Ethics & The Future of Brain Research

"casey" wrote in message
...
On Feb 25, 3:03 am, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:08:37 -0800 (PST), casey

wrote:
Yes, you don't have a ****ing clue what I think about
computers.

Which doesn't help in fostering a useful exchange.

The ability to make your thoughts and views clear to
others is the hallmark of a good writer. A bad writer
will of course blame it all on the reader.

In this sub-thread, he was agreeing with me. But his style makes me
want to back off so that I'm not associated with such rudeness.

And I suspect he would agree with me as well assuming he
knows as much about AI as he suggests he does.

Not with your silly claim that computers can only do
what humans have programmed them to do, faster.

That stupid claim proves that either you don't have
a ****ing clue what learning systems can do or are
just mindlessly trolling, just like you ALWAYS do.

On Feb 25, 5:31*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
[...]
Some of the smartest little kids have even managed
to work out how to read for themselves, and have
surprised their parents when they did. The same thing
could happen with a computer.

Something I continually point out when people talk
about what computers can or cannot do is that what
they are really talking about is what a particular
program can or cannot do.

The general purpose computer is a wired up collection
of circuits that can be programmed to do things.
What they can or cannot do depends on how clever we
are at programming them including writing programs
that self modify.


I figured I gave offence to him


Yes you did when you made such a spectacular
fool of yourself when you stupidly claimed that
I worship computers.

Sorry.


And I suspect he would agree with me as well assuming
he knows as much about AI as he suggests he does.


Not with your silly claim that computers can only do
what humans have programmed them to do, faster.

That stupid claim proves that either you don't have
a ****ing clue what learning systems can do or are
just mindlessly trolling, just like you ALWAYS do.

I looked up what constitutes trolling and I don't believe
I fit that description at all.

One of the first programs I wrote on my C64 using a
touch tablet was a program that learnt to recognize
hand written characters so I think I did learn
something from the first book I read?

My statements were a genuine attempt to point out that
most programs only do what we program them to do and
any superior performance is due to speed and accuracy
and has nothing to do with being "smarter" than us.

Yes we can write programs that can learn and evolve
and they may well be the future but most programs we
use enhance our ability to work things out by their
ability to carry out our instruction to the letter
with great speed and accuracy be it to fly a plane
or run a weather simulation or add some numbers.

My statements were a genuine attempt to point out that
most programs only do what we program them to do and
any superior performance is due to speed and accuracy

True.

and has nothing to do with being "smarter" than us.

The point is, the results complex programs can bring may well be very
smart. It takes a very smart person to work out the results. Now if
a software is built for the computer to recognise its own smart
results, and make changes in its own executables to derive even more
smart results, then at some stage the smartness of the results will
outstrip that of the programmer. It is a different matter that at
this stage the computer does nothing for its own survival or glory, as
that has not been yet programmed.

Yes we can write programs that can learn and evolve
and they may well be the future but most programs we
use enhance our ability to work things out by their
ability to carry out our instruction to the letter
with great speed and accuracy be it to fly a plane
or run a weather simulation or add some numbers.

This is old stuff. When computer programs can make new executables
from old programs and new data. automatically or dynamically, what
will happen we cannot know - but only limit with memory constrainsts,
logic constraints, sensor constraints, power constraints, etc.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

casey wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Some of the smartest little kids have even managed
to work out how to read for themselves, and have
surprised their parents when they did. The same thing
could happen with a computer.

Something I continually point out when people talk
about what computers can or cannot do is that what
they are really talking about is what a particular
program can or cannot do.

That just mangles the story all over again with learning systems.

The general purpose computer is a wired up collection
of circuits that can be programmed to do things.

Yes, but a learning system can end up being able to do
a lot more then it was ever explicitly programmed to do.

What they can or cannot do depends on how clever we
are at programming them including writing programs
that self modify.

Waffle.

I figured I gave offence to him

Yes you did when you made such a spectacular
fool of yourself when you stupidly claimed that
I worship computers.

Sorry.

And I suspect he would agree with me as well assuming
he knows as much about AI as he suggests he does.

Not with your silly claim that computers can only do
what humans have programmed them to do, faster.

That stupid claim proves that either you don't have
a ****ing clue what learning systems can do or are
just mindlessly trolling, just like you ALWAYS do.

I looked up what constitutes trolling and I don't believe
I fit that description at all.

Everyone can see for themselves that you do.

