Happy Atheist Forum

Consciousness involves Simultaneous events
The brain is an area of neurophysiology activity. Neurophysiology activity consists of electrochemical reaction. Thus at any given time, the brain state is defined by a subset of electrochemical reactions, derived from a large set of possible reactions.
Consider the phenomenon of a. conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events.
Consider the memorizing of, say, the value 5. This would necessarily involve more than I point in space as, say, if it is assumed a single electron records 5 by taking a particular potential. Then it by itself cannot define (or know) 5, as its magnitude would be defined only with respect to another datum or event defined as a unit potential, thus involving at least 2 simultaneous events.
Consider the experience of vision. While we focus our attention on an object of vision, we are still aware of a background and, thus, a whole collection of events. This would mean at least an equal collection of physical events in the brain are involved.
1.2 Consciousness is 4 Dimensional
Take the experience of listening to music. It would mean being aware of what went before. Like vision, it would probably mean that while our attention at any given time is focused at that point in time, it is aware of what went before and what is to follow. In other words, it spans the time axis. Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience. While focusing at a particular point in time of their composition, they are nevertheless aware of what went before and what is to come. The rest of the composition is like the background of a visual experience. Experiencing the composition in this way, they are able to traverse it in a similar fashion to which a painting is observed. In this sense, an average person in comparison can be seen as having tunnel hearing (like tunnel vision) when it comes to music, thus making it very difficult for him or her to reproduce or create new music. It can be seen that consciousness is a 4-D phenomenon.
2 Contradiction with Special relativity
As stated previously Special relativity states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light. This proposition excludes the possibility of connections between simultaneous events. Simultaneous events are also known as space-like separated events in special relativity. Yet from the description given above it can be seen that consciousness creates a connection between simultaneous events in the brain. The contradiction with special relativity will remain, independent of the rate of propagation of nerve impulses, provided that this rate is equal to or less than the speed of light. In order to recognise the contradiction, it is important that the reader takes note of the following:
When evaluating the statements made about consciousness, it is critical that this be done in relation to one's subjective understanding (experience) of consciousness. Every tendency to project one's imagination of it should be avoided.
This contradiction will now be further analysed.

2.1 A Need for "Connections of Consciousness"

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi150.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs93%2Ffdesilva%2FFIG1.jpg&hash=3bff07fca90a9d58894bbed33d31b9bf0f8a2e06)
Simultaneous events in the brain at some time, to, can and will give rise to another set of simultaneous events at the next instant. In fact, all activity in the universe can be viewed as a set of simultaneous events at one instant, giving rise to simultaneous events at the next instant. What is different with the simultaneous events of the brain is that while it shares the common property of giving rise to simultaneous events at the next instant, it also forms part of, or is fully responsible for, consciousness in the PRESENT. It is this "Connections of Consciousness" between simultaneous events that is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity.
2.2 Computer Technology
This same problem is inherent in any attempt to explain consciousness by way of current computer technology. Consider the case of a computer made of discrete components arranged in a synchronised circuit. Let the data transmission between components be done through wires. To say the computer is conscious is to imply a "connection of consciousness" between the multitude of simultaneous events taking place in the computer at any given time. In order not to confuse the need for "connections of consciousness" with the physical connections present, the following
thought experiment might prove useful.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi150.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs93%2Ffdesilva%2FFIG2.jpg&hash=cf06429fbe8fa6dca12206eb2e3483a5ff9d514b)
Let the rate of the clock synchronising the circuit be reduced to one impulse every hour. Now at this slow rate, it would be possible. to replace the wires by mechanical devices That travel between the components. Thus, now at any given time the computer will consist of components totally separated from each other physically. This highlights the need for "connection of consciousness" between simultaneous events. (See Fig 2.)
Figure 3 shows another situation in which the need for "connection of consciousness" is highlighted. The inputs to each component of a conscious computer are recorded, and the computer is then dismantled and the components run through the same phases using the recorded inputs. This situation would also have to be conscious.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi150.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs93%2Ffdesilva%2FFIG3.jpg&hash=1a5c09a655282de834e7e2573adb60d0ea39a94b)
If the need for such connection is still not evident, then consider the following consequences.
Consider the case of this computer communicating with another. Would not assigning any sort of consciousness to the computers imply a third consciousness created by the two together? By analogy, this would also apply to two people talking to each other. They would necessarily create a third person, which is the collective consciousness of them both.
It might also help to compare the activity of this computer with the activity associated with the fall of a set of rocks down a mountain. If the computer is conscious, so will be the rocks +activity, thus the whole universe would have to be conscious.
This is in total contradiction with the subjective understanding of consciousness to be personal.

