Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
Reflection & Resonance
Philip Benjamin
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 15:00 UTC
Suppose the mirror image of ‘me’ recognizes me, or is conscious!
Suppose? It does everything I do! Why reckon that it doesn’t think?
In a pan-psychic universe mirror images do think! If not, why not?
This reflection resonates ‘me’ warts, moles and all; incredulous?
More real is a bio dark-matter axion-like ‘Invisible Homo sapiens’
Of three different spin-axions akin to the ordinary fermions
With differential taxonomic distributions in plants, animals, humans
Dark Chemistries and differential taxonomic emission of bio-photons
Philip Benjamin
medinuclear@hotmail.com
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
[Gilberto Paiva]
I don’t believe in pan-psychism like theories because only biological neural systems structures to perform pattern recognition and processing. I do believe at cultural patterns transmission process, that seems obvious. I advocates for a standard physical theory of mind as the best candidate.
[Philip Benjamin]
This is the gist of what you have written.
The question is not whether one believes in pan-psychism, but how one cannot but come to that conclusion if the bio-sphere consists of the same particles of the Standard Model of the standard physical theory. “What is good for the goose is good for the gander”.
Physical, yes! Definitely so. But is it ordinary matter or extraordinary matter? Is it ordinary chemistry or extraordinary chemistry (analogous to SUSY Chemistry of Prof. Clavelli)?
Best regards
Philip Benjamin
-
[Graeme Smith]
This discussion on Consciousness and Cognition, wouldn’t really exist, if some of us didn’t believe that we could achieve a sentient machine. Half the people here are convinced that it will never happen, and are quite willing to explain often in great detail why. The other half are half convinced at least that it will happen, and all want their own theory to be the theory that makes it happen.
[Philip Benjamin]
I wonder how you figured out that I am in the nay-saying half. I not only fully agree that a programmed ‘sentience’ in a machine is possible, but eagerly wait to see one ‘living’ and functioning. It will still be “programmed living”, but could be more efficient and reliable than the natural, since it can incorporate the better facts and data from centuries of ‘existence’ of sentience.
I am fully convinced also that such a perfectly sentient robot cannot and will not produce ELF photons, much to the disappointment of the excellent Japanese AI-science and biophotonics. [By the way, Popp’s work in Germany on biophotons was further developed and studied by Japanese as well as Indian bio-physicists]. Because, when you cannot trace the origin of the ELF biophotons, how can it be programmed into robotic sentience? Moreover, the origin of ELF photons could very well be Non-EM physical interactions, which may not be easily programmable by EM tools.
As I have tried to explain before, I understand the word “consciousness’ in its ordinary sense. My doubts about using it in any metaphysical or mystic or uncanny/supernatural sense is based on the assumption that most if not all modern (rather post-modern) usage of the English term “consciousness” is a substitution for “atman” or “soul” or “psyche” (in Sanskrit, Greek, Hebrew and Latin].
So when one applies the term’ consciousness’ to a robot in the ordinary sense, it simply means a programmed ‘sentient robot’. The problem arises when the usage is in the post-modern sense with nebulous, ill-defined (and perhaps indefinable) meaning(s) and attributions.
Best regards,
Philip Benjamin
________________________________This is what William James say on transcendent views of “soul”:
Psychology P.350. “My final conclusion, then, about the substantial Soul is that it explains NOTHING and guarantees NOTHING. Its successive thoughts are the only intelligible and verifiable things about it, and definitely to ascertain the correlations of these with brain-processes is as much as psychology can empirically do. From the metaphysical point of view, it is true that one may claim that the correlations have a rational ground; and if the word Soul could be taken to mean merely some such vague problematic ground, it would be unobjectionable. But the trouble is that it professes to give the ground in positive terms of a very dubiously credible sort. I therefore feel entirely free to discard the word Soul from the rest of this book. If I ever use it, it will be in the vaguest and most popular way. The reader who finds any comfort in the idea of the Soul, is, however, perfectly free to continue to believe in it; for our reasonings have not established the non-existence of the Soul; they have only proved its superfluity for SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES” [all emphasis, mine].
James is referring to “soul” as it is in vogue conventionally- something metaphysical or mystic. However if it is taken in its very original sense as “breath” (in Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greek, Latin), it could simply mean the observable LIFE or SENTIENCE, and not the mystic “soul”.
