The Mystery Of Consciousness

[Ex-COG]

Yet another interesting article on consciousness and the brain.

...few scientists doubt that they will locate consciousness in the activity of the brain. For many nonscientists, this is a terrifying prospect. Not only does it strangle the hope that we might survive the death of our bodies, but it also seems to undermine the notion that we are free agents responsible for our choices--not just in this lifetime but also in a life to come.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1580394,00.html

[neverclear5]

I do find it very odd that people are scared of us finding this stuff. Not creating it but finding it. It's as if they think that if they don't know it, then it isn't true. It's the ultimate case of "out of sight, out of mind". It's like when people are scared in bed so they pull the covers over their eyes. In fact it makes you more vulnerable because you couldn't see if someone was there, but not being able to see the dark room makes you feel safe from it.

[neverclear5]

.

[neverclear5]

.

[Legion]

Personally I doubt that consciousness will ever be localized. I mean what do some hope to do? Say, look here at this group of neurons. These are responsible for consciousness. I doubt it's like that. Mind and body are inextricably linked. My toe is every bit a part of my consciuosness as say my frontal lobe. My guess is that consciousness is in some sense a wholistic property.

[neverclear5]

Personally I doubt that consciousness will ever be localized. I mean what do some hope to do? Say, look here at this group of neurons. These are responsible for consciousness. I doubt it's like that. Mind and body are inextricably linked. My toe is every bit a part of my consciuosness as say my frontal lobe. My guess is that consciousness is in some sense a wholistic property.

 

I'm afraid this is certainly not true. remove your toe and you won't know unless you look down. In fact people often have pain in missing limbs because of the state of the neurons connecting them. With regards to extremities they are simply machines operated by the brain. the cantral nervous system is more complicated but in essence it's just automatic systems like a computer maintaining organ function and responding to command imputs (stimuli). They can now connect robotic devices to the brain and after practice (as an infant does with his limbs) they can be moved as an arm is. The brain however, will drastically affect thought processes, instincts, desires, and even personality. The brain is most certainly where the conciousness is, its just a question of whether it is distributed or localised.

[Legion]

The brain is most certainly where the conciousness is, its just a question of whether it is distributed or localised.

I may have overstated my case a little Neverclear. I just don't think that consciousness is going to be pinned down to the functioning of a few neurons. My guess is that it is distributed. Haven't they discovered that even memories are distributed?

[neverclear5]

The brain is most certainly where the conciousness is, its just a question of whether it is distributed or localised.

I may have overstated my case a little Neverclear. I just don't think that consciousness is going to be pinned down to the functioning of a few neurons. My guess is that it is distributed. Haven't they discovered that even memories are distributed?

 

 

Within different sections of the brain, yeah. It seems that with functional MRI they can now tie down many areas resposible for different things. Essentially its a scan that can pick up the blood flow in real time, so they can get you to do something, and see which part of the brain is using blood, i.e. working. It's rarely a tiny group of neurons, but its usually a fairly distinct area. I think the term "conciousness" is a little too general thought. I mean different regions control movement, language, fear etc. I suspect what most people would think of as conciousness is a product of the the whole or most of the brain, not a specific little area.

[NotBlinded]

I really don't see this as solving anything really. Of course, I'm no scientist.

 

Are the hard problems that David Chalmers sites been answered in this news article? Pinker apparently holds the reductionist view that consciousness can be solved by the physical alone. Chalmer holds a nonreductionist view that states that the hard problems can only be solved by holding that consciousness "has a fundamental place in nature." reference Chalmers' Home Page

 

He does give room for further scientific advancement to change his views. This is why I am asking if Pinker has answered the hard problems. More specifically, do they address the nonreductionist's view or the debate between materialism and dualism?

 

This article seems a little presumptuous even though he adds the not-so-heart-felt disclaimer, "This is where I place my bet, though I admit that the theory could be demolished when an unborn genius--a Darwin or Einstein of consciousness--comes up with a flabbergasting new idea that suddenly makes it all clear to us."

 

Pinker goes on to site Fancis Crick in this article. Chalmers says that Crick and Koch may not even be claiming to address the hard problems, but others have interpreted differently. Here is what Chalmers states:

 

In the last few years, a number of works have addressed the problems of consciousness within the framework of cognitive science and neuroscience. This might suggest that the analysis above is faulty, but in fact a close examination of the relevant work only lends the analysis further support. When we investigate just which aspects of consciousness these studies are aimed at, and which aspects they end up explaining, we find that the ultimate target of explanation is always one of the easy problems. I will illustrate this with two representative examples.

