How Did the Designer Design Pt II - Consciousness

But you do understand that there are artificial neural networks that can predict and model behaviour? Moreover, that we are really only talking about a decade or so for real artificial networks/models to have been developed?

No doubt there are sophisticated machines emerging with complex behaviour but they cannot mimic human behaviour in its apparent irrationality and emotionality which you well know melatonin.

Also, I don't think the Orch-OR model in any way supports the case for a soul. It really is just another physicalist theory, it just adds of quantum effects, allowing some randomness and possibly, therefore, free will.

It does not support the case for a soul, it just gives the possibility that the OR moment where consciousness emerges can be determined by a non-physical or 'other' element which is not amenable for measurement - a bit like strings in string theory. This possibility is enough for believers to be heartened by quantum discovery.

I don't really see that the ability for randomness is free will anyway. We don't even know if quantum mechanics is truly random and that hidden variables exist that will show it to be another deterministic theory, speculation is easy.

Of course speculation is easy but let's point to all the primary and secondary sources which give credence to the theory and allow the possibility of 'something else' to be involved in the OR moment.

I don't think OR is valid as quantum theory as far as being verified empirically. The likes of Penrose know how controversial it is. But it is testable.

Exactly, it is verifiable/falsifiable and stands on a rationalist platform - I thought that would appeal to the rationalist, deterministic reductionist in you.

But you see, the problems I have is just simply saying that gamma synchrony = cognitive binding = microtubules = consciousness. Even Koch has abandoned the idea that gamma synchrony solves the binding problem.
I read a new article the other week showing the involvement of alpha bands in consciousness. It's just toooooo simplistic to say just 'it's gamma stuff'/microtubules/dendrites. This is where I think Hameroff is lacking.

But at least he can point to some solid evidence of a correlation. I thought that the whole problem was based around the difficulty of defining consciousness in neurocognitive science? Hameroff et al have a model which is becoming more important in describing consciousness from the recent discoveries of coherent systems in hot environments. I admit OR is a theoretical problem at present but the theory is reasonably complete in four proposed crucial areas:

1. Preconscious moments to conscious monents can be brought about by the appearance of final conformation of superpositioned tubulins;

2. Non local quantum entanglements can correlate with associative memory and non-local emotional effects;

3. Quantum superpositioning of tubulin subunits can correlate with subconscious processes or dreams;

4. Quantum coherence and transmissibility of information in synchrony can lead to the unified sense of self.

Yes, all are physical models but there is space for the soul for in the Objective Reduction but of course there can be a physical explanation for this from neural firing.

But not everyone accepts this. Some think Tegmark is correct, some don't. Hameroff has to make another ton of assertions to get his numbers to work. What Tegmark hasn't done is falsified the idea, because the real empirical evidence is not really there to make the judgment. Much of this is mathmatical speculation with little basis in the brain at this point.

You know that Tegmark miscalculated, as much as I do. He avoided discussion of anti decoherence mechanisms in dendritic microtubules including the presence of stabilising actin gels and Debye 'membranes' of counterions surrounding the poles of microtubules (incidentally a unique feature of brain microtubules). The time for decoherence is lengthened by factors enough to allow qualia to emerge.

But this still doesn't answer the real questions. Gamma synchrony has to come from somewhere, but what it means is something else entirely. Gap junctions are already suggested to be involved in neuronal communication.

OK so are there any references which disprove/falsify it as a neural correlate of consciousness? This would appeal to my rationality if it can be experimentally falsified. But can it?

OK. Lets gets down to the nitty-gritty, heh.

Lets say that OR is correct. That microtubules do contain this feature. We see quantum entanglement and quantum computerisation in the brain.

Where are we now?

I don't see any solutions to the hard problem here at all. Think about what subjective awareness is. The hard problem says 'how do I subjectively experience redness?' or 'how do I subjectively experience a recalled Proustian memory?'.

I thought the intensity of the OR moemt would be affected by the varying intensity of the OR which was the stuff about reduced Planck's constant divided by time. More intense red = larger E = shorter t. Just a thought (no pun intended).

By the way, conventional feedback, feed forward loops etc.. with some pixie dust still need the pixie dust to interact at the molecular level don't they?

Currently, we view consciousness as the emergent property of a network of neural activity. Even if we add quantum effects to it, it doesn't really change anything. The OR model requires an orchestrated network. So the problem now includes microtubules, neurons, and synchronised ebb and flow of quantum effects and chemicals. It's still a physicalist theory with consciousness a by-product of the physical world. An epiphenomena?

Ha! Ha! melatonin - like the way you did that. You seem to have a low opinion of human consciousness. However, what worries me is that you strive for empirical evidence yet when it is presented you seem to abandon your neutrality and go back to the evolutionary imperative.

