I would be careful though about making claims about EM without quantitative models or empirical data just because of how very well EM is understood (It's a very complete theory and it IS a Quantum Mechanical theory as well. So when you invoke EM you must invoke Quantum Mechanics. EM is just another quantum phenomenon).
As a consequence of that definition of computer many things, both analog and quantum, can be considered computers of one sort or another (either specific purpose or general purpose). For instance, your whole body is a computer that takes in visible light and outputs just the information to form your image in different spectra (among many other input/output functions) .Anyway, really enjoyed the video even though, and probably because, it is pretty far out of my field (Which is Quantum Phys LOL).
Hey man, cool video. About the brain as a computer. The brain is a general purpose computer by definition. A computer takes in one kind of information, performs a "computation" which converts the information and then the computer "outputs" the new information that results from that conversion. That's why an abacus is not a computer but really just a "storage device" (like a hard drive) where the mathematician is the "computer" and is using their brain like a processor and random memory unit.
I like your video! I have a response I would like u to seriously consider and maybe do a video on.
It seems to me that science recognizes experience as equivalent to consciousness, however I believe this fails to account for "will". I think the true self and consciousness are not found in the "experience-er" but in the "will-er" if you will! After all even machines react to stimuli! Also I believe irrationality is the unique human trait, not rationality. What do you think?
I actually touch on this notion in my book (Evolving Towards the Truth). I refer to the self as being more like a community, than a monolithic, singular entity. Among these contributors is a group of "desire modules" (sex, eat, socialize, fear, etc.). But on top of all of these sits a "Top Level Optimizer"; it's responsibility is to optimize pleasure and minimize pain, in the long run. In addition to this intellectual module (cont'd @ 2)
(2)...cont'd - is a module I refer to as "the likener". It's kind of an "analogy engine" or metaphor machine. When we're curiously inspecting some new person, place or thing, we really don't ask "What is this?" Instead, we ask, "What is this like?". I.e., what else in my memory banks does this object resemble, and in what ways. And how is it different.
I also agree with your skepticism about the term "rational". cont'd @ (3)
I haven't heard of NMRs having any effect; however, there's a therapy known as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation that is apparently used for depression and chronic pain.
I don't know a lot about how NMRs actually work, but it may be that the frequencies at which they work are so high that they don't affect the brain - for the same reason that radio frequencies don't either.
I did some homework and I am ready to report back to you on my findings.
1) Notice noone here is talking about functional brain areas, neurons, or dendrites.
2) The Hard Problem is therefore, a philosophical issue, not a problem arising from peculiarities of neuroscience.
The Hard Problem: Even given a complete wiring diagram of the brain, can we logically deduce that internal experience is happening? Many say no. It is a question of reality given 1st-person versus 3rd-person views.
Why invoke the spookiness of "EM" when the (not so) simple computational aspect of neural activity itself (disregarding the incidental EM fields) cannot yet be shown NOT to produce "consciousness". A data processing system with "self-interest" (like survival) will surely posses the equivalent of desires. Given the capabilities of acquiring data about the present situation, remembering past situations, responses and results, and comparing "desires" with results, why is this not "conscious"?
I invoke E M because it is appealingly "non-physical". It is much "closer in kind" to the ethereal, intangible, invisible nature of qualia.
Regarding the "computational aspects of neural activity": as I say in the video, it's not at all clear to me what people mean when they infer that neurons are doing some type of "computation".
Regarding your 2nd question about "why is this not conscious"?, kindly advise, where did I say it wasn't?
re EM: You might as well (or better) invoke quantum voodoo since no-one understands that. Computers are much stronger sources of EM than neural columns, are they therefor conscious?
re Computation: At very least, neurons perform logical (could say arithmetic) computations like comparison of exciting and inhibiting inputs. Data processing is computation; it needn't be limited to algebraic equations.
re 2nd ?: If you don't say it, then Google is already conscious.
Re quantum voodoo: I believe that the reason people invoke it is precisely because nobody understands it.
Re computation: To me, it still seems like a bad choice of words. It implies mathematical calculations, and unnecessarily biases the discussion.
If the biochemical / molecular processes inside neurons are "computational", then I suppose my muscle cells compute, and photosynthesis is computational as well.
Your theory is only a description of immediate perception in cortical columns. This does not explain how we can remember how we felt a week later and then furthermore, report on this feeling in language. (Our brains can remember how we felt when a close friend died 15 years ago. How does that square with your theory?) Cortical column activity is still seen in people who are unconscious.
I agree. I claimed I was only explaining a single quale; but I also say that "general consciousness", where for instance, you're just observing things, is basically a parade of invidual qualia.
However, I address memory and awareness in another video of mine, "A Theory of Consciousness - Vid 3, as well as in "The Architecture of the Evolved Self."
I agree with you though about computationalism. I was recently told that the paradigm we are in is based on that. I said I didn't agree with it. we are NOT machines/computers. But i searched the term at YT and not one fukin vid about it LOL
Ie., does the fish notice the water its swimmin in etc?
