The Inter Mind

What you think about how you think.
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:04 am

LunaNik wrote:I don't expect him to be rational, since he began with a conclusion and has spent this entire thread rejecting factual evidence that doesn't fit it.
I absolutely agree.

User avatar
LunaNik
Regular Poster
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: State of Mind

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby LunaNik » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:45 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
LunaNik wrote:I don't expect him to be rational, since he began with a conclusion and has spent this entire thread rejecting factual evidence that doesn't fit it.
I absolutely agree.
As it turns out, he's even denying the fact that he's being irrational.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:48 am

SteveKlinko wrote: If it can be shown how it works with just Neural activity then fine. My search will be over


Bye bye Steve.

Cortical Brain Regions Associated with Color Processing: An FMRi Study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3026336/

To clarify whether the neural pathways concerning color processing are the same for natural objects, for artifacts objects and for non-objects we examined brain responses measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) during a covert naming task including the factors color (color vs. black&white (B&W)) and stimulus type (natural vs. artifacts vs. non-objects). Our results indicate that the superior parietal lobule and precuneus (BA 7) bilaterally, the right hippocampus and the right fusifom gyrus (V4) make part of a network responsible for color processing both for natural objects and artifacts, but not for non-objects. When color objects (both natural and artifacts) were contrasted with color non-objects we observed activations in the right parahippocampal gyrus (BA 35/36), the superior parietal lobule (BA 7) bilaterally, the left inferior middle temporal region (BA 20/21) and the inferior and superior frontal regions (BA 10/11/47). These additional activations suggest that colored objects recruit brain regions that are related to visual semantic information/retrieval and brain regions related to visuo-spatial processing. Overall, the results suggest that color information is an attribute that can improve object recognition (behavioral results) and activate a specific neural network related to visual semantic information that is more extensive than for B&W objects during object recognition.

They aren't measuring pixies, Leprechauns or quantum mechanics are they? They are measuring normal physics going on in the physical brain.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:06 am

I have a question for the active posters of this topic.

The question is simple. Do you believe it is possible for non biological systems to have conscious experiences equivalent to those which we have?

A yes or no answer, followed by an explaination of the reasons why or why not would be appreciated

My reason for this question will become clear once I am able to see answers to this question.

Thanks.

User avatar
LunaNik
Regular Poster
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: State of Mind

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby LunaNik » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:25 am

Dimebag wrote:I have a question for the active posters of this topic.

The question is simple. Do you believe it is possible for non biological systems to have conscious experiences equivalent to those which we have?

A yes or no answer, followed by an explaination of the reasons why or why not would be appreciated

My reason for this question will become clear once I am able to see answers to this question.

Thanks.

Would you clarify "non-biological systems," please? Are you referring to an AI?
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:32 am

Dimebag wrote: Do you believe it is possible for non biological systems to have conscious experiences equivalent to those which we have?
No.

1) We have been evolving as animals for 500,000 years. A lot of our evolved behaviour and physiology was a result of 7 million years evolving on the African Savannah. We have "kept" outdated DNA legacy adaptions in our gene pool. A non biological system would have to mimic all those current and legacy adaptions which would be impossible.

2) The connections that go on between the 100,000,000,000 neurons in our brains are almost unfathomable but nevertheless, over 500,000 years, that's what evolved as the best trade off adaption for our specific environment and is reflected in our neuron connections. There is no new magical physics.

3) You can't mimic a human type of consciousness without creating a 100% accurate copy of a human and its environment. That means a non-biological system mimicking humans would fail.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:04 am

I think Matthew, that contains a bit too much certainty over something we cannot be certain about. The key is the word "equivalent". If it means 'the same as', then the answer is no. But there are many forms of equivalency.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:49 am

LunaNik wrote:
Dimebag wrote:I have a question for the active posters of this topic.

The question is simple. Do you believe it is possible for non biological systems to have conscious experiences equivalent to those which we have?

A yes or no answer, followed by an explaination of the reasons why or why not would be appreciated

My reason for this question will become clear once I am able to see answers to this question.

Thanks.

Would you clarify "non-biological systems," please? Are you referring to an AI?

Well, possibly a future form of AI, yes, one which could perform equivalent functions as a conscious creature. I am not certain about current forms of AI, and whether they could possibly qualify as being conscious, so let's say, AI including future iterations. It could also mean simulations which have the same functional capabilities as equivalent conscious creatures.

As an addendum to the question, I would also like to include possible biological life forms which may exist which we are not aware of, which do not share our genetic makeup and have their own fundamental biological building blocks which lead to their own species developing, or to put it bluntly, alien species. Could such species also have conscious experiences, even though they do not share our particular form of biological basis of life?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:39 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Dimebag wrote: Do you believe it is possible for non biological systems to have conscious experiences equivalent to those which we have?
No.

1) We have been evolving as animals for 500,000 years. A lot of our evolved behaviour and physiology was a result of 7 million years evolving on the African Savannah. We have "kept" outdated DNA legacy adaptions in our gene pool. A non biological system would have to mimic all those current and legacy adaptions which would be impossible.

