BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


How Does Human Consciousness Work?

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
gridley
16:09 / 12.09.02
Don't ask me! Ask these guys...


Electromagnetic Field Generator?

In Depth: Visit Discovery Health

On TV: Watch "Science Mysteries"



Sep. 11 — A British geneticist has proposed a theory, which is gaining ground, as to why humans are conscious and aware.

If proven correct, the theory not only would explain one of science's greatest mysteries, the "hard problem" of awareness, but it may also, in future, allow for the development of artificially intelligent, conscious computers.

In a paper published in the latest issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, awareness is said to be generated by the brain's electromagnetic field, which is a product of the over 100 billion electrically active neurons in the brain.

The activity of individual neurons can result in unconscious actions, like breathing and eye blinking, but collective, synchronous neuron firings, according to the report, produce an electromagnetic field and the state of human awareness.
Johnjoe McFadden, professor of molecular genetics at the University of Surrey and author of the paper, first came up with the idea while writing the book "Quantum Evolution," published earlier this year. He became convinced that "consciousness was some kind of field that bound our thoughts." But without quantum states in the brain, he wondered where the field could be.

"An obvious possibility was the brain's own electromagnetic field, generated by neurons and able to influence neuron firing," McFadden explained to Discovery News, "so I started to examine the proposition that the brain's electromagnetic field is consciousness and became convinced."

He added that human consciousness is awareness that can communicate complex information with a sense of self-referral. It goes beyond self-awareness, which, he said, could be the state many animals are in.

For humans, he believes that information taken in from the outside world through our senses passes through the brain's electromagnetic field to neurons in the brain and then back again to the field, creating a self-referring loop that could be the key to consciousness.

If, as McFadden suggests, consciousness is a component of the brain's electromagnetic field, it would then likely be possible to reconstruct artificial systems duplicating the process, i.e., computers with a conscious.

Roy E. John, a professor in the School of Medicine and Psychiatry at New York University who has developed a similar theory concerning human awareness, suggested that AI enthusiasts not hold their breath because "a whole new technology would be necessary."

Bruce MacLennan, associate professor of computer science at the University of Tennessee and an expert in field computation, said McFadden's theory is "very interesting and thought-provoking." He agrees that conscious computers may be possible, but not in the near future.

"I cannot exaggerate how far we are from being able to construct a robot with the real-world cognitive capacities of a simple mammal, let alone a human," said MacLennan. "We are even further from being able to make a principled claim that any artificial system is conscious. We have so much more to learn."
 
 
.
16:56 / 12.09.02
"consciousness is some kind of field that bound our thoughts".

Of course it is. Consciousness is the brain's electromagnetic field. Why didn't anyone-else thing of that? All those silly philosophers can take their "hard problem" and go home now.

There are two problems with this theory:
1) It's as airy-fairy and ill-thought out as any "new age" theory that chats the breeze about "crystals and energy man!" Consciousness is not energy. The two are different by definition. They have different and non-relating qualities. They are two different things.
2) See 1.
 
 
cusm
17:07 / 12.09.02
The suggestion here is the the brain's EM field is actually a part of its processing, rather than a byproduct of it. Certainly something I'd like to believe, given the possibilities it offers, though I think proof of concept here is a bit schetchy. We'd have to establish that information can be passed to and from the field first, and is not actually being processed directly by the neurons alone.

The best support I've seen for this so far is actually in one of those genetic algorythm circuit designs, where the circuit paths are "grown" organicly rather then determined first by boolian algebra. Some of these circuits were able to preform well but were mathmaticly impossible, as they took advantage of hamonics in the material to make links in other ways. As the brain is an unshielded electrical network, one could easily conclude that what happens in small scale for copper might well happen in larger scale in us.

Rather puts a whole new dimention of complexity to neural processing, doesn't it?
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
02:32 / 13.09.02
Dagnabbit, gridley, I was working on this. I haven't had time to get it all down. I wanted to find a clear way to describe the quantum mechanics angle -- which I have trouble with myself -- before I posted.

Okay, the original papers can be gotten from the University of Surrey website. The article quoted doesn't quite hit all the points of the theory, and for good reason -- it involves the quantum calculation hypothesis, which is not a soundbite-friendly concept.

