4 ms·

I have a gut feeling that there needs to be more to consciousness than a bunch of neurons connected to other neurons. If that was the case then we could create

I have a gut feeling that there needs to be more to consciousness than a bunch of neurons connected to other neurons. If that was the case then we could create a conscoius robot from a bunch of transistors. Roger Penrose's theory is that consciousness is somehow created by quantum superposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind It would be interesting to see if there are any strange quantum effects at work in the claustrum. Of course there isn't really any evidence towards quantum consciousness, so it's just a highly speculative theory at the moment (albeit a very compelling one).

burnte 12y ago
> I have a gut feeling that there needs to be more to consciousness than a bunch of neurons connected to other neurons. Well, considering the brain is just that, and consciousness exists in the brain, then at a physical level that's exactly what consciousness is. But like a computer, it requires more than the simple presence of the hardware. That hardware has to be in an active state executing instructions, the mass of neurons has to be firing in a specific pattern, which seems to me self-booting given how we start out. We know consciousness is just a bunch of neurons, the question is how do they work. Just like we know a given chip is capable of various functions, the question is how. Knowing the building is made of steel does not make one capable of recreating a skyscraper.
- cpncrunch 12y ago
  Let me rephrase (seeing as someone downvoted me). I meant that I have a gut feeling that consciousness isn't simply a group of neurons communicating using electrical impulses, firing in a specific pattern. If that was the case then it would be physically possible to build a computer out of transistors that had consciousness, and that seems unlikely (again, just a gut feeling). If that is the case then some other physics must come into play, and the other other possible physics is quantum mechanics. Anyway, it's obviously very speculative, but I find it interesting thinking about consciousness - it's one of the few things we don't understand. Regarding downvotes: what's the obsession on HN with people downvoting opinions you don't happen to agree with, but are nevertheless logical and coherent?
  - burnte 12y ago
    Wherever the ability to downvote exists, people use it as an "I disagree" button. I hate that, and rarely downvote anything anywhere. Here, I do not even have the karma to downvote yet because I comment only when I feel I have something to add. :) As cor consciousness, I'm not convinced we're presently smart enough to understand consciousness. I think there's still new science to be discovered before we understand it.
smosher_ 12y ago
I don't find this idea very compelling. Penrose has a lot of ideas, apparently trying different things when others were invalidated or not promising. He really wants there to be some essential quantum involvement, but his arguments that there must be are not great. It leaves me with the impression he's seeking the vital essence, and naming QM. He could be right since there is a lot we do not understand, but he lacks the evidence to be anything but misguided in my opinion. No doubt a lot of quantum phenomena are at work in the brain in various ways, but we have no evidence that it has any essential relationship with consciousness beyond the chemical and electrical properties needed for the biological foundation. > I have a gut feeling that there needs to be more to consciousness than a bunch of neurons connected to other neurons. I can appreciate that feeling, but I wonder what difference it would really make to have quantum consciousness.
- jostmey 12y ago
  I totally agree with smosher. Once upon a time men of science used to describe biological systems in mystical terms because they could not understand it. Now we live in a post-Darwin world and have started to understand biology at the molecular level. No one uses phrases like "animate-matter" vs "inanimate-matter" anymore.

burnte 12y ago

> I have a gut feeling that there needs to be more to consciousness than a bunch of neurons connected to other neurons. Well, considering the brain is just that, and consciousness exists in the brain, then at a physical level that's exactly what consciousness is. But like a computer, it requires more than the simple presence of the hardware. That hardware has to be in an active state executing instructions, the mass of neurons has to be firing in a specific pattern, which seems to me self-booting given how we start out. We know consciousness is just a bunch of neurons, the question is how do they work. Just like we know a given chip is capable of various functions, the question is how. Knowing the building is made of steel does not make one capable of recreating a skyscraper.

cpncrunch 12y ago
Let me rephrase (seeing as someone downvoted me). I meant that I have a gut feeling that consciousness isn't simply a group of neurons communicating using electrical impulses, firing in a specific pattern. If that was the case then it would be physically possible to build a computer out of transistors that had consciousness, and that seems unlikely (again, just a gut feeling). If that is the case then some other physics must come into play, and the other other possible physics is quantum mechanics. Anyway, it's obviously very speculative, but I find it interesting thinking about consciousness - it's one of the few things we don't understand. Regarding downvotes: what's the obsession on HN with people downvoting opinions you don't happen to agree with, but are nevertheless logical and coherent?
- burnte 12y ago
  Wherever the ability to downvote exists, people use it as an "I disagree" button. I hate that, and rarely downvote anything anywhere. Here, I do not even have the karma to downvote yet because I comment only when I feel I have something to add. :) As cor consciousness, I'm not convinced we're presently smart enough to understand consciousness. I think there's still new science to be discovered before we understand it.

smosher_ 12y ago

I don't find this idea very compelling. Penrose has a lot of ideas, apparently trying different things when others were invalidated or not promising. He really wants there to be some essential quantum involvement, but his arguments that there must be are not great. It leaves me with the impression he's seeking the vital essence, and naming QM. He could be right since there is a lot we do not understand, but he lacks the evidence to be anything but misguided in my opinion. No doubt a lot of quantum phenomena are at work in the brain in various ways, but we have no evidence that it has any essential relationship with consciousness beyond the chemical and electrical properties needed for the biological foundation. > I have a gut feeling that there needs to be more to consciousness than a bunch of neurons connected to other neurons. I can appreciate that feeling, but I wonder what difference it would really make to have quantum consciousness.

jostmey 12y ago
I totally agree with smosher. Once upon a time men of science used to describe biological systems in mystical terms because they could not understand it. Now we live in a post-Darwin world and have started to understand biology at the molecular level. No one uses phrases like "animate-matter" vs "inanimate-matter" anymore.