![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 15 of 15. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 20, 2003, at 23:57:07
I'm not a smart guy (I scored like a 120 on some generic internet IQ test, and only like a 21 on my act),so I don't believe I'm the right one to ponder this question, but I'll start it regardless. My question is more of an idea to be elaborated upon: Is Consciousness a universal "algorithm," if you will, that manifests as a function of time within a particular "mind-space," formed by semi-stable "solutions" (lifeforms) to the problems presented by the physical world? In other words, is self-awareness the property that defines IQ, but being that nobody learns the same way, is consciousness spread out unequally among humans? In terms of this idea of consciousness as the integral of mass interaction/communication of--In our case, neurons as logical operators--physical phenomena in a constant fashion over time, it's easy to visualize our problem.
Think of a bunch of dominos standing on end arranged in a line, so as to produce "the domino effect" (as is refered to in conversation). Set this imaginary experiment in motion by knocking down the first domino. As you imagine the dominos falling one by one, you can visualize an overall function (or isomorphism) that moves each domino from a standing position to a laying down position (from a starting state to an end state). Step back and don't think of the dominos themselves, but the function over time that moves them from standing up to lying down (that you initiated in the beginning of this thought experiment). It is this form (or "shape") that travels at a constant rate from start to finnish within this line of dominos that I want to use an an analogy of consciousness. In order for it to exist, it logically must first be set in motion, but disregard that fact for now; all you need to know is that the only way it can exist is if there is an "ether" for it to travel within (in this case the dominos), and a time for it to move. Also note, this overall form is not observed in any givin picture of the entire event, it is only observed by viewing the entire system over time.
Much like the above, our minds only exist in continuous time, and within an "ether" of neurons. So these two variables, N=neurons and how they are networked in our case, and T=rate of time upon which the N interact with each other are the only things that define intelligence.
Think back at our analog of dominos. What would make the form (or isomorphism/function that changes each domino from a starting state to an ending sate) different? You guessed it, a difference of the two different variables N and/or T. So if you change the rate of time, the shape of the dominos falling over time will either stretch or shrink. If you change the properties of the objects that provide the "ether" or "mind'space," the form of them interacting over time will be different. In the case of the dominos, if you made the dominos lay on thier longest side, then the shape would be shorter.
Going further:
Let N = neurons in your brain
N! = the number of possible different arrangements of neurons. As is easily understood, this is a very large number. It is possible that two people can have exactly the same personality, but improbable because it would take an ungodly large ammount of time to produce every possible arrangement of N neurons, most likely far more time than the universe will exist. Now, this is really the only factor that differs humans in intelligence from one another--arrangement and number of neurons in our brains--the rate of time upon which the neurons interact doesn't change much from person to person I think, and possibly could be the same depending on how a person defines rate of time (percieved rate vs. actual rate). But rate of time sets humans apart from other intelligence in the universe, because other solar systems than ours will most likely operate at a different rate of time due to the ammount of energy that surrounds them ie. ammount of gravity. *got off on a tangent, my how i amuse myself with math*So, what do ya think? Have I got myself into a huge misconception?
Posted by anonymous13 on November 21, 2003, at 0:51:30
In reply to What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 20, 2003, at 23:57:07
Whatever meds that you are on- you need to get off it.
:)
Posted by Bob on November 21, 2003, at 2:40:26
In reply to What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 20, 2003, at 23:57:07
So what's your ultimate point?
Posted by Stavros on November 21, 2003, at 3:12:10
In reply to What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 20, 2003, at 23:57:07
you have gone a bit too deep for me and I am all caught up in my shorts but it sounds like you would enjoy reading Kierkegaard, Søren. In cannot remember but one of his book is all about consciousness. good luck
S
Posted by sackhoullier on November 21, 2003, at 4:56:49
In reply to What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 20, 2003, at 23:57:07
Dude, you’ve gone and taken a ton of assumptions that don’t seem to have any basis and built a theory with them.
I’ve read a couple of decent articles about consciousness lately – some interesting theory was that it is a layer that we put on top of what we observe in order to produce an understanding and memory. Sometimes we switch it off – frinstance, sometimes you suddenly realise that you have no memory of driving for the last ten minutes. Because of this, researchers are trying to find out what is going on when we are driving our cars, apparently safely, apparently unconscious, to see which bits of are brain aren’t active that are when we are conscious. Trouble is, you can’t focus on this while not conscious, just thinking about it means that you are conscious. It’s like opening the fridge to see if the light is on, or like some old philosopher who’s name escapes me said ‘it’s like trying to turn the gas up so as to see the darkness.’
