What is consciousness?

Gorth · March 17, 2008

Lets for the sake of argument agree that human brains operates in ways similar to neural networks, trained through experiences and pre-programming (things you've learnt through your life time so far and things you were born with). All signals are impulses of some kind that can (or not) affect the state of nodes.

I see two possible ways of creating a replica of a state of the brain, you can either train an empty (no previous state) network until it matches a given target or you can rebuild it with exact values and use the "Power On" switch.

The first option might take a while. Needs a few generations of AMD's and Intels for that to happen (like the Intel 700 Petaherz N-dimension Core LGA60000 chip). The other option is not really an option either, what would we do? Send in an army of nano-bots with orders to attach themselves to chosen brain cells, check the meter reading and return to base?

The interesting hybrid, doesn't deal with the state of the brain on a synapse level, but with how to view the brain through frequency analysis of brain waves. Fourier transformations are one of the few math disciplines I ever found useful (I used it for pattern recognition in images in a project).

As I see it, the technological challenge is to scan and analyse the frequencies fast enough to get an "atomic" snapshot, i.e. not getting your left brain half today and you right brain half tomorrow. That consciousness would probably end up insane if inserted into a clone.

I might agree that it may not happen in our lifetime, but then, when was man ever to back down from a good technological challenge? You just need to convince somebody that there is a tidy profit to be made in cloning and eternal life

Edit: I guess what I am trying to say is, we need to free our minds from traditional thinking that the mind is a computer and not try to replicate it with a computer, rather we should examine the state of mind and figure out how to transform that state of mind.

March 17, 2008

Do you believe intervention because you are being intellectually lazy, its the best logical choice, or the need to believe it because the chemicals the mind releases feels good?

What does that have to do with the belief in intervention?

Besides, I already answered that. I said I believe in intervention because I just do. It just.. feels right to me. Wouldn't say it's the best logical choice, no, but it's my preferred one. I rather like the concept of karma. In Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, the quality of somebody's current and future lives are determined by that person's behaviour in their current and previous lives.

That's not to say I believe good people live long and bad people die early. We know it hasn't always happened that way. One can still have a deservedly quality life and then die of illness/disease/accident/natural disaster/victim of murder, and one can have a crap life and live safely to a ripe old age, free of disease.

If there is such a thing as destiny, it doesn't mean that I don't believe in free will, am oblivious to scientific facts of life or believe in an omnipotent being. I'm a nomological determinism believer - the thesis that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature, something beyond our scope of understanding that science will never be able to explain.

Tale · March 17, 2008

I'm completely behind the basic concept of determinism. Causality as an inviolate rule.

Xard · March 17, 2008

Well, I sure am thankful this topic this evolve into something. I too should be writing post soon enough

I appreciate WITHTEETH's and Tale's different, deterministic views on the matter. I'd also love to have some views from more, uhh, spiritual members on the board (Hurlshot?)

walkerguy · March 17, 2008

Consciousness: Being awake, alert, responsive. Being on your wits mentally or spiritually. Not being unaware...?

Also: Free will vs determinism

Destiny, fate, butterfly effect? Personally don't accept such a philosophy.

Istima Loke · March 17, 2008

So how is free will defined? The way I see it, makes me think that determinism is not the complement of free will.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Istima Loke

Humodour · March 17, 2008

I'm completely behind the basic concept of determinism. Causality as an inviolate rule.

What, even taking into consideration that fact that quantum mechanics is the government of the macroscopic world?

Seems far-fetched to me. Causality doesn't imply predictability (determinism). Causality implies "if I do this, something will happen". It makes no assertions about what will happen.

Istama: Like TA said, free-will is a combination of the illusion of chaos and non-determinism in the universe (and an illusion that will forever hold true for humans). And in the case of humans there is actually a strong case for true non-determinism re a multitude of various stochastic processes in the brain (from sensory input to metabolic equilibria to electron flow).

Edited March 17, 2008 by Krezack

Tale · March 17, 2008

I'm completely behind the basic concept of determinism. Causality as an inviolate rule.

What, even taking into consideration that fact that quantum mechanics is the government of the macroscopic world?

Seems far-fetched to me. Causality doesn't imply predictability (determinism). Causality implies "if I do this, something will happen". It makes no assertions about what will happen.