"thou are experiece and experiece is thou" of course... consciousness of qualias is the state of receptor and electromagnetism besides being merely the final ground of possible description is fairly explainative.
but "quantum voodoo" is not about qualias as they are induced from outside of the subject. it's about explaining subjective "togetherness" of them and willing of action from the inside of the receptor...
You are close. You should read some John Searle. Like him, I'm not convinced of the reality of "qualia". I also think there is a self, though not a metaphysical or spiritual one.
Regarding my thoughts about the self, I go into better detail in Video 4 of my "Dualism" series.
Basically, I fully agree there IS a self; but it's this pluralistic, non-centralized communty of modules and motivators. Not a singularity, but a plurality.
Regarding your comment on q"ualia"; what do you mean by
I don't think the category of qualia is useful. If as Drastam says it is understood to be first person experience then we should just say that and not introduce another level of abstraction. We don't need to and it only complicates things.
For understanding what the self might be I would go to psychoanalysis for whatever their conception of it is. If I understand them right then the self is a fiction that we tell ourselves.
Isn't the sensory deprivation thought experiment just as Condillac's sensible statue?
ThisOneIsTaken 4 months ago
I would be careful though about making claims about EM without quantitative models or empirical data just because of how very well EM is understood (It's a very complete theory and it IS a Quantum Mechanical theory as well. So when you invoke EM you must invoke Quantum Mechanics. EM is just another quantum phenomenon).
wkrepelin 6 months ago
Comment removed
wkrepelin 6 months ago
As a consequence of that definition of computer many things, both analog and quantum, can be considered computers of one sort or another (either specific purpose or general purpose). For instance, your whole body is a computer that takes in visible light and outputs just the information to form your image in different spectra (among many other input/output functions) .Anyway, really enjoyed the video even though, and probably because, it is pretty far out of my field (Which is Quantum Phys LOL).
wkrepelin 6 months ago
Hey man, cool video. About the brain as a computer. The brain is a general purpose computer by definition. A computer takes in one kind of information, performs a "computation" which converts the information and then the computer "outputs" the new information that results from that conversion. That's why an abacus is not a computer but really just a "storage device" (like a hard drive) where the mathematician is the "computer" and is using their brain like a processor and random memory unit.
wkrepelin 6 months ago
I like your video! I have a response I would like u to seriously consider and maybe do a video on.
It seems to me that science recognizes experience as equivalent to consciousness, however I believe this fails to account for "will". I think the true self and consciousness are not found in the "experience-er" but in the "will-er" if you will! After all even machines react to stimuli! Also I believe irrationality is the unique human trait, not rationality. What do you think?
TheJohnVandivier 10 months ago
@TheJohnVandivier
(1)
Thanks for the comments!
I actually touch on this notion in my book (Evolving Towards the Truth). I refer to the self as being more like a community, than a monolithic, singular entity. Among these contributors is a group of "desire modules" (sex, eat, socialize, fear, etc.). But on top of all of these sits a "Top Level Optimizer"; it's responsibility is to optimize pleasure and minimize pain, in the long run. In addition to this intellectual module (cont'd @ 2)
jeffkosmo 10 months ago
@TheJohnVandivier
(2)...cont'd - is a module I refer to as "the likener". It's kind of an "analogy engine" or metaphor machine. When we're curiously inspecting some new person, place or thing, we really don't ask "What is this?" Instead, we ask, "What is this like?". I.e., what else in my memory banks does this object resemble, and in what ways. And how is it different.
I also agree with your skepticism about the term "rational". cont'd @ (3)
jeffkosmo 10 months ago
@TheJohnVandivier
(3) cont'd - I think it's more accurate to say that we "rationalize", whatever has been deemed most optimal by the Top Level Optimizer.
Cheers,
Jeff
jeffkosmo 10 months ago
I guess I will put these here. Consider both of these responses.
watch?v=btQBJ8LdoSg
watch?v=AgQgfb-HkQk
otonanoC 10 months ago
so quantum physics is voodoo?
lookatmepleasesir 1 year ago
I like this debate, very high level, but both guys seem respectful of each other. Kind of nice.
natedaug1 1 year ago
i am a magnet :[]
thrillzonevideos 1 year ago
Regarding electromagnetism: wouldn't NMR devices seriously disturb brain function?
isabel2a 1 year ago
@isabel2a
I haven't heard of NMRs having any effect; however, there's a therapy known as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation that is apparently used for depression and chronic pain.
I don't know a lot about how NMRs actually work, but it may be that the frequencies at which they work are so high that they don't affect the brain - for the same reason that radio frequencies don't either.
jeffkosmo 1 year ago
I did some homework and I am ready to report back to you on my findings.
1) Notice noone here is talking about functional brain areas, neurons, or dendrites.
2) The Hard Problem is therefore, a philosophical issue, not a problem arising from peculiarities of neuroscience.
