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.
Anyone familiar with state machines, as Harry professes to be as an occupation, realizes that the state responsible for a given outcome can NOT be the locus of the resultant outcome without destroying the incident state itself. So the entire brain as the incident state cannot be the locus of the consciousness outcome. The fact that the resultant consciousness state is the result of EM-like manifestations (neuronal firings) makes ANY physical matter unlikely as its locus.
Ignoring the implication of your word salad, I need to correct you here. I have never said I work with FSMs (I know, FSM ), I sometimes work with back propagation neural networks (usually in predicting customer behavior). However, you appear to be ignorant of FSMs. Hint, the brain is not a FSM. Wikipedia does explain them should you wish to see where your errors are.
I can not do something I did a few months ago? Or maybe you just did not understand what the paper was saying. Just scroll up, it is up there somewhere?
Exactly, as in the evidence you assert I can not present, but did, shows.
And that is why computers can NEVER work. Oh, wait, maybe there is something wrong with your question begging word salad.
You just need to try to actually think instead of knee-jerking your responses. A computer would never work if the ENTIRE computer (ALL its components) had to hold the incident state and the outcome state simultaneously. They work because separate parts of the computer hold the incident and outcome states. That is not true of the brain.
Perhaps you should read the update at the bottom of your link.
Quote:
Update 3 Jan 2017: This man has a specific type of hydrocephalus known as chronic non-communicating hydrocephalus, which is where fluid slowly builds up in the brain. Rather than 90 percent of this man's brain being missing, it's more likely that it's simply been compressed into the thin layer you can see in the images above. We've corrected the story to reflect this.
Symptoms of holoprosencephaly range from mild (no facial/organ defects, anosmia, or only a single central incisor) to moderate to severe (cyclopia).
There are four classifications of holoprosencephaly.
Gross pathology specimen from a case of alobar holoprosencephaly.
Alobar holoprosencephaly, the most serious form, in which the brain fails to separate, is usually associated with severe facial anomalies, including lack of a nose and the eyes merged to a single median structure, see Cyclopia
Semilobar holoprosencephaly, in which the brain's hemispheres have somewhat divided, is an intermediate form of the disease.
Lobar holoprosencephaly, in which there is considerable evidence of separate brain hemispheres, is the least severe form. In some cases of lobar holoprosencephaly, the patient's brain may be nearly normal.
Syntelencephaly, or middle interhemispheric variant of holoprosencephaly (MIHV), in which the posterior frontal lobe and the parietal lobe are not properly separated, but the rostrobasal forebrain properly separates; it is possible that this is not a variant of HPE at all, but it is currently classified as such.
Agenesis of the corpus callosum, in which there is a complete or partial absence of the corpus callosum. It occurs when the corpus callosum, the band of white matter connecting the two hemispheres in the brain, fails to develop normally, typically during pregnancy. The fibers that would otherwise form the corpus callosum become longitudinally oriented within each hemisphere and form structures called Probst bundles
This child most likely has the least damaging form of this disorder.
You can wish all you want that our brains are not responsible for consciousness, however you are going to have to do better than what you just posted to try and convince us.
You just need to try to actually think instead of knee-jerking your responses. A computer would never work if the ENTIRE computer (ALL its components) had to hold the incident state and the outcome state simultaneously. They work because separate parts of the computer hold the incident and outcome states. That is not true of the brain.
Try thinking yourself instead of pretending to know what you are talking about by using big words. A computer program runs because of both the hardware and the electrical power just like products of the brain use the hardware and the "EM" electro-chemical firings between the neurons.
Do you know the difference between FSMs and neural networks yet? I did point to Wikipedia for your education.
Ha, you did not understand the paper I linked to. By the whole brain being responsible for consciousness, I was referring (once again) to consciousness not being local to certain areas.
As your first link itself says "In other words, it's unlikely that one specific region on its own is going to be responsible for consciousness". Why are you trying to refute me by linking to an article that says what I have been saying all along?
As for the second link, do you really think this poor child will be conscious like us when it grows up? And do you have something a little bit more scientific than a news paper who's reputation even in Germany is lower than that of der Bild?
This child most likely has the least damaging form of this disorder.
You can wish all you want that our brains are not responsible for consciousness, however you are going to have to do better than what you just posted to try and convince us.
Thank you for reading the whole article, I stopped after the face palm moment where the article agreed with me. The update is an interesting twist, and I have to ask myself if Diesel read that far.
This child most likely has the least damaging form of this disorder.
You can wish all you want that our brains are not responsible for consciousness, however you are going to have to do better than what you just posted to try and convince us.
The child was born with only a brain stem. That is a fact. Here is another article explaining it.
Ha, you did not understand the paper I linked to. By the whole brain being responsible for consciousness, I was referring (once again) to consciousness not being local to certain areas.
As your first link itself says "In other words, it's unlikely that one specific region on its own is going to be responsible for consciousness". Why are you trying to refute me by linking to an article that says what I have been saying all along?
As for the second link, do you really think this poor child will be conscious like us when it grows up? And do you have something a little bit more scientific than a news paper who's reputation even in Germany is lower than that of der Bild?
Point is the child is conscious with only a brain stem at this very moment. Here is another child with over 80% of his brain missing but still conscious. I did not see one mention in your paper about the brain stem being responsible for consciousness.
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.
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.
), I sometimes work with back propagation neural networks (usually in predicting customer behavior). However, you appear to be ignorant of FSMs. Hint, the brain is not a FSM. Wikipedia does explain them should you wish to see where your errors are.