Istama: Like TA said, free-will is a combination of the illusion of chaos and non-determinism in the universe (and an illusion that will forever hold true for humans). And in the case of humans there is actually a strong case for true non-determinism re a multitude of various stochastic processes in the brain (from sensory input to metabolic equilibria to electron flow).

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

There's nothing about predictability in there. Simply that everything that is is causally determined. HEY! What does causality mean again? Don't confuse the basic concept of determinism with the philosophy of determinists.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Tale

WITHTEETH · March 17, 2008

Well, I sure am thankful this topic this evolve into something. I too should be writing post soon enough

I appreciate WITHTEETH's and Tale's different, deterministic views on the matter. I'd also love to have some views from more, uhh, spiritual members on the board (Hurlshot?)

A common western theistic belief if that we do have freewill, but god being omniscient knows what we are going to do. We express our freewill by we WILL it, actively causing something. Passive actions don't count as free will. But this idea of free will with not only an omniscient god, but also omnipotent. It gets complex when its the same god who determines the snow storm that makes you late. Its called compatibilism or soft determinism.

Believing in freewill and determinsm is like believing in God and no god at the same time to me, not logical.

EDIT: geeze that was bad!

Edited March 17, 2008 by WITHTEETH

WITHTEETH · March 17, 2008

Existentialism also believes in a radical freewill. Sartre for instance just calls the brain to complex so there must be freewill. Freewill is one of the main precepts of existentialism, and the requirement to change and live consciously.

Humodour · March 18, 2008

I'm completely behind the basic concept of determinism. Causality as an inviolate rule.

Seems far-fetched to me. Causality doesn't imply predictability (determinism). Causality implies "if I do this, something will happen". It makes no assertions about what will happen.

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

There's nothing about predictability in there. Simply that everything that is is causally determined. HEY! What does causality mean again? Don't confuse the basic concept of determinism with the philosophy of determinists.

Um, ok... that was a rather vehement response to my post.

The 'basic concept of determinism' is predictive determinism (also known as: scientific determinism, causal determinism and classical determinism). In fact, the definition you quoted is for predictive determinism. Just because it doesn't say the word 'predictive' doesn't mean it isn't predictive. If you'll continue to read the wikipedia article you took that quote from you'll notice that it explicitly states that this form of determinism is predictive.

Any system which is governed solely by sufficient cause (not necessary cause or probabilistic cause) is both predictive (given an omniscient being) and deterministic (you know it is predictive, but you can't predict it, due to complexity).

What you said is you agree with determinism, then in a new sentence you said causality is inviolate. The implicit meaning there is that you agree with determinism because you agree with causality. Yet causality doesn't imply determinism, and in fact it seems causality doesn't always hold (e.g. decay of an isotope).

Sand · March 18, 2008

Hmmmm...

Who the drek cares. A person will do what he or she will do how he or she feels like doing. The why of it is irrelevant.

Musopticon? · March 18, 2008

I like the idea introduced by some French(?) existentialists(sorry, not my field, I study linguistics and language), of us "building" our self every morning. In a nutshell, as we are waking up, we click our consciousness on and have to come to terms with it. I assume there's a wealth of terminology I'm missing, but I like the twist this idea gives to the issue of what is consciousness: Do we retain "ourselves" every time we pass out or sleep, or does every morning bring "a new you"? Of course, our memories and the behavioural schemata(at least I could remember that) we've been ingrained with are carried over every time, at least for the most part, but who is to say that they construct the same person every time?

Without going into the apathy that this kind of thinking might rise(who are we really? Shards of something really vague?)I think the idea is actually a hopeful one: In a way, we are given a new opportunity every morning, we retain the memories, but have a chance to study them anew and maybe even excel, become a better person.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Musopticon?

Humodour · March 18, 2008

I like the idea introduced by some French(?) existentialists(sorry, not my field, I study linguistics and language), of us "building" our self every morning. In a nutshell, as we are waking up, we click our consciousness on and have to come to terms with it. I assume there's a wealth of terminology I'm missing, but I like the twist this idea gives to the issue of what is consciousness: Do we retain "ourselves" every time we pass out or sleep, or does every morning bring "a new you"? Of course, our memories and the behavioural schemata(at least I could remember that) we've been ingrained with are carried over every time, at least for the most part, but who is to say that they construct the same person every time?

Without going into the apathy that this kind of thinking might rise(who are we really? Shards of something really vague?)I think the idea is actually a hopeful one: In a way, we are given a new opportunity every morning, we retain the memories, but have a chance to study them anew and maybe even excel, become a better person.