James uses “consciousness’ very sparingly and that too only in the 10th chapter. He uses “unconsciousness” also in the same vein of thought. “Moment of thought”, “stream of thought”, “stream of consciousness” etc are used in the same context and interchangeably. Consciousness as a possible vehicle of knowing (as Ego) is mentioned once on p.364. It involves “a stream of thought”. Among the twenty-two ingredients that constitute the Empirical Life of the SELF (p.329), he completely omits “consciousness” (but conscientiousness is included).In James’ usage, “consciousness” almost always precedes or follows a preposition usually, “of”. A preposition always introduces a noun or noun phrase in order to furnish more information about a preceding word or phrase (typically but not always a noun). “Consciousness of SELF, of Ego, of PERSONAL IDENTITY, of this and that…etc emphasizes NOT consciousness, but the noun/noun phrase that follows- Self, Ego, Personal Identity etc.
-
Gilberto Paiva Wrote:
“Pattern Recognition mechanisms exists in most (if not all) animals with neural systems. Even plants with “tactical sensorial like” capabilities have mechanisms to recognize pressure patterns and exibit movements patterns in response. Artificial pattern recognition mechanisms are been projected and for sure is a major field of research in computer science related areas, some exemples: face pattern recognition mechanisms, sound pattern recognition mechanism, ortografical pattern recognition mechanisms, sintatic pattern recognition mechanisms, and an almost infinite possibility of it”.
[Philip Benjamin]
Empirically, there is 1) a vegetative state common to all sentience, 2) an animal state common to animals and humans and 3) an anthropic state unique to humans. Taxonomy culminates in homo sapiens, howsoever it is formulated. One may even grant that the bio-realm is pan-sentient at the vegetative level, pan-sapient or pan-conscious at the animal level including humans, but psychic only at the human level. ‘Panpsychic’ bio-realm is a misnomer, since psyche involves the unique aspects of human mind. A pan-conscious bio-realm is arguably within the limits of scientific orthodoxy. Taxonomies do not explain sentience or sapience or morphogenesis, they simply accept them. According to Human Genome Project, 0.1% difference in only about 20 genes makes the difference between humans and chimpanzees. That is a fast conclusion. There has to be something more substantial than that, possibly dark matter factors governed by the genomes across the taxa. Michel D. Lemonick (1994) wrote in a feature article, ‘How Man Began’, in TIME Magazine, March 14, 1994, that “No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals,” which is in line with the famous quote of the late Stephen J. Gould that ‘Homo sapiens is but a tiny, late-arising twig on life’s enormously arborescent bush’. Ordinary materialistic reductionism taken too far to the molecular and atomic levels can say so. Structural homologies and molecular similarities cannot account for the mental realm of sentience. In fact, there is no essential difference at the particle level between dung and diamond; both are made of identical electrons, protons and neutrons. However, at the macro level there is a world of difference. True, there are many things in common between plants, animals and humans as already referred to. Yet, as a ratiocinative sentient being, the sapient, ethical and moral dimensions make humans stand apart from all other sentience, good and evil notwithstanding. Marc Hauser (2008), professor of psychology, biological anthropology, and organismic and evolutionary biology in Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, presented a theory of "humaniqueness‘, or the uniqueness of human cognition for the first time at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in February 2008. According to him animals have “laser beam’ intelligence and humans have ’floodlight” cognition. Definition of human life as homo sapiens is blatantly confusing and incomplete if it is simply the sum total of certain ordinary physical properties such as size, age, form, abilities etc coupled to sentience. This definition denies for human life the unique dimensions of ethics, mores, meanings and teleological dispositions.
Best regards,
Philip Benjamin
-
[Gilberto Paiva]
As a physiological phenomena, pattern recognition manifestation is a very well observed funcionality. Pavlov experiments shows clearly the existence of pattern recognition mechanism when dogs learns to recognize sound patterns and exibits salivation physiological response patterns.
