Teleporting Information

[Max™]

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.

You can however have additional layers of physical complexity on scales smaller than the neuron, which is what I am arguing. That quantum effects such as superposition and entanglement among the electrons dancing within our neurons are involved in awareness.

You see "think about an orange" = "front left temporal lobe activity" and seem to say that is it.

I see "think about an orange" = "front left temporal lobe activity" = "we must store some state which represents the memory of an orange in that region of the brain".


If you scan a video card on a computer while you play a game, you'll see activity.

Is there not a scale below that which actually handles the processing, and an emergent effect in the conversion from binary code to visual output?


Why is it so hard to think awareness might be similar?

[Khamsin]

If I am a good typist and don't make typos, would I fail the turing test?

As for scientists going with what they are told, this is the nature of our short lifespans. Science has been evolving for almost as long as our species has been around. When a scientist is born, they don't know jack shit. But they're told stuff, they believe it, and work based off it assuming it's all true. They pick up where the last few thousand years worth of people left off. There's nothing wrong with going with what you're told in science. It's impossible to verify everything for yourself with what little time you have. Spend your time building off it, not being paranoid about whether it's all real or not, unless the entire point of your research is to disprove it. But then you'll have no time for anything else.

As for the mirror, I don't see anything weird. Given how big a mirror is, it's pretty easy to smack it with the tip of a toothbrush or even the head of a pin. If you try to touch stuff with your visible hand by watching the mirror instead, however, you'll be a bit jerky or slow just because you're not used to using a reflection to guide your hand, but that's really no more special than attempting to use any other non-conventional method of perception to guide yourself. e.g. hearing or touch when moving in the dark.

And my first thought on the tool was a silver wrench.

[Alleya]

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.

When you work up a quantum theory that explains aggressive behavior in a better and more valid way than the construct of aggression in psychology, you give me a ringy ding and tell me how ignorant social scientists are.

I think you need to stop making broad brush statements about a field you obviously know very little about before you offend someone.

[meson]

: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.

Most biologists I know believe that brain activity dictates thought content. I didn't know that my cohorts were that radical. I don't think you appreciate the complexity of what we cavalierly sum up in "brain activity" or even "neuronal networks." There are some 100 billion neurons in every brain, each with hundreds to thousands of dendrites, each with multiple systems for sending and receiving neurotransmitters. Add to this the fact that the brain is constantly changing as it takes in new sensory information. The complexity is staggering, but just because it hasn't been completely mapped out does not mean there is another unseen and untestable system at work that creates "consciousness." What else do you propose is at work?

[Kaylia]

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.

Optimization is a mathematical problem. Our body is trying to maximize the situation where we feel good, and take the most efficient path to reach it using euristic based on your memory.

In programming, we would be talking about a recursive search algorithm in a environment that evolve.

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.

I couldn't care less if people are convinced or not. I'm arguing for my own sake because it allow me to understand a topic better. And really, understanding something isn't limited to "profesionnal". If they can understand a topic, so can we.

Speech =/= thinking
Everyone experienced a situation where they thought of something, but ended doing something else.

I don't understand why a biologist would be against this (can you show me an articles of someone who is against this). There is many proof of the opposite (ie: dyslexia)

And my first thought on the tool was a silver wrench.

Werewolf must have played an important role in your life.

[Max™]

The complexity is staggering, but just because it hasn't been completely mapped out does not mean there is another unseen and untestable system at work that creates "consciousness." What else do you propose is at work?

Just as an example of possibilities, better enumerated than I would be able to present them.

Quantum mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People argue that while neurons are small, they are still classical objects.

I'm saying that perhaps neurons are serving multiple roles, including managing or adjusting the very electrons coursing along them in such a way as to produce this baffling, yet familiar thing we call consciousness.



Research News: Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed

Photosynthesis seems to exploit quantum effects... you mean to tell me plants are in on this treasure trove of weirdness, but we aren't?

[Kaylia]

When you work up a quantum theory that explains aggressive behavior in a better and more valid way than the construct of aggression in psychology, you give me a ringy ding and tell me how ignorant social scientists are.

I think you need to stop making broad brush statements about a field you obviously know very little about before you offend someone.

I already adressed this.

"Because every brain works similarly, you will be able to observe patterns between individual, and you can build a science (psychology) around it. If every brains were fundamentally differents, doing something like this would be impossible."

If this statement is incorect, point out which part is wrong.


