[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 48 KB, 562x800, brains.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
984535 No.984535 [Reply] [Original]

The mind is nothing but an emergent quality of a sufficiently complex neural network. Consciousness exists as a physical brain-state, its spacial dimensions consisting of electrical activity, chemical interactions, and the tissues that support them. The mind is not some metaphysical force or transcendent entity - it does not exist apart from the material structure of the brain.

Your turn, Dualists.

>> No.984554

Come back with less pretentiousness.

>> No.984558

bumpito ergo sum.

>> No.984566

>>984554

You can correctly spell "pretentiousness."

I find it hard to believe that you are offended by the tone of my post.

>> No.984569

Could my sentience then have arisen from a computing machine that can solve tasks at the rate of teraflops or would that machine be lacking some characteristic present in an organicly based brain?

>> No.984571

I was just thinking that OP.

>> No.984582

>>984569

It seems to me that if we can build a sufficiently powerful machine, that machine can have its own consciousness.

With the continuing acceleration of technological advance, this question is becoming more and more pertinent - we very well may have an answer sooner than we think.

>> No.984590

>mind is nothing but an emergent quality of a sufficiently complex neural network

agreed.

>Consciousness exists as a physical brain-state

consciousness is not the mind anymore than you are the clothes you are wearing. they are not the same thing.

>The mind is not some metaphysical force or transcendent entity- it does not exist apart from the material structure of the brain.

acceptable

>> No.984603

My thoughts essentially.

When I am 'sad' how is this different from a machine being 'sad' with a sadness switch. The machine is simply being given a "don't do that" command which it cannot disobey, a simple on/off response. I, however, am undergoing hundreds if not thousands of highly complex processes. I am 'sad' for a variety of reasons. "Don't do that", "Do that" and "Why do that" and all kinds of other questions are going through my head in the background, and all of these processes collectively make up me being sad.

Alternatively, what do I see when I look at my cans of fizzy drinks across the room. I can stereotype and identify them by colour (bright orange), shape (cans), that shiny plasticy wrap (shape and texture), bare metal areas, position in the room based on where they were last left (location), as well as the memories of purchasing (which itself may be made of many different processes) and a whole load of other thoughts. Now take a robot like those in the talking heads experiment. It looks at a coloured shape and it sees either a shape or a coloured object.

You're not going to get artificial sentience and neurological models from a 'top down' symbolical approach, you're going to have to start at the bottom and work upwards. Civilisation, technology, science, they're pyramids of progress. With each building block we put in place we move inexorably higher - so it shall be with learning the secrets of sentience.

>> No.984611

>>984590

>consciousness is not the mind anymore than you are the clothes you are wearing. they are not the same thing.

I wasn't trying to imply that they were the same thing, even if they are dependent on the same stuff for existence.

But if the mind is simply an emergent quality of a sufficiently complex brain, couldn't consciousness be an emergent quality of a sufficiently complex mind? In that case, the one seems to kind of meld into the other.

It's just an idea - but I wonder how you would differentiate between the mind and consciousness.

>> No.984612
File: 39 KB, 500x470, Proceed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
984612

to play devil's advocate: quantum entanglement.

your move

>> No.984615

Why do 'I' experience 'my' consciousness and not that of another being? Whatever lead to my consciousness arising, since it is nothing unique, can arise again giving the right circumstance and input. I will live forever bitches.

>> No.984617

>>984590
>they are not the same thing.

consciousness and the mind, that is.

>> No.984621

>>984582
our brains are a little bit more than just 0 and 1.

Maybe if we use neurotic transistors or something.

>> No.984632

>>984582
I don't think consciousness is going to spontaneously arise. You need a means in which the system can step outside of itself and realise that it is a thing.

HOWEVER the basic argument seems pretty sound to me. Lots of little processes (and I mean lots) can through emergence throw up much more complex behaviour. I think that's what's going to happen. We're going to have to design for it to happen, but it'll happen sooner than we think if we keep building from the ground up with insect to lizard to mammal to monkey level robotics.

>> No.984650

>>984612

OP is a babbling illiterate when it comes to quantum mechanics.

Is this the whole "we can alter the behavior of subatomic particles by collapsing waves of probability through simply observing them" thing?

>> No.984654

>>984615
>>984615
>>984615
>>984615
>>984615
>>984615
>>984615

i've long held this belief. and i knew it wasn't unique enough to be my own. but i have found no solid source for it in philosophy. do you know one?

>> No.984660

>>984621
Possibly not. They might just be LOTS of ones and zeroes.

The brain is a turing device - it takes in input and applies processes to create an output. Neurons have also been shown to act as logic gates. The brain is a sloppy computer, but one capable of parallel processing on an extremely advanced level.

So why are we self-aware when machines which have so much more raw power than us are not? That's a good question. Something is missing - the right programmes, or perhaps the right organisation. Possibly millions of primitive impulses and programmes could spontaneously lead to the creation of incredibly advanced impulses that we never planned for (like evolution throwing up a race of language using music lovers).

There was an interesting experiment done in the 50s, some chap made a (very) primitive robot called Elsie. It was programmed to go find light to recharge and leave the bright light when it was full. Effectively it created a rabbit-like robot that would drive back to its' "hutch" whenever it was "hungry".