The first is the “neurobiological theory of consciousness” outlined by Crick and Koch (1990; see also Crick 1994). This theory centers on certain 35 -75 hertz neural oscillations in

 

7

the cerebral cortex; Crick and Koch hypothesize that these oscillations are the basis of consciousness. This is partly because the oscillations seem to be correlated with awareness in a number of different modalities —within the visual and olfactory systems, for example —and also because they suggest a mechanism by which the binding of information contents might be achieved. Binding is the process whereby separately represented pieces of information about a single entity are brought together to be used by later processing, as when information about the color and shape of a perceived object is integrated from separate visual pathways. Following others (e.g., Eckhorn et al. 1988), Crick and Koch hypothesize that binding may be achieved by the synchronized oscillat ions of neuronal groups representing the relevant contents. When two pieces of information are to be bound together, the relevant neural groups will oscillate with the same frequency and phase.

The details of how this binding might be achieved are still po orly understood, but suppose that they can be worked out. What might the resulting theory explain? Clearly it might explain the binding of information contents, and perhaps it might yield a more general account of the integration of information in the brai n. Crick and Koch also suggest that these oscillations activate the mechanisms of working memory, so that there may be an account of this and perhaps other forms of memory in the distance. The theory might eventually lead to a general account of how perceived information is bound and stored in memory, for use by later processing.

Such a theory would be valuable, but it would tell us nothing about why the relevant contents are experienced. Crick and Koch suggest that these oscillations are the neural correla tes of experience. This claim is arguable —does not binding also take place in the processing of unconscious information? —but even if it is accepted, the explanatory question remains: Why do the oscillations give rise to experience? The only basis for an ex planatory connection is the role they play in binding and storage, but the question of why binding and storage should themselves be accompanied by experience is never addressed. If we do not know why binding and storage should give rise to experience, tell ing a story about the oscillations cannot help us. Conversely, if we knew why binding and storage gave rise to experience, the neurophysiological details would be just the icing on the cake. Crick and Koch’s theory gains its purchase by assuming a connecti on between binding and experience, and so can do nothing to explain that link.

From Facing up to the Problem of Consciousness

 

 

Just my opinion...

[narcissist]

I'm fascinated by questions of conciousness.

 

I've done a *little* bit of reading on it but I haven't found any good books to read on the subject. Any suggestions for a beginner/spectator/layman? I read this small book by an author whose name I can't remember who from memory claimed some sort of middle ground between materialism and dualism by saying that conciousness is somehow "emergent" with or from the brain. The author went on to critique a heap of other authors who I haven't read (Dennet is one).

 

The big question I've had for quite some time isn't so much what/where is conciousness, or "what am I", as much as it is "why am I me?" I could have been someone else or something else, some other time, some other place, but here I am. Perhaps this is the next question on the scientists list, and I'm just getting ahead of myself. Perhaps also this question only arises in people who have less than ideal lives, and are often wondering/desiring alternatives. (???)

[Legion]

I'm fascinated by questions of conciousness.

 

I've done a *little* bit of reading on it but I haven't found any good books to read on the subject. Any suggestions for a beginner/spectator/layman?

I am fascinated with the subject too Narcissist.

 

I can't yet recommend any authoritative books on the subject though. The problem seems to be that so many would like to lay claim to an authority on the subject of consciousness. Everyone from Buddhists to various schools of psychology want to get in on the act.

 

One of my favorite biologists has said, "Mind is to brain as life is to organism." I feel that we still have too much to learn in biology. Any current efforts to tackle the nature of consciousness may be a bit premature.

[.god]

i'm personally excited by the new research in consciousness. i just sent in a comment on the main blog page to the times link w/ all their articles, there's some fascinating research in the area. oops, looks like it was only a link to 1 article, w/ the related articles below it.

 

the mind is fascinating and i'm sure one day we will understand what gives rise to consciousness as we understand it, which may lead to a better understanding of consciousness in animals as well.

 

Some of the interesting research in the time articles include replicating out of body hallucinations by stimulating a certain area in the brain, phantom limbs, reinforcing and rewiring your mental pathways, happiness related to the relative noise between right and left brain hemispheres.

[NotBlinded]

I'm fascinated by questions of conciousness.