One of the first programs I wrote on my C64 using a
touch tablet was a program that learnt to recognize
hand written characters so I think I did learn
something from the first book I read?

My statements were a genuine attempt to point out that
most programs only do what we program them to do

Most programs are completely irrelevant when discussing
what computers MIGHT eventually be able to do that
MIGHT even end up better than what humans can do,
if only because its possible for a computer to be able to
use vastly more information than any human can ever do.

and any superior performance is due to speed and accuracy
and has nothing to do with being "smarter" than us.

It can be when that smarter needs a more reliable
collection of data than any human can ever have.

For example, with a system that has complete access
to all medical test results that have ever been done,
and to all the autopsy and cause of death data that
has ever been recorded, anywhere, world wide, it
may well be possible to be a hell of a lot smarter
at medical diagnosis than any particular human
can ever be, particularly if it can order new tests
to distinguish between various possibilitys it has
decided are a possible reason for the symptoms seen.

Yes we can write programs that can learn and evolve
and they may well be the future but most programs
we use enhance our ability to work things out by
their ability to carry out our instruction to the letter
with great speed and accuracy be it to fly a plane
or run a weather simulation or add some numbers.

Those are irrelevant when discussing whether computers
MIGHT be able to do better than humans in futures.

I personally think that its rather unlikely that we will
ever see computers do better than the best humans
like Einstein or Shakespeare or Beethoven etc can do
now, but they will certainly be able to do better than
the best doctors at medical diagnosis and leave the
average doctors for dead right now.

It was always perfectly obvious that you don't have a ****ing
clue about what learning systems are about and couldn't bull****
your way out of a wet paper bag.
Well I hope that is not true

It is anyway from your silly comment that computers
can only do what they are programmed to do by humans.

With a learning system, just like with little kids, you can't
predict what the smarter ones will manage to learn for themselves.

Some of the smartest little kids have even managed to work
out how to read for themselves, and have surprised their parents
when they did. The same thing could happen with a computer.

as the subject has interested me since the first book
I read on the subject many years ago, "Pattern Recognition,
Learning and thought" - Leonard Uhr and I have tried
to keep up with it ever since.

You either failed dismally to understand any of it, or are just
mindlessly trolling and fooling absolutely no one at all.

Rod, try not to spree, but if you must spree, spree local. Very
local.

On Feb 25, 12:59*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
casey wrote
[...]
I looked up what constitutes trolling and I don't believe
I fit that description at all.

Everyone can see for themselves that you do.

Then just filter me out like everyone else that can
see it for themselves. Problem solved.

casey wrote
Rod Speed wrote
casey wrote

I looked up what constitutes trolling and
I don't believe I fit that description at all.

Everyone can see for themselves that you do.

Then just filter me out like everyone else that can
see it for themselves. Problem solved.

I choose to point out the massive holes in your claims instead.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:05:54 -0800 (PST), Immortalist wrote:

What if our thoughts could be plumbed by a brain scanner and memories
manipulated with the flip of a genetic switch? These science fiction¡V
like scenarios could become reality because new technologies may soon
allow unprecedented access to our brains. ...a future in which we can
decipher others' private emotions and ideas as well as sculpt designer
minds. Scientists can already decode single words and reconstruct
mental images using functional MRI. We also tinker with brain activity
on a daily basis by consuming mood-altering chemicals, such as
caffeine and alcohol. More targeted neural enhancements, which might
involve inserting new genes or modifying existing ones, could improve
not only our cognition but also our personality, fashioning more law-
abiding citizens or devoted spouses.

One day, among other things, we may be able to record and share
dreams, buy artificial experiences -- 'mind movies' -- and take self-
improvement to a new level by editing unwanted thoughts and desires.

The human person thus needs to be considered. Technologies which
directly scan or manipulate brains cannot be neutral tools, as open to
commercial exploitation as any new gadget. The brain supremacy offers
chances to improve human dignity, but it also risks abuse.

Privacy is an example. What if the claims already being made for
neuroimaging's ability to read minds can be extended to portable,
covert surveillance? If we've already revealed ourselves on Facebook,
would it matter if companies could scan our brains in real time,
observe that we're hungry, and change their targeted marketing
accordingly? Would those companies be obliged to tell us, or our
insurers, if they found evidence of brain disease -- or of dubious
beliefs? Would governments be justified in having ideologically
hostile individuals 'adjusted' before they committed any terrorist
act? And so on.

Funds are pouring into brain research.

