A theory of consciousness for Scientists

[HydrogenBond]

The brain gives off brain waves or a cycling global firing of neurons. Is it possible this background cyclic firing of the brain keeps a range of neurons firing to generate the matrix that supports consciousness? Sensory systems and consciousness then reinforce certain memories, using this global background matrix making these reinforced memories appear to be the operating memory.

 

What is interesting is if we measure conscious activity versus brain wave frequency, each frequency equates to consciousness entering a different realm of activity. The lowest frequencies give us the lowest conscious activity such as meditation and dreamless sleep. At the upper end there is more conscious energy going to more extreme states such as more muscular tension and rage behavior.

 

Dreams can fluctuate the brain wave frequency, throughout the range implying the unconscious mind can tweak the energy level of consciousness within the dream to make certain memory have more impact. In dreams, consciousness had less control over the matrix. More of the energy in the matrix shifts to unconscious dynamics to generate the dream scape. The dream movie in not much different than imagination, except the ego is not doing it, but rather another part of consciousness is doing it.

 

The idea of conscious calibration was implicit of what percent of the unconscious is involved in consciousness while we are awake, due to sort of a dream scape overlay? It is called the unconscious because most people are not aware of it but assume subtle dream overlay is real. This is where internal data collection becomes important to help separate these two affects. But since it is not important, consensus dreams are common.

 

If you look at dreams, cause and affect break down. If there was an overlap of conscious cause and affect with a subtle dream scape, one would perceive reality as part casual and part chaos. This is the direction of much of science using an un-calibrated consciousness. I am not insulting science but trying to show the need to calibrate the primary instrument, if cause and affect is important. If chaos is more important, we can increase the percent of the dream overlay, to make this special affect even more prominent. We only need to shift the set point even more.

[questor]

The brain gives off brain waves or a cycling global firing of neurons.

This is the root of the tree. This happens before the branches or the leaves. What makes this happen, and at what particulate level does it occur? All the rest is macro events.

[HermesThePhilosopher]

The brain gives off brain waves or a cycling global firing of neurons. Is it possible this background cyclic firing of the brain keeps a range of neurons firing to generate the matrix that supports consciousness? Sensory systems and consciousness then reinforce certain memories, using this global background matrix making these reinforced memories appear to be the operating memory.

 

.........

 

If you look at dreams, cause and affect break down. If there was an overlap of conscious cause and affect with a subtle dream scape, one would perceive reality as part casual and part chaos. This is the direction of much of science using an un-calibrated consciousness. I am not insulting science but trying to show the need to calibrate the primary instrument, if cause and affect is important. If chaos is more important, we can increase the percent of the dream overlay, to make this special affect even more prominent. We only need to shift the set point even more.

 

Brain waves are merely a derivative representation of regional neural activity in the brain. The same data can be gathered in far more spatial detail (though with more difficulty, and less temporal resolution) measuring blood flow using fMRI. There is nothing intrinsically important about brainwaves and as magnetic waves they most likely have no function, and are merely an artifact of neuron function.

 

Obviously the neural activity that produces them is important, and the different "wave patterns" representative of neuronal regional activity patterns.

 

I found it difficult to follow what you were saying about calibration there, H-Bond. Could you rephrase?

 

The brain gives off brain waves or a cycling global firing of neurons.

This is the root of the tree. This happens before the branches or the leaves. What makes this happen, and at what particular level does it occur? All the rest are macro events.

 

Are you serious Questor? How can one of the last emergent functions of the neurochemistry you were talking about be considered the "root" of the tree?

 

You have made the same point several times now and offered nothing but the tree analogy for support. Please give some science or some logic to back up what you say.

[questor]

Brain waves are merely a derivative representation of regional neural activity in the brain. The same data can be gathered in far more spatial detail (though with more difficulty, and less temporal resolution) measuring blood flow using fMRI. There is nothing intrinsically important about brainwaves and as magnetic waves they most likely have no function, and are merely an artifact of neuron function.