Posted by linkadge on November 21, 2003, at 8:15:21
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by sackhoullier on November 21, 2003, at 4:56:49
You see when we're speaking about contionsness, there is no 'basis' to begin with. Strictly from a theoretical stand point, we cannot even begin to physically study the brain - in order to assume that knowledge is fact.
What I mean is this: It is the brain trying to understand itself. That means that the brain is trying to 'one up' itself. It is a paradox in a way because, the more we 'understand' about the brain, the more complex our brain becomes. It grows with learning, and by trying to look abjectivly at a new memory, forms an even newer one.
Intellegence is perhaps formed a sole manifestation of the pysical brain, more synapses, more branches, better connections.
Norepinephrine, in my opinnion is the key chemical in activating parts of the brain that were 'designed' to facilitate thought about existance apart from the body.
In my mind, the universe is both infinetly small, and large, meaning, there a factors relating to our experience for which we have not accounted, likewise, there are system(s) that we may be a part of, for which we are currently unaware.
In summary, the mind is as complex as you choose to look. Think its simple?, look harer, you'll even perhaps create the complexity which you were looking for.
Linkadge
Posted by KimberlyDi on November 21, 2003, at 9:12:25
In reply to What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 20, 2003, at 23:57:07
Isn't there a commercial similar to this? What is the point? There wasn't a point. But you watched the dominos fall to see where it ended.
> I'm not a smart guy (I scored like a 120 on some generic internet IQ test, and only like a 21 on my act),so I don't believe I'm the right one to ponder this question, but I'll start it regardless. My question is more of an idea to be elaborated upon: Is Consciousness a universal "algorithm," if you will, that manifests as a function of time within a particular "mind-space," formed by semi-stable "solutions" (lifeforms) to the problems presented by the physical world? In other words, is self-awareness the property that defines IQ, but being that nobody learns the same way, is consciousness spread out unequally among humans? In terms of this idea of consciousness as the integral of mass interaction/communication of--In our case, neurons as logical operators--physical phenomena in a constant fashion over time, it's easy to visualize our problem.
>
> Think of a bunch of dominos standing on end arranged in a line, so as to produce "the domino effect" (as is refered to in conversation). Set this imaginary experiment in motion by knocking down the first domino. As you imagine the dominos falling one by one, you can visualize an overall function (or isomorphism) that moves each domino from a standing position to a laying down position (from a starting state to an end state). Step back and don't think of the dominos themselves, but the function over time that moves them from standing up to lying down (that you initiated in the beginning of this thought experiment). It is this form (or "shape") that travels at a constant rate from start to finnish within this line of dominos that I want to use an an analogy of consciousness. In order for it to exist, it logically must first be set in motion, but disregard that fact for now; all you need to know is that the only way it can exist is if there is an "ether" for it to travel within (in this case the dominos), and a time for it to move. Also note, this overall form is not observed in any givin picture of the entire event, it is only observed by viewing the entire system over time.
>
> Much like the above, our minds only exist in continuous time, and within an "ether" of neurons. So these two variables, N=neurons and how they are networked in our case, and T=rate of time upon which the N interact with each other are the only things that define intelligence.
>
> Think back at our analog of dominos. What would make the form (or isomorphism/function that changes each domino from a starting state to an ending sate) different? You guessed it, a difference of the two different variables N and/or T. So if you change the rate of time, the shape of the dominos falling over time will either stretch or shrink. If you change the properties of the objects that provide the "ether" or "mind'space," the form of them interacting over time will be different. In the case of the dominos, if you made the dominos lay on thier longest side, then the shape would be shorter.
>
> Going further:
> Let N = neurons in your brain
> N! = the number of possible different arrangements of neurons. As is easily understood, this is a very large number. It is possible that two people can have exactly the same personality, but improbable because it would take an ungodly large ammount of time to produce every possible arrangement of N neurons, most likely far more time than the universe will exist. Now, this is really the only factor that differs humans in intelligence from one another--arrangement and number of neurons in our brains--the rate of time upon which the neurons interact doesn't change much from person to person I think, and possibly could be the same depending on how a person defines rate of time (percieved rate vs. actual rate). But rate of time sets humans apart from other intelligence in the universe, because other solar systems than ours will most likely operate at a different rate of time due to the ammount of energy that surrounds them ie. ammount of gravity. *got off on a tangent, my how i amuse myself with math*
>
> So, what do ya think? Have I got myself into a huge misconception?
Posted by pixygoth on November 21, 2003, at 9:50:34
In reply to Re: What is the point?, posted by KimberlyDi on November 21, 2003, at 9:12:25
whoops I answered this post up above...
but i like what Jonny's saying, and let me say that 1 for goodness sake 120 is a great iq
2 as a philosophy with lots of science and logic etc graduate I think what you're saying is actually related to a lot of stuff on the cutting edge of academe -
complex systems theory?
strings/ m-theory?
Spinoza (okay pretty old and i mentioned him above but he's worth it...)
Anyway keep thinking... it's fun, innit?
S
Posted by stjames on November 21, 2003, at 10:34:22
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by anonymous13 on November 21, 2003, at 0:51:30
> Whatever meds that you are on- you need to get off it.
>
> :)Thats not nice.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 21, 2003, at 18:58:11
In reply to What is consciousness?, posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 20, 2003, at 23:57:07
> I'm not a smart guy (I scored like a 120 on some generic internet IQ test, and only like a 21 on my act),so I don't believe I'm the right one to ponder this question...
Well, this isn't really the right place to ponder this question, either. How about Psycho-Social-Babble? Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20031113/msgs/282271.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Eddie Sylvano on November 24, 2003, at 11:59:12
In reply to Re: What is consciousness?, posted by sackhoullier on November 21, 2003, at 4:56:49
> I’ve read a couple of decent articles about consciousness lately – some interesting theory was that it is a layer that we put on top of what we observe in order to produce an understanding and memory
-------That's the gist of much of the literature I've read. To demystify things further, a growing body of research suggests that there isn't really such a thing as conscious will, which is the biggest sticking point in explaining consciousness (causation). We operate almost entirely from subconsciousness (hence the ability to drive without remembering), with consciousness serving to create reactions to situations we haven't encountered before, or tweak our reaction to similar experiences. Once we've learned something, it becomes automatic.
Studies from stroke victims point to the idea that our conscious thoughts are essentially confabulations (explainations after the fact) for our actions, which typically incorporate relevant information (they sound reasonable), but will make do with whatever information they can, if need be. Our awareness isn't the author of our behavior, but rather an observer who feels responsible for it. Hence, change is hard because we're always fighting for control of a system that isn't really under our control, yet we deeply feel is. We're neurotic by design.
Posted by Bob on November 24, 2003, at 23:53:36
In reply to Re: What is consciousness? » sackhoullier, posted by Eddie Sylvano on November 24, 2003, at 11:59:12
> > I’ve read a couple of decent articles about consciousness lately – some interesting theory was that it is a layer that we put on top of what we observe in order to produce an understanding and memory
> -------
>
> That's the gist of much of the literature I've read. To demystify things further, a growing body of research suggests that there isn't really such a thing as conscious will, which is the biggest sticking point in explaining consciousness (causation). We operate almost entirely from subconsciousness (hence the ability to drive without remembering), with consciousness serving to create reactions to situations we haven't encountered before, or tweak our reaction to similar experiences. Once we've learned something, it becomes automatic.
> Studies from stroke victims point to the idea that our conscious thoughts are essentially confabulations (explainations after the fact) for our actions, which typically incorporate relevant information (they sound reasonable), but will make do with whatever information they can, if need be. Our awareness isn't the author of our behavior, but rather an observer who feels responsible for it. Hence, change is hard because we're always fighting for control of a system that isn't really under our control, yet we deeply feel is. We're neurotic by design.
So where did you get all that from?
Posted by Eddie Sylvano on November 25, 2003, at 8:28:38
In reply to Re: What is consciousness? » Eddie Sylvano, posted by Bob on November 24, 2003, at 23:53:36
> So where did you get all that from?
By far the best book has been "Neurodynamics of Personality", as far as scinetific rigor.
Another good one is "The Illusion of Conscious Will".
Beyond these texts, most of my other readings have been in science magazines (Scientific American) and the Internet.
Some neat studies regarding free will were conducted by a guy named Libet, quite a while ago ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6640273&dopt=Abstract ).
Beyond academic support, the notion just makes sense. If you assume that we have free will, or some special form of consciousness, just keep looking down the evolutionary tree and decide at which point life doesn't have free will (insects?bacteria? virii?). Unless you flatly reject evolution in favor of a religious explaination, it's obvious that we're the result of a process which isn't quite as impressive as we'd like, and bound by the same rules. There is no more place for free will in our behavior than there is for free will in the weather. Both systems are complex and unpredictable, but it's more obvious to people that the weather is the result of physical determinism, because they don't hold the same biases towards it.
Posted by Bob on November 25, 2003, at 16:29:24
In reply to Re: What is consciousness? » Bob, posted by Eddie Sylvano on November 25, 2003, at 8:28:38
You've made some very interesting points.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 25, 2003, at 23:26:01
In reply to Re: What is consciousness? » Bob, posted by Eddie Sylvano on November 25, 2003, at 8:28:38
> By far the best book has been "Neurodynamics of Personality", as far as scinetific rigor...
I think this discussion is more about psychology than medication, so I'd like to redirect it to Psychological Babble. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20031123/msgs/283887.html
Thanks,
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.