tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7519978453568475869..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: SCIENCE Questions: What Is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18557505296407328522012-07-21T14:50:20.577-04:002012-07-21T14:50:20.577-04:00I notice you didn't answer Tyro's question...I notice you didn't answer Tyro's question on how you're saying consciousness doesn't exist because you can't see it under a microscope author.<br /><br />This is just treating conciousness as a particle. There is verifiable a difference in conciousness depending on various forms of brain damage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43360077788854779022009-10-08T11:36:28.086-04:002009-10-08T11:36:28.086-04:00The funniest things happen when a conscious being ...The funniest things happen when a conscious being tries to explain it has no consciousness. There will come a time when these forms of scientism will be regarded in the same light as how we know today religious dogmas also captured peoples minds in the past. Or how the financial bubbles explode from to much inflation. There is no smallest particle, 2000 years of scientific fail about these matters should guide as a big hint, unfortunately, it doesn't. Does the fish know it swims in the water..? nope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51759849407957414282008-03-22T18:16:00.000-04:002008-03-22T18:16:00.000-04:00Consciousness is a *sensation*. Ah, but *which* se...<I><BR/>Consciousness is a *sensation*. <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Ah, but *which* sensation? How do you define it, so you know it is unique and sufficient, as opposed to say a mental model of "self"?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10033318665614956353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25151745664333575462008-03-20T23:34:00.000-04:002008-03-20T23:34:00.000-04:00I am a biologist by profession. "Why does consciou...I am a biologist by profession. "Why does consciousness exist?" and "What is consciousness" are one of the most interesting questions about nature and biology to me, and I believe it to be the most important question that human beings will ever ask and will ever answer.<BR/><BR/>But how do you study consciousness? How do you study the inner workings of it? You can't disect it like a fetal pig, can you? Oh, yes - you can.<BR/><BR/>Anyone who answers "no" to the above question has never had an intense psychedelic drug trip, has never felt what it is like to have the lobes of your brain miscommunicate and malfunction first hand. Consciousness arises from organized brain function - brain function arises from an unbelievably complicated network of neurons, communicating through chemical neurotransmitters.<BR/><BR/>So, how do you study consciousness? How do you "disect" it? You do it through analyzing the activity of chemical agonists or antagonists of neurotransmitters and their subsequent effects on brain activity, along with the much less scientific and objective (but still useful) first hand accounts of those undergoing the consciousness alteration.<BR/><BR/>But maybe that's way too "out there" for some people. Guess we'll never know what consciousness truly is then because honestly, that's the only way I can see to get to the bottom of it.<BR/><BR/>Until then, I'll just experiment on myself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82631718450370551722007-10-11T10:28:00.000-04:002007-10-11T10:28:00.000-04:00"Illusion"? Consciousness is a *sensation*. Though..."Illusion"? Consciousness is a *sensation*. Though most of the brain works autonomically, there are apparently aspects of the mind which include *realization*. There is little doubt that this is an evolved biological process, and is a result of internal modeling of the world, a model that can be manipulated in order to learn and exercise forethought. <BR/><BR/>Science has historically had great difficulties understanding brain function. But these sensations can be expressed, so the study of consciousness has largely been within philosophy. <BR/><BR/>Data from Star Trek is not only conscious, but has self-consciousness, that is, he has an internal model of himself and can see himself as others see him. This is an important trait in human social interactions and bonding.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45534233775120310482007-05-30T21:07:00.000-04:002007-05-30T21:07:00.000-04:00I apologize for that, I was a bit angry haha. You ...I apologize for that, I was a bit angry haha. <BR/>You are right. I actually saw that long interview of dennet,and he said some things I agree with. But first let me tell you about where he was just horribly wrong. <BR/>His idea that consciuosness is the result of some part of the brian attaining "king of the mountain" status in the competition with other parts of the brain.... don't ask me what the bleeep that has to do with consciousness. That's why he did so poorly at explaining why that wouldn't have already been attained in computer programs. A sad spectacle. Conscious computers live among us, Dennet!! hahaa <BR/><BR/>I think consciousness has to do with some kind of cognitive recursivity, such as when you "know you know". Consciousness is also very much expanded in our species by language and interactions with others. Maybe Dennet should consider these ideas before he just solves it all by invoking some kind of natural selection among brain parts. Ideological darwinism: pseudoscientific crap. Is there anything evolutionary that is not explained by a darwinian competition of some kind in Dennets mind? <BR/><BR/>That being said, I can say that both he and I are compatibilists, in that we can see how free will is is not about determinism or indeterminism, and that determinism is in no way contrary to free will, which is more than I can say for you and zerod, who seem to conclude that determinism implies no free will or consciousness. <BR/>I agree that we must have a focus about what he calls "agent" and that I would simply call organism and the way the organism encounters the environmental circumstances. But thinking it is all about avoidance is goofy.<BR/><BR/>It is also evident that both Dennet and I discard the "just an epiphenomenon" argument against consciousness. This is specially so in organisms, who are all about cyclical phenomenons; the epiphenomenon actually bears on the conditions that give rise to it. That is what autocatalysis, autopoiesis, self-production and self-organization are all about. <BR/><BR/>THAT is the biology of it. NOT natural selection. Dennet!! You hear me???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44109500186196787012007-05-30T18:55:00.000-04:002007-05-30T18:55:00.000-04:00alipio asks,Now we praise Dennet, Larry? How sophi...alipio asks,<BR/><BR/><I>Now we praise Dennet, Larry? How sophisticated does his ultradarwinian adaptationism seems to you?</I><BR/><BR/>I think you know the answer. I am totally opposed to Dennett's stupid views on evolution. But just because someone is wrong on some things does not mean they're wrong on all things. It's a huge mistake to assume that.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30415409263837911832007-05-30T17:36:00.000-04:002007-05-30T17:36:00.000-04:00[Sorry for comment delay - I am currently backtrac...[Sorry for comment delay - I am currently backtracking.] <BR/><BR/>"I'm interested in why there is an illusion of free will, which is essentially the question of how our mind arises from our brains."<BR/><BR/>That is definitely a question for neuroscience. But it is complex and many faceted. I doubt they use "free will" much. We need observable properties. (See Moran's comments.)<BR/><BR/>"This sort of determinism does not rule out probabilistic laws of nature such as radioactive decay."<BR/><BR/>Exactly - as QM combines continuity and discreteness, it also combines determinism with genuine stochasticity. It follows from maximizing observability from the wave function (no hidden variables).Torbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02022193326058378221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8601342536733486742007-05-29T14:43:00.000-04:002007-05-29T14:43:00.000-04:00iI my case, I understand perfectly well the argume...iI my case, I understand perfectly well the argument, and was enthusiastic about it as an adolescent science warrior. But in retrospective, after all that I have gone through, it's silly reductionism is now so patently false, as well as pratcically defied by opposition to bad notions of "supernatural" free will. Now it seems juts stpid to me.You guys live on the enthusiams of my prehistory. <BR/><BR/>Now we praise Dennet, Larry? How sophisticated does his ultradarwinian adaptationism seems to you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88347094810681119032007-05-29T13:44:00.000-04:002007-05-29T13:44:00.000-04:00ned,As I'm sure you're aware, the discussions abou...ned,<BR/><BR/>As I'm sure you're aware, the discussions about consciousness and free will are very confusing to people who have never thought about them. The first step is simply to make them aware of the fact that their gut feelings have been challenged by some pretty serious thinkers (like Dennett). It will take some time for them to come to grips with the idea that what they see as self-evident may not be evident to everyone else.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83030858275622642082007-05-29T09:33:00.000-04:002007-05-29T09:33:00.000-04:00It seems that none of the critics have listened to...It seems that none of the critics have listened to the interview with Daniel Dennett that I linked.<BR/><BR/>I don't try to summarize it because I probably couldn't do justice to Dennett.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that Dennett has answered the objections still being given.Ned Luddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00599196155953996432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86170521629812797192007-05-28T20:44:00.000-04:002007-05-28T20:44:00.000-04:00To have a will, first you have to WANT something. ...To have a will, first you have to WANT something. You decide and do exactly, precisely, what you WANT. The closer we get to what we want, the closer we get to a truly free will. There is no sense in talking about free WILL without the WILL in it; no matter how powerful and immaterial you were. <BR/><BR/>Now why do we want the things we want? Because of the way we are: our mammalian emotions, our material -historical circumstance, etc. We act according to our identity, in other words, because of the particular kind of structure that we present. This why it certainly does make sense to talk of "I", or of "Larry". We are not identical. We have individual identities, product of different histories of structural transformations of our true selves: our material bodies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23618547626606123122007-05-28T20:25:00.000-04:002007-05-28T20:25:00.000-04:00f you think there is more to consciousness or free...f you think there is more to consciousness or free will than neurons firing in response to other neurons,<BR/><BR/>The autonomy even of a single neuron is greater than what you think: it does not necessarily fire in response to other neurons. It can fire itself off periodically, for instance, or whetehr it will or will not fire off depends onthe different conditions in which that neuron may be found. This is the whole idea of the interneuron: it can interfere with what would otherwise would be an automatic reflex. And guess what. Most of the brain is interneurons, where most neuronal activity cycles itself. Only a fraction of this activity is involved in sensory inputs. <BR/><BR/>How's that for autonomy? When your main reference point for your own dynamics is YOURSELF, and not something directing you form ouside. That is what autnomy is about,and anyone can see that properties thta we associate with free will are much more manifest in this kind of system than say...data's chair.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88540856875313972592007-05-28T20:09:00.000-04:002007-05-28T20:09:00.000-04:00and what about data's chair?and what about data's chair?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31689927128225178242007-05-28T19:43:00.000-04:002007-05-28T19:43:00.000-04:00As for Data, he has as much consciousness and free...As for Data, he has as much consciousness and free will as the rest of us...we're just all cogs in the big machine man. As for posing questions about tv robots - I much prefer talking about the Cylons on Battlestar Gallactica -they're much hotter :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65366702552013281522007-05-28T19:34:00.000-04:002007-05-28T19:34:00.000-04:00In response to Alipio, I'm not saying there is no ...In response to Alipio, I'm not saying there is no phenomenon there - there is, that being the transmission of information via neurons in our heads that leads to our impression of consciousness. Way back I used the word supernatural to try to get across that if you think there is more to consciousness or free will than neurons firing in response to other neurons, then you're appealing to something beyond the natural realm. You know...I'm getting the feeling you're not going to be convinced...don't know why, just a hunch :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76014136807087172952007-05-28T19:24:00.000-04:002007-05-28T19:24:00.000-04:00DATA most definitley had much more free will than ...DATA most definitley had much more free will than the chair he was sitting on, but you guys seems to notice no difference. Data was highly autonomous, and most of the things he did depended as a result of what was going on inside his body. he obviously has levels of rfree will that for all practical purposes are identical to those of a human.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50616743973347866662007-05-28T19:19:00.000-04:002007-05-28T19:19:00.000-04:00Well I'm glad you had such a wonderful personal ex...Well I'm glad you had such a wonderful personal experience, Larry. Hehe. But you know what you feel when religious people say things like that to us.<BR/><BR/>What I'm saying is that it is idiotically square and paranoid to act as if these notions did not relate to any actual phenomenon at all... you just wave it away as an illusion, an epiphenomenon you don't want to ever think about scientifially again. You have what these words, that describe normal experiences, right alongside the tooth fairy and the spaghetti monster. WTF?? You're running away, and it shows. <BR/><BR/>Probably becuase you have no idea what to say. Most scientistic people ARE, after all, kind of handicapped for handling these higher-level topics. And then, of course, there is fear that if you acknowledge them any further than the "illlusion" you will be on the side of..."magic" (By the way, epiphenomenon is not = to illusion). As I explained, this plays into those who argue our natural experience of consciousness and free will is magical. You prefer to deny the phenomenon iself, a natural experience, before even trying any truly scientific approach. That is not only unsicentific, it is intellectual cowardice becuase you have bought into the enemy's argument. As plain as that. <BR/><BR/>If ever the creationists wanted a scientist saying that wat is obvious is an "illusion", they will hit jackpot right here. But that is not science. It is the ideology of reductionist scientism, and it's wrong. <BR/><BR/>Again: acknowledging that we experience free will, that we experiece life as individuals who want things and can make our own choices (and be responsible for them), does not require pleading that any magic exists. You just have some explaining to do. With the aid of philosophy, with the aid of behavioural sciences, psychology... is this too difficult to grasp? <BR/>Can you hold your horses a bit longer before declaring a topic to be woo and then pressing your "no free will spirituality" on the rest?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74842924803196561532007-05-28T18:39:00.000-04:002007-05-28T18:39:00.000-04:00I think there are some questions that are so impor...I think there are some questions that are so important they need to be part of the education of every university student. <BR/><BR/>One of them is "Is there a God?" Another is "Is there such a thing as free will?"<BR/><BR/>I remember how shaken I was when I realized that free will was an illusion. It was like a veil had been lifted. I hope everyone gets to tackle that problem and I'm delighted that some of you are coming face-to-face with the challenge for the very first time.<BR/><BR/>It makes blogging worthwhile.<BR/><BR/>Consciousness is more difficult but discussions about consciousness are excellent ways to hone your skills in logic. If by "conscious" you simply mean the state of not being unconscious then you can make a good case. But I think most people mean it to be more than that. Unfortunately, most of them won't commit to a definition that we can come to grips with.<BR/><BR/>Why hasn't anyone answered my question about Data? Is he conscious? Does he have free will? (This is a thought experiment.)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32203329942002619172007-05-28T15:56:00.000-04:002007-05-28T15:56:00.000-04:00Alipio said: ...well, he said a buncha stuff. Dud...Alipio said: ...well, he said a buncha stuff. Dude, relax, I only said nads, and you're throwin' out the F-bomb and everything :-). I'm actually not an overly pessimistic or bleak person - for me, I just accept my undelying opinion that my "consciousness" and "free will" are illusions, but then I go on living the illusion. I'm reductionist yes, but I find the complexity in nature astounding and amazing and completely worth studying including the epiphenomenon of consciousness. Oh, by the way, I'm a white guy with pretty average equipment :-) Hey, I can even allow myself to believe in love. I like this quote from Carl Sagan - "For small creatures such as we, the vastness is only bearable through love."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86893721973126535892007-05-28T15:26:00.000-04:002007-05-28T15:26:00.000-04:00This is bad. I haven't been able to bring myself...This is bad. I haven't been able to bring myself to comment for days. But after all, I thought, it is positive that larry is at least talking about this. I guess that's what makes this blog better than boryngula.<BR/><BR/>First, there is this notion that "Consciousness" and "free will" are completely useless to science as in some knee-jerk reacticon whose source is quite clear: reductionist scientism and paranoid miraclephobia. (This "just an epiphneomenon" thing is for true begginers, guys. You ARE silly reductionists!!) <BR/><BR/>I think "Consciuousness" refers to some degree of awareness, as in capable of conceiving of ourselves (and others) somehow like an outside observer. This kind of cognitive recursivity is of course much greater with language, which allows us to make descriptions of descriptions<BR/><BR/>Now can you plaese tell me WHAT THE FUCK is supernatural about that??? Why on earth do you deny the phenomenon flat out? I can't belive you make such a silly mistake: to think that determinisim somehow undermines the utility of any notion of cosciousness is useless. <BR/><BR/>It's the mere result of stupid, brainless miraclephobia: That is, you're seeing enemy where they don't exist. You are boxing with your own shadow. <BR/><BR/>I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist but I also know they to consciousness, subconsciousness and uncosciousness in definite, useful ways.