Modern experiments at neurology frequently studies the mechanisms of visual pattern recognition mechanisms, affective pattern recognition mechanisms, language patter recognition mechanisms, and so it goes far and very far away
can define the human existence and its relation to the universe existence, as the patterns of the universe that the human mind pattern recognition mechanism can recognize and process (in my article I discuss some proposed processing features as memorization of reconized patterns, activation and association of these patterns, which I call mental patterns.[Philip Benjamin]
The Pavlov experiments (which I have studied in great detail)confirms only the stimulus-response mechanism which is in varying degrees is universally prevalent as “built-in” instincts, if you will, in all sentient matter.
How do you connect that with “human” and “universe” existences? What is the nature of the stimulus? What is the response? What are these patterns? Are they pre-existent? Archetypical? Permanent? How and where do they originate? What kind of stimulus-response can generate “meanings” to patterns? Are they out there for “real” or just “mental representations” of something which do not really exist outside the mind?
Best regards
Philip Benjamin
-
Philip said “I wonder about how you figured out I am the nay saying half”
Well Philip, part of it is your attitude, on one side you SAY you are interested in what an artificial consciousness would be like, and in the same article you first claim that it would be “A Programmed Life” and then go off into the weeds with your Atman (Spirit) stuff.
Neither is actually germane, a Conscious machine would be self-programming so the programmed stuff, is just to give it a foundation on which to program itself, just as the DNA does.
The Metaphysical stuff is YOUR contribution not mine, I keep strictly away from it, even though I personally have a metaphysical aspect to my belief system. (Not however that of the standard “Spirit”).
-
[Graeme Smith]
“Well Philip, part of it is your attitude, on one side you SAY you are interested in what an artificial consciousness would be like, and in the same article you first claim that it would be “A Programmed Life” and then go off into the weeds with your Atman (Spirit) stuff”.
[Philip Benjamin]
I do not use the term “artificial consciousness”, unless by mistake or absent-mindedly or for contextually specific situations. ‘Artificial sentience’ can be SCIENCE. “Consciousness” artificial or not unless used in the ordinary sense, is almost always an unknown, undefinable, mystic ‘something’ which NOBODY knows what it is, but EVERBODY knows how to define it!!!!
I was only raising the question that since “Atman”/ruwach/pneuma/psyche etc in Sanskrit,Hebrew, Greek and Latin simply mean “breath” or “wind”, if it means by imlication ‘life’ or’sentience’. As I have indicated, of the 22 or so ingredients for SELF mentioned by William James, ‘consciousness’ is not one of them, ‘conscientiousness’ is!
[Graeme Smith]
Neither is actually germane, a Conscious machine would be self-programming so the programmed stuff, is just to give it a foundation on which to program itself, just as the DNA does.
The Metaphysical stuff is YOUR contribution not mine, I keep strictly away from it, even though I personally have a metaphysical aspect to my belief system. (Not however that of the standard “Spirit”).
[Philip Benjamin]
I mentioned nothing metaphysical, only physical and extra-ordinarily physical.
Since you do not define what you mean by ‘conscious machine’, it is difficult for me to comment on that term. A machine can be programmed to “self-program”. That does not make it conscious (in the ordinary sense as the antonym of unconscious), it is a self-programmed ‘smart’ machine. Still it is programmed.What fascinates me most is not necessarily the contents of these discussions, but the fact that what was once considered to be a scientific ‘taboo’ is now so openly and enthusiastically deliberated by well qualified folks in sciences, both natural and social. What surprises me most is that this enthusiasm is increasingly blind to facts such as:
1. There is no term or factor in any quantum physical or quantum chemical equation for an ‘element’ called ‘consciousness’. Still, it is explained away in quantum lingo.
2. What is unknowingly termed “consciousness” is acknowledged by most as a total-body phenomenon, not restricted to any specific cell or organ. Yet, it is almost always an ‘emergent phenomenon’ of the brain!
The ‘self’ in fact must be an ‘invisible’ but physical reflection of the total body itself.3. The seeing eye does not see itself, but it sees the whole universe. Contrariwisely, the ‘self’ sees itself (conscious in the ordinary sense)but does not ‘see’ any other self.
4. Nothing unknown or unknowable in science is ever defined. Not so, with the post-modern term of ‘consciousness’. It is unknown to all, yet defined by all!! Even machines are claimed to have "consciousness’, though they are not conscious (in the ordinary sense) that they are only machines not we/men.