2) The connections that go on between the 100,000,000,000 neurons in our brains are almost unfathomable but nevertheless, over 500,000 years, that's what evolved as the best trade off adaption for our specific environment and is reflected in our neuron connections. There is no new magical physics.

3) You can't mimic a human type of consciousness without creating a 100% accurate copy of a human and its environment. That means a non-biological system mimicking humans would fail.

1) What is so special about our particular biology which allows that we be the only form of consciousness which could arise? Based on previous conversations, if a non biological system could model its world, it's self, and have a model of itself within that world, it could be said to be conscious. These are functional conditions not dealing with specific biological hardware, more so to do with abstract concepts and relations between functions of a system, and it's ability to represent its surroundings and itself within that representation, why must they only be represented through a specific biological hardware.

2)imagine we could create an artificial neuron, and this artificial neuron could function in the same way as to allow all the same outputs a real neuron would produce, given specific inputs. It is at least conceivable within the realm of possibility that such a thing could exist, given enough knowledge about how matter interacts, and given the capability to produce said configuration of matter. if an artificial neuron could function in the same way as a real neuron and if those artificial neurons were connected in the same way the human brain were connected, with the ability to sense an environment as a human brain does, could that artificial brain not be said to be conscious in the same way the human brain were?

If not, what if I were to replace each neuron of the human brain, one at a time, with an artificial neuron. Would the conscious experience a) slowly fade away to nothing, or would the human b) report no change in their conscious experience?

3)Do you not then believe there could be possible configurations of matter within the universe which produce consciousness which are not present in the human brain? Or has evolution managed to tap into the one single way in which our universe can allow conscious experience to occur? To me that seems highly unlikely and puts us as conscious beings as something akin to gods within this universe.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8155
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:42 pm

Dimebag wrote: Do you believe it is possible for non biological systems to have conscious experiences equivalent to those which we have?

I think it is possible. We live in a material world. The brain is nothing but parts. We can build parts. I also assume it will take longer than we think. The analogue world is hard to put into ones and zeros.

Wait, There's More: the difficult elements can be referred to as the software to run the parts. But ultimately, software is parts too.... and even more difficult to digitize. The kicker: just as we don't know for sure what other conscious creatures are thinking (even to their appreciation of the color Red) or experiencing, that will be even more highlighted for AI. But, if you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?

It does amuse me. Consider a black box whirring constantly in unending calculations of its own program with all others able to interact with the black box as they may..................and Hoomans are different............. how?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
LunaNik
Regular Poster
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: State of Mind

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby LunaNik » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:59 pm

Dimebag wrote:
LunaNik wrote:
Dimebag wrote:I have a question for the active posters of this topic.

The question is simple. Do you believe it is possible for non biological systems to have conscious experiences equivalent to those which we have?

A yes or no answer, followed by an explaination of the reasons why or why not would be appreciated

My reason for this question will become clear once I am able to see answers to this question.

Thanks.

Would you clarify "non-biological systems," please? Are you referring to an AI?

Well, possibly a future form of AI, yes, one which could perform equivalent functions as a conscious creature. I am not certain about current forms of AI, and whether they could possibly qualify as being conscious, so let's say, AI including future iterations. It could also mean simulations which have the same functional capabilities as equivalent conscious creatures.

As an addendum to the question, I would also like to include possible biological life forms which may exist which we are not aware of, which do not share our genetic makeup and have their own fundamental biological building blocks which lead to their own species developing, or to put it bluntly, alien species. Could such species also have conscious experiences, even though they do not share our particular form of biological basis of life?

If the question is, Do you think it's possible for non-biological systems and undiscovered non-human biological systems to have conscious experiences? I would offer a tentative yes that hinges on the word possible.

Where I get hung up is on the equivalent part. Equivalent means equal in value, amount, function, meaning. The conscious experiences of those two categories of beings might be recognizable as such, but I don't see how they could be equivalent to ours. Some animals have recognizable conscious experiences, but they're not equivalent to ours. (This isn't a moral judgment on my part; I'm not saying ours are superior, just different.)

How conscious experience might arise in a non-biological system or an undiscovered non-human biological system, I don't know. But I imagine such systems would have to be complex, multifunctional ones like the human brain. I don't think it's possible for us to build such a system until we understand the human brain.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:05 am

Dimebag wrote: 1) What is so special about our particular biology which allows that we be the only form of consciousness which could arise?
You made a classic mistake. There are many many different forms of consciousness that evolved on Earth. They are all unique and specific adaptions by different species to match their unique environments. For Australopithecus, the conversion to open savannas, pack scavenging and passing down to following generations of tool use skills, we get homo habilis and proto language. This allowed modern humans to evolve. Dogs, cats, whales, dolphins all have different sorts of consciousness, that is adapted and evolved for their unique environments.

Dimebag wrote: Based on previous conversations, if a non biological system could model its world, it's self, and have a model of itself within that world, it could be said to be conscious.
Maybe, but not the same consciousness as modern humans. Humans are carrying 500,000,000 years of legacy adaption that may still have some input. You would also have to program your non biological computer to have these legacy adaptions and a evolving interactive environment.