<BR/><BR/>Same about free will. Only if you buy into the religious crap argument, that free will cannot have a natural explanation, will you be stupid enough to deny free will in itself. <BR/>Obviously we experience life as individuals who want things and make our own decisions accordingly. <BR/><BR/>Zerod, I know you like to think your balls are enormous, and that you say the truth no one wants to hear, blbablba. You'd better know, You're no hero. If yout think you message is bleak that does not make it automatically true. Unless you're a pessimistic idiot. <BR/>Those are not reasons for you to be right, not even arguments you're just making your silliest motivations evident for everyone to see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16900566762008181252007-05-28T15:14:00.000-04:002007-05-28T15:14:00.000-04:00zeroD says,Merci Larry! Where were you on the 'Met...zeroD says,<BR/><BR/><I>Merci Larry! Where were you on the 'Methodological Naturalism' thread where I also brought this up...I needed your back up :-)</I><BR/><BR/>You were doing fine all by yourself. :-)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49395454530490853132007-05-28T13:52:00.000-04:002007-05-28T13:52:00.000-04:00Larry Moran saidFree will" is also a concept witho...Larry Moran said<BR/><I><BR/>Free will" is also a concept without biological significance. If you contrast free will with determinism then free will is certainly an illusion. The world is deterministic whether we like it or not. (Unless you're a religious person then "free will" can exist outside of the deterministic world.)<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Merci Larry! Where were you on the 'Methodological Naturalism' thread where I also brought this up...I needed your back up :-)<BR/><BR/>It is soooo an epiphenomenon. Some people just don't have the nads to admit it...ahem, coughing...Wolfwalker. We are all not as important or special as we think we are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8383533104449303192007-05-27T19:15:00.000-04:002007-05-27T19:15:00.000-04:00The onus is on you to prove that "consciousness" m...<I>The onus is on you to prove that "consciousness" means anything more than the simple fact that our brain is functioning.</I><BR/><BR/>You can easily turn that around and say "the onus is on you to prove than science <I>means</I> anything at all without consciousness". Can one exist without the other? Yes, and guess which one it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26506009684961394792007-05-27T13:05:00.000-04:002007-05-27T13:05:00.000-04:00Larry says...The onus is on you to prove that "con...Larry says...<BR/><I>The onus is on you to prove that "consciousness" means anything more than the simple fact that our brain is functioning.</I><BR/><BR/>So is this just a question of definitions and semantics?<BR/><BR/>I suppose the observation of sleep, comas and the brain damage I mentioned earlier (where people have no "conscious" awareness of sight but still process visual stimuli) all show that the brain can function without consciousness, that many of the brains functions are divided between a conscious and subconscious level.<BR/><BR/><I>If you think that consciousness is a real biological phenomenon then you better be prepared to define it in a way that's testable. Heck, I'd be happy if you would just define it in a way that's debatable.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, I'm not a biologist or a neurologist so I don't think I can give you the level of precision that they can. I can't think of any quantitative means for measuring consciousness or studying it except through interviews, which would make cross-species studies extremely difficult, so while I see no reason to think that other animals aren't conscious, I can not see any means of demonstrating that they are, either.<BR/><BR/>Within humans, conscious thoughts are those which they are aware of, the sensations that they are aware of experiencing. As I pointed out, we can demonstrate that some neural processing is conscious such as when people "see" the world, but the images which we are aware of are the result of much processing which we are not aware of (unconscious or subconscious). For example, how our brains fill in the gaps in our blind spots, or how patients with brain damage show that they can have no conscious awareness of sight and yet are still able to point at the location of objects.<BR/><BR/>In the last couple examples, we can test them through interviews. We can test ourselves by studying our our brains process visual illusions where we are aware of the final result but not of any of the processing which creates this. We can examine patients with brain damage and show that they don't have awareness of sight (or other sensations) and yet their brains are processing the stimuli.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You have brought up the issue of definitions several times and I'm not sure I've made it precise enough for you. As with the definition of "life", it's probably going to be imprecise or artificially precise since it's likely to be a continuum. For example, people who have no conscious awareness of seeing anything on their left side or cannot consciously recognize their own face (yet will react to mirrors). I hope it is at least falsifiable in the extremes, and is sufficient to show that it is a real phenomenon worth acknowledging.<BR/><BR/>It strikes me that, since everyone has the experience of having a mind, of unconsciousness, of perceptual illusions, that instead at best you could try to argue that "consciousness" isn't precise enough for you. I don't see how you can justify the argument that it doesn't exist, and I haven't seen you offer any argument to that extent, beyond saying you can't see consciousness under a microscope.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.com