It was Karl Popper, by the way, who first suggested that consciousness functioned like an energy field. McFadden got the idea from Popper during the course of research on his book, Quantum Evolution. The thesis of that book is that quantum particals are subject to evolution, so that more successful combinations will cohere and develop into atoms, atoms into molecules, molecules into proteins, etc. McFadden attempts to describe quantum effects between the neurons and the em field. The description of how this works on a quantum level is pretty technical, though not complicated, and the best place to read about it, I guess, is in McFadden's paper.

It's not very new-agey at all. Like I said before, lots of people call bullshit on it, but I haven't seen any particular refutation. (Admittedly, I didn't look very hard.) I think people reject (rather than refuting) the hypothesis because the idea that consciousness is a normal, if extremely complicated, property of matter is threatening to our special status as Created Beings, if you believe in that kind of thing. While you don't have to be a Roman Catholic or something to believe that, but it is a dogma. We have no reason to think our consciousness is supernatural.

Personally, I'm more interested in how this could effect things like psychotherapy and learning than its effect on AI, though I wonder which would come first. And, like the evolving robots at magna, I wonder if a conscious quantum computer wouldn't have all the same inefficiencies and weirdnesses of mortal brains.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
02:47 / 13.09.02
Sorry for the typos in p4 -- working on several things at once here.
 
 
.
09:12 / 13.09.02
OK, so I did dismiss this theory a little bit too rashly. The idea that the brain’s electromagnetic field has something to do with processing thoughts rather than being a by-product of brain activity is an idea with some merit.

Where I disagree with McFadden is in his identification of this process with consciousness. A brain process, be it an electromagnetic field or whatever, although it may be in some way responsible for consciousness, is not itself consciousness. To suggest so implies a deep misunderstanding of the nature of consciousness. It annoys me when people with a background in science claim to have solved the problem of consciousness without even acknowledging that there is some debate as to the nature of consciousness. I (with my philosopher hat on) don’t waltz into quantum physicists’ labs and tell them I’ve solved the problem of dark matter or whatever, simply because I haven’t engaged in the debate enough to really understand the problem.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:54 / 13.09.02
I think that you are right, iivix23. Consciosness is a hard problem that can't be wished away by references to fields and quantum effects. I don't think that consciousness is neccessarily supernatural - I believe that AI will be possible - and it may be that MacFadden's effect is important.

But given that no one has a satisfactory answer to the question "What is consciousness?", I think it premature to claim that some aspect of brain activity is consciousness. Qualyn, as far as I can see there isn't a hypothesis there to be refuted, just an unsupported metaphysical assertion.
 
 
Magic Mutley
12:18 / 13.09.02
There're some interesting papers on the "hard" problem of consciousness at David Chalmers homepage. Especially this one: Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
13:14 / 13.09.02
I dunno, guys, I didn't interpret it this way at all. When I read the original papers, I understood him as saying that sensory inputs are processed in the brain, and the processing has a dimension in the quantum states of the em field -- that is, when a neuron fires, it effects the quanta in the em field, which in turn the effect the next round of firings -- and it's that interface that 'feels' like consciousness. I've worn the philosopher hat, too, and I don't see where this a) is metaphysical in any way or b) contradicts any but metaphysical philosophical approaches to 'the hard question'.

It's true that there isn't a whole lot of evidence to go on.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:30 / 13.09.02
Qualyn, I think the jump from interesting biological and mental effect to consciousness, is the one I am finding hard to swallow. What properties does consciousness have? In particular, in producing an em field, at what stage does it display consciousness? In what way could the hypothesis that McFadden's process is consciousness be falsified?

A good rule of thumb is that if you can't provide a good answer to the last, then you haven't understood the question.
 
 
Magic Mutley
13:38 / 13.09.02
I think my problem with these theories is that they don't suggest why or how these interactions create the feeling we recognise as consciousness.
They're fine as theories of how something can appear to act in a conscious manner, but not of explaining the subjective feeling - the "something it is like to be a conscious organism"
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
14:17 / 13.09.02
Lurid, I think your question is answered in 2 papers on the Surrey site I linked above -- mostly Synchronous Firing and Its Influence on the Brain's Electromagnetic Field, but I found A quantum mechanical model of adaptive mutation illuminating as well.