I've pulled this from wiki:

Experiments in the 1970s by Benjamin Libet suggested that conscious experience of sensory inputs requires up to 500 msec of brain activity, but is referred backward in time to the initial input. Quantum mechanics allows backward time effects as long as causal paradox is not possible

Originally posted by Heronumber0
No doubt there are sophisticated machines emerging with complex behaviour but they cannot mimic human behaviour in its apparent irrationality and emotionality which you well know melatonin.

I'm talking about neural networks being able to model human behaviour. One of Penrose & Hameroff's major suggestions is that human behaviour is non-computable.

It appears that this might not be the case. Some algorithms can reliably predict human behaviours. To have a single neural network that could model human behaviour in all its aspects is probably beyond us at this time.

What is an emotion? Are lizards, rats, or chimps any less emotional?

It does not support the case for a soul, it just gives the possibility that the OR moment where consciousness emerges can be determined by a non-physical or 'other' element which is not amenable for measurement - a bit like strings in string theory. This possibility is enough for believers to be heartened by quantum discovery.

You do understand what you appear to be saying here?

This is just satisfaction at an attempt to shove consciousness beyond science. Mysterian behaviour - you don't want a solution, you want mystery and ignorance, a place where magical thinking can reside.

Quantum mechanics is no more non-physical than classical mechanics. And string theory is likely to be testable, I don't think what you want is.

Of course speculation is easy but let's point to all the primary and secondary sources which give credence to the theory and allow the possibility of 'something else' to be involved in the OR moment.

There is always the possibility for something else to be involved, especially when we can apply magic. You could just say the same for synaptic interactions or even carbon-hydrogen bonds.

Exactly, it is verifiable/falsifiable and stands on a rationalist platform - I thought that would appeal to the rationalist, deterministic reductionist in you.

As I keep saying, I don't dismiss Penrose's ideas on OR, or even Hameroff's suggestions that microtubules have an important contribution to cognition.

But they have a few steps to go before they can claim anything of substance, and even when they do, it still won't support what you want it to do.

But at least he can point to some solid evidence of a correlation. I thought that the whole problem was based around the difficulty of defining consciousness in neurocognitive science?

It depends what you see the problem as being. Some think there is no problem, others that it will all be solved in time, others that we will never solve it.

Defining conscious moment as a collapsing wave function doesn't really say anything to me. As you noted earlier, the only reason it does for you is because it is mysterious and unsolvable.

Do you think this can explain how we subjectively experience redness any better than saying consciousness is an emergent property of neural networks? This is the hard problem after all.

Hameroff et al have a model which is becoming more important in describing consciousness from the recent discoveries of coherent systems in hot environments. I admit OR is a theoretical problem at present but the theory is reasonably complete in four proposed crucial areas:

1. Preconscious moments to conscious monents can be brought about by the appearance of final conformation of superpositioned tubulins;

2. Non local quantum entanglements can correlate with associative memory and non-local emotional effects;

3. Quantum superpositioning of tubulin subunits can correlate with subconscious processes or dreams;

4. Quantum coherence and transmissibility of information in synchrony can lead to the unified sense of self.

Yes, all are physical models but there is space for the soul for in the Objective Reduction but of course there can be a physical explanation for this from neural firing.

Some people have always shoved a soul on top of the science. No matter what explanation science provides they will still do so.

Do you really think much of the above is supported? Do you really think that the final conformation of microtubles has been shown to underlie preconscious moments to conscious moments? If you define it as such, then of course it will.

It is nothing more than hypothesis.

You know that Tegmark miscalculated, as much as I do. He avoided discussion of anti decoherence mechanisms in dendritic microtubules including the presence of stabilising actin gels and Debye 'membranes' of counterions surrounding the poles of microtubules (incidentally a unique feature of brain microtubules). The time for decoherence is lengthened by factors enough to allow qualia to emerge.

Tegmark never even assessed Orch-OR. He was just assessing the possibility of quantum effects under particular hypothetical circumstances in microtubules.

Heh, none of this stuff can be really assessed until it can be applied to the real-world. All of Hameroff's and Hagan's mathematical fudges are hypothetical, just like Tegmark's analysis was.

How do we know that actin gels stabilise quantum decoherence? It is all just hypothesis. Assertion built on assertion built on assertion. With a smattering of real evidence which may or may not be relevant.

OK so are there any references which disprove/falsify it as a neural correlate of consciousness? This would appeal to my rationality if it can be experimentally falsified. But can it?

A correlate. There are many. This is why Koch has moved away from such simplistic thinking. To suggest that gamma synchrony, and by assertion OR, is the answer is just toooo simple.

As I noted earlier, gamma synchrony appears to often increase in anesthesia, how is that consistent with the correlate of consciouness?

