/sci/ - Science & Math

What is the neuronal mechanism behind qualia?

Do we have free will?

How do you scientifically tell apart a p-zombie from a human with consciousness?

Is my blue the same as your red?

>>5933742
>>5933743
>>5933748
>>5933750

what makes you believe you are qualified to answer said questions?

>>5933765
Several weeks on google, wikipedia and my favorite source of info: yahoo answers

>>5933742
>>5933743
>>5933748
>>5933750
>What is the neuronal mechanism behind qualia?
Feedback at it's essence, strange-loop in its manifestation, and integrated information in its capacity.

>Do we have free will?
Yes, if you're a compatibilist. No if you're not.

>How do you scientifically tell apart a p-zombie from a human with consciousness?
If the system it is makes it capable of reporting its states, discriminating between stimuli, if it's recursive enough to have access-awareness and access-to-access awareness, it is "conscious." This what it looks like from the outside looking in.

>Is my blue the same as your red?
Unlikely, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that your blue isn't quite like my blue, or your red like my red.

>>5933765
>what makes you believe you are qualified to answer said questions?

I am not the guy you responded to, but there I have no qualifications. Just reasons, and research knowledge I've gathered entirely via proxies like books, researches published on the internet, and yes, google & wikipedia.
Not so much yahoo answers.

>>5933798
You didn't even understand the questions you replied to. Goodbye.

>>5933808

Bye. ;)

>>5933798
> I have no qualifications.

>>5933798
>I am not the guy you responded to, but there I have no qualifications. Just reasons, and research knowledge I've gathered entirely via proxies like books, researches published on the internet, and yes, google & wikipedia.

So none at all. The answers you give show as much/

>>5933863

Hey

>The answers you give show as much/

You wanna say why? ... or are we just bumping this thread? Either way.... *bump*

>>5933872
Fuck off. Your troll attempt failed. Better luck next time.

>>5933742
>>5933743
>>5933748
>>5933750
This stupid asshole is why we can never have a real neuroscience thread on /sci/.

>>5933874

Ah, I see, you think I'm a troll. Honesty is always more productive.

Well I'm not. Nor was my reply intended as flamebait, even though half the posts on /sci/ could be interpreted as such. That being said, you shouldn't be replying to trolls even in spite.

Perhaps you do not like or understand the problems of consciousness. Are you interested in Neuroscience nevertheless? I have plenty of pictures. They are divorced from the publications I took them from, but they are informative.

What are the building blocks of the symbolic representation systems our brains use.

In others words, what are the elementary symbols.

Am I putting myself at risk by taking neutroopics?

>>5933897
Please give a scientific definition of "consciousness". If you (wrongly) believe it is a neuroscientific term, it should have a rigorous definition. Please post that definition.

>>5933737
what about nootropics, pros and cons, is possible to alter the synapsis for the better?

>>5933899

Nootropics is way too broad. But if you are not even doing the necessary research before putting something like a drug into your body, or taking the advice of people advocating large doses of some vitamin, then you're putting yourself at risk for living in general. So... yes, yes you are putting yourself at risk.

>>5933906
Wow, great advice. Impressive. I would of never thought of this on my own. You must be a genius. Truly intelligent and insightful. /sarcasm

You are a fucking retard and your answer is utterly useless. My dog can shit more informative replies.

>>5933903

Oh, okay, I would say that consciousness is the sine qua non phenomenal experience; the 1rst-person fact of our lives. Bringing neuroscience to bear on it is about answering the question of how the brain may be necessitating such a phenomenon-- and how such a system would look like from the outside looking in.

>>5933918
I asked you for a scientific definition and all you come up with is stoner philosophy? Do you not understand the scientific method?

>>5933910

Maybe you should do some more specific research on the particular nootropic you're interested in? Asking on 4chan is not the best place for advice as to what you should put into your body. You should exercise better judgment in these kind of things. With this in mind, I am sorry I am not helpful to you.

Do you think strong-AI will ever be possible?

Your credibility hinges on how you answer this question

>>5933750
is my cold your hot?
Is my push your pull?

I know nothing of neuroscience, but I understand sensation is based on a collection of opposing pairs; deep touch vs soft touch; hot vs cold; blue vs not-blue (red-green aka yellow) etc

>>5933936
>Your credibility hinges on how you answer this question

Oh silly. There is nothing in this thread that can fully establish the credibility, or lack thereof, for anyone. Don't take conversations on any of these boards so seriously.

>Do you think strong-AI will ever be possible?

Yes.

>>5933737
Why are people so fuckin stupid?

>>5933947
>>5933936
"Strong AI" is not even a well defined concept. No AI researcher gives a shit about your childish fiction book fantasies. AI is task specific.

>>5933947
Can you please stop trolling this board?

>>5933947
forgot the obligatory pic.

How close are we to completely understanding sleep, and more specifically, dreaming?

WTF is this troll shit?

OP openly admits having zero credentials and knowing absolutely nothing about the subject. His answers are uninformative at best, some of them even blatantly wrong. The only information posted ITT is his collection of completely random and unrelated neuroscience graphics he found on google images.

>>5933956

I'm not trolling. nor am I regular troll to this bored...whom you seem to be familiar with. But since you asked, I'll stop bumping this thread. It seems to be generating more heat than light anyway... and you guys seem rather sensitive because of abuse perpetrated by /x/ and other occultists.