Interesting thinking fdesilva. Unfortunately there is a basic problem I see with your grasp of how a thought arises in the mind and this undoes your argument long before you reach its conclusion.

Quote from: "fdesilva"Consider the phenomenon of a. conscious thought. As at any given time the brain physical state consists of a collection of electrochemical reactions (events), it can be inferred that they are collectively responsible for the conscious thought. This means that at least in part, simultaneous events are responsible for thought. In other words, thought creates a connection between simultaneous events. This is in contradiction to the consequences of special relativity, which states that the fastest connection between events is the speed of light and thus excludes the possibility of connection between simultaneous events.

A thought is (more of less) the result of a very great number of changes in the brain. This doesn't mean that thought itself is somehow connecting many different parts of the brain faster than the speed of light. In fact the connections are relatively (heh) slow compared to light.

Just as you would get an orange hue of paint by mixing red & yellow hues the apparent complexity of our thought is, in a simple sense, a combined outcome from the enormous amount of activity in the brain. Consciousness is more like a continuously changing mixture resulting from a highly complex mixing process. Its not the result of simultaneous immediate connections going faster than light between different areas of the brain. Its a nice thought though. If it was possible our reaction times could be shockingly fast, like some fictional super hero.

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"A thought is (more of less) the result of a very great number of changes in the brain. This doesn't mean that thought itself is somehow connecting many different parts of the brain faster than the speed of light. In fact the connections are relatively (heh) slow compared to light.

Just as you would get an orange hue of paint by mixing red & yellow hues the apparent complexity of our thought is, in a simple sense, a combined outcome from the enormous amount of activity in the brain. Consciousness is more like a continuously changing mixture resulting from a highly complex mixing process. Its not the result of simultaneous immediate connections going faster than light between different areas of the brain. Its a nice thought though. If it was possible our reaction times could be shockingly fast, like some fictional super hero.

Now as you say it is an enormous amount of activity at each and every second right?
However it is not all the activity in the brain. For example a nerve impulse is a localized change in the concentration of ions. Now beside these ions there is also water molecules. However the water molecules do not contribute to consciousness. If we look at it at a more macro level, there is connective tissue blood vessels etc that do not contribute or is not forming the events that make up the thought. Now given that the subjective experience of the thought exist, how does that subjective experience limit it self to some of this events (ions) while excluding others?

Consider the following assumption
Assumption 1. Consciousness is a result of the activity that takes place in the brain at nerve synapses and nerve impulses.

Consider the distribution of Nerve impulses and activity at nerve synapses in the brain. Let all of these regions at any given time be enclosed in the smallest possible virtual spherical globes.
Then over any length of time these Globes will never intersect.
Thus they are separate in space and time. These globes will form an ever changing pattern. We know that the activity within these globes together gives rise to a single phenomenon namely consciousness. However we know that distinct space and time cannot have any form of connections (special relativity). Yet Consciousness makes exactly such a connection as it is a singular result of all this activity
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi150.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs93%2Ffdesilva%2FNerveActivity.jpg&hash=3c051e8f1e2840f8cdd1ac73327dd46a2bc8896a)

I accidentally dumped this topic in the troll pile when trying to move the lamb topic...so, sorry if anything is missing.

Quote from: "Whitney"I accidentally dumped this topic in the troll pile when trying to move the lamb topic...so, sorry if anything is missing.

Thats ok, I put this under Philosophy, however if you prefer it here thats fine with me. Thanks

QuoteSimultaneous events in the brain at some time, to, can and will give rise to another set of simultaneous events at the next instant. In fact, all activity in the universe can be viewed as a set of simultaneous events at one instant, giving rise to simultaneous events at the next instant.

Things occur while other things occur. This doesn't violate any law. The rate at which we experience events is not, technically, simulatenous although the process happening to make that experience possible, obviously, is. There's just not enough delay to make anywhere near a significant difference.

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"We know that the activity within these globes together gives rise to a single phenomenon namely consciousness. However we know that distinct space and time cannot have any form of connections (special relativity). Yet Consciousness makes exactly such a connection as it is a singular result of all this activity.

Well again, consciousness doesn't actually do this. It is the result of a process that has to go through motions in time & space same as everything else. It does not arise simultaneously from multiple discrete points in time & space. There is no need for it to do so and it has never been observed to do so.

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"

Quote from: "fdesilva"

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"We know that the activity within these globes together gives rise to a single phenomenon namely consciousness. However we know that distinct space and time cannot have any form of connections (special relativity). Yet Consciousness makes exactly such a connection as it is a singular result of all this activity.

Well again, consciousness doesn't actually do this. It is the result of a process that has to go through motions in time & space same as everything else. It does not arise simultaneously from multiple discrete points in time & space. There is no need for it to do so and it has never been observed to do so.

" It does not arise simultaneously from multiple discrete points in time & space. "
Lets keep the simultanity word out for a moment.
However do you agree that the points responsible for it is always multiple discrete points in time & space?

Yep, I'll agree to that.  

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"Yep, I'll agree to that.  

I am going to put my case forward from a few different angle. However I would like to present my ideas in a way that I am sure we are on the same page. As such you may find me repeating  the same thing.
Now from what you have said so far I think I would be right in saying that you agree
1.   Assumption 1. Consciousness is a result of the activity that takes place in the brain at nerve synapses and nerve impulses.
2.   And that these events are always multiple discrete points in time & space
Now do you also agree that given that a nerve impulse is a localised change in the concentration of ions.
That in the progress on the Nerve impulse along a nerve fibre, it will also give rise to other events such as an  ion colliding with a water molecule, which results in the water molecule changing speed and direction, and then heating a protein molecule etc. Now these other events while supporting the conscious experience do not form the set of events directly responsible for it?
Now if you agree with the above could you also say what in your opinion would be the reason, for them not to be part of the events directly responsible for the consciouss experience?

Quote from: "fdesilva"Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience.

Name one of these great composers who've said that they are able to hear their whole composition, whatever that's supposed to mean.  

And what, exactly, do you mean by "acoustic experience?" You know what the word acoustic means, don't you?

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "fdesilva"Many great composers have stated that they are able to hear their whole composition. Thus their acoustic experience is probably like the average person's visual experience.

Name one of these great composers who've said that they are able to hear their whole composition, whatever that's supposed to mean.  

And what, exactly, do you mean by "acoustic experience?" You know what the word acoustic means, don't you?

Source : Talks with Great Composers, by A. Abell, Replica Books; 2000
Mozart
"My subject enlarges itself, becomes methodized and defined, and the whole, though it be long, stands almost complete and finished in my mind, so that I can survey it, like a fine picture or a beautiful statute, at a glance."
"Nor do I hear in my imagination the parts successively, I hear them all at once. What a delight this is! All this inventing, this producing, takes place in a pleasing, lively dream."

Yeah, baby! Neuroscience. Now we're talking! Agree or disagree, this is a good topic to discuss. I only wish I wasn't working a ridiculous week this week, so I could dig in more and chat this up. Alas, for now, must go and only get to say it's a fun topic to discuss.

 

Quote from: "fdesilva"Source : Talks with Great Composers, by A. Abell, Replica Books; 2000
Mozart
"My subject enlarges itself, becomes methodized and defined, and the whole, though it be long, stands almost complete and finished in my mind, so that I can survey it, like a fine picture or a beautiful statute, at a glance."
"Nor do I hear in my imagination the parts successively, I hear them all at once. What a delight this is! All this inventing, this producing, takes place in a pleasing, lively dream."

Well, if Mozart said that then I agree with whatever it is you're talking about.

Can we go home now?

fdesilva, thanks for taking the time to get into this in more depth. I definitely appreciate the effort. To try to help make sure I'm same page I'm going to break up your last post and respond to it in several parts so where I might diverge should be clear.
 
Now from what you have said so far I think I would be right in saying that you agree
1.   Assumption 1. Consciousness is a result of the activity that takes place in the brain at nerve synapses and nerve impulses.

Aye. There is a great deal going with consciousness and much not well understood, but its well established that the nervous systems plays an essential part.

2.   And that these events are always multiple discrete points in time & space

Aye. I'd add that they are discrete as in individually unique but also interconnected.

Now do you also agree that given that a nerve impulse is a localised change in the concentration of ions.

Yes

That in the progress on the Nerve impulse along a nerve fibre, it will also give rise to other events such as an ion colliding with a water molecule, which results in the water molecule changing speed and direction, and then heating a protein molecule etc.

I follow.

Now these other events while supporting the conscious experience do not form the set of events directly responsible for it?

Here things get problematic for me.

These other events are essential - just as essential as those nerve synapses and related to them. They are part of the processes going on in the brain. So, they are part of the events responsible for consciousness.

The notion of them being direct or indirect would not make sense in this context.

Now if you agree with the above could you also say what in your opinion would be the reason, for them not to be part of the events directly responsible for the consciouss experience?

Well I do take them to be part of the events responsible for the conscious experience. I'm not sure if that helps or hinders where you are going with this but you definitely have my attention.  

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"fdesilva, thanks for taking the time to get into this in more depth. I definitely appreciate the effort. To try to help make sure I'm same page I'm going to break up your last post and respond to it in several parts so where I might diverge should be clear.
 
Now from what you have said so far I think I would be right in saying that you agree
1.   Assumption 1. Consciousness is a result of the activity that takes place in the brain at nerve synapses and nerve impulses.

Aye. There is a great deal going with consciousness and much not well understood, but its well established that the nervous systems plays an essential part.

2.   And that these events are always multiple discrete points in time & space

Aye. I'd add that they are discrete as in individually unique but also interconnected.

Now do you also agree that given that a nerve impulse is a localised change in the concentration of ions.

Yes

That in the progress on the Nerve impulse along a nerve fibre, it will also give rise to other events such as an ion colliding with a water molecule, which results in the water molecule changing speed and direction, and then heating a protein molecule etc.

I follow.

Now these other events while supporting the conscious experience do not form the set of events directly responsible for it?

Here things get problematic for me.

These other events are essential - just as essential as those nerve synapses and related to them. They are part of the processes going on in the brain. So, they are part of the events responsible for consciousness.

The notion of them being direct or indirect would not make sense in this context.

Now if you agree with the above could you also say what in your opinion would be the reason, for them not to be part of the events directly responsible for the consciouss experience?

Well I do take them to be part of the events responsible for the conscious experience. I'm not sure if that helps or hinders where you are going with this but you definitely have my attention.  

"The notion of them being direct or indirect would not make sense in this context"
I think we need to understand each other on this point
If we agree on
Assumption 1. Consciousness is a result of the activity that takes place in the brain at nerve synapses and nerve impulses.
Now my understanding of the above assumption is that any change in a persons conscious experience will be reflected or be a one to one mapping with changes in nerve impulses and synaptic activity.  
I guess you agree on that, if that is the case then is not right to say, all other activity in the brain while essential in terms of creating the supporting infrastructure for the activity of consciousness, does not map to events in the persons conscious experience?
To give an example lets say by some external means, such as inserting an electrode, nerve impulses are created , we would not be surprised if the person reported a light or something in their conscious experience.
However if we injected a bit of water or some other chemical in a way that it did not disturb the nerve impulses or synaptic activity in any way, we would not expect the person to detect any change in their conscious experience.
If you agree with the above ,then would I be right in saying that a nerve impulse in its progress, will give rise to changes in the brain that is part of the conscious experience as well as changes that are not a part of the experience (e.g water molecules changing direction)

*nods* I follow.

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"*nods* I follow.

Great so then I would like to propose this thought experiment.
Consider a Nerve impulse travelling along a Nerve fibre.  Suppose we map a selection of  points  along the Nerve fibre to a series of Light bulbs.  So that when a Nerve impulse is at one of the mapped point  the corresponding light bulb will light. In other words we make a structure of light bulbs, external to a person, that is mapped to points in the persons brain.  I hope I have made myself clear on the thought experiment.
If all is clear, could you tell me in your opinion, will the set of light bulbs, be having a conscious experience that is comparable to that of the person? Please explain the reasons for your answer
(I am finishing for the day now, I look forward to reading your response in the morning. thanks)

Although the series of lightbulbs could be used to help build a model of a conscious brain state they would not & could not constitute a consciousness.

The lightbulbs themselves would merely show the electrical processes going on in the brain. They would not perform any significant function other than as indicators. Nothing more. Neurons on the other hand perform several important functions. As part of their essential functions neurons have a basic capacity for receiving information, retaining information, processing information and communicating information. Collectively in their many billions they constitute a complex awareness capable of the kind of consciousness we are familiar with. All the series of lightbulbs could ever do would be to copy patterns of a consciousness.

So no, the lightbulbs would not be conscious.

(What I write next is probably superfluous but I want to add some thoughts. Ignore if unnecessary.)

If the lightbulbs were replaced with neurons then would I regard the series of neurons as constituting consciousness? No. They would still not constitute consciousness because they would still be functioning as mere indicators of a consciousness.

To highlight that point I'll introduce a thought experiment of my own. Lets do away with the limited lightbulbs and neurons. Instead we're going to set up an imaginary machine that could from moment to moment make an exact copy of a human being. (This machine would definitely violate relativity but let's just imagine it is possible.)

Currently the machine is set to replicate fdesilva. Everything that you do, say and think is copied exactly.

Now, You and I are in a house, watching a film. Your copy is being created by the machine so that it is in a crowded bar down the street.

Would the exact copy of you be conscious of anything happening in the crowded bar? No. Would the original you be conscious of anything happening in the crowded bar? No.

While the machine is set to making a copy of you the copy itself would not be capable of anything other than being an exact replica. In a sense it would be less conscious than the most basic of lifeforms, or perhaps even inanimate matter since even inanimate matter has reactions to its environment.

If the machine were to malfunction and stop working but leave the last made copy, the copy would suddenly retain the functions of a fully living fdesilva (for arguments sake). It would feel as if it had just been watching a film in a house and had then been instantly transported to a crowded bar. Finally it experiences consciousness of itself. Now it could be said to be conscious.

I would like to order 100 of those.  

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"Although the series of lightbulbs could be used to help build a model of a conscious brain state they would not & could not constitute a consciousness.

The lightbulbs themselves would merely show the electrical processes going on in the brain. They would not perform any significant function other than as indicators. Nothing more. Neurons on the other hand perform several important functions. As part of their essential functions neurons have a basic capacity for receiving information, retaining information, processing information and communicating information. Collectively in their many billions they constitute a complex awareness capable of the kind of consciousness we are familiar with. All the series of lightbulbs could ever do would be to copy patterns of a consciousness.

So no, the lightbulbs would not be conscious.

(What I write next is probably superfluous but I want to add some thoughts. Ignore if unnecessary.)

If the lightbulbs were replaced with neurons then would I regard the series of neurons as constituting consciousness? No. They would still not constitute consciousness because they would still be functioning as mere indicators of a consciousness.

To highlight that point I'll introduce a thought experiment of my own. Lets do away with the limited lightbulbs and neurons. Instead we're going to set up an imaginary machine that could from moment to moment make an exact copy of a human being. (This machine would definitely violate relativity but let's just imagine it is possible.)

Currently the machine is set to replicate fdesilva. Everything that you do, say and think is copied exactly.

Now, You and I are in a house, watching a film. Your copy is being created by the machine so that it is in a crowded bar down the street.

Would the exact copy of you be conscious of anything happening in the crowded bar? No. Would the original you be conscious of anything happening in the crowded bar? No.

While the machine is set to making a copy of you the copy itself would not be capable of anything other than being an exact replica. In a sense it would be less conscious than the most basic of lifeforms, or perhaps even inanimate matter since even inanimate matter has reactions to its environment.

If the machine were to malfunction and stop working but leave the last made copy, the copy would suddenly retain the functions of a fully living fdesilva (for arguments sake). It would feel as if it had just been watching a film in a house and had then been instantly transported to a crowded bar. Finally it experiences consciousness of itself. Now it could be said to be conscious.

Firstly thanks for a great response. Like I said I intend to present my case from many angles. I can now give you an overview of one angle I intend use. I am sure you know that in mathematics one of basic forms of proof, is to show that System A is Equivalent to System B. Now since you see the light bulbs as something that cannot be conscious, if I were to show that neuronal activity is equivalent to it, I have made my case, from one angle.
You have given some great additions to the thought experiment. I will classify these experiments as follows
Experiment A = Light Bulb
Experiment B = Neurons replace Light Bulb
Experiment C = Copy of Fdesilva
As far as fdesilva goes you have my word I am conscious
Q1 With regards to C, would you say that it is similar to a brian in a vat ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat)
Q2. In your opinion can we consider a brain in a vat as having a conscious experience? Please note it is interacting with the artificial environment created by the computer.
In C, true the copy is not interacting with the bar, However like the Vat brain it is interacting with what it perceives to be its environment. (namely fdesilva environment, also consider dreaming)
I would like to add another thought experiment to our list.
Experiment D
Suppose we were to open up fdesilva brain an replace sections of the axons and dendrits with wires. Now as a nerve impulse travels only at around 100m/sec and an electrical signal at speed of light, we would be able to spread out all the nerve cells over a huge Area with each Neurone many Kilometers from another Neurone.
Q3 Would fdesilva still be conscious?

Q1 The brain in the vat. Hmm, I guess so.

Q2 I would regard the brain in the vat as having consciousness.

Q3 If there were no impediments to normal brain function I would regard the spaced-out (heh) fdesilva brain as conscious.

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"Q1 The brain in the vat. Hmm, I guess so.

Q2 I would regard the brain in the vat as having consciousness.

Q3 If there were no impediments to normal brain function I would regard the spaced-out (heh) fdesilva brain as conscious.

From before

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"As part of their essential functions neurons have a basic capacity for receiving information, retaining information, processing information and communicating information.

Now is the above statement you have identified 4 functions for the Neuron.
1.   capacity for receiving information
2.   retaining information
3.   processing information
4.   communicating information.

I would like you to have read of the following from http://www.biologyreference.com/Mo-Nu/Neuron.html (http://www.biologyreference.com/Mo-Nu/Neuron.html)

QuoteFirst, a neuron receives information from the external environment or from other neurons. For example, one neuron in the human brain may receive input from as many as one hundred thousand other neurons. Second, the neuron integrates, or processes, the information from all of its inputs and determines whether or not to send an output signal. This integration takes place both in time (the duration of the input and the time between inputs) and in space (across the surface of the neuron). Third, the neuron propagates the signal along its length at high speed. The distance may be up to several meters (in a giraffe or whale), with rates up to 100 meters (328 feet) per second. Finally, the neuron converts this electrical signal to a chemical one and transmits it to another neuron or to an effector such as a muscle or gland.
When combined into networks, neurons allow the human body memory, emotion, and abstract thought as well as basic reflexes.

Q4 Do  you agree with the equivalance with your statements  I am making below ?
1.capacity for receiving information

QuoteFirst, a neuron receives information from the external environment or from other neurons. For example, one neuron in the human brain may receive input from as many as one hundred thousand other neurons.

3.processing information

QuoteSecond, the neuron integrates, or processes, the information from all of its inputs and determines whether or not to send an output signal. This integration takes place both in time (the duration of the input and the time between inputs) and in space (across the surface of the neuron).

4.communicating information

QuoteThird, the neuron propagates the signal along its length at high speed. The distance may be up to several meters (in a giraffe or whale), with rates up to 100 meters (328 feet) per second. Finally, the neuron converts this electrical signal to a chemical one and transmits it to another neuron or to an effector such as a muscle or gland.

With regards to 2. retaining information

QuoteWhen combined into networks, neurons allow the human body memory, emotion, and abstract thought as well as basic reflexes.

Q5. The above seem to imply it is not the property of a single neurone but that of a network.?
Given that Experiment D(fdsilvas brain spread out) is conscious and also brain in the vat conscious I propose Experiment E
Same as D but it is now in a vat. That is all inputs and outputs are to a supercomputer.
I think I can assume You would consider Experiment E conscious as well.
Now as every neuron is a few KM from each other, we  shall do some test.
Test 1
We make a run of the Vat brain from some time T1 to Some Time T2
At this point we will make the assumption that it is possible to take the distributed vat brain back to its exact state at T1.
Q6 Now if we were to repeat exactly the same signals set as the first run we would expect the brain to have the same conscious experiences as the first run do you agree?

A4 Yes but with a reservation. See answer below.

A5 Yes. Human memory is an emergent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) property. As far as we know what we think of as human memory requires a network of neurons all working together but that would not be possible at all if single neurons had no capacity to retain information. Retaining information is definitely one of the essential functions a single neuron must be capable of.

A6 Yes. Again though, I have a reservation. At this point I feel I should ask; What is your working definition of a conscious experience?

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"A4 Yes but with a reservation. See answer below.

A5 Yes. Human memory is an emergent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) property. As far as we know what we think of as human memory requires a network of neurons all working together but that would not be possible at all if single neurons had no capacity to retain information. Retaining information is definitely one of the essential functions a single neuron must be capable of.

A6 Yes. Again though, I have a reservation. At this point I feel I should ask; What is your working definition of a conscious experience?

With regards to memory, I think the individual neurons play a part by modifying their synaptic connections. However in the end,in my opinion, when something in memory is recalled to consciousness, these pathways need to come "alive" by way of having nerve impulses etc as covered by assumption 1. Your thoughts?

QuoteWhat is your working definition of a conscious experience?

This is actually the most important question. Without it nothing really can be said. However I have been presenting this thoughts, assuming you would be using your own conscious experience or your definition of it to evaluate it. Further, I have refrained from bringing it up as it may stall our progress, as it did happen on this thread. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4753 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4753)
However, what I would like to use is a minimal description. Such as
The Conscious experience consist of 3 components.
1. The observed. (U ) (I am looking at a computer monitor, the monitor is U)
2. The Observer (I)( The thing within me, that I call me that’s looking at the monitor)
3. Free will ( The thing I call me, can press any key on the computer key pad)

Your thoughts and suggestions please.
Now to experiment D and Test 1.
Please consider the following. Test 2
Since we have wires,
1.   Lets say we reduce the length of the wires on each connection by an amount X KM
2.   To compensate for the reduced length we introduce a little storage device (S1), that will store the signal for a time corresponding to the reduced length and then release it.
Test 3
Now consider that the signals on each wire are recorded in a device S2.
As such on the next run, it is possible to read the next input value to a given neurone from either S1(see Test2) or S2.
However if it is read from S2 then the neurones are totally isolated from each other.
If I have been clear on the setup, what’s your thought on Test 2 and 3?

The "minimal description" of conscious experience you've provided (incessantly) is not the same thing as a definition. You've given us what you propose to be its parts, without really explaining what it is. Perhaps that is one reason it tends to stall the discussion; we're still not certain what it is we're supposed to be discussing.

A definition might look more like this:

conscious
adj.
Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.

experience
n.
The feeling of emotions and sensations as opposed to thinking; involvement in what is happening rather than abstract reflection on an event.

Thus conscious experience might be defined as emotional and sensory involvement in (as opposed to merely thinking about) an event, whilst having an awareness thereof.

Supposing it's impossible to have such an involvement without being aware of it, this definition seems redundant.

It would appear that it is impossible to have an experience that is (or while being) unconcious. So there's no need to speak of "conscious experience" when "experience" will do.



Unless you mean to refer to the experience of consiousness. In which case we might revise our definition to:

emotional and sensory involvement in (as opposed to merely thinking about) having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts

or, being involved in one's awareness


So, is that what you mean, or something else?

[edit:typo]

Quote from: "elliebean"The "minimal description" of conscious experience you've provided (incessantly) is not the same thing as a definition. You've given us what you propose to be its parts, without really explaining what it is. Perhaps that is one reason it tends to stall the discussion; we're still not certain what it is we're supposed to be discussing.

A definition might look more like this:

conscious
adj.
Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.

experience
n.
The feeling of emotions and sensations as opposed to thinking; involvement in what is happening rather than abstract reflection on an event.

Thus conscious experience might be defined as emotional and sensory involvement in (as opposed to merely thinking about) an event, whilst having an awareness thereof.

Supposing it's impossible to have such an involvement without being aware of it, this definition seems redundant.

It would appear that it is impossible to have an experience that is (or while being) unconcious. So there's no need to speak of "conscious experience" when "experience" will do.



Unless you mean to erefer to the experience of consiousness. In which case we might revise our definition to:

emotional and sensory involvement in (as opposed to merely thinking about) having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts

or, being involved in one's awareness


So, is that what you mean, or something else?

I am looking for the a first person simplest definition of consciousness.

QuoteThe feeling of emotions and sensations as opposed to thinking; involvement in what is happening rather than abstract reflection on an event.

The above, however in the first person.  That is sensation and/or perception as described by the person having it.

Have a read of this
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Sensation (http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Sensation)

QuoteSensation, Perseption. The distinction between these words, when used in mental philosophy, may be thus stated; if I simply smell a rose, I have a sensation; if I refer that smell to the external object which occasioned it, I have a perception. Thus, the former is mere feeling, without the idea of an object; the latter is the mind's apprehension of some external object as occasioning that feeling. Sensation properly expresses that change in the state of the mind which is pr 7bd oduced by an impression upon an organ of sense (of which change we can conceive the mind to be conscious, without any knowledge of external objects). Perception, on the other hand, expresses the knowledge or the intimations we obtain by means of our sensations concerning the qualities of matter, and consequently involves, in every instance, the notion of externality, or outness, which it is necessary to exclude in order to seize the precise import of the word sensation. .

Quote from: "fdesilva"Sensation, Perseption. The distinction between these words, when used in mental philosophy, may be thus stated; if I simply smell a rose, I have a sensation; if I refer that smell to the external object which occasioned it, I have a perception. Thus, the former is mere feeling, without the idea of an object; the latter is the mind's apprehension of some external object as occasioning that feeling. Sensation properly expresses that change in the state of the mind which is pr 7bd oduced by an impression upon an organ of sense (of which change we can conceive the mind to be conscious, without any knowledge of external objects). Perception, on the other hand, expresses the knowledge or the intimations we obtain by means of our sensations concerning the qualities of matter, and consequently involves, in every instance, the notion of externality, or outness, which it is necessary to exclude in order to seize the precise import of the word sensation. .

Should let that source know that they misspelled "perception" as "perseption" and "pr 7bd oduced" is probably supposed to be "produced"

Do you vet your sources or do you just check to see if it says what you want it to say then just copy and paste?

Hi fdesilva.

I could see that the question of what conscious experience actually is would likely cause problems. Much of how you and I will approach the discussion will stem from our ideas (or lack of them) about this. I suppose sticking to the basic idea of 'sensation' as a gloss on the question of what conscious experience is might have to do. Leaving out 'free will' is a good idea too, unless there is some vital need for such a problematic metaphysical concept in your ongoing explanation.

I follow Test 2 and Test 3 as thought experiments but I can't get my head around why neurons would be totally isolated if S2 was read. Totally is a big word. Would this electronic brain somehow violate cause & effect?

Quote from: "Chewbie Chan"Hi fdesilva.

I could see that the question of what conscious experience actually is would likely cause problems. Much of how you and I will approach the discussion will stem from our ideas (or lack of them) about this. I suppose sticking to the basic idea of 'sensation' as a gloss on the question of what conscious experience is might have to do. Leaving out 'free will' is a good idea too, unless there is some vital need for such a problematic metaphysical concept in your ongoing explanation.

I follow Test 2 and Test 3 as thought experiments but I can't get my head around why neurons would be totally isolated if S2 was read. Totally is a big word. Would this electronic brain somehow violate cause & effect?

Sensation is fine for now. However, if opportunity provides and I am able to give my whole story, then one its strongest points is its explanation of free will. Its not just an explanation, but it also has experiments to back it , anyway lets see how long I can keep you interested first.

In Test 3 what we are doing is recording the input to each and every neuron. Then in the 2nd run isolating each neuron and repeating the run, but this time the inputs will come from the recording devices used.  As such each and every neuron is isolated.
Now compare this with Test 2 , in the case of test 2 each neuron is still receiving its input from a storage device, as it is stored for a fraction of a second.
Consider also the possibility of having a switches that can switch between the storage device and the recording device.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi150.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs93%2Ffdesilva%2FTest2and3_1.jpg&hash=4bfe28449c2c3b7e1e107efe049d659a318b8588)