The rate of transfer from science fiction to science fact is amazing,
and accelerating. Scientists can now probe individual atoms, see
objects round corners, put a robot on Mars, and much else besides.

These examples come from physics. In our science-saturated world,
however, the balance of power is shifting towards the life sciences,
and especially brain research. With modern neuroimaging techniques
like fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), plus advances in
genetics, and greater computer power, the study of human brains is at
last becoming a fully-fledged science. Neuroscience has grown from a
subdiscipline of biology to a field in its own right, with its own
proliferating subdisciplines. In coming decades, it will rival and
then surpass the influence of the older physical sciences. This is the
era of the brain supremacy.

There's a problem, though. The ethics developed by doctors, over
centuries, to deal with human suffering, are different from those
developed by scientists trying to understand how the world works.
They're still more different from the ethics of businesses keen to
cash in on the new technologies, for example by marketing fMRI 'lie-
detectors.' And as the products of the brain supremacy have begun to
move from clinic and lab to marketplace, the ethical principles don't
necessarily move with them. Techniques created to heal can also be
employed for other purposes, and the ability to get data from living
brains is a holy grail for many interested parties other than
neuroscientists and doctors.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rain-supremacy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathle...b_1909556.html

DeadUsenet What Can I Say?

The really neat thing is with the right kind of implant, you'll be able to
will an erection!

On Feb 23, 11:06*am, Immortalist wrote:
On Feb 22, 2:29 pm, " wrote:

[trim -- interesting reads]

* I agree with my pal Mahipal- "me" always changes.

All known objects are processes. Consciousness is as much an object as
other processes that re-present a present moment through changing
stuff, everything is constantly changing and opposite things are
identical, so that everything is and is not at the same time. In other
words, Universal Flux and the Identity of Opposites may entail a
denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction, since all things go and
nothing stays, and comparing existents to the flow of a river which
you cannot step twice into. On those stepping into rivers staying the
same other and other waters flow. There is an antithesis between
'same' and 'other,' different waters flow in rivers staying the same,
though the waters are always changing, the rivers stay the same.
Indeed, it must be precisely because the waters are always changing
that there are rivers at all, rather than lakes or ponds. The message
is that rivers can stay the same over time even though, or indeed
because, the waters change. The point, then, is not that everything is
changing, but that the fact that some things change makes possible the
continued existence of other things. Perhaps more generally, the
change in elements or constituents supports the constancy of higher-
level structures.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/heraclit/

Where Heraclitus is credited with:
"Thus the world is not to be identified with any particular substance,
but rather with an ongoing process governed by a law of change. The
underlying law of nature also manifests itself as a moral law for
human beings."

Fascinating!

[trim -- Time, bioclocks, consciousness, etc. ]

What's your nickname Immortalist?

-- Mahipal

On Feb 23, 8:06*am, Immortalist wrote:
On Feb 22, 2:29 pm, " wrote:

On Feb 22, 8:57 am, Immortalist wrote:

On Feb 22, 7:00 am, Dare wrote:

On 2/21/2013 7:36 PM, Immortalist wrote:

On Feb 21, 4:29 pm, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:45:13 -0800 (PST), casey

wrote:
Something that would be good for science to answer.

If you found yourself in heaven with a heavenly body
how would you know if it was you who lived that
physical life on Earth or if you simply had the
memories of that now dead human?

If you assume that the 5 year old version of you was "you", despite
you being very, very different now - we need to determine what "you"
means.

If the self is a series of clones throughout life, then there may be
no "version" of your self but instead just a "range" of neural
activities that are a sense of your self.

* I concur on the (implied potential) range of activities meme. The
series of clones thing I disagree with- it implies that all cells (as
mentioned elsethread) in a tissue (and by implication the whole body)
get "turned over" every so many years *all at the same time* which is
unreasonable.

Which phrase made it seem like I was implying that it all happened all
at once?

Wasn't just what you wrote which is why I mentioned the
"elsethread" part which went more or less unchallenged. Anyway,
"series of clones" implies a stable state (a given clone) that is
occasionally (periodically?) replicated, then undergoes change (due to
experiences, whatever) until it gets replicated again. There is no
"stable state" in living organisms except in the sense of frinst
physical childhood, adolescence, adulthood and old age being
sequential physiological chaotic attractors (I trust I don't have to
explain the term). FTM delta, alpha, theta, etc. "brainwave
frequencies" are too. "Metastable" I'd accept even if the n-year-
cyclical turnover mentioned elsethread (not by you IIRC- I didn't
intend to put you on a hook by yourself) were literal.