You don't need to go as far as quantum physics to understand the motive behind a behavior. You can approximate the situation using concept like personality's archetypes, pathology and having a good understanding of the living being. It's far more time efficient this way, because we already have a computer in our brain that is good at processing this kind of problem.


I'm calling social scientists ignorant, because many of them refuse to see the big picture, and seem to believe there is one big line between social science and natural science that can't be crossed.

[Kaylia]

Just as an example of possibilities, better enumerated than I would be able to present them.

Quantum mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People argue that while neurons are small, they are still classical objects.

I'm saying that perhaps neurons are serving multiple roles, including managing or adjusting the very electrons coursing along them in such a way as to produce this baffling, yet familiar thing we call consciousness.



Research News: Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed

Photosynthesis seems to exploit quantum effects... you mean to tell me plants are in on this treasure trove of weirdness, but we aren't?

Molecule aren't classical objects, however, you don't need to build a quantum model to understand neuron's property. You could simply study neural networks under various circumstance to build your models.

We had the periodic table a long time before we understood the origin of the properties of certains elements.

[meson]

You can however have additional layers of physical complexity on scales smaller than the neuron, which is what I am arguing. That quantum effects such as superposition and entanglement among the electrons dancing within our neurons are involved in awareness.

You see "think about an orange" = "front left temporal lobe activity" and seem to say that is it.

I see "think about an orange" = "front left temporal lobe activity" = "we must store some state which represents the memory of an orange in that region of the brain".


If you scan a video card on a computer while you play a game, you'll see activity.

Is there not a scale below that which actually handles the processing, and an emergent effect in the conversion from binary code to visual output?


Why is it so hard to think awareness might be similar?

I think if you attribute "awareness" to the quantum scale activities in your brain you are scaling prematurely. We have known a great deal about how photosynthesis works without knowing that it uses quantum effects to make the process efficient. Similarly, we know a great deal about how the brain works without having to know the role quantum effects play. As we begin to study these effects, I don't think there will be a paradigm shift in the way we think about brain behavior just as there isn't going to be a shift in how we view photosynthesis. Just because quantum theory at large has generated some pretty freaky, for lack of a better word, discoveries does not mean you can attribute abstractions like "awareness" and "consciousness" to it.

[Tristam]

Just as an example of possibilities, better enumerated than I would be able to present them.

Quantum mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People argue that while neurons are small, they are still classical objects.

I'm saying that perhaps neurons are serving multiple roles, including managing or adjusting the very electrons coursing along them in such a way as to produce this baffling, yet familiar thing we call consciousness.



Research News: Quantum Secrets of Photosynthesis Revealed

Photosynthesis seems to exploit quantum effects... you mean to tell me plants are in on this treasure trove of weirdness, but we aren't?

Humans use light to see, so there are very likely quantum effects governing the transition from photon to electrochemical potential, but this has nothing to do with memory, or consciousness. As far as perception, I don't feel the need to explain it in any other way than the perception of color is simply the brain saying "here is light of wavelength x and intensity y." In exactly the same way a spectrophotometer does.

I think another argument is, why is it necessary to invoke another process for consciousness other than the perception of neuronal signals? As in, things are the way they are because they are the way they are? I really don't see the need for anything smaller than quantum chemistry to explain brain biology.

[Max™]

Speed, fluidity, and the depth of thought and imagination don't lend themselves in my opinion to being described by neurochemical processes.

At least not any more than the processes involved in my computer sending this message over the internet to your computer has to do with sliding beads around on an abacus.

[Tristam]

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.

Thought is brain activity though, if you electrically stimulate the exact same neurons with the exact same signal you will perceive the exact same phenomenon. Now obviously the neuronal map of the brain is incomplete, and how signals crosstalk introduces another layer of complexity, but the bottom line is that there is a biological basis for thought.

The question I think you're asking, or rather arguing, is whether or not it is meaningful on an organismal level to address questions of thought, perception, awareness etc at the molecular level. I would agree that the answer is no, it is much more appropriate to use a "coarse" approach to the study of the mind as it applies to humans. However, studying the mind on a level "above" single cells or proteins does not mean that the basis of the mind is not fundamentally biological, otherwise quite obviously mind-altering drugs would do nothing.

Also I want to clarify my "emergentism" a bit. I did not want to imply at all that higher-order brain functions are any different *at a molecular level* from the functions of single neurons, just that the emergent property is a function of having many more neurons coordinated in specific ways. In a similar sense, and integrating feedback loop is an emergent property of wiring resistors and opamps in a specific way? Maybe that's a bad analogy but it's the best I've got in limited time.