Dimebag wrote:2).....if an artificial neuron could function in the same way as a real neuron and if those artificial neurons were connected in the same way the human brain were connected, with the ability to sense an environment as a human brain does, could that artificial brain not be said to be conscious in the same way the human brain were?
No. The whole physiology of a human is not separate from its brain. It's all the one "big thing" defined by DNA protein production templates. You would have to create and exact replica of a human and it's environment to mimic human consciousness.

What Roger Penrose was arguing, was that you can't copy a human's consciousness to a program, as you cannot ever measure an existing brain's quantum state at any specific moment. Penrose also argued that you cannot write down human consciousness as a "instruction book" because the brain is part of the whole body which brings in its own inputs from the environment.


Dimebag wrote:If not, what if I were to replace each neuron of the human brain, one at a time, with an artificial neuron. Would the conscious experience a) slowly fade away to nothing, or would the human b) report no change in their conscious experience?
I don't know. That seems plausible. We see blank stem cells replacing neurons in animals with no behavioural differences. However, I don't know if that can be claimed to be the same consciousness.


Dimebag wrote:3)Do you not then believe there could be possible configurations of matter within the universe which produce consciousness which are not present in the human brain?
That's a silly question. Only humans have human consciousness, unique to humans. I'm sure aliens will have their own very different forms of consciousness. There may be silicon based or arsenic based depending on the environment.

Dimebag wrote:Or has evolution managed to tap into the one single way in which our universe can allow conscious experience to occur?
Evolution is local. The adaption is unique for each unique environment.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:21 pm

Poodle wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:The shortcoming of the detractors is that they do not understand the Easy Problem, the Hard Problem, and the resulting Explanatory Gap. They outright say that these Problems do not exist. I understand these Problems and I have not seen a coherent answer that shows these Problems don't exist. They can't wish these Problems away. These Problems are here to stay. I think that they dislike these concepts because they come from Philosophy. I have heard the disdain that at least two of the detractors have expressed for Philosophy. Consciousness will remain in the domain of Philosophy until Scientists can provide some good explanations.


For goodness' sake, Steve. you haven't posed a particularly coherent question. How many times do we have to say this? It is not incumbent upon anyone here to show that the Hard Problem does not exist - it's up to you to present evidence that it does. You haven't yet, instead preferring to simple declare its existence. One of your problems is your inability to express your arguments without sounding like an armchair Buddhist - you really need to work on that.
Look at this ... "I think that they dislike these concepts because they come from Philosophy", sez you. Well so does skepticism, Steve, but you appear not to like that.

Sorry if I have not been able to convince you. You should read or reread some David Chalmers writings. If you still don't agree with the Easy Problem and the Hard Problem then that's the way it will have to be.

He who walks in the eightfold noble path with unswerving determination is sure to reach Nirvana. You mean something like that? I don't talk like that.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:33 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: If it can be shown how it works with just Neural activity then fine. My search will be over


Bye bye Steve.

Cortical Brain Regions Associated with Color Processing: An FMRi Study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3026336/

To clarify whether the neural pathways concerning color processing are the same for natural objects, for artifacts objects and for non-objects we examined brain responses measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) during a covert naming task including the factors color (color vs. black&white (B&W)) and stimulus type (natural vs. artifacts vs. non-objects). Our results indicate that the superior parietal lobule and precuneus (BA 7) bilaterally, the right hippocampus and the right fusifom gyrus (V4) make part of a network responsible for color processing both for natural objects and artifacts, but not for non-objects. When color objects (both natural and artifacts) were contrasted with color non-objects we observed activations in the right parahippocampal gyrus (BA 35/36), the superior parietal lobule (BA 7) bilaterally, the left inferior middle temporal region (BA 20/21) and the inferior and superior frontal regions (BA 10/11/47). These additional activations suggest that colored objects recruit brain regions that are related to visual semantic information/retrieval and brain regions related to visuo-spatial processing. Overall, the results suggest that color information is an attribute that can improve object recognition (behavioral results) and activate a specific neural network related to visual semantic information that is more extensive than for B&W objects during object recognition.

They aren't measuring pixies, Leprechauns or quantum mechanics are they? They are measuring normal physics going on in the physical brain.

These are all the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. This explains nothing about how we see the Visual Scene as a Conscious experience. Yes, all that Neural Activity is happening but there is still a Huge Explanatory Gap to show how the Conscious experience takes place. It fascinating to me how you and the other detractors can not see the difference between the Neural Activity and the Conscious experience. These are two separate things that are happening although they are correlated.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:47 pm

Dimebag wrote:I have a question for the active posters of this topic.

The question is simple. Do you believe it is possible for non biological systems to have conscious experiences equivalent to those which we have?

A yes or no answer, followed by an explaination of the reasons why or why not would be appreciated

My reason for this question will become clear once I am able to see answers to this question.

Thanks.

I don't think we can answer that question before we answer the question of how Consciousness actually works in us. The people that say they already know how Consciousness works should have a definite and quick answer to this. They should be able to explain why or why not such non-biological Consciousness is possible.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:51 pm

LunaNik wrote:6. Arguing from ignorance: You've evinced surprise at scientific data that's been presented here, data that clearly disproves your premise. Reread the thread. Why do I have to do all your homework for you? Several skeptics have presented scientific data on various aspects of brain functioning, and how the conscious experience is absent when certain regions of the brain are damaged due to genetics, disease, or trauma, as well as evolutionary information and any number of other issues. All of which you've rejected out-of-hand. Most of which you've refused to even address, and simply responded by restating your initial two-step premise.

Saying that I was surprised by Scientific data is just not true. It's a misdirection. Your example of measuring Brain Activity to determine what is going on with the Consciousness of that Brain only means that you assume things about Consciousness that are not proven. I have answered this before you just don't like the answer. You don't in fact know what the Conscious experience of any Brain is. You would somehow need to measure the actual Conscious experience that is happening or not happening independent of the Brain Activity that is happening or not happening. But I know you think that's absurd because you think there is no separate Conscious event happening.

By the way, I picked this item out of your Barrage Post because you actually said what you were talking about. I answered most of the items. For the others I can only say that you can't just accuse and then tell me to go find my own quote that bothers you. A little ridiculous don't you think?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:20 am

All of which, Steve, does not add one iota of evidence to your idea of the inter mind. No one is going to claim we understand how the neural network in the brain creates consciousness, because a lot more work still needs doing, before it is nutted out.

But in the mean time, there is a lot of evidence that consciousness is the result of nerve action within the brain , and absolutely zero evidence of an immaterial inter mind.

User avatar
LunaNik
Regular Poster
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: State of Mind

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby LunaNik » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:40 am

SteveKlinko wrote:Saying that I was surprised by Scientific data is just not true.
Your responses have indicated that you were unfamiliar with a number of factual neuroscience studies presented in this thread.

SteveKlinko wrote:Your example of measuring Brain Activity to determine what is going on with the Consciousness of that Brain only means that you assume things about Consciousness that are not proven.
LMAO! This coming from the guy who's spent this entire thread making statements he can't prove. I'm not the one making assumptions here; you're assuming that consciousness doesn't live in the brain for some ridiculous reason. Where does it live, then? As some kind of invisible essence that can't be sensed, measured, defined, or described? LOL

SteveKlinko wrote:You don't in fact know what the Conscious experience of any Brain is. You would somehow need to measure the actual Conscious experience that is happening or not happening independent of the Brain Activity that is happening or not happening. But I know you think that's absurd because you think there is no separate Conscious event happening.
This paragraph of yours proves you didn't read a single scientific study that anyone posted in this thread. You are manifestly uninterested in scientific proof of any kind. What you are interested in is proselytizing your copycat pet theory of consciousness, which has absolutely nothing to recommend it. It offers no explanation of any kind that is rational, and it's not even original to you, but a blatant derivative of others' supernatural theories of consciousness. It is utter nonsense, distinguished from others' nonsense only by your gratuitous capitalization and the fact that your website appears to have Acronym Tourette's.

SteveKlinko wrote:By the way, I picked this item out of your Barrage Post because you actually said what you were talking about.
"You actually said what you were talking about" makes no sense. And given that you've restated your initial premise 15,842 times in this thread, calling anyone else's post a "barrage" borders on the insane.

SteveKlinko wrote:I answered most of the items.
No, you didn't. You categorically denied them, and wrongly so.

SteveKlinko wrote:For the others I can only say that you can't just accuse and then tell me to go find my own quote that bothers you. A little ridiculous don't you think?
Not at all. Your contributions to this thread are rife with logical fallacies. I wasn't suggesting you find one particular quote; I was suggesting that you be logical.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:22 am

SteveKlinko wrote: This explains nothing about how we see the Visual Scene as a Conscious experience. Yes, all that Neural Activity is happening but there .......
Therefore...... if all the neural activity is happening in the normal physical brain concerning colour in our consciousness....then your fuzzy inter mind hypothesis has not only been fully debunked but doesn't add anything to known science. :lol:

Don't forget to donate $100 to the Skeptic Society on your way back home. :lol: http://shop.skeptic.com/merchant.mvc?Sc ... ory_Code=D

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:54 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:All of which, Steve, does not add one iota of evidence to your idea of the inter mind. No one is going to claim we understand how the neural network in the brain creates consciousness, because a lot more work still needs doing, before it is nutted out.

But in the mean time, there is a lot of evidence that consciousness is the result of nerve action within the brain , and absolutely zero evidence of an immaterial inter mind.

I doubt anyone here believes that consciousness is not the result of nerve action within the brain, or more specifically, nerve action under certain conditions (not all neural events result in conscious events, only nerve action in specific configurations of functional importance). But what we don't agree with or at least, are not convinced of, is the notion that conscious events is nothing more than nerve action in specific configurations. We are disagreeing about the claim that the two are infact identical, because conscious events have certain unaccounted for properties, based on our understanding of the operation of nerve actions. At this moment in science, we could not rightfully conclude that the two are one in the same, until such time as we can scientifically account for those properties, being subjectivity, and the non local and yet unified nature of our conscious experience.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:00 am

Which means, simply, Dimebag, that it is not fully understood. Sure, but that does not suggest an immaterial inter mind, which Steve is pushing.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:42 am

Dimebag wrote: I doubt anyone here believes that consciousness is not the result of nerve action within the brain,
......apart from Steve Klinko. :D

Dimebag wrote:..... not convinced of, is the notion that conscious events is nothing more than nerve action in specific configurations.
Offer us an alternative hypothesis with evidence for this "new thingy" that is an additional unnecessary level. we don't even need to currently consider.

