Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
Models of Consciousness
Hans Ricke
Wednesday, 09 September 2009 09:15 UTC
Anil Seth wrote a scholarpedia entry that we are discussing elsewhere.
So maybe people here are also interested in discussing it.
Scholarpedia is an interesting concept by the way. Because the entries are written and updated by experts.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Dear Serge,
You wrote: “Of course, not. First of all, it is not “[v]ision or the informational visual content” that “become[s] conscious” — it already is conscious. There can be no “informational content” prior to the process of cognition. It is a “content-free” physical sensory signal that becomes conscious, or, that acquires a certain informational content due to the processing and conceptualization, or due to the activity of consciousness.”
You display an interesting position, that goes against most of what is taken for granted in Consciousness Science. Maybe Alfredo can elaborate more on this than I can.
1. Your concept of information is strange. It implies that whatever signal is sent via the optic nerve is NOT information, right? You will find yourself most probably very isolated with this view. It resembles a position that a picture from a webcam is NOT information.
2. Before this information or most probably a part of it will be brought into a shape that it will be experienced in, there is a very complex process going on in the brain. Do you agree with this?
If so, then in all stages of this process there will be information, correct? Of this information some part – difficult to decide which part, ends up as conscious visual perception. The rest maybe called unconscious visual perception.
Thus consciousness, cognition, perception etc. have to be understood in the context of the evolution during which the shape these phenomena happen in a contemporary human being has developed.
And by no means your view that vision is already conscious – when? – is correct.You are right in so far that informational content changes from its way from retina to consciousness. Yet I still do not see how your initial objection that was directed against the role of the brain should be a valid view.
Yours friendly
Hans -
Hans Ricke on 27 Sep 2009 wrote:
1. Your concept of information is strange. It implies that whatever signal is sent via the optic nerve is NOT information, right? You will find yourself most probably very isolated with this view. It resembles a position that a picture from a webcam is NOT information.[S.P.] Information — it is a difference between the known and the unknown for the given subject of cognitive activity. So, we have to talk always about the increment of information, but not about information as such. Such is the concept of information for Consciousness Studies. Yes, in the everyday life, as well as in Computer Sciences, we may use other concept of information. For example, we may call “information” any set of data, or any kind of physical signals. The important thing here is not confusing the two different concepts of information. What is really strange is the fact that some educated people still cannot, or do not want to make any difference between those two concepts of information.
Now then, if we talk about the model of consciousness, then whatever signal is sent via the optic nerve it is not information, but just a physical (sensory) signal. A “picture from a webcam is NOT information” as well — it is just a physical signal which then transforms into the physical sensory signal, and becomes information for you only after being processed and conceptualized. One and the same physical signal may be informative to you, but not informative for me. You may look at a picture and say that you are seeing a vase. I look at the same picture and say that I am seeing two faces which are facing each other. I think that at least 90% of educated people share my views (in sense that there are two different concepts of information). It would be not wise calling 90% of educated people “isolated”.
Hans Ricke wrote:
You are right in so far that informational content changes from its way from retina to consciousness.[S.P.] From this I draw a conclusion that either I am not enough experienced in English to express my ideas understandably, or you are not reading my explanations enough attentively. I was not saying that “informational content changes from its way from retina to consciousness”. I was saying that there can be no informational content prior to the process of cognition. In other words, there can be no informational content before the physical (sensory) signal processes and conceptualizes — there is nothing that “changes from its way from retina to consciousness”. For there to be a change, there must be something that changes. But there is nothing, no content yet. Any content appears just after conceptualization made by a certain subject of cognitive activity.
Kindly,
Serge Patlavskiy -
Dear Serge,
just to make clear that we are not talking past each other. What do you think happens 1. from the first to the last layer of cells in the retina? and 2. what happens if you consider the extremely well researched neurological architecture of vision: what happens from the first region in the brain to the last region involved before a visual percept becomes conscious? Don’t you think that the content of as you like to call it “signal” changes? And that a change in the content of signals may be regarded as change in an informational sense? In what other sense could such changes be understood and thus named?
Do you think Giulio Tononi’s theory has got the wrong title? (Information Integration Theory)You ideas seem to be fallacious because all of these processes are most probably functioning well and produce the meaningful visual percepts we have day in day out. If there would not be meaningful integration of information all the way through from the retina to consciousness, we would probably see nothing meaningful. That is probably why most consciousness scientists think that the role of the brain in all this is crucial.
Your view seems to be not on track.I will drop out of this conversation for a while until Alfredo, who I consider an expert in neuroscience, which I am not, has had a word on this.
Yours friendly
Hans -
Hans Ricke on 29 September 2009 wrote:
“What do you think happens 1. from the first to the last layer of cells in the retina? and 2. what happens if you consider the extremely well researched neurological architecture of vision: what happens from the first region in the brain to the last region involved before a visual percept becomes conscious? Don’t you think that the content of as you like to call it “signal” changes?”[S.P.] Your 1) and 2) pertain to physical (physiological) model of brain functioning. Here we may talk only about the physical parameters of a sensory signal, like amplitude, frequency, or polarization. To talk about “content”, we have to switch to informational model — the model of consciousness functioning. Such a “switching” is required for explaining how the physical sensory signal transforms into the element of subjective experience. So, it would be incorrect to say that physical signal changes its content.
Hans Ricke wrote:
“Do you think Giulio Tononi’s theory has got the wrong title? (Information Integration Theory)”.[S.P.] Here is my commentary on his paper
http://www.serge-patlavskiy.webs.com//OTHER-PAPERS-9.html#TononiHans Ricke wrote:
“If there would not be meaningful integration of information all the way through from the retina to consciousness, we would probably see nothing meaningful. That is probably why most consciousness scientists think that the role of the brain in all this is crucial.”[S.P.] There is a difference between the physical ability to see, and the ability to see something meaningful. From the fact that we can see the stars does not follow that we can see constellations yet. We may talk about the “meaningful integration of information” only when we regard the informational model of consciousness functioning. There is no such thing as “the way through from the retina to consciousness”. The “retina” and “consciousness” are the elements of the different models. The “way through from A to B” may exist only if both A and B are the elements of the same model. If I am the only man in the world who understands this, then it can’t be helped.
Hans Ricke wrote:
“I will drop out of this conversation for a while until Alfredo, who I consider an expert in neuroscience, which I am not, has had a word on this.”[S.P.] If you will drop out, then nobody leave. Isn’t it a strange situation: you start a thread, but there is nobody in the world that has a need to participate? So, where are your “many people who think they can contribute to this matter: scholars and laymen alike”?
Kindly,
Serge Patlavskiy -
Dear Serge,
You wrote: “So, where are your “many people who think they can contribute to this matter: scholars and laymen alike”?”
Alfredo is on a conference right now, I trust he will address what I have indicated thereafter, I will ask him to do so.
Also he, Arnold, Jonathan and myself are currently discussing “Theories of Consciousness” in a closed forum with a group of good and well known people. You will read about that in due time.People who are doing science and are writing books and papers and go to conferences, sit in labs, do research, teach students are not exactly to be found here (the scholars maybe). Why? That is a good question.
My guess is that they are afraid to waste their time with people who know almost nothing and think they know much and moreover or consequently are not much interested in learning (the laymen maybe).
Does that make sense to you?
Yours friendly
Hans -
It was a remarkable reply, indeed — you have addressed non of my arguments. Instead, you have put me into my proper (layman’s) place. Fine. Thanks. I wish you all the successes with your “closed forums” on consciousness.
SP
-
Dear Serge,
I didn’t think of you! Just look at the picture in general.
Yours friendly
Hans
Results
-
