4 ms·

>but we still know little about which synapses are modified and when, and almost nothing about how to work backward from a neural connectivity diagram to the pa

>but we still know little about which synapses are modified and when, and almost nothing about how to work backward from a neural connectivity diagram to the particular memories encoded. The article doesn't say what you think it says. We don't understand how consciousness works, but we're pretty confident that we can constrain the ultimate answer to being compatible with the known laws of physics. There's no good reason to believe anything otherwise. >As far as I am aware the laws of physics do not apply to the conscious. Woah. In what way? I'm not saying that we'll use the nomenclature and terminology of particle physics or field theory to describe consciousness when (if ever) we understand it, just like we don't when we explain how weather or even biological processes work, but it damn well better square with particle physics. >Whats your reason for assuming that the conscious self is a result of the laws of physics? It comes down to the following: The current fundamental physics are incredibly successful in modeling particle and field interactions in pretty much every domain we studied them under, certainly in every domain that we as humans interact with. Even though we may not understand how consciousness arises from a material brain, it is a huge leap in logic to segregate that particular domain and say that this one part of our world is not (in principle) explainable by our physics, because the laws of physics do not share that distinction. You have to have a very good reason to say that the most successful theory in the history of mankind is wrong about this point. Having said that, we know that consciousness is affected by our material brain. Heck, I can whack you over the head with a hammer, cause you brain damage which will then irrevocably change the way you perceive (or not perceive) the world. I can give you some drugs that can do the same. Neuroscience has been studying the brain and consciousness and there has been ZERO evidence to suggest that the consciousness is somehow separate from the material brain. We also know that we are a products of evolution, which means the brain and our consciousness is also the product of evolution. >I can't observe it. I can't touch it. It doesn't seem to be a physical entity as far as I can deduce. I think I see your hang up. Part of the problem with consciousness is that a) it is an ill-defined concept, b) it is subjective to individual brains, which makes us really biased observers of it and c) people don't really want to define it. You feel that it's there, but you can't define it, and it doesn't feel like it's part of our material universe. This is where you have to take a step back and accept the things we DO know are true, that is, our consciousness is a product of our material brains, and those brains are themselves the products of Evolution, and are made up of particles that follow well known and well tested laws of chemistry and physics. If we ever understand (or define!) consciousness, this picture is not going to change.

collyw 12y ago
>We don't understand how consciousness works, but we're pretty confident that we can constrain the ultimate answer to being compatible with the known laws of physics. You say this, but show no evidence. If there is proof of this I would genuinely like to see it. I am not saying you are wrong, I just like some proof before we base everything on these assumptions. > So you feel that it's there, but you can't define it, and it doesn't feel like it's part of our material universe. So what is it? If it is subject to the laws of physics, then we should be able to measure it, no? Hell you cant even observe (a) consciousness. Does it have mass? Does it have energy? We can't even answer that, which is reason enough for me to question whether the laws of physics apply. > This is where you have to take a step back and accept the things we DO know, that is, our consciousness is a product of our material brains, Again, show me some solid proof of this. Again, I am not saying they are not related, I am pretty sure they are. But why consciousness a product of the brain? Why don't you believe they are two separate entities that interact in a two way manner? When I choose to move my arm, my conciseness decides that, it somehow interacts with my brain, which starts firing neurons in the physical world. The consciousness becomes before the physical in that case.
- joshuapants 12y ago
  > When I choose to move my arm, my conciseness decides that, it somehow interacts with my brain, which starts firing neurons in the physical world. The consciousness becomes before the physical in that case. You have this backwards, your arm moves and then your "consciousness" decides to perform the action after the fact, as demonstrated in the Libet experiment among others.
  - amalag 12y ago
    Yet another misinterpreation of the Libet experiment. As Wikipedia and Libet say: >Libet finds that conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of veto' (sometimes called "free won't"[9][10]); the idea that conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. So he never denied conscious volition, he described it differently. Yet people claim the experiments denied conscious volition.

collyw 12y ago

>We don't understand how consciousness works, but we're pretty confident that we can constrain the ultimate answer to being compatible with the known laws of physics. You say this, but show no evidence. If there is proof of this I would genuinely like to see it. I am not saying you are wrong, I just like some proof before we base everything on these assumptions. > So you feel that it's there, but you can't define it, and it doesn't feel like it's part of our material universe. So what is it? If it is subject to the laws of physics, then we should be able to measure it, no? Hell you cant even observe (a) consciousness. Does it have mass? Does it have energy? We can't even answer that, which is reason enough for me to question whether the laws of physics apply. > This is where you have to take a step back and accept the things we DO know, that is, our consciousness is a product of our material brains, Again, show me some solid proof of this. Again, I am not saying they are not related, I am pretty sure they are. But why consciousness a product of the brain? Why don't you believe they are two separate entities that interact in a two way manner? When I choose to move my arm, my conciseness decides that, it somehow interacts with my brain, which starts firing neurons in the physical world. The consciousness becomes before the physical in that case.

joshuapants 12y ago
> When I choose to move my arm, my conciseness decides that, it somehow interacts with my brain, which starts firing neurons in the physical world. The consciousness becomes before the physical in that case. You have this backwards, your arm moves and then your "consciousness" decides to perform the action after the fact, as demonstrated in the Libet experiment among others.
- amalag 12y ago
  Yet another misinterpreation of the Libet experiment. As Wikipedia and Libet say: >Libet finds that conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of veto' (sometimes called "free won't"[9][10]); the idea that conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. So he never denied conscious volition, he described it differently. Yet people claim the experiments denied conscious volition.