Best regards
Philip Benjamin
-
Well you have some points there, I can’t say how good they are, but:
1. Consciousness is not a Physical Property although many of us believe it can be explained by physical systems. So looking for a QM explanation for it, is merely confusing the phenomenal aspects of it with the “Gostly” aspects of QM.
2. I am amused at your assumption that the “Self” is a reflection of the whole body. This is good fantasy material. And yet in an indirect way, you are right, in that what we perceive as being our self seems to be the whole body. The main problem here is the difference between perception and reality. We know that there are imperfections in perception that are not there in reality, so why are you so sure that there aren’t illusions of reflection in our sense of self?
The trick is knowing where the model of the self leaves off and the perception generated illusions begin. I do not buy the illusion of a whole body reflection as being the self. Instead I believe that self model is a small database of what I call set points, and adjustment points that define the body in terms of a comfort zone of parameters which if we follow keep us from injuring ourselves. What makes the illusion of a whole body reflection required, is the feedback needed to confirm that the body remained within its comfort zone. As we analyze the feedback against the model, we “Experience” the feedback and we create a meta-cognitive signal that associates that experience with the “Self-Model”.
Evidence is that the Self-Model is in the Orbito-frontal Cortex, which is the part of the Prefrontal Cortex just above the eyes. Since the “Experience” depends on the signals concentrated via the Nervous System and is expressed as activations within the brain, I believe we are on firm ground when we say that the experience of self is seated in the brain even though it reflects the body.
The Self Seeing itself Metaphor is entertaining, but from a physical systems point of view all we are really talking about is a feedback system that reflects the body back onto the self-model, and tests to make sure it hasn’t exceeded the limits and tolerances set in the model. This is by no means all we mean when we say consciousness, but it is a small part of it.
I think you have a mis-perception about science. You say that nothing unknown or unknowable is defined in science, but in that you are wrong, dead wrong.
Consider for instance Phlostoligan (sp) or Corpusles in chemistry just for instance. Consider Dark Energy, and Dark Matter in physics. We don’t know for sure than these exist, or don’t exist, since they were hypothetical solutions to specific problems, that were or may soon be replaced with better solutions, if we learn to understand the Universe better.
The mere fact that Science is built on Hypothesis should warn you against such sweeping statements. What you are doing is mistaking the Education that is the outcome of science with the messy process that is involved in actually doing it. So when you come onto a science board where actual hypothesis are being discussed, you think that they aren’t scientific, when really the discussion is the essence of science, it is the Education that convinces you that science can do no wrong, that is not scientific.
It is your hypothesis that a Dark Energy “Body” is needed to explain sentience and especially the self. What I have been trying to do is to ween you away from such a totalitarian view of self, and point out how the science of the brain, actually indicates something completely different.
Of course I am just one thinker in a sea of scientists and my own views are perceived as being somewhat off center, but that is the wonder of science, that people who are wrong, or are perceived to be wrong at some level can still contribute to it, if their wrong assumptions are less wrong than the status quo, or are just interesting in a new way. -
[Graeme Smith]
Consciousness is not a Physical Property although many of us believe it can be explained by physical systems. So looking for a QM explanation for it, is merely confusing the phenomenal aspects of it with the “Gostly” aspects of QM.
[Philip Benjamin]
If it is not PHYSICAL why or how can it be sujected to analysis by any physical science tool? One might as well say that the expression consciousnes should not be comsidered to be anything other than the antonym of unconsciousness. That is William James’ understanding also!
There are no Ghostly aspects of QM. Interpretations of QM which are mostly subjective, do have not only “Ghosts” but even Reincarnation and Nirvana!! QM is simply mathematical APPLICATION of wave equations to infinitesimally small PARTICLES which behave, rather PRETEND to, AS IF they are waves, but in fact they are always particles.
[Graeme Smith]
2. I am amused at your assumption that the “Self” is a reflection of the whole body. This is good fantasy material. And yet in an indirect way, you are right, in that what we perceive as being our self seems to be the whole body. …why are you so sure that there aren’t illusions of reflection in our sense of self?
[Philip Benjamin]
I am not ‘sure’ about much in science, since it is always changing, growing and maturing even at the basics.
[Graeme Smith]
I think you have a mis-perception about science. You say that nothing unknown or unknowable is defined in science, but in that you are wrong, dead wrong.