>> No.984670

>>984650
for instance, what you do to one particle can effect a completely isolated particle millions of miles away for no largely apparent reason if they're "entangled"

idk why. not that well versed.

so this would open up the floor to "mysticism"
not that i believe in it

>> No.984669

No scientist should be a duellist. There is no immaterium where all mental activity is held. Our brains are not inter-dimensional gateways (which is implied by the notion of non-physical alternate realms of purely mental activity).

>> No.984679

>>984660
Even if they are conscious you couldn't tell lol

Their output is based on human programming.

>> No.984690

>>984615
>>984654

Well, if YOUR consciousness is dependent on the particular configuration of neurons in YOUR brain, then your consciousness can't leap out and nestle into someone else's brain. YOUR consciousness only comes to be because of the electrical signals and chemicals in YOUR brain, so YOU can't experience any being's consciousness except YOUR own.

This is actually one of the problems with Dualism - if our minds can exist independently of our material brains, why can't our minds just float out of our brains and into the brain of another being, from which we can experience someone else's consciousness? Since we can't, it seems that our consciousness really does emerge from the electrical and chemical activity of our brains.

>> No.984693

>>984611

>I wasn't trying to imply that they were the same thing, even if they are dependent on the same stuff for existence.

it is not clear to me that they are dependent on the same stuff. while the mind is dependent on the brain, it is not clear to me that consciousness is dependent on either.

>But if the mind is simply an emergent quality of a sufficiently complex brain, couldn't consciousness be an emergent quality of a sufficiently complex mind?

i do not think so. my reasoning for this is subtle, and involves the physical foundations - or lack thereof - for the present. consciousness and the the present are closely related to one another. as are the mind and the brain. but the relationship between consciousness/present and mind/brain is the tricky bit.

It's just an idea - but I wonder how you would differentiate between the mind and consciousness.

>suppose i am sitting in my house gazing out of my living room window, and you are in my front yard. you and i can both see my house, but obviously it looks quite different to each of us as i see it from the inside, and you from the outside.

so it is the distinction between the mind and the brain. my mind is nothing from than my brain seen from the inside.

my consciousness is that which sees my brain from the inside. and yours from the outside.

>> No.984705

>>984690

mind and consciousness are not the same thing.

>> No.984708

>>984690
misses the point

>> No.984729

>>984693

now that i have posted i see i munged the greentext. my apologies.

>> No.984731

>>984708

Alrighty - how did I miss the point, and what do you think the point is?

>> No.984739

>>984693

>it is not clear to me that they are dependent on the same stuff. while the mind is dependent on the brain, it is not clear to me that consciousness is dependent on either.

You take this thought to some interesting places, but why should we believe that consciousness is dependent on anything OTHER than the material brain?

>> No.984757

>>984569

Processing power, and lot of it! Our neurons are fairly simple on a processing level but in such massive parallel they become tremendously powerful.

>>984612

No. There is very little (read, nothing) on the quantum scale that effects our though patterns. In fact you can model the processing capabilities of a neuron using just classical mechanics.

>> No.984837

>>984739

believe what you like or what you are comfortable believing, but consider this: the present.

when physicists discuss time and the "problems" surrounding it, the conversation generally revolves around the asymmetry between the past and the future. the arrow of time.

but while interesting, the issue obscures and even more basic problem with time: the nature of the present itself.

what is it that makes this moment - as opposed to all the other moments in the history of the universe or in the course of your life - now?

while physicists have a lot to say about the nature of the arrow of time, you will find they have precious little to say about the nature of the present.

so what is it that makes this moment now? it is my contention that it is your consciousness.

it certainly can't be your brain. your brain is just another physical system, no different than a clock in this respect.

so your consciousness is doing something that your brain alone can not.

it is my fundamental contention on this issue that the physical problem of the present and the neurobiological problem of consciousness are, in fact, the very same problem seen from the perspective of two different scientific disciplines.

further, i contend that this problem can not have a satisfactory scientific resolution simply because the phenomena being dealt with - either from the perspective of the present or of consciousness - is not objective and so not amenable to treatment by the scientific method.

>> No.984844

>>984837

I think I'll have to read some Heidegger before I respond to this further.

>> No.984871

>>984844

ok =)

i'd drop you my email, but i don't really want all of 4chan to have it. also, i am sad to say i don't check it all that often.

>> No.984876
File: 21 KB, 200x246, face58_5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
984876

I'll never understand why there are still dualists. I thought that stuff disappeared along with the idea that sickness was caused by demons back in the medieval times.

>> No.984953

>>984876

well speaking as a once ardent monist, now ardent dualist, i'm not really sure what to tell you...

>> No.984964

>>984953
Well what are you claiming exactly? That the human mind is the one clump of matter in the universe that isn't completely dictated by physical laws?

>> No.984978

>> emergent quality of a sufficiently complex neural network.

Explain how and why it emerges dumbfuck. This explanation is no better than god(s) did it, and probably wrong since you can be in a coma with no less complex of a brain.

>> No.984993

>>984978
>dumbfuck
I'm ignoring you now kramerr.

>> No.985020

>>984964

see:
>>984590
>>984693
>>984837