The Hard Problem: Even given a complete wiring diagram of the brain, can we logically deduce that internal experience is happening? Many say no. It is a question of reality given 1st-person versus 3rd-person views.
otonanoC 1 year ago
Why invoke the spookiness of "EM" when the (not so) simple computational aspect of neural activity itself (disregarding the incidental EM fields) cannot yet be shown NOT to produce "consciousness". A data processing system with "self-interest" (like survival) will surely posses the equivalent of desires. Given the capabilities of acquiring data about the present situation, remembering past situations, responses and results, and comparing "desires" with results, why is this not "conscious"?
prhughes0 2 years ago
In short, why would a system with "self-interest" and the capabilities outlined above, NOT consider itself to be conscious?
prhughes0 2 years ago
@prhughes0
I invoke E M because it is appealingly "non-physical". It is much "closer in kind" to the ethereal, intangible, invisible nature of qualia.
Regarding the "computational aspects of neural activity": as I say in the video, it's not at all clear to me what people mean when they infer that neurons are doing some type of "computation".
Regarding your 2nd question about "why is this not conscious"?, kindly advise, where did I say it wasn't?
Thanks...
jeffkosmo 2 years ago
@jeffkosmo
re EM: You might as well (or better) invoke quantum voodoo since no-one understands that. Computers are much stronger sources of EM than neural columns, are they therefor conscious?
re Computation: At very least, neurons perform logical (could say arithmetic) computations like comparison of exciting and inhibiting inputs. Data processing is computation; it needn't be limited to algebraic equations.
re 2nd ?: If you don't say it, then Google is already conscious.
prhughes0 2 years ago
@prhughes0
Re quantum voodoo: I believe that the reason people invoke it is precisely because nobody understands it.
Re computation: To me, it still seems like a bad choice of words. It implies mathematical calculations, and unnecessarily biases the discussion.
If the biochemical / molecular processes inside neurons are "computational", then I suppose my muscle cells compute, and photosynthesis is computational as well.
Cont'd below...
jeffkosmo 2 years ago
@prhughes0
Re 2nd: Please see my video "Machine Consciousness - What's Required".
I'm looking forward to hearing your comments.
jeffkosmo 2 years ago
Your theory is only a description of immediate perception in cortical columns. This does not explain how we can remember how we felt a week later and then furthermore, report on this feeling in language. (Our brains can remember how we felt when a close friend died 15 years ago. How does that square with your theory?) Cortical column activity is still seen in people who are unconscious.
otonanoC 2 years ago
@otonanoC
I agree. I claimed I was only explaining a single quale; but I also say that "general consciousness", where for instance, you're just observing things, is basically a parade of invidual qualia.
However, I address memory and awareness in another video of mine, "A Theory of Consciousness - Vid 3, as well as in "The Architecture of the Evolved Self."
jeffkosmo 2 years ago
polarity. known/unknown finite/finite
whats the oppo-site of Mystery? ;)
I agree with you though about computationalism. I was recently told that the paradigm we are in is based on that. I said I didn't agree with it. we are NOT machines/computers. But i searched the term at YT and not one fukin vid about it LOL
Ie., does the fish notice the water its swimmin in etc?
zezt 2 years ago
zezt -- Read up on the Chinese Room for why the strong AI model or computationalism is incorrect.
1noen1 2 years ago
Thanks. I was aware of that when I went Googling it.
It seems when you look at history of ideas that the prevailing culture picks the state of the art ideas or technology to define reality for itself.
zezt 2 years ago
"thou are experiece and experiece is thou" of course... consciousness of qualias is the state of receptor and electromagnetism besides being merely the final ground of possible description is fairly explainative.
but "quantum voodoo" is not about qualias as they are induced from outside of the subject. it's about explaining subjective "togetherness" of them and willing of action from the inside of the receptor...
next... explain what makes space ;)
jogayot 2 years ago
You are close. You should read some John Searle. Like him, I'm not convinced of the reality of "qualia". I also think there is a self, though not a metaphysical or spiritual one.
1noen1 2 years ago
@1noen1
To say one has no qualia is to say one has no first-person experience which cannot be correct if one is a normal human.
Drastam 2 years ago
@1noen1
Regarding my thoughts about the self, I go into better detail in Video 4 of my "Dualism" series.
Basically, I fully agree there IS a self; but it's this pluralistic, non-centralized communty of modules and motivators. Not a singularity, but a plurality.
Regarding your comment on q"ualia"; what do you mean by
" I'm not convinced of the reality of "qualia".
Thanks...
jeffkosmo 2 years ago
I don't think the category of qualia is useful. If as Drastam says it is understood to be first person experience then we should just say that and not introduce another level of abstraction. We don't need to and it only complicates things.
For understanding what the self might be I would go to psychoanalysis for whatever their conception of it is. If I understand them right then the self is a fiction that we tell ourselves.
1noen1 2 years ago