An idea worth censoring: 'The Science Delusion'

reply to post by Bedlam

you'll understand how your brain manages wonderful tricks of perception with very slow hardware

So even though mother nature had the option to design a brain without needing to incorporate chemical bottle necks, for some reason we still evolved with brains which have "very slow hardware" based on chemical reactions. And my computer as it is now, on a fundamental level, can actually process informational signals faster than a human brain can? It just makes absolutely no sense to me what so ever and I think it's because we don't fully understand the brain. There's no way it's limited to slow chemical reactions, there must be something more to it which we don't understand.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
So even though mother nature had the option to design a brain without needing to incorporate chemical bottle necks, for some reason we still evolved with brains which have "very slow hardware" based on chemical reactions. And my computer as it is now, on a fundamental level, can actually process informational signals faster than a human brain can?

Even silicon chip based computers have reached speed limits, which is why we now find speed increasing by more parallel processing, like adding more cores to PCs, and using more massively parallel processing in supercomputers. Using well implemented massively parallel processing, you can get fast processing even if the individual components are not all that fast. So there are some similarities with the parallel processing that takes place in the human brain even though the hardware is vastly different.

It just makes absolutely no sense to me what so ever and I think it's because we don't fully understand the brain. There's no way it's limited to slow chemical reactions, there must be something more to it which we don't understand.

Nobody would even try to claim we fully understand the brain. It's a case where we know what we know and we don't know what we don't know. There's a huge amount we don't know, but that doesn't necessarily mean we are wrong about what we know.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Using well implemented massively parallel processing, you can get fast processing even if the individual components are not all that fast. So there are some similarities with the parallel processing that takes place in the human brain even though the hardware is vastly different.

Parallel processing still does not provide a complete solution to the problem I posed.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
And my computer as it is now, on a fundamental level, can actually process informational signals faster than a human brain can?

Yes. That's a great way to express it. On a fundamental level, silicon way outstrips neurons. You can get gates with picosecond prop times in FPGAs. Most neurons in the cortex can't fire faster than about 100 times a second. It's inherent in the design. The thing has to spin sodium and potassium pumps in the cell membrane to re-establish a 'charged' condition, they only pump so fast, and the ions only disperse so fast. It's amazing it's as fast as it is.

What's different about a neuron is, it takes in a lot of different inputs and has pretty complex weighting on those inputs, both in time and amplitude, that stimulates a firing. That's a fair bit of 'processing' even though it's not strictly digital in the way a logic gate in a computer is. Although neurons can do that too.

So you have some amount of 'processing' going on (it's sort of analog, but not strictly) per neuron. And the weighting changes all the time. Even though one neuron can't make a complex comparison of its inputs more than about 100 times a second.

That means your hardware has to munch through stuff in parallel - the ears don't send raw audio, the eyes don't send raw video, you couldn't transmit signals fast enough. The ear uses a clever Fourier transform and sends on phase, amplitude and frequency breakdowns of the incoming audio, but the 'sound' per se never leaves the ear. What passes into the brain is all symbolic. Same for the eyes.

It's wonderfully complex and we don't understand but a smidge of it. But I don't think you need to ring in non-local effects to explain it, it's just not directly comparable to electrical circuitry.

It just makes absolutely no sense to me what so ever and I think it's because we don't fully understand the brain. There's no way it's limited to slow chemical reactions, there must be something more to it which we don't understand.

It's all in the structure. If you knew how to do electronics that way, you could make Colossus using fast logic.

reply to post by Bedlam


All this talk about neurons is overly complicated. The basic point is that we can not account for experience, just by looking at the brain. Let me give you an example. I studied Human Technology Interaction for a while. And even the teachers at the university admitted, that science has no way of determining what someone's experience is.
Taking the eye as an example, we can determine everything that happens when light falls on the retina, which signals are sent to which neurons, which part of the brain lights up and so on, but through normal science we have no way of determining whether the experience is the same for everyone. Maybe someone experiences my red as your green or whatever. Aside from that, their attention might be somewhere else completely. Despite all the signals being there, we don't even know whether the person is consciously looking or not, despite them receiving the signals normally.

Why are we self-aware? If this whole thing is some random deterministic universe, why aren't we just simply philosophical zombies? Well, I basically know that I'm not a philosophical zombie, because I know I experience. I have no way of knowing whether you are or not, through science or otherwise.

Originally posted by vasaga
All this talk about neurons is overly complicated. The basic point is that we can not account for experience, just by looking at the brain .

True, we have to look at what it experiences too.

Let me give you an example. I studied Human Technology Interaction for a while. And even the teachers at the university admitted, that science has no way of determining what someone's experience is.

