Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 180 (8014 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2014 7:57 AM
156 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, Percy (Admin), RAZD, rstrats (5 members, 151 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Ed67
Post Volume:
Total: 723,695 Year: 9,536/28,606 Month: 1,226/2,455 Week: 536/428 Day: 8/117 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   Consciousness Continued: A fresh start
Guido Arbia 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 76 of 84 (314479)
05-22-2006 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ohnhai
05-21-2006 6:30 PM


Re: Side Bar, Please relpy to Sidelined
quote:
What with your conversation about electrical activity in the brain, my conversation about synapses (part of the same system causing the electrical activity) the fact that the brain is a massive interconnected neural-network, the fact that in large systems unplanned complex behaviours can and do emerge, the fact that damage and drugs affect consciousness, it all adds up to what should be a convincing argument that the consciousness is a property of the brain.

What is left to explain? Why feel the need to add an un-provable mystery layer invoking the soul? How is you concept of soul damaged by moving consciousness fully over to the physical? Having a purely physical consciousness shouldn’t invalidate the concept of ‘soul’.

(and sorry for chipping in, please address your reply to Sidelined.)


We are not dealing with a physical thing. When we deal with physical properties such a states of matter or vibration or such like that it is ok to say ascribe it to appearant causes. But when dealing with a non-physical pehonema such as consciousness it is rediculous to do so.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ohnhai, posted 05-21-2006 6:30 PM ohnhai has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ohnhai, posted 05-23-2006 8:49 AM Guido Arbia has responded

  
sidelined 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 77 of 84 (314512)
05-23-2006 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Guido Arbia
05-22-2006 9:43 PM


Guido Ariba

Are you retarded?

Quite possibly. How would I know?

No where in any of my posts have I explained that consciousness is the result of activity in the brain.

In post 18 you made this statement.

For example, it has been shown that a high concentration of electrical activity in the brain is related to the level of consciousness in those areas (correct me if I am wrong.)

Then in post 33 you corrected

My mistake: I meant that there is a relationship between electrical activity in the brain and consciousness. I will go correct that now.

So now we have you stating that these are incorrect statements and that consciousness is not the electrical activity of the brain

You now further state that

I have all this time been saying that the interactions between the soul and the electrical and chemical activity in the brain is the cause of active consciousness and coherent free will.

Ok, what are the nature of these interactions? The claim is yours that a soul exists and that it is the cause of active consciousness and coherent freewill. The electromagnetic force is mediated by the exchange particle called the photons and this is the force responsible for the electrical and chemical activity in the brain.

Since the elctromagnetic force is the second strongest of the four forces in nature can you please explain how the photon is affected by the soul and what the exchange particle that produces the force necessary to interact with the electromagnetic force and why this force does not show up in experiments on the electrical activity and chemical effects in the brain?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-22-2006 9:43 PM Guido Arbia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-23-2006 4:31 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 1440 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 78 of 84 (314550)
05-23-2006 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Guido Arbia
05-22-2006 9:47 PM


Re: Side Bar, Please relpy to Sidelined
GA writes:

We are not dealing with a physical thing. When we deal with physical properties such a states of matter or vibration or such like that it is ok to say ascribe it to appearant causes. But when dealing with a non-physical pehonema such as consciousness it is rediculous to do so.

OK my mistake. When I said “…purely physical consciousness…” I did not actually mean that consciousness was itself, physical. What I meant was that its cause was purely physical. The physical interactions of our neurons cause the behavior we call consciousness to manifest it self.

Try and mentally conceive how 500,000,000 little switches (the combined transistor count for the PS3s Cell Prosessor & RSX graphics chip) could possibly achieve this:
.

You would be hard pressed indeed. However, that does not matter because we accept that they can because these switches are the brains of a computer. That is what it does.

While we take for granted that machines like the PS3 can deliver wondrous graphics and immersive, emotional game-play, it can be all to easy to forget that all of it is achieved by a vast array of very small switches changing their states from 1 to 0 and back again.

Is ‘Solid Snake’ (the character in the picture) and all his friends, enemies and adventures real? I mean physically real? No, they are not. Yet we perceive them as events and things despite being virtual.

Now if these characters and events are not physically real does that necessarily carry that their cause is not physically real? That they had some supernatural cause? Of course not. Any one seriously suggesting so would, quite rightly, be laughed clean out of town as crazy.