 

Where is the science in the above statement? How do you know the purpose or function of brain waves? Your thread speaks of consciousness, what is your definition of consciousness and can you describe the initiation and genesis of a single thought?

[Essay]

Wow! The density of some objects is just unimaginable. :shrug:

We know as we move down through the size of components from cell to molecule, to atom, to quark, to whatever, there must be a level at which thought exists and below which it does not.

Questor, perhaps, in addition to the word "intrinsic," you should also focus on "emergent."

Thanks....

===

 

Hermes, Thank you, for my best long laugh of the day, re:

"(see exhaustive arguments put forward :xx: )."

 

...well, I'm exhausted. :shrug:

...and out to lunch.

.

.

.

But Please: See my (...thank you) new topic:

http://hypography.com/forums/computer-science/16467-web-parameters-discovery-awaiting.html#post240255

...about parallels between the Web and Brains.

 

Cheers,

~ :confused:

[questor]

Maybe this would be a better way to discuss this subject. Which occurs first...a thought or consciousness? Is thought a macro event ( seen by the naked eye), a micro event (microscopic) or a nano event ( electron microscope) or sub-atomic particle event?

[Essay]

Maybe this would be a better way to discuss this subject. Which occurs first...a thought or consciousness? Is thought a macro event ( seen by the naked eye), a micro event (microscopic) or a nano event ( electron microscope) or sub-atomic particle event?

 

This is a trick question, right? You want someone to pick one of your choices and commit themselves to defining thought as a material substance. Maybe this isn't on purpose, but isn't that the only option available?

 

IMHO

Thought is an emergent phenomenom, not material; and not intrinsic to the individual properties of the biomolecules.

===

 

HTP, Thanks for using the word "derivative." As the opposite of "emergent" it works well in this discussion; as thoughts are not derivatives of any biochemical property.

 

I wonder if brain waves, however, might serve some purpose (as HB suggested, ...if I interpreted that as...) in synchronizing activity, if not also affecting coding or reading on a quantum level (see the wikip., Turin/olfaction reference).

===

 

Feeling a little prompted, I suppose I'd define:

 

Consciousness would be the sensing of a difference between the immediate past Dasein and the present Dasein.

(Dasein or homeostasis/equilibria)

 

Thought would be the (rats, now I've lost it) ...something like ...sensing the comparison of the difference between consciousness and other sense memories or current perceptions.

 

Questor! Now memories are something that I'm pretty sure have a physical, biochemical basis. Are you curious about the biochemistry of memory?

 

Thanks for all the inspiration/...motivation!

Vive la difference, eh?

 

~

 

p.s. Sentience would probably be a whole 'nother level of sensing the difference between the comparisons of the differences in thoughts....

 

...and let me know what you think of the new topic:

http://hypography.com/forums/computer-science/16467-web-parameters-discovery-awaiting.html#post240255

Brains vs. the Internet :smart:

[questor]

If I were to guess,I would say a thought is caused by some biochemical reaction in specialized neural tissue, perhaps at the molecular level. Memory is probably an imprint preserved in specialized neural tissue at the same level. Since I don't really know the answer...that is the answer, I don't know, and I don't know anyone who does know. What I do know is BS when I see it. Whoever discovers the truth about this subject will no doubt receive the Nobel Prize.

[Essay]

What I do know is BS when I see it. Whoever discovers the truth about this subject will no doubt receive the Nobel Prize.

Yes, and I know a lack of comprehension when I see it.

Umm, ...were you referring to my impromptu definitions, my new topic, or something else?

===

 

...but meanwhile:

Hey, your right about that Nobel Prize:

Scientists Solve Mystery of Long-Term Memory Formation

A key question has been to identify the exact proteins and the interactions between them that allow a long-term memory to take hold.

Dr. Eric Kandel of Columbia University won a Nobel Prize in 2000 for identifying some of the key proteins in this process.