 

I've done a *little* bit of reading on it but I haven't found any good books to read on the subject. Any suggestions for a beginner/spectator/layman? I read this small book by an author whose name I can't remember who from memory claimed some sort of middle ground between materialism and dualism by saying that conciousness is somehow "emergent" with or from the brain. The author went on to critique a heap of other authors who I haven't read (Dennet is one).

 

The big question I've had for quite some time isn't so much what/where is conciousness, or "what am I", as much as it is "why am I me?" I could have been someone else or something else, some other time, some other place, but here I am. Perhaps this is the next question on the scientists list, and I'm just getting ahead of myself. Perhaps also this question only arises in people who have less than ideal lives, and are often wondering/desiring alternatives. (???)

I think your question is part of "hard" question that deals with experience of the person. David Chalmer's lays this out nicely in the paper that the article quotes which can be found in it's entirety from his website or the link that I gave above after the long quote. He gives his understandings of what he thinks and explains why he feels the way he does.

 

He also feels that there is a middle ground between materialism and dualism. Reductionism is fine to explain the "easy" questions, but the "hard" question (experience) has to answered by a non-reductionist theory. I believe, in one of his papers, he says it has to be a fundamental process of nature. Such like the study of electromagnatism is a non-reductive theory if I remember correctly. It starts with the understanding that it is a fundamental occurance of nature and goes from there. Yes, here it is:

 

Although a remarkable number of phenomena have turned out to be explicable wholly in terms of entities simpler than themselves, this is not universal. In physics, it occasionally happens that an entity has to be taken as fundamental Fundamental entities are not explained in terms of anything simpler. Instead, one takes them as basic, and gives a theory of how they relate to everything else in the world. For example, in the nineteenth century it turned out that electromagnetic processes could not be explained in terms of the wholly mechanical processes that previous physical theories appealed to, so Maxwell and others introduced electromagnetic charge and electromagnetic forces as new fundamental components of a physical theory. To explain electromagnetism, the ontology of physics had to be expanded. New basic properties and basic laws were needed to give a satisfactory account of the phenomena.

 

Other features that physical theory takes as fundamental include mass and space-time. No attempt is made to explain these features in terms of anything simpler. But this does not rule out the possibility of a theory of mass or of space-time. There is an intricate theory of how these features interrelate, and of the basic laws they enter into. These basic principles are used to explain many familiar phenomena concerning mass, space, and time at a higher level.

 

I suggest that a theory of consciousness should take experience as fundamental. We know that a theory of consciousness requires the addition of something fundamental to our ontology, as everything in physical theory is compatible with the absence of consciousness.

Facing up to the Problems of Consciousness

 

He also has a book The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory that I will probably order myself. I would also like to find someone that addresses all of his arugements (in layman's terms of course). I couldn't handle too many if P then Q's.

[Ouroboros]

...few scientists doubt that they will locate consciousness in the activity of the brain. For many nonscientists, this is a terrifying prospect. Not only does it strangle the hope that we might survive the death of our bodies, but it also seems to undermine the notion that we are free agents responsible for our choices--not just in this lifetime but also in a life to come.

I doesn't scare me. Just because there's not a point in the brain that can be called "center of consciousness", it doesn't mean it can be totally naturally existing only in the brain. To me actually it only confirms my understanding of consciousness as a result of a process, not a thing.

 

Can anyone point to where MS Windows is? Not MS Windows in general, but where is the core functionality of it and it's existence? Well, no one can really point to one line of code that represents Windows in it's fullest, but yet Windows works (almost), and it exists (some wish it didn't) and it's not supernatural (unless you believe in evil forces).

[Ouroboros]

The brain is most certainly where the conciousness is, its just a question of whether it is distributed or localised.

That's the point. If it's distributed, then no one can find a "spot" which can be called "consciousness".

[Legion]

The brain is most certainly where the conciousness is, its just a question of whether it is distributed or localised.

That's the point. If it's distributed, then no one can find a "spot" which can be called "consciousness".

Right. To me asking where consciousness resides is like asking where culture resides.

[Ouroboros]

The big question I've had for quite some time isn't so much what/where is conciousness, or "what am I", as much as it is "why am I me?" I could have been someone else or something else, some other time, some other place, but here I am. Perhaps this is the next question on the scientists list, and I'm just getting ahead of myself. Perhaps also this question only arises in people who have less than ideal lives, and are often wondering/desiring alternatives. (???)

I know. It seems that's the only thing you can know for sure (somehow). I can't trust my experiences or my memory, and I don't know if I'm experiencing the world accurately or if it's an illusion etc... but only one thing do I know, that I am I. I can't even be sure you are you, or that you are a "soul", maybe I'm the only "soul" and the world is just a game to test me? How do I know that you have a "soul" too?

[Ouroboros]

Right. To me asking where consciousness resides is like asking where culture resides.

Agree. Or to ask where "blue" is in a painting, you will probably find many spots, or if the whole painting is blue, then where is blue?

 

I think the way consciousness works it is very possible that people with MPD actually could have multiple consciousnesses. (that looks funny ) So in those cases, would they have to try to find the multiple "physical spots", or is it just different programs running?

[Legion]

I think the way consciousness works it is very possible that people with MPD actually could have multiple consciousnesses. (that looks funny ) So in those cases, would they have to try to find the multiple "physical spots", or is it just different programs running?

Sounds funny too I don't know if I buy into the analogy that the brain is like a computer though. But perhaps your suggestion that people with MPD have more than one consciousness has some merit Hans. I don't know. I'm not a psychologist.

[Ouroboros]

IMO the brain is like a computer, but not the computers we're using right now, but more like a self-adaptive quantum computer. The wiring isn't static in the brain, and the events are somewhat influenced on a deeper level of physics than a regular computer. So imagine a computer that can modify itself, and at the same time can process thousands of small pieces of information simultaneous, and sometimes be messed with through chemical imbalance etc. We kind of get a random processing computer instead, so it's not exactly like a computer as we know them, but the brain is still a processing unit.

[NotBlinded]

IMO the brain is like a computer, but not the computers we're using right now, but more like a self-adaptive quantum computer. The wiring isn't static in the brain, and the events are somewhat influenced on a deeper level of physics than a regular computer. So imagine a computer that can modify itself, and at the same time can process thousands of small pieces of information simultaneous, and sometimes be messed with through chemical imbalance etc. We kind of get a random processing computer instead, so it's not exactly like a computer as we know them, but the brain is still a processing unit.

I agree with this, but yet, that doesn't explain how these processes give rise to experience. This will be the missing ingredient with AI (if I understand anything about what I'm talking about! ). I'll have to do more reading. Chalmers also has papers on AI on his website.

 

Now, if total consciousness can be explained by quantum theory, then maybe AI can be produced. But, that also entails other ideas that people are saying about quantum consciousness. It would still mean that consciousness is a basic building block of the universe.

 

I'm glad this article referenced him. It started me on a brand new search!

[Legion]

IMO the brain is like a computer, but not the computers we're using right now, but more like a self-adaptive quantum computer.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I think this is a highly debated issue and I'm still learning. I used to think that the brain might be like a computer. I even used to think that present day computers might be able to emulate many functions of the brain. These days however I have become doubtful of these things. Perhaps in time I will be able to articulate why I feel this way, but not now. I have only hunches at this point.

[Ouroboros]

Well, if we put it this way then. If I was able to put together a DNA by hand to produce a brain that were in essence working the same way as our brain and gave it interfaces of different kinds, like eyes and ears and a mouth etc. Could this constructed brain become conscious?

 

(And NBBTB, I can also see that maybe consciousness is an essence of the universe. In a way it must be, because whatever it is, we are conscious and we exist, so consciousness exists in the universe in one form or another.)

[xild]

I don't know if he's located the area dedicated to consciousness but Michael Persinger has located the area in the brain dedicated to what you might call the religious experience, out of body, near death, feeling God, and that type of stuff. He has recreated the experience in people and though it's different in each person, there are common themes, certainly and he's able to do it over and over.

 

I've always been fascinated with his work and am just now getting back into it after watching this little youtube thing on televangelism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8agLgwepWg The vid doesn't bring Persinger into it until the very end, so you need to jump to video part six or seven if anyone is interested.

[NotBlinded]

Well, if we put it this way then. If I was able to put together a DNA by hand to produce a brain that were in essence working the same way as our brain and gave it interfaces of different kinds, like eyes and ears and a mouth etc. Could this constructed brain become conscious?

 

(And NBBTB, I can also see that maybe consciousness is an essence of the universe. In a way it must be, because whatever it is, we are conscious and we exist, so consciousness exists in the universe in one form or another.)

I would like to know if it would become conscious too. It seems it may be able to simulate consciousness, but then...is there a difference? I am too new at looking into this to really make any informed decisions yet. Would it be able to experience things? Emotions? I don't know. Could it tell if we all of a sudden told it that red was blue and blue was red? Would it notice the change of experience?