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed Jun 21, 2017 6:29 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Which means, simply, Dimebag, that it is not fully understood. Sure, but that does not suggest an immaterial inter mind, which Steve is pushing.

What do you consider material and what do you consider immaterial? Are quarks material or immaterial? Are magnetic fields material or immaterial? Are nuclear forces material or immaterial? Is gravity material or immaterial? At the very small scale the concept of material vs immaterial falls away. I am not suggesting anything in particular here, only that we need to be humble in the way we make claims about reality and what is known, and that what our best guess of the world is, has, in the past been reframed within higher or deeper frameworks of understanding.

We have what appears to be self evident on the one hand, that there exists a kind of thing in this universe called conscious experience, which is a purely subjective thing, whatever it is. And it seems as if we can not deny its existence, based on the very fact that it's there.

On the other hand, we have the world of matter, which is understood from the bottom up using differing but supervenient frameworks, so that we can explain higher level properties of the next level using its lower level constituents, in a reductive kind of way. Quantum physics =>> the standard model ==>> chemistry ==>> biology. But at what level do we attempt to squeeze in this subjectivity? At what level will give us the best understanding of its operation, and the best explanatory power as to how it comes about? And how do we know what level is the best to use to formulate that understanding? In order to do that, we need to know what causes it to occur, it's almost like a catch 22.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jun 21, 2017 7:50 am

Dimebag wrote: What do you consider material and what do you consider immaterial? Are quarks material or immaterial?
Show me a quark on its own at room temperature. :D
Dimebag wrote: Are magnetic fields material or immaterial?
All living things make tiny magnetic fields, including those with no consciousness. Try harder......
Dimebag wrote: Are nuclear forces material or immaterial?
Every atom relies on nuclear force including chair, which are not conscious, from memory.

You've done a terrific job at naming many things that exist in both conscious and non conscious objects.

However, it is clear you have no alternative theory concerning consciousness in humans being anything but normal physics, Otherwise you would have told us by now.
:D

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Dimebag wrote: What do you consider material and what do you consider immaterial? Are quarks material or immaterial?
Show me a quark on its own at room temperature. :D
Dimebag wrote: Are magnetic fields material or immaterial?
All living things make tiny magnetic fields, including those with no consciousness. Try harder......
Dimebag wrote: Are nuclear forces material or immaterial?
Every atom relies on nuclear force including chair, which are not conscious, from memory.

You've done a terrific job at naming many things that exist in both conscious and non conscious objects.

However, it is clear you have no alternative theory concerning consciousness in humans being anything but normal physics, Otherwise you would have told us by now.
:D

I was not attempting to create a theory implicating those properties, but merely drawing your attention to the less than material nature of the fundamental level.

You mention that I have no alternative theory of how consciousness comes about, however, neuroscience has no darling theory of its own. As such, the playing field is clear for anyone to put forth a workable theory. There has not been any theory which accounts for the properties of consciousness. I continue to remain hopeful that in its current framework we will find a theory, however, based on the Compelling arguments of David Chalmers and Joseph Levine concerning the hard problem and the explanatory gap, I am not truly certain it can happen without a restructuring of our understanding of reality.

User avatar
LunaNik
Regular Poster
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: State of Mind

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby LunaNik » Wed Jun 21, 2017 9:04 pm

Dimebag wrote:As such, the playing field is clear for anyone to put forth a workable theory.

Emphasis mine. And Steve's intermind is not a workable theory. Neither are the theories of those from whom he has copied his theory.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10032
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby OlegTheBatty » Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:19 pm

Dimebag wrote:I was not attempting to create a theory implicating those properties, but merely drawing your attention to the less than material nature of the fundamental level.


?? Just because the quantum world cannot be visualized in our macroscopic reference frame does not mean that it is less material. Force fields (magnetic, gravitational etc) and the waves/particles which mediate them are all physical. There is nothing immaterial about them, Our inability to perceive them directly is a function of our perceptual limitations, not their physicality.

Is it possible for a non-biological entity to consciously experience it's environment?

Maybe. While it is highly likely that awareness is an emergent property of brain function, it is a guess whether it emerges from the electric, or the chemical (neurotransmitters); or whether the endocrine system has some influence as well. If the chemistry is a necessary component of consciousness, then it seems unlikely that a robotic system could experience.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:02 am

Oleg

We already have electronic computers doing a lot of what the brain does, by simulation. Something done chemically in the brain can probably be simulated electronically.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:52 am

Dimebag wrote:You mention that I have no alternative theory of how consciousness comes about, however, neuroscience has no darling theory of its own.
Science does have a working theory. Consciousness is simply a result of evolved neuron connections for 100,000,000,000 neurons, combined with our human evolved physiology. You are pretending there is an extra layer of physics without saying why we even need an extra layer.