Scientists Solve Mystery of Long-Term Memory Formation - New York Presbyterian Hospital

 

Though it sounds as if there is a lot more to learn about memory, and win prizes for.

...just google: "biochemical basis of memory" RNA

 

Thanks,

~ ;)

[questor]

Essay, I wasn't referring to you. The BS is in the premise of the thread. If you want to learn about this subject, continue to read your scientific articles as far as they will take you. You can make up your own mind after you learn about the basis of thought and life itself.

[HermesThePhilosopher]

Essay, I wasn't referring to you. The BS is in the premise of the thread. If you want to learn about this subject, continue to read your scientific articles as far as they will take you. You can make up your own mind after you learn about the basis of thought and life itself.

 

Though you have provided (provoked?) some interesting discussion here Questor, you have now resorted to ad hominem attack with no reasoning/justification anywhere to support what you say. Take your belligerence elsewhere; it is not needed here and I shall not be responding to your posts anymore.

 

Questor! Now memories are something that I'm pretty sure have a physical, biochemical basis. Are you curious about the biochemistry of memory?

 

I agree Essay, memory does have a biochemical basis but only insofar as it relates to the connections between neurons. There is really no debate on this issue (talking to you, questor, for the last time!); biochemistry is the foundation of life, and of the neuron, but neurons are building blocks of our PNS/CNS and as such the elemental block of our mind. The onus is definitely on alternative points of view to justify themselves.

 

I shall take a look at your thread soon Essay...

[Essay]

Hermes, I think memories are even more tangible, physical molecules (or arrays thereof); and that the synapses just potentiate, coordinate and relate the memories; but whatever the physical basis....

 

What did you think of my impromptu definitions?

 

Don't you think that CONSCIOUSNESS is just the creation of a new "memory" that is derived by perceiving the difference between (comparing) either two other related memories, or one other memory and one related sensory perception?

 

Of course when I say "one" or "two" in this context, I mean one array of, or two arrays of...

 

...just as "homeostasis" doesn't refer to just one dimension of our somatic selves, but to the whole array of biochemical equilibria, somatic expression, and mental status.

 

~ :)

[CraigD]

Do I understand that you wish to build a computer to synthesize the act of thought without understanding the particulate and biochemical basis of thought?

The short answer is "no". …

I’m surprised at this short answer, as I would have bet that Hermes’s would have answered “yes”. My short answer is certainly an emphatic yes, though my confidence that such a desire is in principle possible is less than complete, and my expectation that, even if possible, such a goal is practically attainable, much lower.

 

In the mid 1980s, most of my classmates would have immediately identified my position with the phrase “synthetic psychology”. Many of them expected to pursue graduated degrees containing the phrase. The discipline proved less popular and productive than we expected, so that these days, the closest thing to it as a recognized academic discipline might be something like “embodies cognitive science”

 

A very summarized and personal perspective on the subject is the following outline. The terms I use are not original, but neither are they commonplace. The example people I give are illustrative only – they may not truly have the beliefs I associate with them. In order from most credulous that a computer practically identical to a human being can be built and programmed to least:

• Strong AI/Synthetic Psychology – believes that a VonNeumann machine – the sort of machine you’re reading this via – can feasibly be built and programmed to behave essentially like a human being. I tentatively believe this.
  
• Strong AI/Synthetic Psychology w/ emergence – believes as above, but that only an asynchronous network of VonNeumann machines can in principle succeed.
  
• Strong AI/simulationist – believes that a sufficiently powerful VonNeumann machine could simulate the biochemistry of a human being sufficiently to behave indistinguishably from the human being simulated. Note that, under this belief, it’s possible to believe that an effectively perfect simulation of a human being might be made, but not be understood significantly better than we currently understand biochemical basis of though and behavior in flesh-and-blood humans.
  Hans Moravec falls somewhere in the preceeding classifications.
  