Hell, even "dead" isn't necessarily stable, depending on how you
define "dead".

Heraclitus thought that the contents of things change, but their form
remains the same. He wondered under what conditions do objects persist
through time as one and the same object. In ancient times, this
problem came to be associated with the Ship of Theseus;

(snip unnecessary detail)

It seems that if just one plank were replaced, it would still be
Theseus' ship. And if it was still his ship, and another plank were
replaced, then it should still be Theseus' ship. By this reasoning
(which is the same as in the sorites paradox), it would be Theseus'
ship even after all planks are replaced.

Classical Greek philosophers are dead and so are most of their
ideas. What makes Theseus' ship his is that he claims it as his and
others agree that it is his.

This line of analogy-laden thinking has little to do with the
physical layer of consciousness (I'm participating from sci.physics,
and my area of interest in this topic is the physical layer and how to
avoid having it manipulated).

* We are about process, not state. A so-called state of mind is not a
photograph, it's a three-panel cartoon. Perception, "filter",
reaction. "filter" = particular set of "neural activities" in that
range.

Some ongoing and constantly changing processes create "stable states".
I suppose the simplest example would be a water fountain where a
constantly changing column of water shoots up but at the top there is
a stable flat and smooth spot persists over time.

Except it's only approximately flat and smooth. If you look closely
it isn't. Same with apparently stable states of mind.

Also don't forget The Multiple Drafts Modal

...there are a variety of sensory inputs from a given event and also a
variety of interpretations of these inputs. The sensory inputs arrive
in the brain and are interpreted at different times, so a given event
can give rise to a succession of discriminations, constituting the
equivalent of multiple drafts of a story. As soon as each
discrimination is accomplished, it becomes available for eliciting a
behaviour; it does not have to wait to be presented at the theatre.

Yes, there are multiple successive approximations (linear and
parallel, depending on which parts of the brain chime in) but
eventually the system settles into a specific "scene" on stage, to
follow your metaphor.

Like a number of other theories, the Multiple Drafts model understands
conscious experience as taking time to occur, such that "percepts do
not instantaneously arise in the mind in their full richness". The
distinction is that Dennett's theory denies any clear and unambiguous
boundary separating conscious experiences from all other processing.
According to Dennett, consciousness is to be found in the actions and
flows of information from place to place, rather than some singular
view containing our experience. There is "no central experiencer [who]
confers a durable stamp of approval on any particular draft".

Yes and no. Anatomically there isn't, but experientially there is;
"I" experience events linearly regardless of what's happening in my
brain.

Different parts of the neural processing assert more or less control
at different times. For something to reach consciousness is akin to
becoming famous, in that it must leave behind consequences by which it
is remembered. To put it another way, consciousness is the property of
having enough influence to affect what the mouth will say and the
hands will do. Which inputs are "edited" into our drafts "is not an
exogenous act of supervision, but part of the self-organizing
functioning of the network, and at the same level as the circuitry
that conveys information bottom-up".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Drafts_Model

Agreed, some voices in the babble occasionally dominate, but I
question the use of "exogenous" here. Selective awareness
(concentrating on what one hears to the exclusion of other senses
frinst) in one view is exactly the exogenous act of the "soul" on the
body, mechanistically it is firmware editing itself on the fly.

Once those activities go
outside the range of your -selfing- you are not cloned during those
successions of neural events.

* Well, a clone is (loosely speaking) an exact replica, but me right
now is not an exact replica of me ten, twenty etc. years ago. What
continues as "I"? I think it's just a particular constellation of
"things I'm good at" and "things I'm bad at" due to brain structure/
disposition(s) from genetics modulo diet, environment, socialization,
yada yada.

The most popular theory at the time in science is that this "me" is
the same thing as the brain doing something over time:

Yabbut, over what span of time?

the theory that
subjective experience is only what the brain does even if it involves
quantum spluge. Though it seems static or stable and located in a
place it could instead be distributed in a complex way in space and
time much like "poly-sensory" modality is.

That's what I meant by "good at" and "bad at"; I might have been
clearer that they change with accumulated experience among other
things, but oh well.

As for the "quantum spluge" thing, I think the question(s) of free
will is/are going to have to wait a bit...