Consider for instance Phlostoligan (sp) or Corpusles in chemistry just for instance. Consider Dark Energy, and Dark Matter in physics. We don’t know for sure than these exist, or don’t exist, since they were hypothetical solutions to specific problems, that were or may soon be replaced with better solutions, if we learn to understand the Universe better.
[Philip Benjamin]
Would you elaborate: “Phlostoligan (sp) or Corpusles”
Dark Energy is physical Energy. You are definitely looking for physical Energy. Dark Matter is physical matter particles, hypothetical axions for example. It has no electrical charge, of negligible mass etc. You are right. These are hypothetical PHYSICAL solutions to REAL physical problems. Hypothetical does not mean metaphysical or mystic! Physical experiments can be devised and tested based on physical assumptions on physical entities subject to EM tools.
-
Philip asks “How if Consciousness is not a physical Quality, can physical mechanisms detect it?” Most people do not realize that Force is not a physical Quality. Yet a good percentage of our physical theory has to do with forces of one type or another. Magnetism is associated with certain types of materials, but doesn’t have a physical nature, however it does affect the way that other things work, and so we can map fairly accurately the “Flux Lines of Magnetism”.
We do this because magnetic materials have a tendency to orient themselves along a magnetic field. We use this effect in navigation when we use a compass that is linked to the magnetic field of the earth to determine where north is.
We don’t know the name of the Chinese Philosopher that invented the Compass, here in the West, because we hesitate to admit that it was rumors of Chinese junks sailing the deep sea, that made the parallel invention of the compass in western Europe possibly centuries later, necessary.
But despite the ghostly nature of magnetism we have defined it to scientific levels of accuracy, and have invented whole theories of scientific merit based on the ghostly influence of one magnet on another.
Our electronic industry would not exist if it weren’t for some Chinese Junk, that visited Europe, and introduced the idea of the compass.
In much the same way, we can derive information about consciousness from the activity of the brain, and the activity of organisms that are conscious, the most difficult problem is determining what consciousness is, so that we can detect when it is applied. Just as philosophers in the past puzzled over the way that a piece of magnetite either repulsed or attracted another piece of magnetite according to orientation, we are now in the process of puzzling over the differences in the information that comes from experential sources and the information that comes from our Electronic Machines. Sooner or later someone will come up with a hypothesis about what consciousness is, that will reconcile the two different streams of science. Until then, the fact that we are still struggling to define it, does not change that the physical systems react to it. And so just like the Magnet we will come up with a good model of consciousness and have a new scientific principle, that may yet be labelled with a different label than consciousness. After all Magnetism is not just the so obvious name given to studies of magnetite.
-
[Graeme Smith]
“Philip asks “How if Consciousness is not a physical Quality, can physical mechanisms detect it?” Most people do not realize that Force is not a physical Quality. Yet a good percentage of our physical theory has to do with forces of one type or another. Magnetism is associated with certain types of materials, but doesn’t have a physical nature, however it does affect the way that other things work, and so we can map fairly accurately the “Flux Lines of Magnetism”.”[Philip Benjamin]
If “force”- gravity, magnetism etc- is not physical, which category of “existence” will you assign it? Is it metaphysical? Mystical? One may know only the “how” of force and not the “why”, but that makes it only mysterious, not mystical.
The attributes FORCED on the word consciousness are all without a single exception “properties” of ‘sentience’ which is an Existential factor of the PHYSICAL world. Sentience is ‘visible’ (restricted sense), discernible, and measurable. Sentience even creates sentience, reproduces itself.
Sentience has well established physical factors and parameters. Sentience can be “graded” taxonomically differing in universally well established physical properties also including ELF emission. The rate of ELF emissions in plants are even 10 times greater than in humans- a well established experimental fact. The ‘gradation’ of sentience can explain it rationally. All sentience is ‘conscious’ also at the common denominator of “stimulus-response”.
What is ‘consciousness? Is just to say “it is there” only a make-believe existential human necessity?. William James has no need of it, the way today’s consciousness movements have it, especially since the 1960’s. He did not include it in the 22 some components of “SELF”.
You can work with sentience. Artificial intelligence is an excellent byproduct of sentience. NOBODY knows what consciousness is. But EVERBODY knows how to define it! How will that help science?
Best regards,
Philip Benjamin
Results
-