And if 'science' one day creates an artificial brain, based on obscenely complex models of the human brain, and feeds it the appropriate signals while it's hooked up to a monitor only to observe an identical picture of reality as our own, what then? Just because it isn't explained now doesn't make it unexplainable.

Maybe someone experiences my red as your green or whatever. Aside from that, their attention might be somewhere else completely.

If your red is my green then your blue is my red and your green is my blue. And in the end all of the color combinations will remain self consistent. You're not going to look at a giraffe and say it's yellow with blue spots. It's yellow with brown spots for everyone. Whether or not we experience colors the same, the relationship between them is the same or we would be able to describe differences in our perception, which is something not observed. (if your red was my green and your green was my blue then we wouldn't agree on whether or not something was yellow or turquoise).

Despite all the signals being there, we don't even know whether the person is consciously looking or not, despite them receiving the signals normally.

Why are we self-aware? If this whole thing is some random deterministic universe, why aren't we just simply philosophical zombies? Well, I basically know that I'm not a philosophical zombie, because I know I experience. I have no way of knowing whether you are or not, through science or otherwise.

Solipsism has always struck me as a bit of an extreme concept. Seems a bit outrageous to claim that one's experience is the only experience and that it is the only thing which exists. What's more likely, one thing exists and you are the lucky chosen one, or lots of things exist and you're not? Yes, yes, yes, you can never know, but if you aren't willing to make a reasonable assumption based on information and probabilities available to you then how is your assumption of your own existence any more valid?

Originally posted by vasaga
through normal science we have no way of determining whether the experience is the same for everyone.

We've already used simple scientific methods to determine that it's not the same for everyone, via color-blindness tests like this:

Color blindness

Originally posted by framedragged

And if 'science' one day creates an artificial brain, based on obscenely complex models of the human brain, and feeds it the appropriate signals while it's hooked up to a monitor only to observe an identical picture of reality as our own, what then? Just because it isn't explained now doesn't make it unexplainable.

First we must have evidence that it's actually possible. It'll probably be a philosophical zombie, rather than something that actually experiences. But, we have no way of knowing that, do we? That's the exact issue I'm talking about. How do we know that something is actually intelligent (something that's intelligent must be aware, right?), and not simply responding to inputs?

Originally posted by framedragged
If your red is my green then your blue is my red and your green is my blue. And in the end all of the color combinations will remain self consistent. You're not going to look at a giraffe and say it's yellow with blue spots. It's yellow with brown spots for everyone. Whether or not we experience colors the same, the relationship between them is the same or we would be able to describe differences in our perception, which is something not observed. (if your red was my green and your green was my blue then we wouldn't agree on whether or not something was yellow or turquoise).

Yes. I get that. We learned from birth what is which color, and because we agreed, we talk about the same thing despite the experience being different. We can't reach someone else's experience, and science needs to acknowledge that they can't, rather than pretend that everything is material and there's nothing outside of it. Experience is by default immaterial.

Originally posted by framedragged

Solipsism has always struck me as a bit of an extreme concept. Seems a bit outrageous to claim that one's experience is the only experience and that it is the only thing which exists. What's more likely, one thing exists and you are the lucky chosen one, or lots of things exist and you're not? Yes, yes, yes, you can never know, but if you aren't willing to make a reasonable assumption based on information and probabilities available to you then how is your assumption of your own existence any more valid?

Obviously it's more reasonable to assume that I'm not the only one, but actually, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Say we live in a materialistic deterministic universe. Why do we experience? Why are we not simply senseless robots with no awareness whatsoever, that just processes input output like a computer? This is in direct conflict with materialism, so they just say things like we have the illusion of free will and so on. But it's the central issue, and it undermines a lot of scientific theories, because they've supporting the materialistic view for so long.

Originally posted by vasaga
First we must have evidence that it's actually possible. It'll probably be a philosophical zombie, rather than something that actually experiences. But, we have no way of knowing that, do we? That's the exact issue I'm talking about. How do we know that something is actually intelligent (something that's intelligent must be aware, right?), and not simply responding to inputs?

We have no evidence that it's impossible and we have plenty of evidence that we can physically model a brain. If I used my handy dandy magical replicator machine and made a perfectly identical copy of you, down to the last neuron and intestinal bacteria, what would be different about you and it that would lead you to believe that the copy is a philosophical zombie? How would you be able to determine you weren't the copy in the first place, since the copy would be created with all of your memories?

What I'm really asking is: is your requirement for awareness/experience some sort of 'soul' residing entirely outside of the physical?

Yes. I get that. We learned from birth what is which color, and because we agreed, we talk about the same thing despite the experience being different. We can't reach someone else's experience, and science needs to acknowledge that they can't, rather than pretend that everything is material and there's nothing outside of it. Experience is by default immaterial.

No, my point was that if we did actually experience color differently then all we're doing is rotating or flipping the additive color wheel. All the relationships between the colors will stay the same; colors will add the same way, have the same complements, etc. If they didn't then RGB pixel displays wouldn't work for everyone. But they do, so the only possible difference between our experiences will be incredibly superficial and shouldn't really be that surprising in that its our own unique experience.

Obviously it's more reasonable to assume that I'm not the only one, but actually, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Say we live in a materialistic deterministic universe. Why do we experience? Why are we not simply senseless robots with no awareness whatsoever, that just processes input output like a computer? This is in direct conflict with materialism, so they just say things like we have the illusion of free will and so on. But it's the central issue, and it undermines a lot of scientific theories, because they've supporting the materialistic view for so long.

And who says that awareness isn't the processing itself?

reply to post by Bedlam

Alternative Therapies: What functions do the microtubules perform for the cell?

Hameroff: The classical answer is that microtubules and the cytoskeleton are primarily structural, like the body's bony skeleton. However if you look carefully, microtubules are also the cell's nervous system and circulatory system. They move everything around the cell, organize shape and function, and communicate with membranes and the nuclear DNA. For example immune cells depend on cytoskeletal microtubules for recognition and response. In neurons microtubules first establish cell shape and synaptic connections, transport materials, regulate those synapses, participate in axonal neurotransmitter release, and transduce membrane receptor effects. They are everywhere, and seem to organize almost everything.

Of course there's no conclusive proof that microtubules compute or process information. The dogma, or party line is that information is conveyed inside cells by cascades of chemical signals. But to me, that view of the cell as an organized soup doesn't make sense. Cytoplasm is often in a gel state - like jello. It's difficult to conceive how signals can be conveyed rapidly and accurately just by diffusion through a gel state. And in the liquid state computation and memory would be very limited. But if you look at the microtubules which spatially organize the cytoplasm they are already sitting there you see perfectly designed information processing devices, or at least I do.

In general, neuroscience has focused on the one hand on membranes Eion channels, depolarizations, and receptors, and on the other hand on genetics and the nucleus. We've ignored what's in between. I think there's something special going on with microtubules that we need to figure out.

Source



Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Quantum Consciousness a myth until there's evidence for it, and there isn't:
The Myth of Quantum Consciousness

Further, there are some extreme leaps in the logic of that video, where they go from interaction between adjacent microtubules to different spots on the brain 10cm apart. That's a little like saying if you yell out the window of your New York apartment, your next door neighbor can hear you, therefore, so can the guy in Los Angeles. Makes perfect sense, right? Not.

Does anyone know the mechanism that allows me to recall a memory in detail and view it internally? I can close my mind, and see in clarity a specific day from my childhood, is it known how the information/details of that day are stored in the brain, and how 'I' can view them at will? Is it known what exactly is viewing the information? Is there some movie theater in my head that I view thoughts and memories and dreams and waking life in? Also is it known how details from senses, and internally created information like original thoughts and ideas are created and stored? like in our minds is some pseudo 3-d (or can ideas actually exist 3-d?) etcher sketch (yet way way more advanced and sophisticated, look at everything man has ever done to realize how sophisticated the human mind and imagination is)...

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Is there some movie theater in my head

Memory can be flawed, so we know it's not as good a record as a movie, but some interesting research was mentioned in this article from 2 days ago:

Brain's 'Molecular Memory Switch' Identified

"CASK's control of CaMKII 'molecular memory switch' is clearly a critical step in how memories are written into neurons in the brain.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Quantum Consciousness is not a myth it is a theory that offers an explanation to a phenomenon. when you say I need more proof are you suggesting that the preferred dogma has all the answers?

Look if you tell me religion is malarkey and I ask why if that is the case you have never researched its source?

Then you say because it is malarkey

That is not a rational response and furthermore its offensive.

How is what you are saying (in this example of course) is no different than a response to suggesting flat earth theory was wrong 1000 years ago.

If you follow me there is a certain absurdity to such a response

Its like suggesting one will not eat pizza because it looks like vomit but that person has never tried it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Is there some movie theater in my head

Memory can be flawed, so we know it's not as good a record as a movie, but some interesting research was mentioned in this article from 2 days ago:

Brain's 'Molecular Memory Switch' Identified

"CASK's control of CaMKII 'molecular memory switch' is clearly a critical step in how memories are written into neurons in the brain.

Ok thanks, ive heard of that study before, but its not really getting to the heart of what I was asking. Im asking how is information/memories stored in the brain. are the molecules bent into different lego shapes, and when I think of a tower for example, the molecules are assembled into a tower? Do you understand what im asking, I thought I was quite clear in my last reply.

And why are you so quick to say the consciousness doesnt have to do with quantum mechanics? doesnt everything with electrons involved have to do with quantum mechanics? Have you ever come across any scientific study with information touching upon where consciousness is located, what its source is, how it works?