When a cat hears a dog bark some think it has visual memories of dogs.
The association areas of the brain are mainly between the areas where
sensory inputs are mapped and these areas connect the senses together.

Yes, humans (and other chordates) are wired to think associatively.

* I agree with my pal Mahipal- "me" always changes.

All known objects are processes. Consciousness is as much an object as
other processes that re-present a present moment through changing
stuff, everything is constantly changing and opposite things are
identical, so that everything is and is not at the same time. In other
words, Universal Flux and the Identity of Opposites may entail a
denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction, since all things go and
nothing stays, and comparing existents to the flow of a river which
you cannot step twice into. On those stepping into rivers staying the
same other and other waters flow. There is an antithesis between
'same' and 'other,' different waters flow in rivers staying the same,
though the waters are always changing, the rivers stay the same.

No, they don't, any more than does Theseus' boat. Rivers come into
existence, merge, meander, split, and dry up over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile#The_Eonile

The problem with such thinking is the idea of "same" which simply
does not apply to macroscopic objects. Electrons now, two of them can
be the "same" because their range of possible degrees of freedom is so
small. Personally I don't care whether abstract "A" is or is not "A",
the functions of specific concrete instances of "A" interests me.

Indeed, it must be precisely because the waters are always changing
that there are rivers at all, rather than lakes or ponds. The message
is that rivers can stay the same over time even though, or indeed
because, the waters change. The point, then, is not that everything is
changing, but that the fact that some things change makes possible the
continued existence of other things. Perhaps more generally, the
change in elements or constituents supports the constancy of higher-
level structures.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/heraclit/

I remind you that Heraclitus is long dead. Philosophy should follow
physics, not the other way around. Minds are not rivers.

* As for "activities outside the range of [one's] -selfing-, I refer
you to Lovecraft's _At The Mountains Of Madness_.

Isn't that more like the Terminator scenario where the creation takes
over the creator and makes war against it?

Not at all. The tale is a SFnal "horror story" built around people
experiencing physical events that knock the props out from under their
concept of "what is and ought to be".

SciFi literature has traditionally sucked the dick of Christianity and
Capitalism.

I can see you aren't familiar with Lovecraft; his Cthulhu mythos
specifically dismisses Xtianity (and its antecedent Judaism as well as
its cousin Islam) as flimsy upstart superstition designed to shield us
from the truly horrific nature of Reality by providing a false sense
of importance and stability ("What is Man that Thou should be mindful
of him?" "Thy rod and they staff; they comfort me") via a Supreme
Being that gives a rat's ass what happens to us, the original Deus ex
machina.

To Lovecraft's Cthulhu, we are not-particularly-challenging wild
game.

Try and mention immortality or replication of a soul and
yer condemned from the start. This area could be a growth Industry
once the myth and money are violently knocked back into their place.

I suggest we first need to catch the spry beastie as it were. IOW
I'm mentioning the need for physical evidence of, and preferably some
sort of quantization of properties of, the alleged soul.

Mind you I'm talking about the soul as instantiated in a body, not
one "free flying" as it were. One would expect the latter to behave
differently absent a time-bound substrate.

This science fiction obsession with libertarian philosophy dooms it
temporarily also. For example, currently my favorite lecture, think of
all the concepts tarnished by either supporting or going against some
economic framework while discussing the consequences of the evolution
of technology.

Sorry, I avoid Youtube. I've read a lot of SF and only some of it is
even remotely libertarian. You may be thinking of Heinlein as made
infamous through the Starship Troopers movie, but I'll point out he
personally wasn't a libertarian. He pointedly mocked all political
systems in his stories by taking them to their "logical" extremes. In
the Starship Troopers *book* he was mocking the military-industrial
complex meme of democracy+capitalism.

Stories of how the evolution of technology can affect human society
is practically a definition of SF, but there is more than one way to
skin that cat. Consider the similarities and differences between the
robots of Asimov, Williamson, and Capek and how they affected the
human societies they "served".

from A Treatise of Human Nature Book I, Part 4, Section 6

SECTION VI: OF PERSONAL IDENTITY

There are some philosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately
conscious of what we call our self; that we feel its existence and its
continuance in existence; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a
demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. The
strongest sensation, the most violent passion, say they, instead of
distracting us from this view, only fix it the more intensely, and
make us consider their influence on self either by their pain or
pleasure. To attempt a further proof of this were to weaken its
evidence; since no proof can be derived from any fact of which we are
so intimately conscious; nor is there any thing of which we can be
certain if we doubt of this.

Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very
experience which is pleaded for them; nor have we any idea of self,
after the manner it is here explained. For, from what impression could
this idea be derived? This question it is impossible to answer without
a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet it is a question which
must necessarily be answered, if we would have the idea of self pass
for clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression that gives
rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression,
but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to
have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self,
that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole
course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that
manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and
pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other,
and never all exist at the same time. It cannot therefore be from any
of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is
derived; and consequently there is no such idea.

* Well yeah, self-examination on the fly is difficult.

Especially in the late 1700s when that was written.

* That's why we study other people.

Ironic since the quote by David Hume was in part a critique of George
Berkeley's Solipsism and Idealism.

Solipsism is pointless- besides, **** happens I could *never* think
up.

Idealism is equally pointless as ideals are defined as beyond direct
inspection.

From----
http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/humepid.htm

Is a feeling of identity or self related to experiencing Time?
What happens to "self" if there is no time...

* Zen adepts claim that self vanishes without time-bound experience.

Cool.

The second part of your question addresses issues relating to
consciousness and continuity. Can the activities of the brain that are
the self, if stopped be started again? Would it be only a clone that
believes it is you or have we always just been a bunch of clones that
produce this feeling of being one me? But to this continuity dilemma
you raise; there are too many things and processes happening to give
some simple answer. Why would we believe that consciousness can or
cannot be stopped and then started in the first place? If the heart
stops tissues die but when we sleep consciousness seems to stop, so
simple comparisons will probably fail us. Religion and philosophy seem
to be the culprits that make us invent such ideas.

* In sleep consciousness is altered; it does not stop. Look up lucid
dreaming and sleep learning for starters.

While it is true that neurons are always active at some rate of
patterned firing, there is a big difference between dreaming and deep
sleep. Researchers have found that we deep dead sleep for more than an
hour and then dream for 15 or 20 minutes and then go back into deep
dead sleep.

The delta-theta-alpha etc cycles usually run about ninety minutes
but that isn't fixed.

Some think that the reason outside noises make it into the
dream is so the organism can wake if the dream becomes radical. The
just so story then predicts that we dream to periodically check the
outside world before we drop back into a vulnerable state of deep
sleep.

Yeah, I know, but none of that explains lucid dreaming.

The central principle of neurophysiogy is that nerves don't just turn
off and on but that each changes it's rate of firing so that various
parts of the brain dance together. An area of the brain considered not
active is active but is firing at the wrong rate to make any
difference.

There's more than one metric of "active" though, and it's extremely
difficult to track the firing of large numbers of neurons even in
specific brain regions. There needs to (and eventually will) be an
intermediate technology between EEG and sticking electrodes in
individual axons. All the methods I know of are only correlated with
specific mental activity by inference ("Were you dreaming, and if so
about what?") or by tracking brain area activity with specific body
functions.

Also consider that consciousness isn't necessarily the default mode
of operation of the brain.

What if consciousness is full of stops and starts? Again time seems to
be necessary if consciousness is the same thing as activities in a
brain.

* Consciousness seems to me to be more like a conversation between
different specialized wetware modules of the brain. It can be a
roaring rock party babble or a low indistinct mutter. If nobody has
anything to say to each other at a party there's a lull, but not
really a stop. Same with our "selves".

Bravo, that sounds similar to the nerves are always firing at some
rate argument. Things don't really stop. (It's qualitative not
quantitative)

It's more about relative synchrony than absolute rate. How to decide
if a neuron "has stopped firing" or "is firing reeeeeally slowly"?
Neurons have a refractory period that sets an upper limit to firing
rate but I know of no physiological lower limit (besides "death").

......In a sparse distributed network - memory is a type of
perception.....The act of remembering and the act of perceiving both
detect a pattern in a vary large choice of possible patterns....When
we remember we recreate the act of the original perception - that is
we relocate the pattern by a process similar to the one we used to
perceive the pattern originally.

* The stored patterns change over time as the physical substrate
they're "written" on (cerebral neurons and their interconnections)
change over time.

Can you show in the presented text where such an argument was
presented for or against the notion of change in memory structures?

My point is there is no mention of a physical layer at all.

Could all parts of our experience and reasoning abilities be very
similar to a type of perception? If the act of remembering and the act
of perceiving both detect a pattern in a vary large choice of possible
patterns and when we remember we recreate the act of the original
perception - that is we relocate the pattern by a process similar to
the one we used to perceive the pattern originally, and trigger areas
of the brain which our senses would, in essence bypassing the senses,
then it seems possible that most of our experience works in a similar
way.