Karl Popper suggested that the cohesiveness of conscious thought was not explained by neuronal activity alone, and that some overarching force field could bind the information held in distributed neurons. It was eventually given up because no field could be found that did enough work -- but if the computation is done in the quantum level, it wouldn't require any work (McFadden doesn't, I think, come out and say that -- I'm drawing it from the quantum evolution theory of the other paper; McFadden made this cem field theory while researching quantum evolution). Sensory input influences neurons to fire, or not fire. (It's not binary, though -- there is firing, unfired & nearly fired, and there is also a state in the receiving neuron.) Their state of firing or not firing influences the quantum state in the em field. The em field then influences the next round of firing. The self-reference of this loop makes for subjective conscious awareness.

But, of course, this is all my hurried transliteration of what McFadden describes in technical language, and looking over it I see an I-Chinginess that I'd have trouble with if someone else were saying it. The I-Chinginess is mine, I think.

I don't think McFadden is claiming to have "found the soul" or anything like that -- just to have described the machanism by which the human brain is conscious. He's pretty clear about where evidence is needed.

Wheaty, I haven't clicked your links yet -- will soon.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:08 / 13.09.02
Qualyn. I've skimmed the Synchronous Firing and Its Influence on the Brain's Electromagnetic Field paper, and it is fairly impressive.

However, I can't help feeling that there is a serious dodge at the heart of his claims. I believe he makes a good case that synchronous firing and em effects are part of the mechanism of the brain, but that his claims about consciousness are rather premature. In essence, I believe that he is equating consciousness with complex brain activity and his tests and hypotheses make much more sense if you substitute the latter for the former.

It may be that he is right, but I believe he is taking an overly materialistic position. For instance, how does one deal with the psychological evidence whereby recognition and (to some extent) association happen "unconsciously". By that I mean, there are studies where it is shown that we incorrectly impose a causality to some of our thinking. So you can react to things, at quite a complex level, before being "aware" of them. This sort of complexity, the illusory quality of consciousness, seems to be increasingly bourne out by psychologists. Maybe they are on the wrong track. I simply don't know.

Its not that McFadden doesn't have something interesting to say. I just think it is a bit overstated.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
15:32 / 13.09.02
I believe he makes a good case that synchronous firing and em effects are part of the mechanism of the brain, but that his claims about consciousness are rather premature. In essence, I believe that he is equating consciousness with complex brain activity and his tests and hypotheses make much more sense if you substitute the latter for the former.

I hear what you're saying and I agree that there's some hyperbole in the presentation. It's true that cem field theory doesn't address psychology. It would be up to neuropsychologists to fgure out why particular neurons fire synchronously, or don't, and where unconscious activity takes place. I think it could be said that unconscious activity is all that processing of information which is not self-referential -- ie, information that doesn't become "aware of itself" through the self-referential loop of the cem field, though later it might. I don't think "consciousness" needs to be that complicated -- though it is complex -- to fundtion. Am I making sense? Not being a psychologist, I can't really speculate with any authority.

Anyway. As I see it, and I'm no expert, the flaw here is in the quantum mechanics, which hardly anyone really understands and a smart blunderer could use to describe almost anything.
 
 
some guy
20:37 / 13.09.02
It may be that he is right, but I believe he is taking an overly materialistic position.

Jesus. No offense, but is anyone here actually a geneticist like McFadden - or indeed a "hard" scientist of any kind -or is this thread just unqualified armchair science bullshit?
 
 
.
21:28 / 13.09.02
LLMSI-God...

Have you missed the point here or what? What me and Lurid are saying is that "armchair science bullshit" is entirely barking up the wrong tree... but also that a "hard" scientist may also be barking up that same misguided tree. It aint a case of how hard a scientist you are, there is a meta-science (read philosophical) issue at stake here.
 
 
Magic Mutley
22:32 / 13.09.02
LLMSI-God: yes, some people on this thread are hard scientists. Check out the links.

I still see these theories missing the "hard" problem - which is fine, if that's all they aim to do. It's like if you're a kid, asking someone how a firework rocket shoots into the sky, and they say "it's because of the gunpowder". This begs the question: how does the gunpowder make the rocket shoot into the sky?