>>5933970
OKAY, okay, first of all... calllllm dowwwwn. I am not OP, nor am I purposely trolling. Also, I didn't claim to know absolutely nothing, I merely said that I am not a neuroscientist. There are plenty of non-neuroscientists interested in neuroscience. You could say 4chan is probably full of them. /sci/ was made in a community surrounded by people who aren't directly related to academia. These are the people who'll be posting most of the time.

again, I'm not a troll. I'm not trying to piss you off--- i'm trying to love you.

Now... all that being said... do you like the pictures? ehm? I have plenty, if you feel that it is the only interesting thing about this thread, perhaps I can just post those... without bumping the thread, of course.

hippocampal fldr

01

01

02

http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/s4/chapter05.html
Go down to 5.3 in that page, they have a beautiful little interactive graphic showing the large structure of the hippocampus and fornix

>>5933765
It's what I study/studied in college. I like discussing it in general. I want to encourage better discussion of general neuro on /sci/.

>>5933896
What? If you are talking about modeling the brain then I'm not sure if I would suggest that there is some standard set of symbols.

You can get a feel for modeling on Wiki @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neuron_models

>>5933899
>>5933905
I don't actually know much about nootropics.

Also,
>synapsis
Is not the word you are looking for. But it is possible that synapses are highly efficient already. Even in something like the Purkinje cell, the synapses & dendrite sections may be at a near theoretical operating efficiency in vivo.

See:
Brunel, N., Hakim, V., Isope, P., Nadal, J. P., & Barbour, B. (2004). Optimal information storage and the distribution of synaptic weights: perceptron versus Purkinje cell. Neuron, 43(5), 745-757.

Clopath, C., & Brunel, N. (2013). Optimal Properties of Analog Perceptrons with Excitatory Weights. PLoS computational biology, 9(2), e1002919.

>>5933936
I'm not a computer scientist but I think that a legit AI is possible.

>>5933963
Ha. I was just having a discussion with some neuro guys on Friday about this very topic. The agreement was that we are far away from understanding it. Something neat that came up was the concept that memory consolidation during sleep may be slightly improved by the introduction of associative stimuli that correspond with the memory of interest.

>>5933970
I fell asleep for a nap after I posted the frisbee dog.

>>5933951
>AI is task specific.

Nice one dumb shit but this is the precise definition of what is NOT strong AI.

OP, do you believe whole-brain emulation = strong AI?

más preguntas por favor

Also, I have a question if anyone cares to try: Is there a staple book for undergrad/early grad level cellular neurobiology or cellular neurophysiology?

>>5934185
>OP, do you believe whole-brain emulation = strong AI?
Again, I'm not a computer scientist, but it may be difficult to have emergent properties like consciousness from an emulation. I am hopeful, however, because I don't feel like emulating the brain is out of reach.

>>5934194
Do you really think that consciousness is an emergent property? How can something physical be more than the sum of its parts?

>>5934194
>consciousness

lel

>>5934205
>How can something physical be more than the sum of its parts?

When its parts can do things together that can't be done apart. Otherwise, it isn't. You're question suggests an old naive reductionist belief that most scientists do not seem to have anymore.

>>5934205
I was trying to find the video that helped to explain it to me, but it remains elusive. So for example, you can have temperature and pressure as properties of a gas. Just scale that up to the cellular level, tissue level, and organ level.

>>5933737
How many raccoons is that guy in your gif throwing?

If you were to remove two identical pieces of brain, and swap them around, would there be any effect?

>>5934346
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHN-f6xTzsY

>>5934370
frisbee_dog.jpg

...probably not.

>>5934194
>emergent property

Hahah, oh wow. You're just as bad as the troll who tried to impersonate you.

Bump for questions.

>>5934618
What.

>>5934383
>frisbee_dog.jpg

Why would you say something like that? You realize this is anonymous. You have zero credentials here. I have no idea who you are or what institution you studied at. "frisbee_dog.jpg" might be an acceptable answer for a professor to give in front of a 300 person auditorium so she can answer more questions. It works because that professor has credentials. One is justified in accepting such a curt answer.

Here on 4chan you have no such credentials, you are anonymous. the arguments have to stand on their own. They have to have enough information in them so that someone could learn something from it if they are wrong.

The statement you made is so useless you would have been better off saying nothing at all from it. The only thing that comment is useful for is to make you feel better about being in a position to make such a definitive statement. So what you said is purely selfish, you didn't say it for the benefit for any other person on this planet but you. You are verbally masterbating in public. You aren't even making a joke. If you made a post with no information to be useful then it should at least be funny.

You added absolutely nothing to this conversation. Your post is a waste of space.

>>5934963
I don't like to leave people hanging.

>>5934963
Also, if you really want to know why I posted such a response is because it appears that such a question is a troll question. I did answer it with "...probably not." btw.

>>5934957
What are your thoughts on quantum cognition
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cognition

>>5935042
I'm not familiar with it but so I'll say that I'm highly supportive of interdisciplinary approaches considering that I specialize in comp neuro vs the traditional wet lab. If you have something specific then I can see if I can provide some clarity.

I'm sort of guessing most images are stored sort of like vector graphics. Any elucidation?

How long until we can finally get objective diagnosis for psychological disorders?