Are neocortical gamma waves related to consciousness?
Vanderwolf CH.
Department of Psychology and Graduate Program in Neuroscience, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Previous research has shown that neocortical gamma waves (approximately 30-80 Hz) are continuously present during low voltage fast neocortical activity (LVFA) occurring during waking or active sleep. Gamma waves occur in a burst-suppression pattern in association with large amplitude slow waves during quiet sleep or anesthesia. The present experiments show that continuous gamma activity is also present in rats during LVFA occurring during surgical anesthesia (with ether, isoflurane or urethane) and that a burst-suppression pattern of gamma activity occurs during large amplitude slow waves occurring in the waking state either spontaneously in undrugged rats or as a result of treatment with parachlorophenylalanine and scopolamine. The amplitude of gamma activity occurring during anesthesia is variable but is often greater than it is in the normal waking state. It is concluded that the pattern of neocortical gamma wave activity is strongly related to the presence or absence of large amplitude slow waves but is quite independent of the state of behavioral arousal. Whether or not gamma wave activity is related to subjective awareness is a very difficult question which cannot be answered with certainty at the present time.

linky

It's just tooo simple.

I thought the intensity of the OR moemt would be affected by the varying intensity of the OR which was the stuff about reduced Planck's constant divided by time. More intense red = larger E = shorter t. Just a thought (no pun intended).

By the way, conventional feedback, feed forward loops etc.. with some pixie dust still need the pixie dust to interact at the molecular level don't they?

In a way, I think you get my point. If we didn't really understand neuronal interactions, but knew that quantum computation was where we are now then I think the likes of Chalmers would be wooing over neurotransmitters. These people just appear to be mysterians. I think they don't want a solution, unless it has space for their new-age poop.

I couldn't care less whether all is mind, material is all, or minds float in dimension 11. I really, honestly, don't care. I'm just a scientist who follows data.

Ha! Ha! melatonin - like the way you did that. You seem to have a low opinion of human consciousness. However, what worries me is that you strive for empirical evidence yet when it is presented you seem to abandon your neutrality and go back to the evolutionary imperative.

I just don't place the human brain, mind, and behaviour on a pedestal. It is just a subject of study to me. I don't go for the mysterian approach to this, they want to put such stuff beyond science.

You never really assessed what I said though.

I've pulled this from wiki:

Experiments in the 1970s by Benjamin Libet suggested that conscious experience of sensory inputs requires up to 500 msec of brain activity, but is referred backward in time to the initial input. Quantum mechanics allows backward time effects as long as causal paradox is not possible

Yup, and some think that quantum mechanics will save free will from the determinists. But, we already know that much of what you see, feel, decide, and believe is a post-hoc construction, a rationalisation after-the-fact. That sooo much of your behaviour is what Koch calls 'zombie' behaviours. In this, Freud was on the ball.

Some think things like 'free-will' and 'consciousness' are an illusion. I don't really know. But I do wonder if folk psychology, and its mysterian views, is contaminating research on this thing we call consciousness.

[edit on 12-10-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

I'm talking about neural networks being able to model human behaviour. One of Penrose & Hameroff's major suggestions is that human behaviour is non-computable.

It appears that this might not be the case. Some algorithms can reliably predict human behaviours. To have a single neural network that could model human behaviour in all its aspects is probably beyond us at this time.

melatonin - I started wondering about the appearance of consciousness and language in humans as quite atypical events in an evolutionary sliding scale from simple to complex. However this excerpt also made me wonder if Penrose and Hameroff were on to something:

The notion of noncomputable processes is not unfamiliar to mathematicians and computer scientists. One particularly well-known and striking example of such a process comes from the mathematics of tiling, which concerns the ways in which different sets of flat shapes, or tiles, can or can't be arranged to cover an infinite flat surface without leaving gaps. That certain shapes--squares or triangles or hexagons--can do so seems intuitively obvious. But curiously, mathematicians have proved that it's impossible to devise a computer program--a general set of rules--that can predict whether tiles of any given shape can completely cover a plane. (Penrose himself has explored this problem, and out of his investigations, in 1973, he discovered a pair of diamond-shaped tiles that could completely cover a surface, but only in an infinite variety of never-repeating patterns.)

Link

Look, I may be irrational according to your way of thinking but you know that consciousness is mysterious anyway. Not only that but I do believe in evolution but with the proviso that God did it, and then gave consciousness to man which is separate from animal consciousness. I am not saying magic but possibly excellent programming of initial conditions in the Universe so that there is a purpose to all of Nature.

As I keep saying, I don't dismiss Penrose's ideas on OR, or even Hameroff's suggestions that microtubules have an important contribution to cognition.
But they have a few steps to go before they can claim anything of substance, and even when they do, it still won't support what you want it to do.

But why do you reject the secondary evidence that they offer when it is presented?

think this can explain how we subjectively experience redness any better than saying consciousness is an emergent property of neural networks? This is the hard problem after all
Do you really think much of the above is supported? Do you really think that the final conformation of microtubles has been shown to underlie preconscious moments to conscious moments? If you define it as such, then of course it will.

It is nothing more than hypothesis..

It provides a testable hypothesis which can be falsified by empirical means

Heh, none of this stuff can be really assessed until it can be applied to the real-world. All of Hameroff's and Hagan's mathematical fudges are hypothetical, just like Tegmark's analysis was.

I agree on this point. We need to directly quantify tubulin numbers at least or to provide replicable data to verify the hypotheses.

How do we know that actin gels stabilise quantum decoherence? It is all just hypothesis. Assertion built on assertion built on assertion. With a smattering of real evidence which may or may not be relevant.

Tracy T. Cao,* Wakam Chang,* Sarah E. Masters,* and Mark S. Mooseker*†‡ (Jan 2004)
Myosin-Va Binds to and Mechanochemically Couples Microtubules to Actin Filaments

...These results demonstrate that myosin-Va is a microtubule binding protein that cross-links and mechanochemically couples microtubules to actin filaments....Mol Biol Cell v.15(1)

As you know here melatonin, evidence after evidence that supports a hypothesis seems to support their assertions mate. I can also find other examples.

I would want studies to concentrate on reproducible results that are compatible with humans. As you know there are studies out there for any possibility in Nature's wonderful fabric. 20 years ago, it was thought that splicing of mRNA only occurred in eukaryotes but look at us now?

Bottom line melatonin - human consciousness is an unusual event in evolution. It is mysterious. I think God did it and His design is shown by the mysterious nature of the Orch OR model which is scientifically verifiable in parts if you look hard enough. Artificial Intelligence will never make a machine that can cry at the closing scene of 'Cool Runnings' (as I do) or appreciate the music of Coldplay Live in Australia or tile flat shapes to fit into an infinite pattern without leaving gaps. I have taken on board your objections and I will admit to doubts about the theory and will ponder on the nature of epiphenomenalism.

However when I saw my children being born and I thought of their safe development and shaping from a single cell I KNEW there was a God.

Anyway let's hope the English rugby team experience high levels of intense gamma synchrony in their next game. Good luck!

Originally posted by Heronumber0
melatonin - I started wondering about the appearance of consciousness and language in humans as quite atypical events in an evolutionary sliding scale from simple to complex.

They suggest even an electron can undergo conscious moments, so you appear to be a bit confused here.

They suggest that consciousness was present in very simple creatures early in evolutionary history. They even propose it may have been related to the cambrian explosion.

However this excerpt also made me wonder if Penrose and Hameroff were on to something:

The problem here is that Penrose is suggesting Godel-type issues for humans. This is strongly challenged by many researchers.

Look, I may be irrational according to your way of thinking but you know that consciousness is mysterious anyway. Not only that but I do believe in evolution but with the proviso that God did it, and then gave consciousness to man which is separate from animal consciousness. I am not saying magic but possibly excellent programming of initial conditions in the Universe so that there is a purpose to all of Nature.

That's cool. People with faith don't really bother me, I might think otherwise if I was in the US though. I just care about science and people misrepresenting it really, I'm quite open to people believing what they like. The organised religious stuff is more troubling than personal faith.

You do understand that it is difficult to see where the differentiation is between consciousness in humans and other animals according to Orch-OR. They are really saying that quantum effects are present in all animals with a decent number of neural microtubules, and therefore consciousness is. It will have real trouble explaining the qualitative differences between consciousness in a rat, an ape, and a human.

For example, we know that spindle neurons in the frontal lobe of apes are related to numerous high level cognitive abilities. Other species just don't have this class of neurons. They appear to be involved in self-regulation of more instinctive behaviours, which I feel is what can separate from other species - our ability for flexible and complex learning and behaviour.

But why do you reject the secondary evidence that they offer when it is presented?

I don't reject it, I just don't find it compelling. They need direct evidence of the founding claims of their hypothesis.

It provides a testable hypothesis which can be falsified by empirical means

And that's why I'm not completely dismissive of it. It gives his hypothesis a degree of scientific credibility.

Tracy T. Cao,* Wakam Chang,* Sarah E. Masters,* and Mark S. Mooseker*†‡ (Jan 2004)
Myosin-Va Binds to and Mechanochemically Couples Microtubules to Actin Filaments

...These results demonstrate that myosin-Va is a microtubule binding protein that cross-links and mechanochemically couples microtubules to actin filaments....Mol Biol Cell v.15(1)

As you know here melatonin, evidence after evidence that supports a hypothesis seems to support their assertions mate. I can also find other examples.

No, that just shows there is actin gel in microtubules. It doesn't show that this would allow what they require.

Just to be clearer, they have not shown that microtubules with actin gel and all the other stuff they propose allows the quantum effects they suggest is present. Indeed, they haven't got off first base yet.

Which is why I said:

"How do we know that actin gels stabilise quantum decoherence"

So, what they could do is experimentally show that quantum decoherence is not stabilised in normal microtubules, but is in microtubules which have actin filaments. They could even model this with some other analagous system. Then I might be impressed.

I would want studies to concentrate on reproducible results that are compatible with humans. As you know there are studies out there for any possibility in Nature's wonderful fabric. 20 years ago, it was thought that splicing of mRNA only occurred in eukaryotes but look at us now?

True, that's why we should never dismiss ideas like this out of hand. We wait for these dudes to produce something of worth.

Bottom line melatonin - human consciousness is an unusual event in evolution.

By definition it is.

But according to Hameroff, consciousness is not that special. It is present in most species with a few hundred neurons. If you want to know why humans are so special, we look at the expansive brain, with a fantastic frontal lobe that underpins complex and flexible social and cognitive abilities.

It is mysterious. I think God did it and His design is shown by the mysterious nature of the Orch OR model which is scientifically verifiable in parts if you look hard enough. Artificial Intelligence will never make a machine that can cry at the closing scene of 'Cool Runnings' (as I do) or appreciate the music of Coldplay Live in Australia or tile flat shapes to fit into an infinite pattern without leaving gaps. I have taken on board your objections and I will admit to doubts about the theory and will ponder on the nature of epiphenomenalism. However when I saw my children being born and I thought of their safe development and shaping from a single cell I KNEW there was a God.

Heh, I have honestly been having a spiritual experience the last few days, courtesy of Thom Yorke and the radiohead boys.

I had some weird stuff going on on album release day. So many events were like deja-vu through the day. Methinks it was due to some sort of emotional high being reached, very strange. I tend to get a bit like this at concerts too.

I think we should all worship at the alter of radiohead

But coldplay ain't a bad radiohead tribute band, heh.

Anyway, I can't see the issue with epiphenomenalism. Stick an oxygen to two hydrogens and we get the emergent property of wetness which is not present in the elements alone. No big deal.

Anyway let's hope the English rugby team experience high levels of intense gamma synchrony in their next game. Good luck!

Aye, we might well need it.

cheers

[edit on 12-10-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Look, I may be irrational according to your way of thinking but you know that consciousness is mysterious anyway. Not only that but I do believe in evolution but with the proviso that God did it, and then gave consciousness to man which is separate from animal consciousness. I am not saying magic but possibly excellent programming of initial conditions in the Universe so that there is a purpose to all of Nature.

If god gave human's consciousness to separate him from animals , how do you explain chimpanzee's, bonobo's, orangutans, gorilla's, dolphin's, whales and orca's? (I must be forgetting some too).

They suggest that consciousness was present in very simple creatures early in evolutionary history. They even propose it may have been related to the cambrian explosion.

Yeah, I find this hypothesis a bit strange because moments of consciousness would occur in potatoes or other living organisms albeit after long time intervals. However, I doubt that both researchers would hypothesise the Cambrian explosion as resulting from microtubule mediated consciousness. Hameroff goes alone at this point.

The problem here is that Penrose is suggesting Godel-type issues for humans. This is strongly challenged by many researchers.

But is the tiling problem correct for the fate of AI? If it is, there are serious problems, almost insurmountable, for the future of AI. I guess we will have to wait and see. I cannot imagine a machine laughing at Max Boyce jokes, for example

You do understand that it is difficult to see where the differentiation is between consciousness in humans and other animals according to Orch-OR. They are really saying that quantum effects are present in all animals with a decent number of neural microtubules, and therefore consciousness is. It will have real trouble explaining the qualitative differences between consciousness in a rat, an ape, and a human.

I admit this is a problematic issue but they could argue that there are fewer microtubules/neurones/coherent superpositions of tubulins causing a qualitative and quantitative decrease in conscious experience. Can't see the big problem here.

For example, we know that spindle neurons in the frontal lobe of apes are related to numerous high level cognitive abilities. Other species just don't have this class of neurons. They appear to be involved in self-regulation of more instinctive behaviours, which I feel is what can separate from other species - our ability for flexible and complex learning and behaviour.

Oh yeah I found this stuff quite interesting, Don't these neurones occur in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex of whales as well? This work is quite exciting but, to quote you, correlation does not mean causation.

So, what they could do is experimentally show that quantum decoherence is not stabilised in normal microtubules, but is in microtubules which have actin filaments. They could even model this with some other analagous system. Then I might be impressed.

I agree with you. It is about time that the system is tested in vitro or that an analagous large scale model is built which is reproducible and testable - this should be a priority for Hameroff's team.

But according to Hameroff, consciousness is not that special. It is present in most species with a few hundred neurons. If you want to know why humans are so special, we look at the expansive brain, with a fantastic frontal lobe that underpins complex and flexible social and cognitive abilities.

Hang on, you are being deliberately casual here. You know that Hameroff does not imply the same level of consciousness exists in all organisms. And certainly not decoherence avoidance in other animals in the same way as humans.

Anyway, I can't see the issue with epiphenomenalism. Stick an oxygen to two hydrogens and we get the emergent property of wetness which is not present in the elements alone. No big deal.

I know what you are trying to say but I can never, for a minute believe that human experience (e.g. your Radiohead experiences) and my experiences can be dismissed as mere reductionist side reactions in the brain. I think the small moments are more important in life somehow, like the first smile of a baby as it starts to recognise you, or the fact that the Scottish football team are at the top of their Table. Or even, dare I say it? The English winning at rugby! Well done guys, but I hope you lose gracefully in the Finals.

I'm willing to be open minded but believe that human life has a higher purpose and not as a vehicle to propagate genes as Dawkins originally bizarrely posited.

reply to post by DarkSide


Darkside, you know that I am talking about human consciousness as a unique event. We can also add on human language for that matter. Even if we are reductionist and mention the numbers of spindle neurones then humans have more. the size of the ACC is different as well, significantly between our closest relatives and humans.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Yeah, I find this hypothesis a bit strange because moments of consciousness would occur in potatoes or other living organisms albeit after long time intervals. However, I doubt that both researchers would hypothesise the Cambrian explosion as resulting from microtubule mediated consciousness. Hameroff goes alone at this point.

Paola Zizzi goes even further, suggesting that consciousness came into existence with the big-bang, and is a property of the universe itself.

None of this speaks to me in any sensical way. What would an electron be conscious of if we could stabilise this quantum effect?

But is the tiling problem correct for the fate of AI? If it is, there are serious problems, almost insurmountable, for the future of AI. I guess we will have to wait and see. I cannot imagine a machine laughing at Max Boyce jokes, for example

Heh, maybe. I suppose learning, experience, and social conventions has a lot to do with such things. Years ago, people laughed wholeheartedly at Manning jokes, but they lost their audience over time with changes in the social norms.

I admit this is a problematic issue but they could argue that there are fewer microtubules/neurones/coherent superpositions of tubulins causing a qualitative and quantitative decrease in conscious experience. Can't see the big problem here.

But if quantum entanglement underlies consciousness, and this is present in an iguana and a human, what's the difference really? Consciousness is related to awareness of sensory states, so an iguana would be aware of the sensory input it receives, just like we are. Sensory input requires the good old classical stuff, along with all the higher pathways.

The conscious experience of pain in a rat would be the same as that in a human, I think. Why would it be any different?

But we would need to look at more than just the presence of quantum entanglement to understand conscious experience. We are trying to develop quantum computers, if successful and with sensory input, would this make them conscious? Would a thermostat attached to a quantum computer be conscious of temperature?

Seems as good as saying that my PC would be when attached. I keep thinking about Chalmer's hard problem, I just don't see how this explains why I subjectively experience redness any better than current ideas.

Oh yeah I found this stuff quite interesting, Don't these neurones occur in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex of whales as well? This work is quite exciting but, to quote you, correlation does not mean causation.

Glad to hear you find it interesting. This is the sort of stuff that neuroscience is working on. The thing here is that we know that of all the areas of the human brain which are novel and unusual, we should look to the frontal lobe for what makes us different in many ways. Our vision, olfactory, auditory systems are nothing special, it's our ability for complex and flexible social behaviour and intelligence - all frontal lobe stuff really. Even language is to a degree (e.g., Broca's).

But, yeah, you're right there, I forgot about the recent whale studies. A few cetaceans apparently have spindle neurons, IIRC.

These are interesting areas of the brain, with many forms of psychopathology showing abnormalities in the ACC and other regions of the medial frontal lobe. I actually test patients with lesions to this area of the brain, they tend to show dysfunctional social behaviours, a bit like sociopaths. So, it's a bit more than simple correlation to complex behaviours. We have lots of evidence that these areas underlie the inhibition/regulation of instincts/emotions, and flexibility in responding, decision-making etc etc. All the complex stuff - theory of mind, empathy, moral and adaptive decision-making etc etc.

Thus, if we want to understand what makes us human, I think this is where we need to look. Brain size appears to increase with social group size, we have some of the biggest social groups of the primates, and therefore, the big brain to bolster this complexity of social interactions.

Allman et al., 2002

Frontotemporal Dementia & spindles

Which is why I like the 'social brain hypothesis' of Dunbar. Probably a bit of academic bias though, heh.

Hang on, you are being deliberately casual here. You know that Hameroff does not imply the same level of consciousness exists in all organisms. And certainly not decoherence avoidance in other animals in the same way as humans.

But why wouldn't they? If consciousness is just a collapsing wave function? If a dog brain has microtubules that enables these same basic quantum processes as in human brains (and hameroff says they do), what's the difference? If they didn't, wouldn't they become unconscious, like an anesthetised human? Reptiles, birds, and mammals have all been shown to express gamma synchrony. Even some insects show a similar gamma activity.

If I could stabilise quantum decoherence in carrot microtubules, would they be conscious? Again, conscious of what? I don't think we can separate consciousness from the whole. To say that an electron can undergo conscious moments just seems vacuous to me.

I know what you are trying to say but I can never, for a minute believe that human experience (e.g. your Radiohead experiences) and my experiences can be dismissed as mere reductionist side reactions in the brain. I think the small moments are more important in life somehow, like the first smile of a baby as it starts to recognise you, or the fact that the Scottish football team are at the top of their Table.

Just think how this all feels to an amnesic patient? Those who don't have these memories, due to a few simple organic lesions to important areas of the brain. Or when someone with Phineas Gage-type frontal lesions becomes a competely different person, even becoming a pedophile. Where are microtubules then? Just underpinning a collapsing wave function and awareness?

This is why I find it confusing that you think this Orch-OR suits your position. It doesn't really speak to you, with your personality and memories, surviving beyond death, I feel. Just that quantum effects bring about awareness, is that all we are?

I would hope we are more than that - the sum of all our experiences and inherent traits. That's me anyway. But if you are just a collapsing wave function, that's cool

Or even, dare I say it? The English winning at rugby! Well done guys, but I hope you lose gracefully in the Finals.

Heh, cheers, we ground them down, eh? Still have a few bad memories of meeting SA in the group stage, so lets hope the argentinians win tomorrow.

I'm willing to be open minded but believe that human life has a higher purpose and not as a vehicle to propagate genes as Dawkins originally bizarrely posited.

I don't think Dawkins' proposal is that bizarre. It appears that is the case to a degree. We give our own purpose. And your determined purpose is also from your own personal reflections.

But, again, if it makes everything a bit more fulfilling for you, who am I to argue? I make my own purpose, and actually find it fulfilling enough.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Darkside, you know that I am talking about human consciousness as a unique event. We can also add on human language for that matter. Even if we are reductionist and mention the numbers of spindle neurones then humans have more. the size of the ACC is different as well, significantly between our closest relatives and humans.

How can you be so sure? I've never been a dolphin after all. All I know is that they are self-aware, and very intelligent. Probably more intelligent than some people I know

And after all, spindle neurones are just that, neurones, made of proteins. And when a person dies the spindle neurones die too. As long as consciousness is produced by neurones, it cannot survive death.

Concerning Dawkins, I found it impossible to debunk what he says, it just makes sense. I am a colony of genes

reply to post by melatonin

by melatonin. None of this speaks to me in any sensical way. What would an electron be conscious of if we could stabilise this quantum effect?

Again, pretty controversial. If I am correct idealistic monism regards consciousness as ultimate reality with the appearance of concrete events as conscious experience, An electron also shows a putative neo-proto-experience/feeling. This is in the realm of metaphysics, which is useful for me.

Let's just stick to the mystery of human consciousness, however. In fact almost every field of science or perhaps most human enquiry tends to end with a question mark. These question marks, by default also plague the evolution story. I just want an answer to the questions but I am prepared to say God and wait for the questions to be answered.

Heh, maybe. I suppose learning, experience, and social conventions has a lot to do with such things. Years ago, people laughed wholeheartedly at Manning jokes, but they lost their audience over time with changes in the social norms.

Yes but will AI machines realise that or is this another theory waiting for infinite time to solve it? So what you are saying is that we are just computerised sentient flesh with difficult programming issues which can be solved by future AI programmers. I tend not to agree with that hypothesis and you did not mention the tiling issue.

But if quantum entanglement underlies consciousness, and this is present in an iguana and a human, what's the difference really? Consciousness is related to awareness of sensory states, so an iguana would be aware of the sensory input it receives, just like we are. Sensory input requires the good old classical stuff, along with all the higher pathways.

OK. But what is the classical version of brain wide gamma synchrony? I know you have addressed gamma synchrony already but are the new theories showing increase of gamma synchrony on rodents or humans?

But we would need to look at more than just the presence of quantum entanglement to understand conscious experience. We are trying to develop quantum computers, if successful and with sensory input, would this make them conscious? Would a thermostat attached to a quantum computer be conscious of temperature?

That is not the problem. It would still need to compute the inputs and give computable outputs. If an educated human can solve the tiling problem and a computer cannot, we are still at base one. More time for more sophisticated programming? Or are humans too different? And why are they different?

Glad to hear you find it interesting. This is the sort of stuff that neuroscience is working on. The thing here is that we know that of all the areas of the human brain which are novel and unusual, we should look to the frontal lobe for what makes us different in many ways. Our vision, olfactory, auditory systems are nothing special, it's our ability for complex and flexible social behaviour and intelligence - all frontal lobe stuff really. Even language is to a degree (e.g., Broca's).

Given to us by God after He allowed Man to evolve brain size and complexity to a certain point. Language caused Man to be able to compartmentalise knowledge a la Kantian categories. And then facilitated social behaviour leading to our questionably 'great' civilisations.

These are interesting areas of the brain, with many forms of psychopathology showing abnormalities in the ACC and other regions of the medial frontal lobe. I actually test patients with lesions to this area of the brain, they tend to show dysfunctional social behaviours, a bit like sociopaths. So, it's a bit more than simple correlation to complex behaviours. We have lots of evidence that these areas underlie the inhibition/regulation of instincts/emotions, and flexibility in responding, decision-making etc etc. All the complex stuff - theory of mind, empathy, moral and adaptive decision-making etc etc.

The ACC and the frontoinsular cortex look like important areas of 'human' like functions such as you mentioned however God gave us these brain area developments to us to distinguish between right and wrong during social interactions. I note with interest the single dendrite that protrudes from the spindle neurons...

But why wouldn't they? If consciousness is just a collapsing wave function? If a dog brain has microtubules that enables these same basic quantum processes as in human brains (and hameroff says they do), what's the difference? If they didn't, wouldn't they become unconscious, like an anesthetised human? Reptiles, birds, and mammals have all been shown to express gamma synchrony. Even some insects show a similar gamma activity.

Look here, consciousness is caused by the typical physical (or metaphysical) neurological pathways that orchestrate the final Objective Reduction. The processes are presumably more complex and more varied than other animals. Hence we have the feeling of an unchanging ego and a more complex capability allowing the soul to interact from another dimension with the concrete elements that lead to consciousness.

If I could stabilise quantum decoherence in carrot microtubules, would they be conscious? Again, conscious of what? I don't think we can separate consciousness from the whole. To say that an electron can undergo conscious moments just seems vacuous to me.

I think the point about an electron being conscious has been misunderstood from Whitehead's metaphysical comprehension. I don't agree entirely with it but then I also follow theological comprehensions about the origin of language and consciousness so I follow a sort of syncretic belief which tries to marry scientific fact with my religious views. Dawkins would hate my stance but maybe Darwin would understand...

How can you be so sure? I've never been a dolphin after all. All I know is that they are self-aware, and very intelligent. Probably more intelligent than some people I know

And after all, spindle neurones are just that, neurones, made of proteins. And when a person dies the spindle neurones die too. As long as consciousness is produced by neurones, it cannot survive death.

Darkside, from your own answers other hominids would provide us with a similar system to investigate consciousness. However, I stick by my point less developed ACC, less spindle neurons, limited language...
I appreciate that the OrchOR model can be a purely physical model replacing the classical model and adds another layer of information processing to normal neurological processes. However, where does that unitary sense of self come from? You always refer to yourself as Darkside as your personality don't you? Why not transfer the mystery of consciousness to quantum processes which actually define the edge of reality? And I say that beyond the edge of reality, there are our souls which confer us with ego, and God which gave us the souls to interact with our brains that's all man! I am just taking a small step beyond the mundane and material to something with far more interesting possibilities.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Darkside, from your own answers other hominids would provide us with a similar system to investigate consciousness. However, I stick by my point less developed ACC, less spindle neurons, limited language...

Limited language? I'm sure you heard of Koko before, she's a female gorilla that learned a special sign language, and since she has expressed emotions, the desire to have babies, and she even used the sign language to tell the researcher that she will teach the sign language to her offspring. If that's not language I don't know what it is.

I appreciate that the OrchOR model can be a purely physical model replacing the classical model and adds another layer of information processing to normal neurological processes. However, where does that unitary sense of self come from? You always refer to yourself as Darkside as your personality don't you? Why not transfer the mystery of consciousness to quantum processes which actually define the edge of reality? And I say that beyond the edge of reality, there are our souls which confer us with ego, and God which gave us the souls to interact with our brains that's all man! I am just taking a small step beyond the mundane and material to something with far more interesting possibilities.

I don't know. I cannot answer those questions, but I cannot call it god! Even if you believe in a soul why do you need to attribute it to god? couldn't souls exist independently?

reply to post by DarkSide


I am glad that you are honest with your views. Yes, greater apes can use sign language and a vocabulary equal to that of an eight year-old human. Heck, even a 10 year-old human child. However, are they capable of two complex human linguistic capabilities? More exactly, are they capable of mastering thousands of symbols (words) or capable of complex syntax? Or are they capable of recursive thought reflecting a thought on itself?

I don't think the evidence points that way does it?

Link to Unique Nature of Human Language

As far as an independent existence of souls, that is an intriguing view... However at some point in human evolution there appeared a concept of a unified unchanging 'I', able to show both cause and effect. In the same way that we cannot see the strings of string theory, isn't it possible that the soul is too small to be measured by our current means. I don't know either but I am jst putting forward a hypothesis which can be tested at some future point.