The reason I think consciousness has something to do with quantum mechanical effects (though this is just a hunch and I am skeptical of all theories and dont know anything about this for sure) is because I think the reason there are any set backs in AI (even though some real legit supercomputers and AI like computers exist) is because we have yet to master quantum computing. Which leads me to think, maybe sentience/awareness/cognizance can not be created to function on classical principles, but needs an integration of its computational abilities to be sophisticatedly connected on a quantum level. Just a hunch. Then again idk. Computers can already for some time, far out power the computation power of a human, why arent computers aware, what would it take for the data of a computer to be considered aware? Does it depend on its programming, is there certain specific "consciousness" algorithms, which once programmed into computers, the coputers will all the sudden be able to choose what it wants to do with the information it has stored, and the information it shall seek to feed on?

reply to post by ImaFungi


You just made me think of something crazy. In conjunction to what the other guys have been saying: if energy is not created or destroyed, then what is converted to become electrical synapses? If I imagine y + 5 = 7, does it deplete some matter in my brain in order to convert material to electrical synapses and if so, can thinking too much too quickly (not allowing time for cells in the brain to convert plasma to chemicals), deteriorate the the brain? What is the true purpose of electrolytes?

On the other hand, if thoughts are new creations, can they be responsible for the expansion of space? (The new energy created with thought would convert to a null form (space) after they have been used to generate a mental image.)

Oh and I think consciousness is probably a form we are just unable to see/measure but it is a form.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep

You just made me think of something crazy. In conjunction to what the other guys have been saying: if energy is not created or destroyed, then what is converted to become electrical synapses?

Well, first off, an electrical synapse is a structure, sometimes called a gap junction. Your body creates them the way it makes other parts of neurons. But I don't think you're using the term right...

If I imagine y + 5 = 7, does it deplete some matter in my brain in order to convert material to electrical synapses and if so, can thinking too much too quickly (not allowing time for cells in the brain to convert plasma to chemicals), deteriorate the the brain? What is the true purpose of electrolytes?

Definitely that's not the way it works. Your brain will convert glucose to ATP to spin the little ion pumps in the cell membrane that make the neuron fire. The end result is heat, CO2 and water. Electrolytes have many purposes. In neurons, it's what causes electrical charge to form across the cell membrane as the little ion pumps create an artificial separation of sodium and potassium ions.

On the other hand, if thoughts are new creations, can they be responsible for the expansion of space? (The new energy created with thought would convert to a null form (space) after they have been used to generate a mental image.)

Thoughts are processes, not tangible objects. There is no new energy created with thought, or involved with thought. It's the same energy you use to pick up objects - courtesy of the Krebs cycle.

Yeah you're right, I didn't used the terms right. What I was referring to was the "fire". (if that's the accepted term?)

Originally posted by Bedlam
Definitely that's not the way it works. Your brain will convert glucose to ATP to spin the little ion pumps in the cell membrane that make the neuron fire. The end result is heat, CO2 and water. Electrolytes have many purposes. In neurons, it's what causes electrical charge to form across the cell membrane as the little ion pumps create an artificial separation of sodium and potassium ions.

What was the "fire" before it became "fire". Where did the "fire" go afterwards?

More, memorizing other peoples terms are fine and all, but when they fail to explain something, one is forced to come up with closely related terms.

Do you not seek a unified field theory? (And since we're the ones coming up with new ideas for the theory, I'd like to ask that their term "field" be removed and we just say unified theory.) I don't believe in fields. They're just magical words for radius of measurable effect.

Sorry if that was a little rude, but I don't think you're understanding my thoughts, and because of this, you are nitpicking terminology/vernacular nuances.

I hope you do not want pure math, if you do, I would never be able to express any opinion at all - I stink at theoretical maths and terminology; but I am good at pattern recognition and seeing driving forces(motive).

eta: Do not let this post keep you from guessing like the rest of us. I know I was too strong in rebut but you are nitpicking everyone to death here, and we are all just trying to come up with our best guesses; which is better than uses someone else's guesses, imo. Sorry again.

reply to post by Bedlam


"Thoughts are processes, not tangible objects."

Given the existence of God, thoughts resulted in the creation of reality can you prove otherwise? If you cannot then how can you define yourself as a realist?

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Bleeeeep

What was the "fire" before it became "fire". Where did the "fire" go afterwards?

It was just a state, the way things were arranged. You had sodium ions on one side, potassium on the other, then you opened up the ion channels and it evened out. All the bits and pieces are still there, just moved somewhere else.

More, memorizing other peoples terms are fine and all, but when they fail to explain something, one is forced to come up with closely related terms.

Terms mean things. If you're using the word "hand" for "walk", it's going to be confusing.