Possibly true for the conscious brain, but not the sub-conscious brain.

An interesting idea. Not really that un-intuitive, either. Given memory storage and the always-on nature of the subconscious brain perhaps waking up is like moving the mouse on the computer when it has gone into power-save mode/standby/hibernation; it jump starts the conscious brain and uploads all necessary information for this session.

Supported by the fact that sleep isn't used to reinforce knowledge/memories, but rather to purge the brain's 'RAM' for fresh use upon waking up (also why a 90 minute nap in mid-afternoon increases learning efficiency and retention).

Tale · March 18, 2008

The 'basic concept of determinism' is predictive determinism (also known as: scientific determinism, causal determinism and classical determinism). In fact, the definition you quoted is for predictive determinism. Just because it doesn't say the word 'predictive' doesn't mean it isn't predictive. If you'll continue to read the wikipedia article you took that quote from you'll notice that it explicitly states that this form of determinism is predictive.

Again, stop doing that. Stop confusing the definition with the extension of the philosophy. When I say "basic concept of determinism" I mean only what is explicitly stated by that definition. Not everything covered by the philosophy that definition associates itself with. What you're referring to are not basic in the least. They're just common.

de

Edited March 18, 2008 by Tale

Xard · March 18, 2008

Gahh, I didn't think I should've made difference between the two >_<

Humodour · March 18, 2008

The 'basic concept of determinism' is predictive determinism (also known as: scientific determinism, causal determinism and classical determinism). In fact, the definition you quoted is for predictive determinism. Just because it doesn't say the word 'predictive' doesn't mean it isn't predictive. If you'll continue to read the wikipedia article you took that quote from you'll notice that it explicitly states that this form of determinism is predictive.

Again, stop doing that. Stop confusing the definition with the extension of the philosophy. When I say "basic concept of determinism" I mean only what is explicitly stated by that definition. Not everything covered by the philosophy that definition associates itself with. What you're referring to are not basic in the least. They're just common.

de

Tale · March 18, 2008

You're posting in a thread about philosophy and determinism and telling me not to use the scientific or philosophical definition of determinism?

I'm posting in a thread about philosophy and determinism and telling you to stop claiming that's the only definition of determinism.

Anyway, with those definitions you're giving, you're still not right. The bolded definitions you give mean predictability.

And the unbolded ones do not mean predictability. They mean the obediance to natural laws and the rejection of abiding to "free will."

Not to mention you're now trying to change your definition of 'basic determinism' after having quoted me a definition of predictive determinism in your previous post. >_ I never changed the definition of 'basic determinism.' I never mentioned 'basic determinism.' I only ever mentioned the basic concept of determinism. That things follow as a result of natural laws and causality. Every single definition of determinism I have mentioned has included that among its basis, whether explicitly or implied.

You're the one trying to manipulate definitions. I never said I fully supported any of them. Just the basic premise that things follow a cause. Stop trying to refute my opinion with semantics.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Tale

Humodour · March 18, 2008

I'm posting in a thread about philosophy and determinism and telling you to stop claiming that's the only definition of determinism.

I never changed the definition of 'basic determinism.' I never mentioned 'basic determinism.' I only ever mentioned the basic concept of determinism. That things follow as a result of natural laws and causality. Every single definition of determinism I have mentioned has included that among its basis, whether explicitly or implied.

You're the one trying to manipulate definitions. I never said I fully supported any of them. Just the basic premise that things follow a cause. Stop trying to refute my opinion with semantics.

One minute you're telling me I'm being too philosophical/formal about determinism and the next your quoting a philosophical definition of determinism to back-up your 'point'.

Look, I'll just stop here, because we're going in circles:

- Determinism as used in science, philosophy, and everyday usage is a reference to sufficient cause (unless it explicitly states it is something less rigorous, such as environmental determinism); sufficient cause is predictive.

- I can accept an alternate less rigorous definition of determinism as being something like "one things leads to another in the universe/natural world" but I don't see the point because it's not a definition I've seen in use, since it is just a synonym of causality (when in fact determinism is a specific case of causality; they aren't the same in typical usage).

Edited March 18, 2008 by Krezack

Tale · March 18, 2008

I'm in despair. The failings of the english language to properly communicate to Krezack informally and nonliterally has left me in despair!

walkerguy · March 18, 2008

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA