...and it seems that it has already started! Read this extremely interesting article about the "Integrated Information" theory of consiousness which is currently being developed.
The dawn of a new era. The ultimate frontier, consciousness itself, outside the realm of scientific investigation no longer.
Incredible. If there was one I thought I would never live to see, this was it!
First posted a link to the article on FB, on 22/9/2010.
First posted a link to the article on FB, on 22/9/2010.
? The idea that the brain is a computer / network / integrated information center is older than me. What is the innovative notion of that theory?
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφή@Spiros Kakos
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήA proposed mathematical model that, based on the characteristics of the network, calculates a number that could turn out to be a measure of the degree of consciousness of the network.
Is it, following the clarification, worth your time to read it? :-)
The fact that I disagree with your interpretation does not mean that I haven't read the article :) I have read it. And the fact that it refers to consciousness on terms of "bit and bytes" made me make my comment in the first place. Using "computer information" terminology implies that we are based on a specific set of axioms, i.e. that we start the analysis by accepting that our brain is like the chip of a computer. And I cannot find how that model can be useful when we everyday most certainly use a different model for our thinking: almost never are we in a state of "1 and 0" but we are constantly in a state of awareness that cannot (at this time) be classified under any current model we have. I can feel "Me". I cannot feel 1 and 0s... Do you?
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφή@Spiros Kakos
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήWe can both agree that it is an innovative approach and at the same time disagree on its value.
You don't feel cells either, do you? Does this entail in your opinion that they do not explain the biological functioning of your body?
@Spiros Kakos
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήI'm terribly sorry but it seems that I mistakenly deleted your last comment :-(. Please take the trouble to add it again.
Apologies for the inconvenience.
:)
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήI wrote that we can see cells in the microscope. On the other hand you cannot see your consciousness. How could you measure it then? Based on the idea of bits? Ok. However you know that we do not think like computers. Why should we use a model tailor-made for computers if we do not think like one? And even if you accept that model as a possible one, why wouldn't you accept as a plausible model the "I have free will which in turn affects the electrons in my brain" model as well?
@Spiros Kakos
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήI have difficulty understanding the question. You cannot see molecule movement, yet you can statistically measure it with a thermometer. In science all kinds of things are measured which cannot be seen.
Research is always open, even in areas where successful models are already known. What's important with this model, which caused the post, is that no models exist for consiousness, at least to my knowledge. The "free will" model that you describe is no more a model than Intelligent Design is a model for biodiversity. If you think you can turn it into one, I can't wait.
First of all free will is something you feel every day. How can you downplay such a thing?
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήSecondly, if research is open towards all directions, how can it be so dogmatic in saying that "all things are measurable"?
@Spiros Kakos
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήI didn't downplay free will.
Furthermore, how something "feels" can be very misleading as we now know very well. Take for example the feeling of a solid body or the feeling that our field of vision is continuous and unbroken.
I'm not aware of anyone who has said that all things are measurable. Are you?
I am not talking about senses (vision for example). And if we agree that not all things are measurable, then we happily agree that science which measures cannot analyze everything! That's good. :)
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφή@Spiros Kakos
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήIf senses are not reliable, which are testable, intuitions which are not are more unreliable still.
I do not agree on either of your claims. Sorry...
Senses are "testable" with the help of... senses.
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήNot too "objective" if you ask me...
@Spiros Kakos
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήThey are objective in the sense that there is widespread convergence regarding their results. Not perfect admittedly but..., how exactly do intuitions surpass that or even match it?