[meson]

Speed, fluidity, and the depth of thought and imagination don't lend themselves in my opinion to being described by neurochemical processes.

At least not any more than the processes involved in my computer sending this message over the internet to your computer has to do with sliding beads around on an abacus.

I don't think you appreciate the complexity of neuronal physiology at all.

edit:
Brain function is to neurochemical processes as computer function is to an abacus. Is this really the analogy you're making, or am I reading this wrong?

[Max™]

Neural correlates of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mean like this?

I do, but I remain skeptical that it is a satisfactory explanation.

[Tristam]

You see "think about an orange" = "front left temporal lobe activity" and seem to say that is it.

I see "think about an orange" = "front left temporal lobe activity" = "we must store some state which represents the memory of an orange in that region of the brain".

I know I'm going quote-backwards, but of course front left temoral lobe activity is not the entire story. The image of an orange is processed by the brain and a memory is formed by the local protein synthesis machinery which adjusts the contacts between neurons to form lasting connections which make the image of the orange in your brain. This is the "state" you refer to. Still no need for entanglement.

[Neosutra]

You can however have additional layers of physical complexity on scales smaller than the neuron, which is what I am arguing. That quantum effects such as superposition and entanglement among the electrons dancing within our neurons are involved in awareness.

You see "think about an orange" = "front left temporal lobe activity" and seem to say that is it.

I see "think about an orange" = "front left temporal lobe activity" = "we must store some state which represents the memory of an orange in that region of the brain".


If you scan a video card on a computer while you play a game, you'll see activity.

Is there not a scale below that which actually handles the processing, and an emergent effect in the conversion from binary code to visual output?


Why is it so hard to think awareness might be similar?

Having worked at los alamos national lab on computational neural science, I can say that anyone stating that there are quantum components to human biological thought is incorrect. Your thought/stimuli processes are a direct result of the summed electro-chemical potentials of your neurons. Once a nueron gets enough stimuli from the axon's terminals from the other neurons in that specific chain, it will shift it's eletropotential releasing some potasium byproduct from its' Axon and forcing a release of its' own neuro-trasmitters thereby continuing the cascade of information flow.

Our brains are a simple(using the word simple loosely here) neural net of summed inputs where potential differences in stimuli effect how strong the information pulse goes.

Memory is broken into multiple sections as the neural net is composed of segments of stimili receptors (sight, object orientation, sound, smell). A memory isnt just located in one spot of the brain, but rather a tree that references each segment that is needed to recontruct the causel occurance.

Human conciousness is just a byproduct of the real time interpretation of stimuli, referenced against the stored stimuli from previous occurances. This is the reason biological thought process is a gradually increasing phenomina, and not a static development.

I wish I had stayed with this topic past the first few posts, as this is one of my most enjoyable conversation topics. However I assumed the posts delved into the area of "transporting the soul" as it appeared it was going, and thus I left it alone.

[meson]

Neural correlates of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mean like this?

I do, but I remain skeptical that it is a satisfactory explanation.

Fine, create a study to test the quantum mind hypothesis. You would be the first.

There are some 100 trillion synapses in the human brain. Your ego is blown out of proportion if you are not satisfied by the amount of behavior possibilities that that number can net. Humans just aren't that special.

Edit:
From Chalmers, posted on the Quantum Mind wiki entry which you linked earlier:
"Nevertheless, quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same difficulties as neural or computational theories. Quantum phenomena have some remarkable functional properties, such as nondeterminism and nonlocality. It is natural to speculate that these properties may play some role in the explanation of cognitive functions, such as random choice and the integration of information, and this hypothesis cannot be ruled out a priori. But when it comes to the explanation of experience, quantum processes are in the same boat as any other. The question of why these processes should give rise to experience is entirely unanswered."

[Neosutra]

You could have just said "i agree with Neo" meson. Would have made your point and made me feel good at the same time!

[meson]

I thought it was you that was agreeing with me.
I do like your wording though. Let's get back to transporting souls already.

[Kuya]

they both have the dire error of forcing a frame of reference that is easily understood onto a concept that is poorly understood with little empirical justification for the action, which leads to the innate error of assuming connections as causations.

I think you're putting emphasis on one thing and i'm putting it on another.

Current argument summed up.