A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#31

Post by ridgeguy » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 6:19 AM UTC

Xcelerate wrote: post #5

> Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now. His last point here is salient. Much like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, any theories of consciousness are untestable. But my problem with "consciousness" is that it's not even a well-defined concept. Suppose I replace all occurrences of "consciousness" in that article with the word "qualgma".…

Well and thoughtfully said, thank you.

I find consciousness perhaps the hardest of the hard problems, in particular the self-awareness aspect of the phenomenon. I experience it, as I suspect (but can't prove) do the rest of HN's participants. But damned if I can figure out how it emerges from organized systems such as ourselves or even whether it's necessary.

I can imagine going about my day emitting behaviors without self-awareness: stimulus/response, variation/selection/inheritance over the short and long term yielding the rich behavior we associate with ourselves, our conspecifics, and the other critters we share the planet with. I can imagine everyone and everything else doing the same - behaving, absent awareness. So far, I haven't seen how consciousness is required for behavior.

And yet I feel aware, never mind that I don't see why that's required. Inevitably, that suggests to me a continuum of consciousness, from less organized to more organized systems. For me, it's a long walk from the Nernst equation and neuronal membrane potentials to my dog's happy disposition, which algorithmically seems to be wag more, bark less.

It's good there are hard problems to think about.

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#32

Post by jamesaguilar » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 6:28 AM UTC

spenuke wrote: post #6

Xcelerate wrote: post #5

> Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now. His last point here is salient. Much like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, any theories of consciousness are untestable. But my problem with "consciousness" is that it's not even a well-defined concept. Suppose I replace all occurrences of "consciousness" in that article with the word "qualgma".…

Two thoughts: 1. Your nearest definition of consciousness "emergent properties of lower level functions" or something along those lines doesn't really cut it, either. To say that something is an emergent property of another thing, without showing the steps of that emergence is kind of like defining red as "an emergent property of the sun and a sheet of cellophane". It's HOW it emerges that's the hard question. 2. If…

A salient article from LessWrong: http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#33

Post by brittonrt » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 6:41 AM UTC

This brings me to an interesting thought experiment I struggle with:

Most likely most people here would agree that if you make an exact copy of a person's brain, whilst leaving the original intact, it would be a new person, identical but divergent from the original. A new thread of consciousness by such definition.

But then, what if you destroy the original at the moment of copy? It would appear to the same.

But then, what if you replace each neuron one at a time over a period, maintaining the original network? This question is troubling because it brings into obvious doubt the integrity of our notion of consciousness. As it is in fact the case that we shed most of the atomic matter that constitutes us in a given year, we are clearly immaterial. Patterns.

So put plainly: should you copy your brain all at once, killing the original, are you a new person? But if you are: transitioning slowly piece by piece over time, which is what we observe in nature, this maintains the conscious strain? How are these different?

It's obvious to me there is something fundamental here we are missing. I welcome any insights you all might have had in similar thought experiments.

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#34

Post by Xcelerate » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:21 AM UTC

ridgeguy wrote: post #31

Xcelerate wrote: post #5

> Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now. His last point here is salient. Much like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, any theories of consciousness are untestable. But my problem with "consciousness" is that it's not even a well-defined concept. Suppose I replace all occurrences of "consciousness" in that article with the word "qualgma".…

Well and thoughtfully said, thank you. I find consciousness perhaps the hardest of the hard problems, in particular the self-awareness aspect of the phenomenon. I experience it, as I suspect (but can't prove) do the rest of HN's participants. But damned if I can figure out how it emerges from organized systems such as ourselves or even whether it's necessary. I can imagine going about my day emitting behaviors withou…

> I experience it, as I suspect (but can't prove) do the rest of HN's participants.

Wouldn't it be interesting if science had to be advanced by resorting to individual proofs? In other words, currently we can perform one experiment and have everyone else verify what we have done by looking at our results.

It may turn out that there are some aspects of reality that can only be "proven" at the individual level; however, one would assume that this applies to everyone equally.

Continuing my analogy above, if everyone can "prove" to themselves that their own floating fruit exists (even though they can't see everyone else's), that should be enough to consider it science in my opinion.

(In essence, we move from global consensus about one event to global consensus about many similar, but individual events.)

