• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

What Is Consciousness?

Cochise said:
Can I be discharged from my 'Luddite' category now ?
Click to expand...
Yes! Good to see someone engaging with the question the thread asks! :)
 
Journalism is pretty useless in any technical area concerning computers. They all seem infected with what I call 'Star Trek disease'. In other words, an inability to distinguish science fiction from current reality, driven by simple wish-power. Which tends to lead them to be unimpressed by truly significant advances like cheap SSD's while splashing anything that hints at what they generally call robots or artificial intelligence, no matter how far from actual implementation it really is.

The same disease, sadly, affects a lot of computer users and more dangerously a lot of people involved in large systems procurement.

We should maybe have a conversation on cup half empty vs cup half full - I have had a number of conversations with people telling me how terrible things used to be in the 70's - actually, I don't see a lot of difference except we have an awful lot more toys and an awful lot more BS.
 
Although this news report doesn't actually mention consciousness, knowing where you are, and how to get somewhere else, is surely an important facet of consciousness. (Well, I'm a navigator, I would say that! ;) ) So in that sense this piece of Nobel Award winning work shines a light on the nuts and bolts of one of the brain's many sub-systems that together form consciousness.

Nobel Prize for the brain's GPS discovery
By James Gallagher, Health editor, BBC News website

The Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine has been awarded to three scientists who discovered the brain's "GPS system".
UK-based researcher Prof John O'Keefe as well as May-Britt Moser and Edvard Moser share the award.
They discovered how the brain knows where we are and is able to navigate from one place to another.
Their findings may help explain why Alzheimer's disease patients cannot recognise their surroundings.

"The discoveries have solved a problem that has occupied philosophers and scientists for centuries," the Nobel Assembly said.

Prof O'Keefe, from University College London, discovered the first part of the brain's internal positioning system in 1971.
On hearing about winning the prize, he said: "I'm totally delighted and thrilled, I'm still in a state of shock, it's the highest accolade you can get."

His work showed that a set of nerve cells became activated whenever a rat was in one location in a room.
A different set of cells were active when the rat was in a different area.
Prof O'Keefe argued these "place cells" - located in the hippocampus - formed a map within the brain.

In 2005, husband and wife team, May-Britt and Edvard, discovered a different part of the brain which acts more like a nautical chart.
These "grid cells" are akin to lines of longitude and latitude, helping the brain to judge distance and navigate.
The[y] work at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim.

The Nobel committee said the combination of grid and place cells "constitutes a comprehensive positioning system, an inner GPS, in the brain".
They added: "[This system is] affected in several brain disorders, including dementia and Alzheimer's disease.

"A better understanding of neural mechanisms underlying spatial memory is therefore important and the discoveries of place and grid cells have been a major leap forward to advance this endeavour."

Dr Colin Lever, from the University of Durham, worked in Prof O'Keefe's laboratory for ten years and has already dreamt on two occasions that his former mentor had won the award. :shock:
He told the BBC: "He absolutely deserves the Nobel Prize, he created a cognitive revolution, his research was really forward thinking in suggesting animals create representations of the external world inside their brains."
"Place cells help us map our way around the world, but in humans at least they form part of the spatiotemporal scaffold in our brains that supports our autobiographical memory.

"The world was not ready for his original report of place cells in 1971, people didn't believe that 'place' was what best characterised these cells, so there was no great fanfare at that time.
"But his work on hippocampal spatial mapping created the background for discovering grid cells and with grid cells, the world was prepared and we all thought wow this is big news.
"Plus John taught the Mosers how to do these recordings!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29504761
 
Fascinating!

Is this related to propriosensory and especially vestibular senses? We already know you can be born with these abilities hyper- or hypo- and that illness, age and aquired brain injury can reduce their effectiveness.

And does it also relate to people (like me!) who just know where a north is without consciously thinking about it? To about 20degrees on either side I think the tests were in my case.

I agree Rynner, the relationship to the outside is an important part of an individual's consciousness.
 
garrick92 said:
Sam Parnia's latest study has reported its findings on NDEs.
Click to expand...
I posted the Telegraph version of that story on the NDE thread.

It's all interesting stuff, and when dealing with the brain, the most complex object in the universe (some say) it would be naive to think that all the evidence is in yet. But it's all grist to the mill.

As I've said before, my approach to understanding consciousness is a 'bottom up' one, working with what we know, and putting the simpler sub-systems together to form more complex ones, hoping for insight on the next steps to take.

In fact, I can't see that a 'top-down' approach is scientifically possible. It would have to assume a 'soul' (or 'spirit', or 'god'), which it is barely possible to define, let alone prove its existence.
 
garrick92 said:
....here's very good evidence of consciousness becoming separated from the body.
Click to expand...
It's possible evidence, in very restricted circumstances, ie in heart attack patients brought back from the brink by artificial resuscitation. Therefore it only lasts a few minutes (or the patient is a goner), and it doesn't tell us whether anything analogous happens with other forms of dying, such as sudden death in a RTA, drowning, electrocution, etc.

When we better understand the link of consciousness with the living brain, we may be able to theorise about how it could survive without a brain at all.

Ultimately, all the stories about NDEs etc, however interesting or compelling, come to us from living people. Contacting the dead themselves has had no real success, despite years of trying. So we have to keep gathering facts, in many different fields, probably, and eventually it might all gel into a respectable scientific theory.
 
garrick92 said:
The contacting the dead argument is a whole other ball game, as the colonials have it, so I won't pursue it here. Even Dr Parnia himself won't be drawn on that one -- as he speculates, it could be the case that consciousness separates from the body briefly before fading away to nothingness. He goes no further than the data allow him.
Click to expand...
I try to stick to the data too, but a bit of speculation does no harm unless you let it run away with you.

One day you might think, "What if...", and then the light-bulb flashes on over your head, and a new theory is born! (Provided it matches the data, of course! ;) )
 
http://tiny.cc/eihdnx

is the University of Southampton news release, with a link to the published paper in Resuscitation here

http://tiny.cc/clhdnx

I have some academic paper access but not to this - although the Abstract does include brief background, method, result and conclusions :)

I think calling it "solid evidence" might be pushing it a wee bit. This is the quotation from Parnia in the News Release (rather than the newspaper story)

"“Thus, while it was not possible to absolutely prove the reality or meaning of patients’ experiences and claims of awareness, (due to the very low incidence (2 per cent) of explicit recall of visual awareness or so called OBE’s), it was impossible to disclaim them either and more work is needed in this area. Clearly, the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice.”"

Which is standard research-speak for give us some more money and we'll carry on.

For me the interesting thing is the contribution to changing views on when life as a state turns into death as a state.
 
The 'What if...' approach is essentially the same as the 'Top down' approach.

Great discoveries can be made both from the bottom and from the top. For about a century we had no understanding of electricity but nevertheless we were able to harness it, and as a result more became known about its behaviour which eventually led us downwards - but although we have a perfectly usable working model for everyday - and even quite highly sophisticated - purposes, we still don't fully understand it. As a result we keep delving deeper and deeper in sub-atomic physics - which is, at its simplest. just trying to explain how electricity works.

We may not even have started to actually explain consciousness, we may (as in the early days of electricity) simply be observing its effects without having yet managed to isolate any causes.
 
The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine!

I think the Universe will end when we understand the mind of God. As that is a way off, no doubt the Universe will continue.

Mock if you will-once I was smug and an athist, then I began to see the Hand of God in so many things.

There is something more than Man, not that Man is to be despised. If I'm mistaken, well, I've lost nothing worth having.

Be kind to each other, that's all there is to it.
 
There's quite an overlap between this thread, Robot Round-up, and A.I.
People seem to be focussing on similar ideas, but from different angles.

A couple of stories from the latest New Scientist seem to illustrate the point:

These goggles flip your life upside down
And reveal the nature of consciousness itself

Meet the what-if machines
Artificial minds want to tell you a story

Sadly, I'm not a subscriber, so I can't read them!

But it seems the future is steadily getting digitally deeper, one way or another.
 
Ever notice, the more we learn about a subject, the crazier it gets?\

String theory, quantum entanglements, the Higgs Boson...it keeps getting more and more uncertain. I'm in favor of having string theory classified as Necromancy and a law making all theories made up after 1965 tantamount to witchcraft.

When I was a la, things were orderly, Newton was the boss(even though he dabbled in alchemy-and see where it got hi?).

Now Pluto isn't a planet-maybe-and 2+2=?.

This WILL NOT DO!

I have spoken.
 
Not really, just took Classical Studies at school. Oh, yeah... that means I am ancient, doesn't it?
 
New Scientist


Instant Expert: Consciousness / 12 September / London

We're delighted to announce two new speakers for our one-day masterclass on consciousness at the British Library. Both are leading experts in their respective areas, and they will join professors Anil Seth and Patrick Haggard on stage.

Murray Shannahan

Professor of Cognitive Robotics,
Imperial College London
Professor Shannahan's chief interest is in the "mental architecture" needed by animals and machines to sense, learn, think and act. He is a firm believer in the idea that to function in the real world requires a body; hence his interest in robotics.


Amanda Seed

Lecturer at the School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of
St. Andrews
Dr Seed works on the problem-solving skills of chimps and children, and is also interested in parrots, crows and other corvids. Ultimately, her aim is to identify the common principles for the evolution of intelligence.


Buy your tickets now

(by email)
 
I sometimes think in the incredibly unlikely event the search for artificial intelligence did produce something truly indistinguishible from consciousness in a machine, apart from the fact it would be an horrifically cruel fate to impose on the mind in the machine (would it be conscious and fearful of its own mortality, or feel trapped inside its box like a locked-in syndrome patient?), it still wouldn't tell us anything much about the nature or origin of human consciousness... it could merely be seen as replicating the mechanics (ie an organic brain) via which consciousness enters the world from it's elsewhere source..
 
gattino said:
I sometimes think..
Click to expand...
You chuck a lot of possibilities in there. We might all benefit if you simplified and amplified your thinking! ie, simpler bite-sized ideas, but with amplified discussion of the ideas.
 
I thought it was very straightforward. There's not much to simplify or amplify.

Suppose a computer or a robot is finally built that appears, much like in the television series Humans or Data in Star Trek, to think and feel and act, make choices etc etc like a human being. In other words to have consciousness to the degree that we recognise and accept other people have consciousness.

Firstly, in the case of a less android like machine, such as a computer, if that mind really is precisely like a human mind would not it be expected to feel as you or I would if trapped in a box without a body and the warmth of physical interaction? If not, then it can't be like us. But if so, then isn't the attempt to create such a mind a cruel and perverse endeavour? And how would it feel about being switched off? Fearful?

Secondly, again if a mechanical brain in effect exhibited all of the recongisable qualities of consciousness evident in an organic one, is it obvious that this means there is no real separate "self" occupying the human brain, as it often presumed? Or might it not simply be that if the human brain is a valve or reciever for consciousness as theorised by non materialists, that the artificial intelligence is simply a man made mechanism for doing the same thing...recieving mind, a soul if you like, from wherever such things are imagined to come?
 
gattino said:
Suppose a computer or a robot is finally built that appears, much like in the television series Humans or Data in Star Trek, to think and feel and act, make choices etc etc like a human being. In other words to have consciousness to the degree that we recognise and accept other people have consciousness.

Firstly, in the case of a less android like machine, such as a computer, if that mind really is precisely like a human mind would not it be expected to feel as you or I would if trapped in a box without a body and the warmth of physical interaction? If not, then it can't be like us. But if so, then isn't the attempt to create such a mind a cruel and perverse endeavour? And how would it feel about being switched off? Fearful?
Click to expand...

But who is trying to create a mind in a box? Not NS speaker Murray Shannahan:
"Professor Shannahan's chief interest is in the "mental architecture" needed by animals and machines to sense, learn, think and act. He is a firm believer in the idea that to function in the real world requires a body; hence his interest in robotics."
(And that echoes my thoughts. The 'body' need not be humanoid, but it would need sensors to detect its environment, and actuators of some kind capable of interacting with that environment.)

Secondly, again if a mechanical brain in effect exhibited all of the recongisable qualities of consciousness evident in an organic one, is it obvious that this means there is no real separate "self" occupying the human brain, as it often presumed? Or might it not simply be that if the human brain is a valve or reciever for consciousness as theorised by non materialists, that the artificial intelligence is simply a man made mechanism for doing the same thing...recieving mind, a soul if you like, from wherever such things are imagined to come?
Click to expand...
I regard this as a quasi-religious viewpoint. Until it has some tangible connection to the real world, it cannot be studied or usefully discussed any further. It's a God-of-the-gaps kind of viewpoint. Until 'non-materialists' can produce something that can be scientifically measured, their argument goes nowhere - ir remains stuck in the mental compartment "from wherever such things are imagined to come".

