A theory of consciousness for Scientists

[Essay]

Are thoughts conceived on the molecular, atomic, or sub-atomic level?

I'd say molecular (but with the caveat of allowing for resonances of quantum effects), see: Olfaction

An alternative theory, the vibration theory proposed by Luca Turin[4][5] -wiki

4. Turin, Luca. (1996). A spectroscopic mechanism for primary olfactory reception. Chemical Senses, 21, 773-791.

5. Turin, Luca. (2002). A method for the calculation of odor character from molecular structure. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 216, 367-385.

 

Although ...depending on how you define "thought."

===

 

p.s. re: Dasein.

A qwiki says of:

Heidegger (1889-1976)!

"All that we understand, from the way we speak to our notions of "common sense," is susceptible to error, to fundamental mistakes about the nature of being. These mistakes filter into the terms through which being is articulated in the history of philosophy—reality, logic, God, consciousness, presence, et cetera." -wiki

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/heidegge.htm

"In his fundamental treatise, Being and Time, he attempted to access being (Sein) by means of phenomenological analysis of human existence (Dasein) in respect to its temporal and historical character. In his later works Heidegger had stressed the nihilism of modern technological society, and attempted to win Western philosophical tradition back to the question of being. He placed an emphasis on language as the vehicle through which the question of being could be unfolded, and on the special role of poetry." -iep

[questor]

Evolution and replication give us each the cellular makeup we possess. If you imagine human function of all types as a tree with a root, trunk and many branches, this theory is about the branches. You can theorise all you wish, but until you can describe the root tip, the place where it all begins, there is little science involved. Thoughts form involuntarily. You can be performing any endeavor and suddenly a thought will enter you mind. this thought has no mass or volume, yet it exists. What is it composed of? Where did it come from? Since ALL actions of the body are chemical and electrical there must be some special chemical processes going on in neural tissue that is different from that of other cells. Yes, thought is produced in the neural tissue, but at what level? It is possible to study cellular enzymatic velocity in tissues to determine energy output but this does not show the origin of thought. The formation of thought happens first, the rest follows. Before you get to esoteria ( the branches), you must first be able to understand the root.

[HermesThePhilosopher]

Evolution and replication give us each the cellular makeup we possess. If you imagine human function of all types as a tree with a root, trunk and many branches, this theory is about the branches. You can theorise all you wish, but until you can describe the root tip, the place where it all begins, there is little science involved. Thoughts form involuntarily. You can be performing any endeavor and suddenly a thought will enter you mind. this thought has no mass or volume, yet it exists. What is it composed of? Where did it come from? Since ALL actions of the body are chemical and electrical there must be some special chemical processes going on in neural tissue that is different from that of other cells. Yes, thought is produced in the neural tissue, but at what level? It is possible to study cellular enzymatic velocity in tissues to determine energy output but this does not show the origin of thought. The formation of thought happens first, the rest follows. Before you get to esoteria ( the branches), you must first be able to understand the root.

 

You make two points here:

 

a) To describe the tip of a tree, as you put it, one must describe the whole tree from the root up or one is not being scientific.

 

:) The functions associated with consciousness produced by the brain, you mention "thought", may be produced at the molecular, or smaller, level.

 

I shall patiently try to explain why both of these are illogical and plain false.

 

a) Do we, humans, know how the universe was created? Do we know every single embryological gene and function? Do we know how gravity originates? No, no and no. But this doesn't stop us from, respectively, living within and studying the universe, using embryological knowledge to cure diseases and describing the effects of gravity to very, very high accuracy and using that force to land people on the moon.

 

This is, I'm sorry to be so frank, a ridiculous argument to pose. That we do not know the function of every protein within the human body is neither here nor there. The metabolic biochemistry you were talking about was established and refined millions, if not billions, of years ago. It has one purpose within a replicating organism, to provide energy, and the chances of such a vital piece of an organisms engine being altered so "late" in evolution have got to be close to zero.

