« on: 12/07/2016 15:18:01 »
I think you'd have better results using chemical means to prevent memory reconsolidation.
The following users thanked this post: Nicholas Lee
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
... And you have returned like a dog to its ? with your persistent insults of "Dude" etc now not just confined to me.Wait, what? since when did 'dude' change from being cool to being an insult? did I miss that meeting?
Is it possible to enhance pharmacological introspection by using THC to increase conscious access to subjective experiences?We already have access to subjective experiences; by most assessments, consciousness is subjective experience (e.g. Thomas Nagel - an organism has conscious mental states, "if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism").
"You are absolutely right", it is impossible to prove a nonphysical ethereal event by scientific method, because they exist in different realms of alternate realities, and are therefore mutually exclusive from one another.Such things, by definition, are not supportable in our universe, so not only does your hypothesis have the interaction problem (i.e. how can the non-physical interact with the physical), but an 'alternate reality' problem (if it is a different reality, it can have no interaction with this reality by definition). Without evidence or proposed mechanism, and with a variety of indirect empirical evidence against it, it's an hypothesis at the very bottom of the heap keeping company with fantasy and wishful thinking (no offence).
During profound near death experiences it could be said that they were from a medical point view clinically dead , no heart beat or brain activity ...Clinical death is a moveable feast, the criteria for which vary between countries (e.g. it's different in US and UK), and over time. Colloquially, it is the cessation of heartbeat & breathing.
What evidence, please?The evidence that all the conscious beings we know of are products of evolution and are constructed out of materials common in the universe. So, to the extent that conscious beings are the result of processes governed by the laws of the universe, we are creations of the universe. This is not to imply any purpose or intent, simply the effects of the 'unwinding' of a very low entropy starting state to (eventually) a high-entropy end state.
... I prefer the idea of there being more than one universe, I struggle with the notion that there is only one.That's as may be, but it isn't science. What you prefer and can cope with may bear no relation to reality. People once preferred the idea that the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything revolved around it; people once preferred to think of atoms as little planetary systems, and particles as tiny billiard balls. They were wrong.
... what happens when the universe runs out of what fuels it, everything will eventually be consumed and what then ??Then, just a heat-death of darkness and evanescent virtual particles - assuming the accelerating expansion doesn't result in a 'big rip' in which spacetime itself is destroyed and the universe undergoes a phase change to something else (no idea what that might be).
With current (or near future) technology a likely outcome is that the ‘volunteer’ will start developing dementia-like syndromes progressing as the replacement of neurons occurs.This is a thought experiment, the assumption is that the technology will exactly mimic the original.
If we get a zombie then we lost some physics, likely at quantum level. Quantum mechanics (QM) is working in anything by e.g. holding atoms together, without QM atoms e- will fall into nucleus, but the question is: is QM directly involved in consciousness? As QM demonstrably play a direct direct role in biology (photosynthesis and taste), I find it hard to believe it is not involved directly in such a special and important process such the aware-ing/conscious-ing of the reality.Why? Do all 'special and important' processes have to directly involve QM? Is it more than just a case of consciousness is mysterious and QM is mysterious, so maybe they're connected? I'm happy to accept that there may be particular neural processes where QM effects could play an optimizing role, as in other biological systems, but I don't see the rationale behind claiming it is somehow the key to consciousness.
Speculations aside and based on what we know, direct involvement of QM can provide inside our brains two things: i) a more efficient energy transfer from point to point (due to electronic or vibrational states extended over many atoms)What 'electronic or vibrational states' in particular? How does that help cellular communication? The timescales of the neural membrane depolarisation and synaptic transmission are consistent with the overall activity that's observed, e.g. sensory input takes about 300ms of processing to reach the threshold for the wide-scale activation of the cortex and other areas, that is consistent with the start of conscious awareness - which takes a further 300-400 ms to activate areas associated with generating a response. Where does QM help?
ii) faster Turning Machine computations if the results of those computations somehow survive from picoseconds to tens of miliseconds in order to be interfaced with the timescales of NN classical processes – the missmatch of decoherece timescales is a loooong shot but maybe nature found a way.I thought the claim was that a Turing Machine couldn't emulate the non-computable functions of the brain, which was what QM was being invoked to explain? having QM speed up Turing Machine computations wouldn't help with non-computability...
..if the QM is directly involved in the process of consciousness (via e.g. space-extended electronic states or quantum vibrational states on certain parts of neurons) then it dramatically restrict the molecular substrate that can be used, and the artificial neuron may have to be very similar to natural one in order to reproduce the quantum states directly involved in conscious -ness (-ing).That's a big, unsupported 'IF' - but the thought experiment assumes that any QM involvement can accounted for in the emulation - we know how QM behaves, so we could, in principle, duplicate its influence on our artificial system.
It is conceivable to end up with a artificial NN that imitates perfectly at the classically describable level of interneuronal connections the original natural NN but it completely misses to generate some quantum states of the natural NN because the ANN does not have the right physical configuration. If those missed quantum states are essential to consciousness then ANN is a mindless machine even if at classical and interneuronal connection level imitates perfectly the natural NNBut if we do generate all the relevant QM states, as the thought experiment assumes?
I believe John Searle said something like:He was quite right. A simulated tornado won't blow your house down.
One will never get wet from a simulation of rain.
To get wet you still need real rain.
my belief is that:Can you explain this? It seems to me that the 'China Nation' thought experiment simply describes a human brain on a large scale, so would have all it's relevant properties (we assume the people behave like neurons in all relevant respects, are organised and inter-connected in the same way, and all other relevant influences are suitably accounted for, e.g. blood dynamics, neurotransmitters, hormones, etc).
1. A Turning Machine will never generate consciousnesses, because it is an insufficient physical state/structure for such task. Similar with "China Nation" experiment.
Whenever a street lantern is blinking, when Paulie passes by the thing with turn on or off.If the light is blinking, you'd expect it to turn on and off. You couldn't carry a magnet strong enough to affect the street light. Does Paulie attract paperclips?