In the same way, saying that consciousness is caused by quantum mechanics/non-linear maths/magnetic fields/self-referential loop begs the question: exactly how does this cause the subjective feeling that we know as being ourselves?
 
 
Lurid Archive
00:00 / 14.09.02
Jesus. No offense, but is anyone here actually a geneticist like McFadden - or indeed a "hard" scientist of any kind -or is this thread just unqualified armchair science bullshit? - Laurence

In the nicest possible way, I'd like to say that this is an attitude I have no respect for. I'll readily concede that I am largely ignorant of the disciplines relevant to the discussion of consciousness. However, while my post was short, I had skimmed the paper and outlined an objection. If I am talking "bullshit" then feel free to tell me why. In the process we may both learn something.

The same goes for anyone here. We debate, listen, counter and learn. If someone is more knowledgable, then this will become apparent. I have no time for that brand of elitism that deems an opinion inferior based on the status and qualifications of it's proponent.
 
 
some guy
01:11 / 14.09.02
I'll readily concede that I am largely ignorant of the disciplines relevant to the discussion of consciousness.

If I am talking "bullshit" then feel free to tell me why.

With respect, I think you've already explained why above.

I have no time for that brand of elitism that deems an opinion inferior based on the status and qualifications of it's proponent.

Well, obviously there's a difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. The people doing this research are presumably experts with years of study and experience. Perhaps the posters are, too, but more likely they've got a very basic understanding of neuroscience or quantum physics or what have you. It's like armchair generals who've never served in the armed forces.

"Bullshit" was harsher than I intended, and I'm just being ornery anyway. Sorry.
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:02 / 14.09.02
Laurence. The disciplines relevant to debates about consciousness are complex and varied. For almost anyone, it would be arrogance not to acknowledge one's ignorance. But you reminded me of a Chomsky quote,

In general, my (fairly wide) experience is that the more intellectual content a field has, the less people care about credentials -- and no one outside of established religions (and their academic/intellectual counterparts) would ever be foolish enough to demand conformity to "received opinions." The reason for the correlation is obvious enough. If you are a physicist or mathematician, or even a linguist or psychologist, you don't have to appeal to "credentials" to protect yourself. The intellectual content that has been achieved over many years suffices.

He is talking about academic fields, of course. I wonder how well it applies to individuals?

I tend to assess the worth of an argument on its internal strengths rather than what I think are the qualifications of the person speaking. But I'll admit that dismissing a viewpoint solely because it comes from an academically unvalidated source does have advantages; it unburdens one of the need to counter or even understand what is being said. Also, deferring to academics frees up time for more appropriate activities.


Qualyn: Not sure about the self referentiality, though you could be right. Also, I'll have to read the paper more closely to see where the quantum effects are important. So while I agree that there is a lot of sloppy thinking associated with quantum stuff, I believe that McFadden is relying on fairly well established theory. He uses it to explain data transmission via synchronous firing and electromagnetism. Its seems an interesting idea and I think the most fascinating part would be to measure the strength of brain produced fields in different animals.

But in the end I agree with Wheaty-G. There is still the "hard" problem out there.
 
 
some guy
15:01 / 14.09.02
I see what you're getting at, but I'm not talking about qualifications necessarily. I just find it amusing when people uneducated in a particular area feel their uninformed opinion has any weight. You yourself basically admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm currently reading The Future of the Past by Alexander Stille, and there's a great example in there about how everybody has a theory about the pyramids, but virtually nobody has taken the time to study them and know what they're talking about. Arguing about a link between the brain's EMF and consciousness without a thorough grounding in the disciplines is, to me, about as laughable as laymen arguing whether the pyramids were built by Atlanteans or Egyptian slaves.

Like I said earlier, my first post was harsher than I intended and, in a different mood, I likely would never have written it. One of those wrong thread, wrong time deals. And for all I know you, iivix23 and Wheaty-G actually are scientists with vast comprehension of consciousness, EMFs and quantum mechanics, and not just a couple of guys with two semesters of college science and a couple of New Scientists under your belts...
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:56 / 14.09.02
I'm hating myself for being drawn into this, but there is perhaps a wider point to be made.