 

:D Accordingly (nice how this follows on...) there is little chance that any biochemical process is involved in mental processes. You have to understand that in large, multicellular beings such as ourselves, the building blocks for evolution long since ceased to be proteins. The species moves to a colder climate... increase metabolism at the molecular level? Maybe, but then you need to find more food - grow more hair instead! There is a new, fast predator in this environment, increase molecular metabolism? Maybe, but then you need to find more food - bulk up! Grow extra limbs! Climb trees!

 

(I remember reading, years ago, that some regulator proteins, maybe some class of HOC, in Drosophila when turned off or on, I forget which, would result in significant limb rearrangements - legs growing from different portions of the body in different directions, different numbers etc. The point was, when faced by evolutionary pressures the species could start "rebuilding" itself by "flicking the switch" so to speak, making macroscopic changes and hopefully hit upon a winning phenotype. This is what multicellular organisms tend to do. Likewise, the brain is the gradual patching and rearranging of neural tissue/pathways. Not some new "biochemical trick")

 

Sure, proteins continue to evolve in response to viral, bacterial, parasitic etc threats, but natural selection always occurs as a result of selective pressures, and the adaptation addresses those pressures. To address these pressures at the macroscopic level is generally far less risky, and more expedient. Messing with cellular functioning is not the way to go about adaptation for higher organisms, its more likely to create congenital cancers.

 

Take a racing car, you go a new track and it doesn't perform so well in this environment. Do you recast the cylinder block in different alloy? Of course not! You rejig the surfaces, pitches, tyre pressures etc. Evolution = same thing.

 

This is all negative, where's the positive? Well, I hate linking the site so much in one thread but if you look at this page it describes the logical evolution of the nervous system and from that the functions of the mind as I see them. I guess the most important point, from a scientific point of view, is that you do not need biochemistry to explain the evolution or the theory. Occam's razor. Don't overcomplicate if you don't have to - and evolution certainly doesn't.

[questor]

Since you are studied in science, expert in cellular function and have a special insight, I see nothing else I can offer. Good luck.

[Essay]

Questor,

Really I welcome your participation on Hypography and hope this thread at least, has been educational; and given you pause-for-thought. I hope you hang around; you're a great motivator. :)

...& I apologize in advance for this cheap shot....

 

Thoughts form involuntarily." -Questor

Well this explains a lot about your posts on this forum. :(

...ooops, sorry.... ;)

===

 

Hermes,

Thanks for pointing this out:

..."there is little chance that any biochemical process is involved in mental processes." -HTP

 

...although I would opt for the word "unique," rather than "involved;" thus...

...there is little chance that any biochemical process is unique to mental processes.

.

.

.

...meanwhile:

HTP,

I'm up to "Senses:"

I especially liked the vector concept: "This short, immediate "history" of Dasein is vital to provide a vector...."

& your comment on understanding the diagrams, "...but as a continuous and parallel flow of information."

 

Your post is an interesting read. It's incredibly ponderous, until you have a clear picture of the actors (definitions), and then suddenly it reads quickly. I guess that's just like all stories, eh?

It's also very helpful that I'd thought much about these ideas before reading your post.

I sometimes still find your sentences more meaningful if I replace Dasein with Homeostasis. :D

 

btw: I'm not getting your site very well; it cuts off the pictures (I only see the left hand inch of graphic and wide textblocks). Everything is the width of a newspaper column??? Is that my browser in need of updating?

 

also, regarding your good answers on the previous page:

I use homeostasis only as a metaphor for some computer/electronic characteristic that must (IMHO) be established before AI can emerge.

 

...but for biologicals, I think homeostasis is the critical factor driving Dasein (or am I not being metaphysical enough?).

 

~~ :)

 

p.s. For an illustration of cognitive networks in action (and insight into their structure and relationships), see the works of:

Drew Weston, "The Political Brain"

Book TV - The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation

&

Steven Pinker, "Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature"

The Stuff of Thought 201554-1 : C-SPAN Video Library | Created by Cable. Offered as a Public Service.

...especially the section on profanity!