Now the human brain is put at around 100billion neurons. That is a network of 100 billion little switches all interconnected, each passing the signal on if they in turn get a strong enough signal. This interaction on such a massive scale can and does give rise to non-physical behaviors that are hard (or impossible) to infer from simply studying the mechanics of the connections themselves.

Because we cant tell exactly how the brain gives rise to consciousness that is no reason to assume that it can not, or does not. Especially when we know that simple systems can give rise to unplanned complex behavior.

Langton's ant shows that simple rules can give rise to complex behavior, while the PS3 is proof absolute of the power of a large number of little switches to deliver extra ordinary results. With these two facts applied to the human brain it seems almost inconceivable that consciousness isn’t a highly likely natural outcome. At the very least, we should not exhibit any surprise. As far as I can see, there is absolutely NO reason to invoke the supernatural.

Edited by ohnhai, : deleated a stray word to improve readability.

Edited by ohnhai, : corrected transistor count for PS3

Edited by ohnhai, : fixed Langton's ant link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-22-2006 9:47 PM Guido Arbia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-23-2006 4:22 PM ohnhai has responded
 Message 84 by Guido Arbia, posted 06-17-2006 1:50 PM ohnhai has not yet responded

    
Guido Arbia 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 79 of 84 (314664)
05-23-2006 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ohnhai
05-23-2006 8:49 AM


Re: Side Bar, Please relpy to Sidelined
I have no problem ascribing physical activites and behaviors to appearent physical causes. It simply doesn't make sense to me to take something non-physical and attribute it to a physical cause. I don't see how physical movement can account for consciousness.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ohnhai, posted 05-23-2006 8:49 AM ohnhai has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ohnhai, posted 05-26-2006 9:06 AM Guido Arbia has responded

  
Guido Arbia 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 80 of 84 (314668)
05-23-2006 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by sidelined
05-23-2006 2:07 AM


In post 18 you made this statement.

No. That statement was the correction itself.

My statement means that consciousness seems to behave in concord with the activity in the brain. This does not mean that the brain causes consciousness. I did not make this clear at first, so it needed to be corrected.

Then in post 33 you corrected

No, I corrected a different statement.

So now we have you stating that these are incorrect statements and that consciousness is not the electrical activity of the brain

My statement wasn't clarifying what I wished to convey. I made a mistake when I type it up. The meaning that was behind it was the same. My intent was to say what I finally did when I corrected it. I just mis-used words by mistake.

Ok, what are the nature of these interactions? The claim is yours that a soul exists and that it is the cause of active consciousness and coherent freewill. The electromagnetic force is mediated by the exchange particle called the photons and this is the force responsible for the electrical and chemical activity in the brain.

By interaction I don't mean that the soul and the brain are communicating or that there is some kind of signal being transmitted between the two. I am merely saying that the state of the soul is in concord with the state of the brain. Affect the brain and you affect the mind because the mind is the result of the syncronization between the soul and the brain. Destroy the brain, and you destroy the mind, leaving only the potential for consciousness and free will.

Since the elctromagnetic force is the second strongest of the four forces in nature can you please explain how the photon is affected by the soul and what the exchange particle that produces the force necessary to interact with the electromagnetic force and why this force does not show up in experiments on the electrical activity and chemical effects in the brain?

The force does not show up because the recieving end of it shows no evidence and the sending end of it is so suttle that it appears as if all that is happening in the brain is a direct result of the previous state of the brain.

Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by sidelined, posted 05-23-2006 2:07 AM sidelined has not yet responded

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 1440 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 81 of 84 (315263)
05-26-2006 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Guido Arbia
05-23-2006 4:22 PM


Re: Side Bar, Please relpy to Sidelined
GA writes:

I have no problem ascribing physical activites and behaviors to appearent physical causes. It simply doesn't make sense to me to take something non-physical and attribute it to a physical cause. I don't see how physical movement can account for consciousness.

I think you are still having the misconception of that Consciousness has to be a thing. It is not. It is simply a name given to the state of mind or group of behaviours that we group together and call Consciousness. It doesn’t have a separate existence at all, it is a concept: one ironically facilitated by the very behaviours that it encompasses.

What I don’t get is why, despite the points I have made (which I feel highlight that it is highly probable the root cause of ‘consciousness’ is the complex, unplanned, emergent behaviour of our brains own neural activities), the fact that you, have admitted a strong correlation between recorded electrical activity in the brain and when the owner of that brain is engaged in conscious thought, the fact that you still hold the brain physically necessary for thought and action, What I don’t get is why you still insist that consciousness isn’t simply a process of the brain?

What good solid evidence do you actually have for consciousness being separate from the mechanisms of the brain?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-23-2006 4:22 PM Guido Arbia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-26-2006 11:17 AM ohnhai has responded

    
Guido Arbia 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 82 of 84 (315322)
05-26-2006 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by ohnhai
05-26-2006 9:06 AM


Re: Side Bar, Please relpy to Sidelined
quote:
I think you are still having the misconception of that Consciousness has to be a thing. It is not. It is simply a name given to the state of mind or group of behaviours that we group together and call Consciousness. It doesn’t have a separate existence at all, it is a concept: one ironically facilitated by the very behaviours that it encompasses.

What I don’t get is why, despite the points I have made (which I feel highlight that it is highly probable the root cause of ‘consciousness’ is the complex, unplanned, emergent behaviour of our brains own neural activities), the fact that you, have admitted a strong correlation between recorded electrical activity in the brain and when the owner of that brain is engaged in conscious thought, the fact that you still hold the brain physically necessary for thought and action, What I don’t get is why you still insist that consciousness isn’t simply a process of the brain?

What good solid evidence do you actually have for consciousness being separate from the mechanisms of the brain?


By consciousness I mean the medium by which we experience sensation, thoughts, and perceptions.

What good solid evidence do you have the consciousness is the result of mechanisms in the brain?

I don't have enought time right now to throughouly argue against your statement because I am in school. I will post another reply in response to it.

Edited by Guido Arbia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ohnhai, posted 05-26-2006 9:06 AM ohnhai has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ohnhai, posted 05-26-2006 12:13 PM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 1440 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 83 of 84 (315349)
05-26-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Guido Arbia
05-26-2006 11:17 AM


Re: Side Bar, Please relpy to Sidelined
GA writes:

What good solid evidence do you have the consciousness is the result of mechanisms in the brain?

OK once again.


  1. Langton's Ant (complex behaviour from simple rules)
  2. the PS3's computing power (the ability of a large number of connected switches to produce results seemingly greater than the parts)
  3. Damage to the Brain can cause changes in perceptions, thoughts and sensation unto and including PVS (Persistent Vegative State)
  4. The ability of certain drugs to greatly alter our perceptions thoughts and sensations (‘mind altering drugs’)
  5. Map-able correlations of brain activity and thoughts, perceptions, sensations.

All In all fairly convincing I think.

A:
Langton’s Ant
C:
How Does a Traumatic Brain Injury Affect Consciousness?
E:
The process of awakening: a PET study of regional brain activity patterns mediating the re-establishment of alertness and consciousness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Guido Arbia, posted 05-26-2006 11:17 AM Guido Arbia has not yet responded

    
Guido Arbia 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 84 of 84 (322580)
06-17-2006 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ohnhai
05-23-2006 8:49 AM


Re: Side Bar, Please relpy to Sidelined
quote:
Try and mentally conceive how 500,000,000 little switches (the combined transistor count for the PS3s Cell Prosessor & RSX graphics chip) could possibly achieve this:

I can easily imagine that.

quote:
Is ‘Solid Snake’ (the character in the picture) and all his friends, enemies and adventures real? I mean physically real? No, they are not. Yet we perceive them as events and things despite being virtual.

Now if these characters and events are not physically real does that necessarily carry that their cause is not physically real? That they had some supernatural cause? Of course not. Any one seriously suggesting so would, quite rightly, be laughed clean out of town as crazy.


Virtual existance does not have a physical cause. It is the combination of our soul and are brain that create the imaginary events in the mind. The computer does not create the virtual existance. The computer just displays images on the screen based on computer programming. I know how because I have coded a break-out game in C++ before. It is just mathematics, really. The events never become real. Only in the mind of a person do the events exist.

quote:
Langton's ant shows that simple rules can give rise to complex behavior, while the PS3 is proof absolute of the power of a large number of little switches to deliver extra ordinary results. With these two facts applied to the human brain it seems almost inconceivable that consciousness isn’t a highly likely natural outcome. At the very least, we should not exhibit any surprise. As far as I can see, there is absolutely NO reason to invoke the supernatural.

Edited by ohnhai, 23-05-2006 05:50 AM: deleated a stray word to improve readability.


This doesn't apply to consciousness because consciousness is not a behavior. Consciousness is experience. It is the true "I am" of a person, something that artificial intellegence cannot produce.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ohnhai, posted 05-23-2006 8:49 AM ohnhai has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014