Teleporting Information

[Kaylia]

There isn't a hollow center in my brain, so i presume you mean where exactly my consciousness is. I don't know where in my brain it is or how my brain "makes" my consciousness. Where's yours?

My consciouness lies in the ability of my body to perceive through stimuli the outside world, and react to it.

Can you answer this? Are monkey conscious? Are small mammals conscious? Are unicellulars conscious? Yet, we can draws a direct line between all those things...so being conscious is probably not that special.

You're not familiar with Kuhn's paradigms, are you?

I wasn't until 5minute ago. After reading the wiki entry, I can tell you it means exactly what I'm saying. That people in social science are fucking clueless about their own sciences, because they don't know what was approximated and why they get "different" results.

No proof that the brain is a computer yet so predisposed to accept it as fact. Your desire to understand it as such, and my desire to understand consciousness as a social construction has less to do with overwhelming evidence that supports our beliefs and more to do with informed experiences, both explicit and implicit. As i've already said, a pointless debate.

I'm not doing the spiritual/religion debate here. If you want to believe we are something more, go for it, but I don't.

Our brain is a "computer" because the definition say so. There is input, and we react to it after picking the "best" answer.

Apparently, you're not sure what you're saying. You weren't telling me my brain is a pre-condition for my cognition, that much is dreadfully obvious, you were saying one of two things, that my brain's composition determines my preference for a blue hammer, or that my brain's composition possess the elements that would allow a foreign entity to conclude that i prefer a blue hammer without ever consulting the conscious subject that is myself. That or you expressed yourself quite erroneously.


I've said this three times now, but i don't think you're acknowledging it, and you likely never will. You're not arguing with me because you know for sure that the brain possess the qualities with which to accurately extrapolate everything we think, you argue for it because it seems convincing for you, based on your outlook on what is likely to be true elsewhere. Most psychologists wouldn't dare say it's a sure thing, as you've alluded to; the reason why psychology has so many different epistemological divisions is because of the inability to determine what the "mind" really is, unlike say, determining what a cell is. So different psychologists take different approaches to the enigma, whether it is by studying the psychological apparatus via conduct, whether it be via the conscious, whether it be via the brain, or whether it be via social context. Nothing but an issue of emphasis on the multiple qualities that compose what we like to refer to as ourselves.

No, I'm saying human can't think without their brain. You can't pretend to be able to disconect yourself from your brain.

And don't tell me I don't know what I'm saying, I spend around 1h-2h writting every posts, carefully checking everything and reading many sources every time. Maybe the wording and structure are bad, but I don't randomly post things that I don't understand.


I argue because our body is in an enclosed space, and there is a limited amount of stimuli reaching us every second. It can only mean one thing.


Anyway, off to bed.

[Tristam]

There isn't a hollow center in my brain, so i presume you mean where exactly my consciousness is. I don't know where in my brain it is or how my brain "makes" my consciousness. Where's yours?

Not to sound like a dick, but biologically, your consciousness or the state of being aware and able to percieve stimuli, is a product of your brain. This is why you can go unconscious of you hit your head hard enough. How the brain "makes" consciousness is an emergent property of being able to percieve many many stimuli at the same time.

[Kuya]

I don't know enough of the biological arguments for memory to debate about it, though what you're telling me seems to be that some aspects of cognition are strongly related to biology and hence the rest might also be related to biology. Which leaves little to debate.

[meson]

Before we had mechanical and electrical computers, guess how computations were done for large scale projects like taxes, etc. They were completed by humans, which they used to call computers.

If you can't see how brains are similar to computers then you need to work on your creative thinking skills.

On topic:
teleportation is a horrible word to describe what the article is talking about. It's like saying televisions teleport actors into your living room. Shoot, quantum-kinesis is a better word.

[Kaylia]

Now I know little about emotion (which is to say that I'm sure there's a reasonable biological explanation for it), but considering that most neurons function to integrate signals, varying intensities of a signal could make sense in how we percieve "emotion".

Neurochemical released in your body

[Kuya]

My consciouness lies in the ability of my body to perceive through stimuli the outside world, and react to it.

Simplistic. If that were all you did, we'd all have the same reactions, unless you wanted to argue that you're genetically different from others and therefore react a different way. All of which has no justification.

I wasn't until 5minute ago. After reading the wiki entry, I can tell you it means exactly what I'm saying. That people in social science are fucking clueless about their own sciences, because they don't know what was approximated and why they get "different" results.

I agree on the clueless about their own science part, but for different reasons having to do with the history of the science. In effect the point of social science is from a very simplistic angle, to predict and control social phenomena. In fact, some would argue whether it can really be called science according to kuhnian understanding because it lacks overwhelming consensus as there is in the natural sciences, but of course that has much to do with the instability of the object of study.

I'm not doing the spiritual/religion debate here. If you want to believe we are something more, go for it, but I don't.

Our brain is a "computer" because the definition say so. There is input, and we react to it after picking the "best" answer.

Nothing to do with spirits or religion, everything to do with what we give the most importance. You are a positivist, and hence this form of explanation is
more legitimate for you, and that's all there really is.

No, I'm saying human can't think without their brain. You can't pretend to be able to disconect yourself from your brain.

Dreadfully obvious and nowhere near what i was prodding.

[Kuya]

Not to sound like a dick, but biologically, your consciousness or the state of being aware and able to percieve stimuli, is a product of your brain. This is why you can go unconscious of you hit your head hard enough. How the brain "makes" consciousness is an emergent property of being able to percieve many many stimuli at the same time.

You're not refuting anything i've said.

[Max™]

Find a mirror.

Stand next to it, so the mirror cuts off your view of your left hand (right, if you're left handed).

Move the visible hand around and see if you can "feel" anything from the reflected image.

Take a toothbrush or straw or something and hold it in your visible hand, then touch the tip of it the mirror.

Notice anything weird going on here?

Your consciousness is not contained solely in the bio-chemical processes of your brain. I do believe it operates through them though.

Brain matter:Awareness::Computer hardware:Operating System

I am software, I am not neuronal connections being bridged and rerouted, that is merely the hardware which I am stored and operating within.

[Kaylia]

Simplistic. If that were all you did, we'd all have the same reactions, unless you wanted to argue that you're genetically different from others and therefore react a different way. All of which has no justification.

Uh?

Yes, we are genetically different, so difference will occur right from the start.

And stimuli are always different from one person to the other. From the amount of photon that land on your body, to people around you, to the weather...there is just too many things.

[Kuya]

Uh?

Yes, we are genetically different, so difference will occur right from the start.

And stimuli are always different from one person to the other. From the amount of photon that land on your body, to people around you, to the weather...there is just too many things.

Let me explain this better to you. What you are saying is that we simply react to stimuli. What you do not mention is that we also produce our own stimuli to react to without needing to produce any behaviour that manifests what we are thinking of. We abstract. We don't just react. Perhaps you knew this already, but you ignored to mention it in your reply to me.

[Kaylia]

Find a mirror.

Stand next to it, so the mirror cuts off your view of your left hand (right, if you're left handed).

Move the visible hand around and see if you can "feel" anything from the reflected image.

Take a toothbrush or straw or something and hold it in your visible hand, then touch the tip of it the mirror.

Instead of posting nonsensical mirror argument, can you answer my question

Okay. So which data your new theory is able to explain? And what part of it is testable?

[Max™]

I sent you a PM to avoid derailing.

Perform the mirror experiment and you will notice your consciousness is a fluid thing which extends itself to the world around you.

[Kaylia]

Let me explain this better to you. What you are saying is that we simply react to stimuli. What you do not mention is that we also produce our own stimuli to react to without needing to produce any behaviour that manifests what we are thinking of. We abstract. We don't just react. Perhaps you knew this already, but you ignored to mention it in your reply to me.

I didn't "forget" to mention this, I thought it was implied.

Actually, it was discussed earlier in this thread, because most "genetic algorithm" need a sense of awareness to work.


And yes, we "abstract". The computer in our brain can't calculate everything instantly, that's why it take some time to get to a conclusion.

[Kaylia]

I sent you a PM to avoid derailing.

Perform the mirror experiment and you will notice your consciousness is a fluid thing which extends itself to the world around you.

I'm not sure I even understand the point of the experience, and I will read your pm tomorrow, sorry.

[Max™]

Just like I said, your awareness goes beyond just your brain, and body... consciousness is a fluid thing which the brain is constantly extending and adapting to new situations.

Most of us use the internet now as a form of extended memory, we use calculators to perform complex calculations without really thinking about it.

When I do something in a game, I'm not thinking "rotate left thumb 3 degrees clockwise", I'm thinking "run towards that thing over there" in the game world.

When I drive a car, I'm not adjusting the pedals and wheel consciously, I'm treating the car as an extended limb.

Awareness is not so easily summed up as "neurochemical processes in the brain".

[Kuya]

I didn't "forget" to mention this, I thought it was implied.

Actually, it was discussed earlier in this thread, because most "genetic algorithm" need a sense of awareness to work.


And yes, we "abstract". The computer in our brain can't calculate everything instantly, that's why it take some time to get to a conclusion.

The way you put things simply confuses me. When you say brain do you mean it as synonymous to "yourself" or do you refer to it as a separate object? The way you say it makes it sound like the latter, but that can't be right as i don't think you subscribe to emergentism, if i'm reading your posts right. You're also using the word abstract in a logistical context when i wasn't implying a solving of problems, but rather an active contemplation of the past, future, via planning and reconstruction of stimuli to suit one's desires. As in, i imagine a future that i enjoy not because i'm "calculating" in the mathematical sense as if i were trying to solve a problem, but creating mental images that please me. And i emphasize creating.

And to clarify, what i've understood thus far from your posts is that you believe one day we'll have the tools to investigate, say, my brain matter to find out exactly what i'm thinking. Which conflicts with the current popular theory of emergentism as Tristam already mentioned. Your point of view, according to how i understood it, implies that every neuron or groups of neurons possess the contents of what i think of.

[meson]

And to clarify, what i've understood thus far from your posts is that you believe one day we'll have the tools to investigate, say, my brain matter to find out exactly what i'm thinking. Which conflicts with the current popular theory of emergentism as Tristam already mentioned. Your point of view, according to how i understood it, implies that every neuron or groups of neurons possess the contents of what i think of.

Yes, every thought that you have is a firing of neurons. The combination of neurons that are being fired off at any given time dictate what is in your "head," or consciousness. The brains mechanism for memory creation is described by the method in which neuronal networks are built. For example, certain neurochemicals are released during emotional states that aid nuerons in building connections between eachother. This is why memories of emotional states are often more salient and easily recalled. Further, neurons that are fired off at the same time tend to build connections with eachother. The connections built make it more likely that in the future those same two neurons will be fired off again at the same time.

[Kuya]

The production of consciousness as the interaction of multiple neurons is emergentism, it is not known what the content of one's conscious thoughts are in relation to the interaction of neurons. As in you think and neurons fires (i think therefore i am?), but how that becomes what you're thinking at any moment is not well known. There is a reason why there are no laws or facts here.

What i understood as Kaylia's understanding, which i'm not sure you picked up on is that he thinks that memory and well as what i'm currently thinking now or at any moment when i am conscious is inside the neurons. Not in their interactions which is not detailed enough.

[meson]

I would recommend reading countless brain mapping studies that would suggest otherwise. Read activity in one part of the brain, patient is asked what the are thinking about. Patient is asked to think about the same thing, and the same area of the brain is active. Theres nothing emergent about that. You cannot have something "extra" in your "mind" besides that which has a physical representation inside your brain.

[Kuya]

This reminds me of the people who assume that irregular speech is an exact representation of irregular thinking. Only the most radical biologists would assert that there's a direct relationship between exact thought content and brain activity. There is hardly any basis in making the jump from brain activity to thought content and when it comes to these arguments you always get the same shit. All sides constantly assert how they're "right" till they're all blue in the face but nobody has nowhere near any consensus to ever be the "victor". I've said this from the very beginning; pointless debate as a bunch of kids on the internet actually think they're going to convince anyone when the professionals can't even convince eachother on the subject of their study.

edit:The interesting thing about those who defend the brain and conduct as main focus of study is how they always make the logical leap that what they see is a direct manifestation of the very thoughts themselves without ever having any justification for it. They seem to assume that they'll somehow convince everyone by showing them correlations and more correlations until they somehow convince everyone that they're not correlations but causations. It's always amazing to see how the most "scientific" are always the ones who are most eager to ignore logic to be right.