[HydrogenBond]

There are two ways to explore consciousness. One is from the outside, where we explain consciousness in terms of brain functions we can observe from the outside. It is the scientist looking at the brain to see what ticks for each task. The other way to explore is from the inside. For example, the ability to anticipate the future is something we can observe from the inside, since anyone can do this task. Being a common internal observation we include that as part of the explanation. Even if we knew nothing of the external biochemistry of the consciousness, which we really don't, this type of internal observation is still possible.

 

One thing about human consciousness, is it is conscious of being conscious. There is an extra degree of separation that animal consciousness may not have. For example, we drop a book on the floor and it makes a loud sound. Both animals and humans might jump and react to this noise. What the human can also do, is notice the inner details of the conscious response, like the heart beating faster, the muscles in the body tense, the imagination generating images in attempt to offer an explanation. This extra ability is the extra degree of separation that allows humans to be conscious of the conscious reaction an animal has. Using only external data, this subtle difference may not be obvious since we are not even sure where memory is located, yet the human can also access other aspects of memory, that appear to blend together within the external data. Internally one can see the difference.

 

This extra degree of detachment is ideal for collecting data from within. You can witness the reaction and stand outside it and see it in the second person to collect additional data that may be hard to differentiate with external observation. We can make observations internally that external science is not even close to seeing in any detail.

 

For example, picture an apple in your mind. Anyone can do this internally. External data would see this in the most nebulous way, maybe isolating the visualization to broad brain locations. Yet this giant paint brush is the data we will use, even if the tiny paint brush can tells us about the details that the big brush can't see. Yet this is often assumed to be useless data, simply because the big brush is not yet that functional.

[questor]

I would suggest that parties interested in this subject read this:

Biochemistry of Neurotransmitters

use Google to search for information on intracellular chemistry. This applies to ALL cells in the body.

[HermesThePhilosopher]

Questor,

Hermes,

Thanks for pointing this out:

..."there is little chance that any biochemical process is involved in mental processes." -HTP

 

...although I would opt for the word "unique," rather than "involved;" thus...

...there is little chance that any biochemical process is unique to mental processes.

 

Hehe I agree with you there :doh: Yes, what I said was not clear at all. And in relation to Questors link...

 

I would suggest that parties interested in this subject read this:

Biochemistry of Neurotransmitters

use Google to search for information on intracellular chemistry. This applies to ALL cells in the body.

 

This is good information, and I have long since forgotten all these details, perhaps it would do me good to learn again. But cellular biochemistry, right up the the actions of all the neurons in the brain, is just a computational system. So knowledge of the science may help in visualising this system in the first place, but is ultimately unnecessary since it could just as easily be represented by other abstractions; a flow chart or a computer program.

 

There are two ways to explore consciousness. One is from the outside, where we explain consciousness in terms of brain functions we can observe from the outside. ......

 

This extra degree of detachment is ideal for collecting data from within. You can witness the reaction and stand outside it and see it in the second person to collect additional data that may be hard to differentiate with external observation. We can make observations internally that external science is not even close to seeing in any detail. .....

 

I agree with what you say here H-bond. I believe that through internal observation, to some extent coupled with external evidence and scientific awareness, a model of consciousness may be built. The only caveat being that for proof it should be experimentally tested.

 

.

...meanwhile:

HTP,

I'm up to "Senses:"

I especially liked the vector concept: "This short, immediate "history" of Dasein is vital to provide a vector...."

& your comment on understanding the diagrams, "...but as a continuous and parallel flow of information."

 

Your post is an interesting read. It's incredibly ponderous, until you have a clear picture of the actors (definitions), and then suddenly it reads quickly. I guess that's just like all stories, eh?

It's also very helpful that I'd thought much about these ideas before reading your post.

 

I am happy and thankful that you find it interesting and have taken the time to understand it! ;) I guess it is a bit ponderous. It is hard for me to see that, having read everything many times and it being clear in my own mind. I believe it to be correct; but at the same time I doubt my own thinking, hence I think there may be some flawed premise or illogical leap in there somewhere.

 

I sometimes still find your sentences more meaningful if I replace Dasein with Homeostasis. ;)

 

Hahaha. I sometimes have the same experience when reading books. As I said, the concept of homeostasis has not been in my mind at all regarding this matter, but I can see where you are coming from. Perhaps there need be more regulatory feedbacks? So far the model avoids biological correlates, but perhaps you are right and it needs something else along these lines...