There's nothing wrong with imagination - all the best scientists have been very imaginative people. But they don't just say "What if..?", and leave it there. They next ask "What would be the consequences? What would we see, how could we measure it, etc." Then they test these consequences against reality, ie, they experiment. If the results go against the hypothesis, then it is either abandoned or modified.

Eventually the hypothesis might get enough support to be regarded as a theory, but no theory is ever regarded as absolutely true - it's just the best working model we have, and if contradictory evidence turns up, it may have to be modified again. This is the scientific process.

Sadly, theology and fluffy-woo-woo-isms don't have such a process.
 
And what a lovely process it is. But not entirely relevant.

The implication of AI in the sense discussed is that thought as we know it is a mechanical process of the brain. I've certainly seen you on these threads point to AI articles and say as a consequence "there is no ghost in the machine", ie independent self occupying the brain.

In such a scenario a machine which achieved consciousness as we understand it, in order to justify that claim, would be a mind in a box. How would it not be? Because if it isn't then it is not like human consciousness at all and all assumptions about the latter from such a development would be without merit. It would be like learning about the nature of horses from a rocking horse.

Secondly the argument about whether the brain emits or transmits consciousness is not one of hard science versus "fluffy woo woo" excecpt in the minds of those who deeply wedded to the idea of brain as machine..an idea belonging to a philosophy and at odds with human experience. It is certainly not established science or there would be no "hard problem" to discuss.

That being so my point was perfectly clear. If the brain as transmitter of mind is of value - psi phenomena being one strand of evidence for that - then its hard to see how htat would change because the device for transmission was mechancial rather than organic. Philosophically you would be no further on. My use of the word "if" is not, as you would have it, unscientific thinking. All science is based on "if". "If this is so, then this should follow". If a true replica of human thought process were created in an electronic box then it does NOT follow that this solves the "hard problem" in favour of emission.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand half of what you're saying - and I suspect that vice-versa is also true!
gattino said:
...the argument about whether the brain emits or transmits consciousness is not one of hard science versus "fluffy woo woo" excecpt in the minds of those who deeply wedded to the idea of brain as machine..an idea belonging to a philosophy and at odds with human experience. It is certainly not established science or there would be no "hard problem" to discuss.
Click to expand...
No researcher in the AI or consciousness field is 'deeply wedded' to the idea of brain as machine. If a better theory came along, they'd jump at it!

It's just that every discovery and development in these fields adds weight to the idea that yes, sufficiently complex machines or brains can emulate many aspects of perception and volition, and there's no sign that we'll need to resort to a numinous 'external consciousness' to understand them better.

'At odds with human experience'? Human experience is changing all the time, as my paragraph above shows! The human experience of modern researchers is not that of 19th century theologians.

You say "If the brain as transmitter of mind is of value - psi phenomena being one strand of evidence for that - then its hard to see how htat would change because the device for transmission was mechancial rather than organic."

Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty! Is psi phenomena a valid strand of evidence? Many educated and intelligent people have been looking into this for years:

The Society for Psychical Research (SPR) is a non-profit organisation in the United Kingdom. Its stated purpose is to understand "events and abilities commonly described as psychic or paranormal by promoting and supporting important research in this area" and to "examine allegedly paranormal phenomena in a scientific and unbiased way."[1] It does not however, since its inception in 1882, hold any corporate opinions: SPR members have a variety of beliefs or lack thereof about the reality and nature of the phenomena studied, and some sceptics have been active members of the Society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Psychical_Research

It's looked at a lot of interesting stuff, but it hasn't come up with any consistent theories about what's going on. Unlike, say, physics, chemistry, geology, electronics, etc, which have all made tremendous strides since 1882.

A.I. research is just one of the latest branches of science that are rapidly developing. And maybe, just maybe, it will one day reach the stage of being able to explain psy phenomena too. That seems to me more likely than psy phenomena (as currently understood) helping to explain or advance A.I. research.
 
gattino said:
Secondly the argument about whether the brain emits or transmits consciousness is not one of hard science versus "fluffy woo woo" excecpt in the minds of those who deeply wedded to the idea of brain as machine..an idea belonging to a philosophy and at odds with human experience. It is certainly not established science or there would be no "hard problem" to discuss.
Click to expand...

