3 ms·

I don't think consciousness/qualia requires a body, but definitely a brain (excluding plantlife to keep this short). I think it's a dynamic phenomenon involving

I don't think consciousness/qualia requires a body, but definitely a brain (excluding plantlife to keep this short). I think it's a dynamic phenomenon involving waves. As I've said, all neuroscience data is consistent with it being waves. I think neurons do 4 distinct types of things. They 1) gather data (sensory inputs) and route it to 2) locations where it's oriented into 3D spatial shapes that function essentially like "Fractal Radio Antenna" [for lack of better description] where the 3) waves resonate to create what we call qualia, and then 4) the waves induce a current/action going to motor neurons. It works similar to a television set working in reverse, with the screen being an eye, and everything going backwards in time, not forwards. Pixels are sensors, not lights, in the TV analogy. Thousands of pixels are input (rods/cones) and it all routs to (not from) an antenna. You can explain all of that with Maxwellian Electrodynamics. There's no "woo woo" there. It's physics. If you look at it like this, you can see that most of the neural network wiring is I/O and signal routing, except for the antenna-like structures, the best of which being the Corpus Callosum and Hippocampus, which evolved first, which is why they're deepest in the brain. Their physical shape is critical, because they are both indeed functioning as a kind of resonator/antenna, and are getting memories (what most of consciousness is built on is memories) thru wave effects. CORRECTION: You don't need a biological brain for qualia, but you need something that generates the same actual wave mechanics in actual physical reality. 0s and 1s in a computer ain't that.

godelski 2y ago
> but definitely a brain (excluding plantlife to keep this short) "brains" are quite diverse and come in many variations. Squids have donuts. Sea Squirts devour their own brains. Leeches have multiple brains, Octopi (cephalopod) don't have a centralized brain and it's distributed, mostly in their tentacles. They also don't show cognitive decline when losing limbs. Maybe Wittgenstein can't understand a lion, but certainly a cephalopod is completely alien. > I think neurons do 4 distinct types of things. I'm a bit curious, how much have you read about brains? What about signal theory? I ask because I suspect you're trying to solve the problem yourself and not building on the wide breadth of literature and research we have. Brains do not operate in waves the same way a wave of water or electromagnetic wave does. Though anything can be approximated by a wave too, but signals need not be waves. Yes neurons conduct electric signals, but neuron to neuron communication (synaptic transmission) is chemical. These are discrete particles. But as I mentioned before, if we're talking about the electrical transmission inside the neuron, these are spikey[0,1]. When you look at neurons firing, there is a digital like signal. If anything, these look like Gaussian mixtures. > There's no "woo woo" there. I agree that there's no magic, and so I ask that you don't introduce it. You're imbuing waves with magic while not recognizing what waves actually are. Analogue and digital are both waves. They both can integrate, resonate, interfere, and all that jazz. The same wave mechanics work. Your call to Maxwell is meaningless because ALL OF ELECTROMAGNETISM (minus quantum) is explained through those 4 equations (and have been extended to incorporate the latter). And just think about what you are suggesting. That digital signals are not described by physics? That software can't be described by physics? It's all physics. Sure, the abstract representations of these things are not physics, but that's true for any abstract representation. So don't try to dispel people who are calling to magic by making a call to a different kind of magic. I don't think you're dumb, but rather it is easy to oversimplify and end up with something that requires magic. It's FAR easier to do this than to get the right answers. There's a reason people study very narrow topics for decades. Because it is all that complicated and trying to reinvent their work (while a good exercise) is just more likely to end up making many of the same mistakes that were then later resolved. We have the power of literature and the internet makes it highly available (though can be hard to differentiate from hogwash and it can be hard to find truth). Use the tools to your advantage instead of trying to do everything from scratch. Do the exercise, but also check and find the mistakes, improve, and do this until you catch up. Hell, you may even find mistakes the experts made along the way! The good news is that its SO much easier to catch up than it is to extend knowledge. You can learn what took thousands of years to get to in a week! It's hard, but in comparison catching up is trivial. So don't squander humanity's greatest innovation just because you worked hard at building your model. But refine it and make sure it doesn't invoke magic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neuron_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neuron_model [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_model_in_neuroscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_model_in_neuroscience
- quantadev 2y ago
  Every sentence of that was pure strawmanning, so this is where we stop talking; but you were a good sounding board for a few back and forths up until here.
  - godelski 2y ago
    Asking you to step up your game is not strawmanning. But if you're unwilling to then I guess the other comments should have made it clear this would happen
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    There was no strawmanning
    - quantadev 2y ago
      Strawmanning is when someone intentionally invents an incorrect interpretation of someone else's words, and then disproves or shows the faults with that wrong interpretation. That's precisely what we saw above.
      - godelski 2y ago
        Like this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41440133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41440133
        quantadev 2y ago
        Asking clarifying questions is the exact opposite of Strawmanning. Rather than assuming someone is wrong, it's better to ask for a clarifications first. That's what's happening in #41440133.

godelski 2y ago

> but definitely a brain (excluding plantlife to keep this short) "brains" are quite diverse and come in many variations. Squids have donuts. Sea Squirts devour their own brains. Leeches have multiple brains, Octopi (cephalopod) don't have a centralized brain and it's distributed, mostly in their tentacles. They also don't show cognitive decline when losing limbs. Maybe Wittgenstein can't understand a lion, but certainly a cephalopod is completely alien. > I think neurons do 4 distinct types of things. I'm a bit curious, how much have you read about brains? What about signal theory? I ask because I suspect you're trying to solve the problem yourself and not building on the wide breadth of literature and research we have. Brains do not operate in waves the same way a wave of water or electromagnetic wave does. Though anything can be approximated by a wave too, but signals need not be waves. Yes neurons conduct electric signals, but neuron to neuron communication (synaptic transmission) is chemical. These are discrete particles. But as I mentioned before, if we're talking about the electrical transmission inside the neuron, these are spikey[0,1]. When you look at neurons firing, there is a digital like signal. If anything, these look like Gaussian mixtures. > There's no "woo woo" there. I agree that there's no magic, and so I ask that you don't introduce it. You're imbuing waves with magic while not recognizing what waves actually are. Analogue and digital are both waves. They both can integrate, resonate, interfere, and all that jazz. The same wave mechanics work. Your call to Maxwell is meaningless because ALL OF ELECTROMAGNETISM (minus quantum) is explained through those 4 equations (and have been extended to incorporate the latter). And just think about what you are suggesting. That digital signals are not described by physics? That software can't be described by physics? It's all physics. Sure, the abstract representations of these things are not physics, but that's true for any abstract representation. So don't try to dispel people who are calling to magic by making a call to a different kind of magic. I don't think you're dumb, but rather it is easy to oversimplify and end up with something that requires magic. It's FAR easier to do this than to get the right answers. There's a reason people study very narrow topics for decades. Because it is all that complicated and trying to reinvent their work (while a good exercise) is just more likely to end up making many of the same mistakes that were then later resolved. We have the power of literature and the internet makes it highly available (though can be hard to differentiate from hogwash and it can be hard to find truth). Use the tools to your advantage instead of trying to do everything from scratch. Do the exercise, but also check and find the mistakes, improve, and do this until you catch up. Hell, you may even find mistakes the experts made along the way! The good news is that its SO much easier to catch up than it is to extend knowledge. You can learn what took thousands of years to get to in a week! It's hard, but in comparison catching up is trivial. So don't squander humanity's greatest innovation just because you worked hard at building your model. But refine it and make sure it doesn't invoke magic. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neuron_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neuron_model [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_model_in_neuroscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_model_in_neuroscience

quantadev 2y ago
Every sentence of that was pure strawmanning, so this is where we stop talking; but you were a good sounding board for a few back and forths up until here.
- godelski 2y ago
  Asking you to step up your game is not strawmanning. But if you're unwilling to then I guess the other comments should have made it clear this would happen
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  There was no strawmanning
  - quantadev 2y ago
    Strawmanning is when someone intentionally invents an incorrect interpretation of someone else's words, and then disproves or shows the faults with that wrong interpretation. That's precisely what we saw above.
    - godelski 2y ago
      Like this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41440133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41440133
      - quantadev 2y ago
        Asking clarifying questions is the exact opposite of Strawmanning. Rather than assuming someone is wrong, it's better to ask for a clarifications first. That's what's happening in #41440133.