 

btw: I'm not getting your site very well; it cuts off the pictures (I only see the left hand inch of graphic and wide textblocks). Everything is the width of a newspaper column??? Is that my browser in need of updating?

 

It's hosted on google sites.. :) It seemed fine in Firefox, and now I am using Chrome. What type/version browser are you using? Actually, google sites can be a bit confused at times.

 

also, regarding your good answers on the previous page:

I use homeostasis only as a metaphor for some computer/electronic characteristic that must (IMHO) be established before AI can emerge.

 

...but for biologicals, I think homeostasis is the critical factor driving Dasein (or am I not being metaphysical enough?).

 

~~ :)

 

Maybe I follow you... you mean in a synthetic Dasein homeostasis is a foundation for sentience, but in a biological Dasein it is the driving force?

 

Maybe I don't follow... I don't think there is any functional difference between the biological and synthetic processes.

 

p.s. For an illustration of cognitive networks in action (and insight into their structure and relationships), see the works of:

Drew Weston, "The Political Brain"

Book TV - The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation

&

Steven Pinker, "Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature"

The Stuff of Thought 201554-1 : C-SPAN Video Library | Created by Cable. Offered as a Public Service.

...especially the section on profanity!

 

I have read some Steven Pinker before. Knowledge of other neural functions and their interrelations is certainly important for constructing a complete instance of Dasein (a mind). I guess that would be the next step. For now I really want to verify the logic of the core process.

[Essay]

This [biochemistry] applies to ALL cells in the body.

 

Again, I just can't resist:

 

Your point above is another illustration of how "thoughts" cannot depend intrinsically on intracellular biochemistry.

===

 

Thanks also HTP; more later....

~ :)

[questor]

Since life itself depends upon biochemical reactions, how can one possibly say they have no connection to thought? Nothing in the body would exist

or have activity without biochemistry, no thoughts, no life, no nothing.. Before discussing a subject, it behooves one to LEARN about the subject, to learn what science already has discovered about the subject. This information is readily available on the internet.

[HermesThePhilosopher]

Since life itself depends upon biochemical reactions, how can one possibly say they have no connection to thought? Nothing in the body would exist

or have activity without biochemistry, no thoughts, no life, no nothing.. Before discussing a subject, it behooves one to LEARN about the subject, to learn what science already has discovered about the subject. This information is readily available on the internet.

 

Yes of course there is a connection, but I argued that there is not the immediate or direct connection you have been implying. There would also be no consciousness without the elements, protons, electrons etc.. At some point you have to recognise what is relevant to the task at hand, and what is just going to bog you down.

 

The neuro-biochemistry you cited before in a link is good stuff, and at some level it is important to this line of study. But only at the foundation, and it is possible to generalise the action of all that biochemistry by likening neurons to transistors/a computational procedure. Scientists do this all the time (create generalised models that is) because it lets you make conceptual progress rather than trying to beat out a trillion chemical reactions in your head :hyper: Providing the model is sufficiently accurate in its representation, its as good as "reality".

 

Also, not everything can be learned from the net (yet), and not everyone learned what they know from it either :doh:

[questor]

The neuro-biochemistry you cited before in a link is good stuff, and at some level it is important to this line of study. But only at the foundation, and it is possible to generalise the action of all that biochemistry by likening neurons to transistors/a computational procedure.

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?

[Essay]

... Nothing in the body would exist

or have activity without biochemistry, no thoughts, no life, no nothing....

 

Right, ...what Hermes said; and I'd just like to add:

 

Questor,

The semantic key here, and in the analogy below,

is the idea of "intrinsic or unique."

 

Since "the biochemistry" applies to ALL neurons cells, there can be nothing intrinsic or unique to the biochemistry that generates thoughts;

 

...just as the intrinsic, unique properties of electronics (resistors, capacitors, coils, transistors, etc.) do not lead to computations.

 

bbl ...off to lunch.