• Optimistic new mysterions – believe that human thought and behavior requires physical structures similar to those in our nervous systems. Believe that an artificial machine built on an architecture other than VonNeumann could be built and programmed to behave essentially like a human being. Example: Roger Penrose.
  
• Pessimistic new mysterions – like optimistic ones, but don’t think we’re capable of making such artificial machines
  
• True mind body dualists – Don’t believe human thought or behavior is caused by any physical part of the body. Include many religionists.
  

There are many variations on the above, including people who believe that AIs can be programmed that are equal or better but very unlike human beings, but an exploration of the variations could stretch to novel-length.

 

A high-point in the brief hay-day of synthetic psychology is, IMHO, Valentino Braitenberg’s 1984 book “Vehicles: Experiments in Synthetic Psychology”, and the Braitenberg’s vehicles it describes.

 

My intuition tells me that experiments involving something like Braitenberg’s vehicles offer the best approach to making progress along lines such as HermesThePhilosopher’s “synthetic intelligence”. Among the most important unanswered questions are, I think, how critical the nature of the simulation is to the success of such an approach, and if critical, how to chose a simulator design that can be successful. I’m uncertain if physical realism – the usual goal of such simulators – is actually desirable, or if some sort of highly unrealistic simulator might be successful where a realistic one is not. Additional important questions are myriad.

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at memory in very general terms, the formation of memory appears to increase the energy. This can be deduced from the observation more memory equals more synapses, while more synapses means more average flow of current (Na+). If you have one synapse or two synapses, two can move more current.

 

The situation that arrises is the brain gaining energy through memory creation while also trying to lower energy. One way to lower energy and retain memory is to organize the memories into higher order structures, with a net lowering of energy, sort of like putting ions in a crystal without altering the ions but still resulting in an energy output. Our memory is not only specific but is also seen with evolving perspective. Between these two states of higher and lower energy there is an energy flux.

 

If you look in terms of lowering energy using memory, this follows the laws of physics and chemistry as though memory is just a bunch of chemicals. At the chemical level, energy does not have to correspond to the specific content of the memories in a linear fashion. Dog is not necessarily at a higher energy than cat, at the chemical level. So lowering energy at the chemical level in higher order organization can result in both logical and illogical combinations of the content of the memory. This could appear quantum-like.

 

As an analogy, say we had semi-conductor memory. The difference in various memory is not at the level of the basic on-off switch itself, but in the combination of these little swiches. If I tweak a hard drive at the level of the twitches, it doesn't matter if the switch is connected to a JPG or a text file when it merges together at that level. A magnetic induction could have a global affect distorting all memory.

 

The brain appears to have the goal of long term patterns because of the way the sensory systems are wired. So if we formated the hard drive, above, to take into consideration the final on-off switch patterns in the above induction, we could store the same JPG and Text files closer to that final goal structure. This would allow us to can reach the same steady state but with less loss. It will still have a quantum flavor but be more subtle. This does not discount microtubules since that is part of the chemical affect that also needs to lower energy. They may even been quantum affects needed to break energy barriers.

[CraigD]

If you look at memory in very general terms, the formation of memory appears to increase the energy. This can be deduced from the observation more memory equals more synapses …

HBond, you seem to be suggesting that the number of synapse in the brain increases as memories are formed. Do you have a link or reference to some research supporting this?

 

My understanding of what is known about memory formation – specifically long-term memory formation, which we associate with learning - is that it primarily involves changes in the ease with which neurotransmitters cross the synapses connecting neurons. This is known as long-term potentiation and depression. Because the mechanism involves protein being created (expressed) by nerve cells and incorporated into them – in other words, growth – it’s believed that neurons can rearrange and reconnect themselves. However, I’ve encountered nothing in the literature suggesting that new synapse are created in significant numbers, or that the creation of new synapses play a known role in memory formation. As far as I know, the mainstream view is that the total number of brain neurons and synapses increases during childhood, then slowly decreases with age, roughly proportionally to the mass of the brain (source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Brain%20Size%20and%20Cognitive%20Ability.pdf)

… while more synapses means more average flow of current (Na+). If you have one synapse or two synapses, two can move more current.

