6 ms·

It's so clear that you didn't read a single word of the paper. Even if you want to argue that consciousness is somehow unknowable and not worth discussing scien

by strgrd 12y ago

It's so clear that you didn't read a single word of the paper. Even if you want to argue that consciousness is somehow unknowable and not worth discussing scientifically because humanity is still too dumb (lol, wat), the authors provide a perfectly reasonable working definition of consciousness. The theory proposes that consciousness is an information processing phenomenon and can thus be quantiﬁed in terms of a systems’ organizational structure, speciﬁcally its capacity to integrate information... What we mean when we say that the human brain produces consciousness is that it integrates information, thus producing behaviour which reﬂects the actions of a uniﬁed, singular system.

vixin 12y ago
That you're satisfied with the definition supplied astounds me. The words are loose as can be. Amoebae integrate information and produce behavior reflecting the actions of a unified singular system insofar as those undefined words mean anything. Somehow unknowable indeed. "While neuroscience might shed light on the input and output functions of the brain, the quantiﬁcation for integrated information we have presented here implies that it will be unable to shed light on the complex tangle that is core consciousness."
debt 12y ago
I'm not saying anyone is dumb; I'm saying we as a society haven't made understanding the mind a priority. Also, I did read it. That "workable" definition is so presumptuous about the nature of consciousness. What I'm saying, and many others are as well, as that we still need to have a discussion about what we're even talking about. The mind may not even be able to be understood or measured in the "realm of science". That is, we may have to use alternative language to explain something like the mind. We as a society haven't answered fundamental questions such as what is the mind, why does it exist, where does come from, is it a physical/nonphysical phenomenon, etc. We can't really solve(especially "compute it") the mind problem if we don't fully understand the problem domain.
- krisgee 12y ago
  > why does it exist, where does come from, is it a nonphysical property of the body or vice versa Are any of these actual debated questions? Outside of religious arguments I don't think anyone can question that (in order) the answers are It doesn't need a why/It was the best tool our ancestors evolved for their niche It comes from electrochemical reactions in your brain Of course it isn't you die when you are killed, getting head injuries can change your personality/memories. Since your brain exists in physical reality the question "can we run a perfect simulation of physics" is also exactly "can we compute conciousness". Since it's looking pretty good that we can run a simulation of reality at the level we work at it's also looking pretty good for that whole "mind" in a computer thing.
  - wslh 12y ago
    Since your brain exists in physical reality... Beyond the religious arguments we don't know if the brain exists only in the physical reality in the sense that you can't prove/disprove this hypothesis.
  - nardi 12y ago
    Certainly they aren't debated outside of naturalist circles. But even amongst "non-religious" people, it's somewhat of an open question whether our physical, observable universe is the only thing that exists.
  - functional_test 12y ago
    It sounds like you subscribe to Materialism [1]. In fact, these are widely debated questions. Materialism is only one of many philosophies that seek to answer these questions (e.g. dualism). Be careful about accepting answers like that if you haven't examined at least the major alternatives. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
    - __david__ 12y ago
      Widely debated by whom? These other philosophies are useless for trying to figure out how consciousness (or anything, for that matter) actually works, as nothing they explain is falsifiable in any way. I may as well argue about how many angels fit on the head of pin—some will find the topic fascinating, but at the end of the day it doesn't actually reveal anything useful about the world.

by strgrd 12y ago

vixin 12y ago

That you're satisfied with the definition supplied astounds me. The words are loose as can be. Amoebae integrate information and produce behavior reflecting the actions of a unified singular system insofar as those undefined words mean anything. Somehow unknowable indeed. "While neuroscience might shed light on the input and output functions of the brain, the quantiﬁcation for integrated information we have presented here implies that it will be unable to shed light on the complex tangle that is core consciousness."

debt 12y ago

I'm not saying anyone is dumb; I'm saying we as a society haven't made understanding the mind a priority. Also, I did read it. That "workable" definition is so presumptuous about the nature of consciousness. What I'm saying, and many others are as well, as that we still need to have a discussion about what we're even talking about. The mind may not even be able to be understood or measured in the "realm of science". That is, we may have to use alternative language to explain something like the mind. We as a society haven't answered fundamental questions such as what is the mind, why does it exist, where does come from, is it a physical/nonphysical phenomenon, etc. We can't really solve(especially "compute it") the mind problem if we don't fully understand the problem domain.

krisgee 12y ago
> why does it exist, where does come from, is it a nonphysical property of the body or vice versa Are any of these actual debated questions? Outside of religious arguments I don't think anyone can question that (in order) the answers are It doesn't need a why/It was the best tool our ancestors evolved for their niche It comes from electrochemical reactions in your brain Of course it isn't you die when you are killed, getting head injuries can change your personality/memories. Since your brain exists in physical reality the question "can we run a perfect simulation of physics" is also exactly "can we compute conciousness". Since it's looking pretty good that we can run a simulation of reality at the level we work at it's also looking pretty good for that whole "mind" in a computer thing.
- wslh 12y ago
  Since your brain exists in physical reality... Beyond the religious arguments we don't know if the brain exists only in the physical reality in the sense that you can't prove/disprove this hypothesis.
- nardi 12y ago
  Certainly they aren't debated outside of naturalist circles. But even amongst "non-religious" people, it's somewhat of an open question whether our physical, observable universe is the only thing that exists.
- functional_test 12y ago
  It sounds like you subscribe to Materialism [1]. In fact, these are widely debated questions. Materialism is only one of many philosophies that seek to answer these questions (e.g. dualism). Be careful about accepting answers like that if you haven't examined at least the major alternatives. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
  - __david__ 12y ago
    Widely debated by whom? These other philosophies are useless for trying to figure out how consciousness (or anything, for that matter) actually works, as nothing they explain is falsifiable in any way. I may as well argue about how many angels fit on the head of pin—some will find the topic fascinating, but at the end of the day it doesn't actually reveal anything useful about the world.