Amoebas don't need this magical extra layer to explain them, Bees don't need this magical extra layer to explain them....so why do Australopithecus ( early humans with the brains of small monkeys), need this extra layer?


Tell me when you think this new magical layer arose in humans? Was it the common ancestor of apes and humans, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, 7,000,000 years ago?

User avatar
Dimebag
Regular Poster
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:05 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Dimebag » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:13 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Dimebag wrote:You mention that I have no alternative theory of how consciousness comes about, however, neuroscience has no darling theory of its own.
Science does have a working theory. Consciousness is simply a result of evolved neuron connections for 100,000,000,000 neurons, combined with our human evolved physiology. You are pretending there is an extra layer of physics without saying why we even need an extra layer.

Amoebas don't need this magical extra layer to explain them, Bees don't need this magical extra layer to explain them....so why do Australopithecus ( early humans with the brains of small monkeys), need this extra layer?


Tell me when you think this new magical layer arose in humans? Was it the common ancestor of apes and humans, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, 7,000,000 years ago?

My personal opinion is that the subjectivity of consciousness exists in any species with the ability to sense it's environment with sense organs, and react to unforeseen changes which may be important for that species existence. I think for this to occur, you need a form of an attentional mechanism, for which the product of the sense organs can focus on and filter out irrelevant information which might distract from the task of either avoiding threat or approaching some important goal. Now if you can take these criteria and extrapolate the species which are thought to have these functional capacities, you will have your answer. I myself am not well versed in multiple species neurological structure.

Now whether this will include a bee, I am not certain, but an organism which is capable of learning of the associative kind rather than the classical conditional kind, is almost certainly experiencing subjective conscious experience.

The extra layer is a functional layer, but also includes a subjective quality which allows deeper discrimination of stimulus beyond surface features, I.e. Some form of representation and deduction.

i think it's very important to make the distinction between awareness and attention here. Awareness encompasses the pool of sense data from which the reflective attentional mechanism can focus in on, and allow associative learning, representation, possible.

I find this part of the puzzle highly interesting. It's clear that the thalamus plays a large role in collecting information about all the sense data, and information which has been deemed valuable. There are relay nodes which reach to various perceptual areas which must collect information about the sense data, and this must be fed to the thalamus. From here, the prefrontal cortex which is implicated in attention and higher level thought must decide what information to focus on and then allow that which has been deemed most important to the current task at hand, to be the current focus within that moment, and orchestrate the wider brain to allow greater control of unforeseen or abnormal events occurring in the sense data. We can then view conscious as, a pool of general sense data from which the most important information is brought into focus and allowed to help create the most appropriate response through internal representations and running through possible outcomes.

This is what allows an organism to move beyond mere reaction, and learn important things which can improve its chance of survival.

Unfortunately, this explanation does not detail how the sense data become aware, by what mechanism. I am partial to the concept of recurrent processing, whereby information from the senses can form a kind of feedback loop. There is evidence that this kind of processing is implicated in conscious experience, as opposed to the feed forward sweep of information, where it passes through each progressive layer in an "unimpeded" way, without delay.

What also seems likely is that there are actually two mechanisms at work which allow consciousness to occur, firstly one which makes sense data aware on a low level (the pool of sense data), and the attentional mechanism which focuses on specific aware features allowing clarity of detail to the wider brain, not just the perceptual mechanism and associative networks which gave rise to it. I think the associative networks are important to the lower level of consciousness I.e. Phenomenal consciousness, as I and LunaNik agreed earlier that conceptual formation is necessary before that lower level can occur as we perceive it in our daily lives. That's not to say that there is no kind of phenomenal awareness going on, but it must be so localised and have such little representational capacity that it can't form a lasting phenomenal conscious event.

These are my inclinations to the easy problem of consciousness. I know there is probably some details I have wrong so feel free to correct me here.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:48 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:All of which, Steve, does not add one iota of evidence to your idea of the inter mind. No one is going to claim we understand how the neural network in the brain creates consciousness, because a lot more work still needs doing, before it is nutted out.

But in the mean time, there is a lot of evidence that consciousness is the result of nerve action within the brain , and absolutely zero evidence of an immaterial inter mind.

Very Good. Thank You. That's all I have been trying to say too.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:27 pm

LunaNik wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:Saying that I was surprised by Scientific data is just not true.
Your responses have indicated that you were unfamiliar with a number of factual neuroscience studies presented in this thread.