It’s important to avoid the common misconception that neurons and the synapse connecting them carry current like wires connected by electrolytes.

 

In a wire or an electrolyte, current is carried by the movement of free electrons between atoms of the conducting material. A signal carried in this matter is simple an accumulation of electrons. In a neuron, the process is more complicated, and much slower. Neurotransmitter molecules (the most common us glutamate, an anion of the amino acid glutamic acid) cross the synaptic gap from the transmitting neuron end (know as presynaptic or the axon terminal) to the receiving neuron end (postsynaptic, or dendrite spine). The neurotransmitter is received by a postsynaptic neurorecepter, which causes a structural change that results in the membrane of the dendrite becoming permeable to surrounding electrolyte molecules (Na+ is the most common), resulting a signal traveling the length of the neuron as a “depolarization wave”. When it reaches its axion terminal, the presynaptic cells there release neurotransmitter molecules, and the process is repeated across another synapse, to another dendrite spine. (Sources: many neurology textbooks and encyclopedia articles, including the wikipedia article “neuron”)

The situation that arrises is the brain gaining energy through memory creation while also trying to lower energy. …

Again, I think it’s important to understand that information (memories) stored in a brain are not like chemical energy stored in an electric battery, or charge in a capacitor-based computer memory. Brains containing many memories (eg: a very knowledgeable person’s) have the same amount of chemical energy – which can be extracted by burning then in a furnace, or eating and digesting them – as brains of the same mass containing few or no memories (such as fatally damaged brains). The information in a brain appears, to the best understanding of neuroscience, to be essentially structural, analogous to patterns on an immense abacus or arrays of DIP switchs. Metabolic power is required to create (write) memories, or recall (read) them, but other than that needed to supply brains cells with oxygen and nutrients to prevent them from dieing, no power is required to maintain the memories, nor can energy be extracted from them.

 

PS: This thread seems to now have two distinct discussions in it, one about the nature of intelligence and consciousness independent of its medium, one about the neurological basis of memory and thought. Does anyone object to having the two conversations split into two separate threads?

[questor]

Craig you seem to know a bit about nerve transmission. What particulate level and condition do you think elicits thought? As a matter of further conjecture where does life itself reside? Since life exists in all cells and thought exists only in neural cells, what is the different cell activity to explain this?

[HermesThePhilosopher]

I’m surprised at this short answer, as I would have bet that Hermes’s would have answered “yes”. My short answer is certainly an emphatic yes, though my confidence that such a desire is in principle possible is less than complete, and my expectation that, even if possible, such a goal is practically attainable, much lower.

 

I only meant yes insofar as knowledge of the biochemical helps with conceptually modelling the neurons accurately... and your summary of neuron excitation was excellent! I think that, however, in a strict sense one does not need to understand synaptic action and how the depolarisation wave works since the macroscopic function of the neurons is both regular and simple. Like you say, it is a theoretical "yes" but a practical "have my doubts".

 

[*]Strong AI/Synthetic Psychology – believes that a VonNeumann machine – the sort of machine you’re reading this via – can feasibly be built and programmed to behave essentially like a human being. I tentatively believe this.

 

This is the stance I too agree with (though TBH I really dislike such classifications). In practice, I see no need to align oneself with any particular group; to say one adheres to a certain set of beliefs is only going to bias one's thinking and reduce the probability of being able to solve the problem. If the solution is in accordance with the first group, so be it. If it accords with the second, third or whatever, so be it.

 

In a positive way; to approach any problem with no creed or prejudice is the surest way to find the correct answer in the shortest time. It is this kind of thinking that has eluded modern philosophers who are buried in a quagmire, defending assumed positions of state. Monists vs dualists vs folliculists? I believe it is best to avoid such debate altogether.