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#35

Post by sgt101 » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:34 AM UTC

Xcelerate wrote: post #5

> Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now. His last point here is salient. Much like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, any theories of consciousness are untestable. But my problem with "consciousness" is that it's not even a well-defined concept. Suppose I replace all occurrences of "consciousness" in that article with the word "qualgma".…

You say "not science" but do you actually mean "not verified by the scientific method, yet"? It may be that the perception of self by another remains a meaningless collection of words, or progress may provide instruments that enable verification.

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#36

Post by agumonkey » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:37 AM UTC

Xcelerate wrote: post #5

> Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now. His last point here is salient. Much like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, any theories of consciousness are untestable. But my problem with "consciousness" is that it's not even a well-defined concept. Suppose I replace all occurrences of "consciousness" in that article with the word "qualgma".…

Maybe it doesn't exist and is just humans own limits and wondering they throw at each others. Can a protocol knows it's in water ?

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#37

Post by coconutrandom » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:38 AM UTC

brittonrt wrote: post #33

This brings me to an interesting thought experiment I struggle with: Most likely most people here would agree that if you make an exact copy of a person's brain, whilst leaving the original intact, it would be a new person, identical but divergent from the original. A new thread of consciousness by such definition. But then, what if you destroy the original at the moment of copy? It would appear to the same. But then…

The second question is the same as The Ship of Theseus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#38

Post by codebolt » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 7:58 AM UTC

Xcelerate wrote: post #5

> Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now. His last point here is salient. Much like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, any theories of consciousness are untestable. But my problem with "consciousness" is that it's not even a well-defined concept. Suppose I replace all occurrences of "consciousness" in that article with the word "qualgma".…

I've been pondering these same issues for well over a decade as well, but I've become partial to the Penrose-Lucas argument which implies that there is some sort of non-computational (perhaps even non-physical) component to human consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reductio...

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#39

Post by benpbenp » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 8:23 AM UTC

Xcelerate wrote: post #5

> Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now. His last point here is salient. Much like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, any theories of consciousness are untestable. But my problem with "consciousness" is that it's not even a well-defined concept. Suppose I replace all occurrences of "consciousness" in that article with the word "qualgma".…

This is very very good. Thank you for taking the time to make that comment. I have often struggled to make this same point but find that many people today are so deeply committed to a worldview of scientific materialism (the objects of physics constitute all that is), positivism (everything true must have empirical evidence), and a general anti-philosophicalism, that they just cannot accept it.

I think it just goes to show how sick and deficient that worldview is. Have you witnessed that cliche in some films where a character confronts a scientist and says, "But there's more to life than cold hard facts! What about love and art and seeing your child go to school and ...!" And all the scientists watching the film scoff and think that's just fluffy and inexact and those are just emergent properties anyway. And it's true, it is fluffy and inexact. What the character should say is, "What about the fact that I experience my own existence!", just like you've said it. And then, afterwards comes love and free will and personhood and all the other stuff. But the hard problem of consciousness is the immaterial's undeniable "foot in the door". If you are interested in a true philosophy of all that is, pay attention!

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#40

Post by ivanca » Thu, Oct 30, 2014, 8:34 AM UTC

Xcelerate wrote: post #5

> Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now. His last point here is salient. Much like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, any theories of consciousness are untestable. But my problem with "consciousness" is that it's not even a well-defined concept. Suppose I replace all occurrences of "consciousness" in that article with the word "qualgma".…

You all seem talking as if consciousness is a Boolean, rather than a float number, which is likely the case. This has been strongly hinted by scientific research on some types of (non-human) primates: those who when exposed to mirrors are able identify themselves as the ones in the reflection.

Is also testable on kids: before the age of 3 they are unable to identify themselves as the people in any reflection. They slowly acquire this ability plus all the other traits we cluster in the word "consciousness"; including things such as conscious self-preservation, language, adaptive/abstract thinking, etc.

>If the idea bothers you that things might exist that are incapable of being verified consensually by society

This is nitpicking: But it depends way to heavily in what "society" means here, there is still people who believe heart is 6000 years old; so is never all people. the majority of people knows nothing about nuclear physics, and that doesn't make it false nor non-science.