* Yes, of course. Some modules perceive sensory input, some only
perceive the output of other modules.

Mostly it's like with vision where primary areas break up the data and
other nearby areas detect or specialize in detecting particular
features in that data.

Other senses too, and various other areas "watch" those areas for
patterns that match ("associate with") patterns they've stored, then
their voices are added to the babble, and so forth.

http://reanimater.tripod.com/StagesOfDecoding.html

Benjamin Libet famously suggested it takes about half a second for the
brain to get through all the processing steps needed to settle our
view of the moment just past. But this immediately raises the question
of why don't we notice a lag? How does anyone ever manage to hit a
tennis ball or drive a car? The answer is that we anticipate. We also
have a level of preconscious habit which "intercepts" stuff before it
reaches a conscious level of awareness. And yet it really does take
something like half a second to develop a fully conscious experience
of life. You can read about the cycle of processing story and its
controversies in the following....

* The implication is that the whole brain "get(s) through all the
processing steps" at the same time. That's unreasonable since
different parts of the brain process information at different rates;
there's no computer-analogous "system clock" for organic brains.

That's not quite true since most animals with a brain stem have
something equivalent to the Reticular Activating System which is a
series of neural loops or feedback circuitry that time and coordinate
larger functions in widely separated regions of the brain.

The RAS does not operate on the half-second timescale.

Incidentally I've read many variations on that theme, including the
mind accepting data from outside for one fraction of a second, then
spending the rest of that second analyzing that data. Unfortunately
there's no physical evidence for any such processes linked to the
completely arbitrary second.

Also many areas of the brain are simple "drivers" in that they
translate data from one area of the brain into the language of other
areas. Major groups of the brain have their own language that is
different than others. Again this is probably influences by the
different data from different sense perceptions, sound vs sight.

Yep.

(snip more clocks that are too slow)

If there is one thing that seems certain about consciousness it is
that it is immediate. We are aware of life's passing parade of
sensations -- and of our own thoughts, feelings and impulses -- at the
instant they happen. Yet as soon as it is accepted that the mind is
the product of processes taking place within the brain, we introduce
the possibility of delay. It must take time for nerve traffic to
travel from the sense organs to the mapping areas of the brain.

* It also takes different amounts of time for each module to process
its allotment of data.

Straw Man distorted version of the argument presented. The author did
not argue for or against the notion of how much time modules need to
function. The author did admit that "it must take time" for some
processes to take place.

Not a straw man at all. That different areas of the brain have to
wait varying amounts of time for input from other areas in order to
set the stage as above goes to the point about delay.

* Worse, some data goes through more than one module, in series and or
parallel, introducing more delays.

Can you show where the author made such a claim either for or against
such a notion?

Doesn't matter. Consciousness is demonstrably *not* immediate.
Delays exist whether the author enumerates them or not.

The point is a good one but the relevance to the argument is weak.

Some information may take multiple frames of consciousness to be
structured enough for translation into poly sense modes.

What is a "frame of consciousness"? Please tell me it does not refer
to a frames of film analogy.

It must then take more time for thoughts and feelings about these
messages to propagate through the brain's maze of circuitry. If the
processing is complex -- as it certainly must be in humans -- then these
delays ought to measurable, and even noticeable with careful
introspection.

* It's worse- the delays can be negative. There's experimental
evidence that we start to perform physical responses based on sensory
inputs *before* the parts of the brain allegedly responsible for
mediating decisions do their thing. Clearly all our attempts at
modeling the mind are flawed.

Clearly your attempt to critique Libet's half second frame rate of
consciousness is insufficient since he is the very person that made
the pre-consciousness dilemma you mention popular and with his proofs
of how long it takes for a frame of consciousness presented in my
arguments and links.

Then he should know better.

David Chalmers has a hard problem, he wants certainty with no
theories. Funny he bases much of his proof of unknowability on Libet's
theory of the half second frame rate of consciousness. Libet's
evidence has cripple the mind/brain debate especially the pre-
conscious part you mentioned earlier.

Thing is, we aren't going to get anywhere in the debate without
looking in the damn horse's mouth.

Oh you, how's it go!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_CqOd1zSxc

Look, I said questions of free will are going to have to wait. ;)


Mark L. Fergerson