~ :pirate:

 

p.s. :doh: BSc in Chemistry w/ Minor in Biochem.(pre-med) + some post-grad. studies

...and that was before there was an internet! :hyper: ~sorry....

[Galapagos]

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?

 

Making a machine that could pass theTuring Test(or a similar measure of ability) would not necessarily require a biochemical understanding of our own minds(but it could involve it, or the development of one could reveal much about our own minds!).

I also find it interesting to imagine self-replicating, self-improving, and self-selecting evolving robots/computers who make small changes to themselves by generation. This seems more plausible than trying to model after our own minds, as it is similar to the way natural selection built ours.

Also, in general phil of consciousness/mind courses do not start with biochemistry textbooks. Cognitive science is also done at multiple levels of analysis.

 

These are some articles you may find interesting if you are unfamiliar with the topic:

Mind-body dichotomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explanatory gap - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mary's room - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[HydrogenBond]

One of the important uses of internal data collection is to calibrate the mind to make sure secondary unconscious processes are not active that can bias this primary tool of science. The external data collection requires human consciousness in conjunction with machines. Human consciousness is analogous to a tool, which if not calibrated, can lead to bias running the external data tools. Part of that bias is called subjectivity or various schools of thought, which we know has a wide range of variability. How do you calibrate consciousness to make sure subjective bias equals zero so consciousness is properly calibrated to run the external experiments and not get results that are shifted to fit the conscious bias?

 

For example, if one assumes animals have human feelings, and this was not true, this calibration of consciousness is not zeroed, but it can still run experiments that appear to prove this. It is like having a robot arm that is 5 degrees off when tweaking a knob. The data will be consistent with this bias, with all the data in the right relationships. It is not like consciousness based studies are purely logical and repeatable with logic. There is plenty of room for calibration error, allowing dozens of data supported theories at the same time. Each tweaks the knob differently and appear to get consistent results, within a margin or error. How does science calibrate consciousness when it doesn't even know how it works?

[HermesThePhilosopher]

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". Of course one should have an understanding of the biochemical basis of the neurons, but, as I said before, one can generalise these functions by simply looking at a collection of neurons as a computational circuit. So, at the level of explanation, or representation, of that model one does not need to include these biochemical details, just as one does not need to model atoms, electrons, quarks in this model either.

 

But what a single person believes to possibly be the case (ie. my thoughts) is not important. A complete theory will include what it needs to be complete. If biochemistry is part of that theory, then it is necessary for the explanation. I merely suspect it is not (see exhaustive arguments put forward :lightning )

 

I also find it interesting to imagine self-replicating, self-improving, and self-selecting evolving robots/computers who make small changes to themselves by generation. This seems more plausible than trying to model after our own minds, as it is similar to the way natural selection built ours.

 

This is one way to go about it - but very difficult. One would have to run a simulation of detail on par with the reality we experience and have the right selective pressures to produce a "brain" such as we have. I think it is conceptually easier to logically work out those pressures and what their products are. I argue from this perspective on the site.

 

However, there should be some change possible within the model; neural plasticity is a given.

 

Also, in general phil of consciousness/mind courses do not start with biochemistry textbooks. Cognitive science is also done at multiple levels of analysis.

 

It's my personal belief that "philosophy" education starts from farther afield than biochemistry. Too much erroneous tradition has been formed in philosophy, and now people debate questions of possibility rather than the question itself - just stupid! The "mind-body" problem is a nonsense, and the "hard problem" isn't a problem, just an observation. The only way to safely approach this subject is through evolution; through science and history.

[questor]

If you want to understand this topic, the only science you can offer is biochemistry. There is no science without understanding this activity. All else is dependent upon this basis. The reason there is any disagreement here is that we don't understand how the chemistry causes thought, ergo consciousness. Only the neurons are capable of producing thought ( as far as we know), the question is, how is this done? We do not have to exert effort to conceive thought, it just occurs as a consequence of being conscious. Since the neurons produce thought constantly with no obvious stimulous to do so, this would preclude a computer from doing the same because a computer can only give back what has been input.

There is a mystery here. 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. This is what we need to know, because then we could determine the basis of thought and all that proceeds from it.