SteveKlinko wrote:Your example of measuring Brain Activity to determine what is going on with the Consciousness of that Brain only means that you assume things about Consciousness that are not proven.
LMAO! This coming from the guy who's spent this entire thread making statements he can't prove. I'm not the one making assumptions here; you're assuming that consciousness doesn't live in the brain for some ridiculous reason. Where does it live, then? As some kind of invisible essence that can't be sensed, measured, defined, or described? LOL

SteveKlinko wrote:You don't in fact know what the Conscious experience of any Brain is. You would somehow need to measure the actual Conscious experience that is happening or not happening independent of the Brain Activity that is happening or not happening. But I know you think that's absurd because you think there is no separate Conscious event happening.
This paragraph of yours proves you didn't read a single scientific study that anyone posted in this thread. You are manifestly uninterested in scientific proof of any kind. What you are interested in is proselytizing your copycat pet theory of consciousness, which has absolutely nothing to recommend it. It offers no explanation of any kind that is rational, and it's not even original to you, but a blatant derivative of others' supernatural theories of consciousness. It is utter nonsense, distinguished from others' nonsense only by your gratuitous capitalization and the fact that your website appears to have Acronym Tourette's.

SteveKlinko wrote:By the way, I picked this item out of your Barrage Post because you actually said what you were talking about.
"You actually said what you were talking about" makes no sense. And given that you've restated your initial premise 15,842 times in this thread, calling anyone else's post a "barrage" borders on the insane.

SteveKlinko wrote:I answered most of the items.
No, you didn't. You categorically denied them, and wrongly so.

SteveKlinko wrote:For the others I can only say that you can't just accuse and then tell me to go find my own quote that bothers you. A little ridiculous don't you think?
Not at all. Your contributions to this thread are rife with logical fallacies. I wasn't suggesting you find one particular quote; I was suggesting that you be logical.

No one answers the question I have been asking. Given that we know 2 things about how we See Red: 1) Neurons Fire and 2) a Red experience happens. How do Neurons Firing produce the Conscious experience of Red? Your example of measuring Brain Activity to determine what is going on with the Consciousness of that Brain is an interesting study but it does not answer the question that is the cornerstone of this thread. What is that Red experience? How can it come from Neurons firing? You really think your example explains it?

I have read all the posts on this thread. None answer the question. The Inter Mind website very explicitly says in multiple places that it does not explain Consciousness. Rather it is a new Framework within which Consciousness can be studied. It does point out the special nature of Conscious experience. In fact Consciousness screams out for a special explanation because no explanation has come from Science yet. Note that I said yet. If you read http://TheInterMind.com you will see that it is careful Not to claim anything as a fact. I just suggest things with the hope of stimulating the generation of new approaches for studying Consciousness.

The Acronyms come from working for too many years in the aerospace industry. The first thing we do is create Acronyms for things that will be repeated often. I think it would be more tedious if the terms were all fully spelled out. I thought the mouse hover over was a big help for people that couldn't remember what the Acronyms meant further down the page.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:32 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote: This explains nothing about how we see the Visual Scene as a Conscious experience. Yes, all that Neural Activity is happening but there .......
Therefore...... if all the neural activity is happening in the normal physical brain concerning colour in our consciousness....then your fuzzy inter mind hypothesis has not only been fully debunked but doesn't add anything to known science. :lol:

Don't forget to donate $100 to the Skeptic Society on your way back home. :lol: http://shop.skeptic.com/merchant.mvc?Sc ... ory_Code=D

As I said a hundred times the Inter Mind is about missing processing. If the missing processing can be found in the Brain then that part of the Brain will be called the inter Mind aspect of the Brain.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:37 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Which means, simply, Dimebag, that it is not fully understood. Sure, but that does not suggest an immaterial inter mind, which Steve is pushing.

The website says that The Inter Mind is missing processing that creates the Conscious Mind, If that missing processing is found to be in the Brain then I'm good with that, but Science has to show it.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:00 pm

The question is so simple. Given that we know two things about how we See Red: 1) Neurons Fire and 2) a Red experience happens. How do Neurons Firing produce the Conscious experience of Red? What is that Red experience? How can it come from Neurons firing?

Going one step further, how do we See that beautiful High Definition Full Color Conscious Light screen that is embedded in the front of our faces? Visit http://bit.ly/2neJCgb to See your Conscious Light screen. What Neural Activity can produce such a thing? Of course this is a little bit of a gimmick but I think it can make you think differently about your own Visual experience. Is the scene that you see really Out There, or is it closer than you think? I hear heads exploding already even before I hit Submit.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:17 pm

There is no conscious light screen. That is another invention dredged entirely from the imagination.

However, it is true we do not "see" what is in front of us. There are techniques in which researchers scan eye movement, and show that when we look at a scene, our eyes flick around to cover all parts of it. We "see" only tiny parts of the total picture at any one instant. But all that information is processed by the brain, in the visual cortex, and converted to a mental picture of the scene. The final picture can be fooled, and is sometimes modified by expectation, as witness what we see when we experience an optical illusion. Researchers have monitored brain activity during this process, and recorded the nerve activity involved in visual processing. The evidence is clear that nerve networks process the image.

User avatar
LunaNik
Regular Poster
Posts: 525
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: State of Mind

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby LunaNik » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:20 pm

SteveKlinko wrote:No one answers the question I have been asking. Given that we know 2 things about how we See Red: 1) Neurons Fire and 2) a Red experience happens. How do Neurons Firing produce the Conscious experience of Red? Your example of measuring Brain Activity to determine what is going on with the Consciousness of that Brain is an interesting study but it does not answer the question that is the cornerstone of this thread. What is that Red experience? How can it come from Neurons firing? You really think your example explains it?
You repeatedly mention only one thing I posted, but conveniently forget my explanation. What I said was that the "red experience" comes from "neurons firing" via the memory. Your "red experience" is an associative one.

