Live data from Hacker News

Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics

pnas.org

61–70 of 109 posts

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

#61
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no magic, nor room for it for any person that believes in the scientific method. There are a sufficient number of real mysteries and wonders not to waste time with pseudoscience. The brain is not a consciousness antennae, and there are no good reasons to think so. Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon entirely dependent on and contained within the brain.

agreed. brain-as-a-radio-antenna is a common trope amongst those who would believe that meatspace isn't capable of generating consciousness alone (always looking for some sort of elan vital, to equate with another pursuit for the magic stuff of life). From a purposely scientific perspective, we have to begin with the working assumption that materialism is true, until such point that it is conclusively proven false. T…

We can actually show that consciousness persists even when surrounded by shielding that would prevent the passage of any known particle or radiation except neutrinos from affecting whatever is inside.

If you shut off all outside signals, the brain works just fine, there's no effect at all. (Except maybe the stress of whatever situation you're in that landed you in a super shielded bunker. )

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

#62
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same reaction. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could even formalize it and say that all information processing takes place on this edge between stability and chaos. That’s where all interesting/useful Turing machines live, for example.

Im fairly uneducated in CS, but this fascinates me, could you expand more? I can see why the brain's randomly firing neurons leads to novel thought and exploratory behavior but other than generating random numbers for various purposes, what good is chaos? What turing machines for example? Thanks

It's not that the interesting Turing machines are chaotic, but they are close to the boundary, in the sense that they have interesting dynamical behaviour. The reason why it's so hard to do static analysis of computer programs (for example, an automated detection of memory vulnerabilities in C programs) is pretty much this near-chaotic dynamic behaviour that doesn't easily yield to static analysis.

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

#63

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…

No post body was provided.

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

#64
post #44

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…

I didn't read the whole thing, but I did find parts of it surprising. Some things that jumped out at me: > during conscious states, the electrodynamics of the cortex are poised near a critical point or phase transition and that this near-critical behavior supports the vast flow of information through cortical networks during conscious states But we've had a lot of success building artificial systems that support a "v…

> Why wouldn't one expect the chaotic system to produce as much or more random output?

Because neurons as systems don't like random input. Noisy random input doesn't make (most) neurons fire. Rather the opposite, actually.

Neurons aren't (usually) simple threshold comparators of a single input; they're arbitrarily-complex gate-like recognizers, that fire in response to detecting signals in their combined inputs, or even upon matching temporal firing patterns within the signals of their combined inputs.

In that sense, if you tune every component in the system to produce more noise (chaos), you decrease the signal-to-noise ratio, and so the components that react to "important recognizable changes in the signal" within that noise have a harder time recognizing the thing they're looking for, and so they recognize it less, and so switch less.

---

By trite analogy: suppose you're a security guard. Your job is to recognize+report "real crimes in progress", while not reporting "false alarms." (Pretend that the police charge for false dispatches in your town, so your boss wants to optimize shrinkage vs. call budget.)

Also, your boss has decided to "keep you on your toes" by introducing "noise" into your computerized security system. Sometimes it'll show a burglary in progress when there isn't one. Sometimes it'll show that everything's fine, when actually the boss has secretly sent in a white-hat burglar of his own.

How willing to believe the security cameras should you be, to optimize your output signal to downstream demand?

As it turns out, you should probably try to figure out the false-positive vs. false-negative rate you're seeing reported by the downstream, and then calibrate your confidence up/down until you're making a balanced number of Type 1 vs. Type 2 errors. That level of confidence is the "critical point" — where the noise in the system is equally likely to help your detection (by "correcting" a false negative/positive, turning it into a true positive/negative) as it is to harm.

Moving away from that critical point, in either direction, makes your output less useful as a downstream signal.

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

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, not really. It's hard to describe features of chaos / nonlinear dynamics simply. There are features of chaotic systems that undergo phase changes from one type of behavior to another. Think a signal on one side of the transition to look like a pure sine wave and on the other side of the transition to look like purely random white noise. What these guys are reporting is that they found a parameter, a signal they c…

For me personally, when I use the term "free will", I mean something stronger than "deterministic, but not provably so". That's more of a "free will of the gaps" - claiming that free will is hiding somewhere in the holes in our knowledge.

Understandable, after all you have no choice but to act as if you have free will. Nor do I. (Paraphrased from a Christopher Hitchens quote.)

... but of course that gets us no closer to a definition. If someone can come up with a sensible definition, it could be interesting, certainly.

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

#66
post #44

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…

I didn't read the whole thing, but I did find parts of it surprising. Some things that jumped out at me: > during conscious states, the electrodynamics of the cortex are poised near a critical point or phase transition and that this near-critical behavior supports the vast flow of information through cortical networks during conscious states But we've had a lot of success building artificial systems that support a "v…

>I guess if the measure of "information richness" is based in compressibility of electrical activity ... is it surprising that it isn't higher in the chaotic phase? Why wouldn't one expect the chaotic system to produce as much or more random output?

Chaos can be highly regular. For example, the limiting case of the logistic map, x -> 4x - 4x^2, is chaotic, but also has an exact solution x[n] = sin^2(arcsin(sqrt(x[0])) * 2^n). It's not hard to see why this still obeys the usual properties of Lyapunov doubling etc, but a simple double exponential doesn't seem like the sort of thing that leads to consciousness! From an information-theoretic point of view, the nth bit of x[0] becomes relevant at roughly step n, which means there is a steady "trickle" of information into the system instead of the more complicated dynamics we expect of a "computational" system -- in fact, if we consider the binary expansion of (arcsin(sqrt(x[0]))/pi) we find that only a finite number of bits have an effect on the system's measurable properties at any time, and the effect is rather like scrolling steadily along an infinite tape of random bits.

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

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chaotic systems are still deterministic. Is there some definitive proof for this, or are we just taking it as a useful assumption?

it's the definition. "chaotic systems" aren't just... unpredictable things that we find laying around and say "yeah we'll call that chaotic because it looks like my kid's bedroom". they've got to satisfy that description.

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.

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

#68

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.

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

#70

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 really interesting and I have not heard of this before, where would you suggest to start reading into surgical sedatives?
Post reply on HN