Have a look at this, you might find it interesting:
Comparison between Karl Pribram's "Holographic Brain Theory" and more conventional models of neuronal computation
http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/
...And I've posted about the Penrose/Hameroff Orch OR theory here before, as well.

Theories of consciousness that diverge from the standard seem to be one of those things that deeply upset some people. I was shocked to hear Roger Penrose being called a "common woo peddler" due to working on the Orch OR theory. I guess you can be a brilliant, highly respected mathematician one day, but start looking to make new discoveries about consciousness and all hell breaks loose. :confused: :(

I think Rupert Sheldrake was correct when he gave his controversial TEDx talk about Science being too dogmatic (and his point was proven, I think, when his talk was banned from the TED website). But just because some skeptics are upset doesn't mean that research isn't being done or new theories put forward, thankfully.

Since digging into holographic brain and holographic universe theories, I feel my understanding of consciousness and how it works has grown significantly from what it was.
 
Ulalume said:
Have a look at this, you might find it interesting:
Comparison between Karl Pribram's "Holographic Brain Theory" and more conventional models of neuronal computation
http://www.acsa2000.net/bcngroup/jponkp/
...
Since digging into holographic brain and holographic universe theories, I feel my understanding of consciousness and how it works has grown significantly from what it was.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that. It helps to be reminded that there is not a monolithic theory of consciousness, and that many complex processes can be described in different ways, eg, top-down or bottom-up. These may appear contradictory, but are just different ways of looking at the thing, and emphasising different features.

The versions of science that appear in the popular press are often simplified, and the layman might think he's been given the whole story when in fact the real situation is much more complex. Different experts will have differing views on some aspects of the subject, without one being 'right' and another 'wrong'. But it's the melding together of these many strands of thought that produces a strong and consistent theory and moves science along.
 
I wouldn't go to wikipedia for summaries on psi research!

My point isn't a tricky one. It's very simple. That I don't see any useful argument re consciousness stemming from any future development of true artificial intelligence. All proofs that stem from a false premise are themselves liable to be false.

This thread is 13 pages long and I've not read it, but would be willing to bet the life of my imaginary first born on the radio/television analogy having been used a few times. I make no pretence to novelty if I resurrect it now, but do so only in order to incorporate an argument from AI to see how far it gets us.

Imagine a world in which no radio has been observed to have been created, but rather they are things found, disected and observed. We see what they are and see what htey do. Music comes from them. Yet, there being no little men inside the radio when we open it an argument develops. Those who wonder where the music comes from but to whom it makes no sense that it is produced by the radio itself. And those for whom it is self evidently produced by the radio itself, and consider any suggestion to the contrary to be superstitious ignorance.

The logic of the latter group is impeccable. We can turn the volume up and down, they argue. When we stick a screw driver into its workings it acts funny. When we drop it in water it goes mad. When the batteries run down so does the music, and when they die the music stops and is heard no more. Sometimes you drop one and a different kind of music entirely comes out. How much more evidence do you need to accept that the radio is producing the music?? Besides which the alternative is unproven and unprovable fantasy which smacks of religion...what? you seriously think it comes from some magical "other place" which I can't see and you can't locate and travels..chortle..invisibly through the air without being seen, heard, or coming into contact with anything on the way. Uhuh.

Eventually, tired of arguing with muddy thinkers they call in the renowned Professsor Rynner to settle the matter once and for all. Simple he says. If our hypothesis is correct - that the internal workings of the radio are the source of the music - then it follows rationally, scientifically, irrefutably, that by studying the interactions of its parts and replicating them with other materials we should expect to ultimately produce an artificial radio that also plays music. If our artificial radios don't play music then we'll think again naturally. We're all rational men here.....

You may have already spotted the flaw in the professor's argument. But let's follow it through.

All the internal electrical interractions of radios are eventually reproduced in a device which looks different from a real one of course, but sure enough out comes beautiful music. You see! argue the proponents of the research. Case proven! This surely confirms that the music IS produced by the radio itself!

What could be more rational? What could be more logical? What could be more irrefutable?

What could be more wrong?
 
Last edited:
Could consciousness be a collection of electrons & neutrons that marry well together and as a result formulate A.I.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top