I went on to provide you with an example of how the "salty experience" would be different for you than it would be for a young child. You have associations with "tastes salty," but the child doesn't. I have different associations for "tastes salty" than you do, because I have different memories than you do; that's why the conscious experience is subjective.

My "salty experience" includes eating freshly-caught raw Cape Cod oysters with homemade cocktail sauce at 2:00 am, chased with ale. (Hat tip to my friend, Eddie.) Yours might include soy sauce or movie popcorn. Someone else's could include that time they nearly drowned in the Pacific.

You insist on discounting the organic functioning of the brain in favor of mystical, magical thinking. It's ridiculous. If we were at the point where we fully understand every region of the brain, every neurochemical, every process, and every function, that would be the point to look elsewhere. But we don't. You're jumping the gun and ignoring science for emotional reasons.
...it used to be so simple, once upon a time.
Because the universe was full of ignorance all around and the scientist panned through it like a prospector crouched over a mountain stream, looking for the gold of knowledge among the gravel of unreason, the sand of uncertainty, and the little whiskery eight-legged swimming things of superstition.
—Terry Pratchett, from Witches Abroad

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25216
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jun 22, 2017 11:56 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:"The final picture can be fooled, and is sometimes modified by expectation, as witness what we see when we experience an optical illusion. Researchers have monitored brain activity during this process, and recorded the nerve activity involved in visual processing. The evidence is clear that nerve networks process the image.


Yep. I specifically linked Steve to a detailed science paper on that and he won't read it or even acknowledge it. Steve is here for religious reason and will not move away from his narrow religious construct. :D

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:47 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is no conscious light screen. That is another invention dredged entirely from the imagination.

However, it is true we do not "see" what is in front of us. There are techniques in which researchers scan eye movement, and show that when we look at a scene, our eyes flick around to cover all parts of it. We "see" only tiny parts of the total picture at any one instant. But all that information is processed by the brain, in the visual cortex, and converted to a mental picture of the scene. The final picture can be fooled, and is sometimes modified by expectation, as witness what we see when we experience an optical illusion. Researchers have monitored brain activity during this process, and recorded the nerve activity involved in visual processing. The evidence is clear that nerve networks process the image.

Do you not See your own Conscious Light Screen? If you don't actually See the thing then I have to conclude that your Brain operates in a different mode than people that can See it. I had always assumed that all people had the same Kind of Conscious experience. By Kind, I mean a Visual experience that floats out in front of them as in the Conscious Light Screen.

SteveKlinko
Poster
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Postby SteveKlinko » Fri Jun 23, 2017 2:14 pm

LunaNik wrote:
SteveKlinko wrote:No one answers the question I have been asking. Given that we know 2 things about how we See Red: 1) Neurons Fire and 2) a Red experience happens. How do Neurons Firing produce the Conscious experience of Red? Your example of measuring Brain Activity to determine what is going on with the Consciousness of that Brain is an interesting study but it does not answer the question that is the cornerstone of this thread. What is that Red experience? How can it come from Neurons firing? You really think your example explains it?
You repeatedly mention only one thing I posted, but conveniently forget my explanation. What I said was that the "red experience" comes from "neurons firing" via the memory. Your "red experience" is an associative one.

Amazing. You are saying that Memory Neurons fire and through an Associative process we have a Red experience. You just wrapped up the Explanation into the word Associative. Saying the word Associative does not explain anything about the actual experience of Red. How does this Associative process result in a Conscious experience of Red?

LunaNik wrote:I went on to provide you with an example of how the "salty experience" would be different for you than it would be for a young child. You have associations with "tastes salty," but the child doesn't. I have different associations for "tastes salty" than you do, because I have different memories than you do; that's why the conscious experience is subjective.


LunaNik wrote:My "salty experience" includes eating freshly-caught raw Cape Cod oysters with homemade cocktail sauce at 2
:00 am, chased with ale. (Hat tip to my friend, Eddie.) Yours might include soy sauce or movie popcorn. Someone else's could include that time they nearly drowned in the Pacific.

Yes differences exist. But for any individual, how does the Salty Taste come from Neurons Firing or from Memory Neurons Firing?

LunaNik wrote:You insist on discounting the organic functioning of the brain in favor of mystical, magical thinking. It's ridiculous. If we were at the point where we fully understand every region of the brain, every neurochemical, every process, and every function, that would be the point to look elsewhere. But we don't. You're jumping the gun and ignoring science for emotional reasons.

I'm only saying that you would think that with all the vast knowledge we have acquired about the Brain over the last 100 years that there would be at least a clue as to how the Conscious experience works. You are looking for a Brain knowledge Singularity that will solve the Problem. I only say that we should entertain the possibility that the explanation for Conscious experience might not be completely in the Neurons. I never say that I know or think that it is definitely not in the Brain. I'm trying to get people to look out side the box.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest