U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-08-2014, 09:16 PM
 
40,054 posts, read 26,735,309 times
Reputation: 6050

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
When you recognize the impossibility of observing the entire state of the brain from within the brain without altering the entire state of the brain . . . it will become more understandable. The field theories of consciousness are just scratching the surface of this phenomenon.

ANY pattern, per se, does NOT really exist (as a pattern). It is always just individual notes. It is our consciousness and its ability to create abstractions that separates us from the rest of the sentient animals. Our conscious sense of Self is itself and abstraction . . . but unlike the abstractions of music and melody . . . it DOES exist as an abstract form of energy capable of interacting identifiably with reality. It is what we are conversing with in this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
There is no worker thread or other computer or anything that is NOT already part of the state to BE observed. The entire brain and ALL its processes are the state that comprises consciousness. Any change in anything within the system to reflect the observation (new state) would of necessity alter the very state that was to be observed before it could BE observed. You seem to be knowledgeable enough about state machines to understand this, mordant. The brain is the brain and its entire state is what has to be observed . . . that leaves no place IN the brain for that to take place!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Well we're talking in circles. States are observed because the information is required and it's implied that it will regulate (alter) the system, else there would be no point in doing the observation other than amassing data that you'd never look at or do anything with. You seem to be suggesting that self-awareness is a separate thing that in no way alters the system observed but I'm suggesting that if that were the case the self awareness would be useless and we in fact wouldn't even be aware of that awareness ;-)
We are talking in circles because you refuse to get out from inside the system (state machine) and analyze it from without. Self-referencing happens automatically and we experience it as our sense of Self or Being who is OBSERVING the content of our thoughts and sensations . . . it is indeed separate from the specific content or sensations of our state of consciousness that is being observed at any point in time. The latter . . . (what is being observed) . . . and the state that is doing the observing of it cannot simultaneously reside within the brain state that is producing what is being observed.
Quote:
Multitasking systems appear to be continuously doing multiple things at once but they are really just rapidly time-slicing ultimately.
I will grant you that the human brain is particularly bad at multitasking, compared to computers. But the human brain is a pattern matching engine (or more exactly, a discrepancy detection engine that works by comparing encountered patterns with remembered patterns) and not a general purpose device for inconveniencing electrons like a digital computer. We are just learning how to construct something more specifically brain-like by simulating the organization of the human prefrontal cortex, which is very different from standard digital computing paradigms. Interestingly, when that model doesn't produce outputs we observe from the human cortex we tune the model until we get the expected results and it teaches us interesting things about how the brain works at a very low level. So we are on the right track there because the model has good predictive power.
You might even say that human-like pattern matching behaviors emerge from that system ;-)
This is a distraction from the central issue of trying to simultaneously represent the state of the brain to be observed AND the state that is doing the observing within the same neuronal states. That is not multi-tasking . . . that is an impossibility. Clearly the observer state must emerge simultaneously from the state to be observed as a resonant neural field!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-09-2014, 04:04 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,697,087 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The latter . . . (what is being observed) . . . and the state that is doing the observing of it cannot simultaneously reside within the brain state that is producing what is being observed.
Why can it not? Solely because you want it to be so? I see no reason why it can not.

All you have done is point out that the act of observing changes the state of the brain if the brain is observing itself. So what? Why is that a problem? It is just a series of recursive and ongoing state changes. State change. Observe. Change. Observe that. Change. Observe that. Continuously. Just because it is ongoing does not make it impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2014, 06:10 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,195 posts, read 9,082,614 times
Reputation: 6079
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
Why can it not? Solely because you want it to be so? I see no reason why it can not.

All you have done is point out that the act of observing changes the state of the brain if the brain is observing itself. So what? Why is that a problem? It is just a series of recursive and ongoing state changes. State change. Observe. Change. Observe that. Change. Observe that. Continuously. Just because it is ongoing does not make it impossible.
Exactly. You get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2014, 10:00 AM
 
40,054 posts, read 26,735,309 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
We are talking in circles because you refuse to get out from inside the system (state machine) and analyze it from without. Self-referencing happens automatically and we experience it as our sense of Self or Being who is OBSERVING the content of our thoughts and sensations . . . it is indeed separate from the specific content or sensations of our state of consciousness that is being observed at any point in time. The latter . . . (what is being observed) . . . and the state that is doing the observing of it cannot simultaneously reside within the brain state that is producing what is being observed.
This is a distraction from the central issue of trying to simultaneously represent the state of the brain to be observed AND the state that is doing the observing within the same neuronal states. That is not multi-tasking . . . that is an impossibility. Clearly the observer state must emerge simultaneously from the state to be observed as a resonant neural field!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Exactly. You get it.
I kind of like this particular juxtaposition of posts . . . even though you are agreeing with someone I have on ignore. You really do not seem to get that the state to be observed (self-reference sense of Self or Being) is simultaneous with the state of consciousness to be observed. They cannot co-locate using your strictly material brain process viewpoint of consciousness. I realize this goes against everything you WANT to believe or not believe . . . but the reality is what it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2014, 10:32 AM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,250,359 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I kind of like this particular juxtaposition of posts . . . even though you are agreeing with someone I have on ignore. You really do not seem to get that the state to be observed (self-reference sense of Self or Being) is simultaneous with the state of consciousness to be observed. They cannot co-locate using your strictly material brain process viewpoint of consciousness. I realize this goes against everything you WANT to believe or not believe . . . but the reality is what it is.
Can explain, maybe using more specific words why this is the case? If I take, for example, the Bluetooth SOC (system on a chip) on my desk at the moment, I can take the combination of hardware and the software running on the chip as a singular entity or system. The combined states of the hardware and software produce the state of the system. Within that system are process, part of that system whose job it is to monitor and observe the system as a whole. They are part of the system, yet they monitor data, form abstractions of that data and take actions on that data without being outside of the system.

Why is human consciousness intrinsically different? What prevents our awareness from being a "hypervisor thread" or monitor process running as part of the same state machine as the rest of our unconscious and conscious mind?

Also, your theory of the mind seems to have an infinite regress problem. If we take the physical brain and nervous system as a system, and say that and observer of the system must exist outside of that system, then if we take the physical system, plus your disembodied consciousness as a system, then any observation of our own consciousness, must produce yet another external observer. The fact that we can make conscious choices and observations of our own conscious thought process seems to imply either recursion or a chain of outside observers. It seems to me that Mordant's conception handles this quite cleanly, but external observers cause more problems than they solve...

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2014, 04:36 PM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,697,087 times
Reputation: 4300
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You really do not seem to get that the state to be observed (self-reference sense of Self or Being) is simultaneous with the state of consciousness to be observed.
Your posts are getting predictable. Whenever you start a sentence or rant with "You do not get" - what follows is ALWAYS an assertion that lacks and basis at all. Your common MO is to attach anothers knowledge or education or skills JUST before you say something that you yourself can not back up.

Justify the assertion they are simultaneous please. And drop the pretense that you only see my questions vicariously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 02:28 PM
 
7,112 posts, read 9,346,238 times
Reputation: 8162
Atheism isn't about life being about nothingness. We don't come from nothing. It is not true to say that we are nothing or that we are headed nowhere. I find atheists believe it's pointless to attribute everything that happens to them to something they can't see or negotiate with. They say God is nothing -- not themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2014, 09:51 PM
 
40,054 posts, read 26,735,309 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I kind of like this particular juxtaposition of posts . . . even though you are agreeing with someone I have on ignore. You really do not seem to get that the state to be observed (self-reference sense of Self or Being) is simultaneous with the state of consciousness to be observed. They cannot co-locate using your strictly material brain process viewpoint of consciousness. I realize this goes against everything you WANT to believe or not believe . . . but the reality is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Can explain, maybsing more specific words why this is the case? If I take, for example, the Bluetooth SOC (system on a chip) on my desk at the moment, I can take the combination of hardware and the software running on the chip as a singular entity or system. The combined states of the hardware and software produce the state of the system. Within that system are process, part of that system whose job it is to monitor and observe the system as a whole. They are part of the system, yet they monitor data, form abstractions of that data and take actions on that data without being outside of the system.

Why is human consciousness intrinsically different? What prevents our awareness from being a "hypervisor thread" or monitor process running as part of the same state machine as the rest of our unconscious and conscious mind?

Also, your theory of the mind seems to have an infinite regress problem. If we take the physical brain and nervous system as a system, and say that and observer of the system must exist outside of that system, then if we take the physical system, plus your disembodied consciousness as a system, then any observation of our own consciousness, must produce yet another external observer. The fact that we can make conscious choices and observations of our own conscious thought process seems to imply either recursion or a chain of outside observers. It seems to me that Mordant's conception handles this quite cleanly, but external observers cause more problems than they solve...
-NoCapo
Let's try this. Assume the neural states of the entire brain (represented as digital ones and zeros) is the physical state producing our consciousness. This means there are no other physical neural states left to do anything else. They are ALL employed in producing our consciousness. Now without altering the originating configuration of ones and zeros . . . HOW would you ALSO then represent within the same physical neural states the observing self-referential state that has to be simultaneously represented? How could the same physical states represent the self-referential state without altering the originating physical states it is observing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,195 posts, read 9,082,614 times
Reputation: 6079
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Let's try this. Assume the neural states of the entire brain (represented as digital ones and zeros) is the physical state producing our consciousness. This means there are no other physical neural states left to do anything else. They are ALL employed in producing our consciousness. Now without altering the originating configuration of ones and zeros . . . HOW would you ALSO then represent within the same physical neural states the observing self-referential state that has to be simultaneously represented? How could the same physical states represent the self-referential state without altering the originating physical states it is observing?
Two implicit assumptions there:

1) The brain uses 100% of its capacity to represent you or me and has no spare resources at all.

2) Self awareness is "bolted on" or added over and above a pre-existing and presumably un self-aware consciousness, rather than developing as, and being integral to, the self.

Neither strikes me as likely or warranted. It seems far more likely to be correct to assume that self awareness is part of the "neural states of the entire brain", the same as any other observed capability of the brain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2014, 07:05 AM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,250,359 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Let's try this. Assume the neural states of the entire brain (represented as digital ones and zeros) is the physical state producing our consciousness. This means there are no other physical neural states left to do anything else. They are ALL employed in producing our consciousness. Now without altering the originating configuration of ones and zeros . . . HOW would you ALSO then represent within the same physical neural states the observing self-referential state that has to be simultaneously represented? How could the same physical states represent the self-referential state without altering the originating physical states it is observing?
I would assume the self referential state is part of our consciousness, and is already represented within system, just as a hypervisor or monitor is part of the software running on a chip. Secondly, I would not assume that self-awareness does not have an effect on the "state" of the algorithm or mind. Nowhere else in our experience can we observe something without affecting it, even if immeasurably so, why would we assume that the mind is an exception to this?

The other piece I think you are missing is that our consciousness, and beyond that our awareness of our own consciousness, both deal in abstractions. We are not conscious of the entire state of our own "computer". Just as a hypervisor in a computer system monitors specific flags, error conditions, maybe resource usage, and other broadly scoped things, our conscious mind takes note of pain, pleasure,emotion, etc.. The compilation of million s of sensory inputs, conditioned responses, and memories into abstract signals that our conscious mind can act on happens unders the hood, and is hidden from out internal state representation. They are all vital in forming "us" but there are layers of abstraction between the physical states of neurons and hormones and our thoughts. There is no reason that the function of such an observer cannot be run relatively independently from the underlying "threads", just as it is done in a computer. We don't require separate hardware to run multiple independent threads, because the magic is algorithmic, not hardware dependent.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top