncaused cause? Is entrop…

I wonder if it's possible to prove that you can't end up with a non-deterministic system if that system is constituted only by deterministic parts? I get the sense that such a proof is possible, but I am not sure. We can trivially prove it for deterministic systems that we can model mathematically, but what about a generic proof for those systems that are beyond our modelling capabilities?

Regarding existence itself, I agree that determinism is not an exhaustive set of possibilities (if it was, it would imply an infinite chain of causes, which presents its own problems). I just challenge the idea that one can possibly get a non-deterministic system if we assume that we're working with purely deterministic components/rules.

Re: Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics

#99

Post by Kim_Bruning »

whatshisface wrote: post #32
awb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also the kind of thing that can open a backdoor for free will in a deterministic universe, your brain in this chaotic state might behave deterministically but the actual state would never be knowable with enough precision to predict the outcome of inputs for any amount of time (butterfly effect). I think all it would mean is that the human brain is non-deterministic. That’s different from free will though whic…

If the human mind is deterministic there's no free will. If it isn't there might be. That makes free will half of a scientific question - science can only rule it out.

Oddly, nondeterministic systems tend to be statistically more predictable than certain classes of deterministic systems (to wit: a chaotic system is a type of deterministic system). So possibly the opposite is true, you need the human mind to be (mostly) deterministic for there to be free will.

Re: Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics

#100

Post by r2_pilot »

kylebyproxy wrote: post #97
sigstoat wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm asking if there's a proof for determinism itself. sounds like you tried to take a flying leap away from the mathematically sound, and pedestrian statement of darawk into philosophy. you should warn people about that, so that people know not to bother. > If you can QED me to a conclusion that yes, in fact, the sun will rise in the morning, I would genuinely find that useful. if "gravity" isn't enough of an answe…

> darawk Nice word. Does it have a definition?

Appears to be a username in this thread
Post reply on HN