Now the Chomsky quote above is particularly apposite since, at the start of his career, he lacked a strictly formal education and the bits of paper that validated his views. He unarguably revolutionised linguistics with his theories and so has had first hand experience with the sort of elitism you favour. You might argue that he is an exception, but intellectual innovations usually come from the younger, less established, less qualified people.

I realise that you lack the intellectual integrity to treat ideas on their worth rather than what you perceive to be their status, but this strikes me as ironic. As I have said, real progress requires precisely the kind of open mindedness that you eschew. Any scientist worth their salt, and I'm sure this includes McFadden, would always argue content.

On the board, I have often espoused a pro-science view. But I do so on its merits and I allow the possibility that I am wrong. Atlanteans, UFO's and alien abductions? Case be case, argument and assessment. A person's "education" is only relevant insofar as it is reflected in the quality of their exposition. Educated people can talk shit. Uneducated people can have deep insights.

I have often come across the view that scientists are some sort of priesthood who only allow the intiated to have any say, and who stand in the way of progress in order to maintain their status. And I've repeatedly argued against this contemptible caricature that I always considered a straw man. It saddens me to see that it has some basis in reality.
 
 
Magic Mutley
17:09 / 14.09.02
By a remarkable coincidence I'm uniquely qualified to discuss consciousness, since I'm the only being in the entire universe that I'm one hundred percent certain actually is concious (no matter what you others might say...)
 
 
Magic Mutley
18:49 / 14.09.02
btw, I fully agree with Lurid. A person's ideas should stand on their own worth, regardless of that person's background.
 
 
some guy
19:20 / 14.09.02
Lurid, I think you are completely misreading me. I don't give a damn about credentials and qualifications. I'm merely pointing out the inherent ridiculousness of a discussion about cutting-edge neuroscience by people who openly admit they don't understand it. It's not a matter of elitism. As attractive as the idea that all opinions are equally valid is, the plain truth is that as one plunges farther into the esoteric end of any discipline, the fewer people have the ability to discuss it meaningfully. I am not talking about "strictly formal education and the bits of paper that validate[s our] views."

Barbelith operates in direct contradiction to this, and I myself fall victim to discussing things based on limited knowledge. I love the notion that someone without a deep knowledge of genetics would have the arrogance to dismiss the latest findings and theories in the field. I suppose that's fine if we see Barbelith as the electronic equivalent of the pub, where we solve the world's problems in our drunken brilliance. As a collective we seem to be jacks of all trades, and masters of none. A little information is a dangerous thing.

I realise that you lack the intellectual integrity to treat ideas on their worth rather than what you perceive to be their status, but this strikes me as ironic. As I have said, real progress requires precisely the kind of open mindedness that you eschew.

What an amusing statement on a forum that routinely uses the status of quoted men and women as shorthand for intellectual integrity. With respect, you are completely missing the point.

Educated people can talk shit. Uneducated people can have deep insights.

Yes, indeed. But deep insights into the complicated mechanics of things they don't understand? This isn't a matter of contrarian opinion. Someone whose astronomy ends with the music of the spheres is unlikely to possess informed, meaningful thinking about the latest findings on quasars.

Anyway, I'm sorry for hijacking the thread. Like I said, I read the wrong post in the wrong mood and wrote something I didn't need to. I apologize for that. I'll waltz off and leave you to your regularly scheduled debate about consciousness.

Lurid, I've sent you a PM.
 
 
.
22:44 / 14.09.02
"Arguing about a link between the brain's EMF and consciousness without a thorough grounding in the disciplines is, to me, about as laughable as laymen arguing whether the pyramids were built by Atlanteans or Egyptian slaves" - LLBISG.

And that is exactly my criticism of McFadden. It's "disciplines" plural. As in a grounding in quantum science, but also some idea of what the problem of consciousness is (or that there is even a problem). While I am the first to admit that philosophy falls way short of solving all of life's mysteries, at least it acknowledges its short-comings. At the moment it seems like everything that science (especially quantum physics) has to say is taken as gospel truth. And worse than that, we are all expected to stand back and have dogmatic faith in it all, because it's all just too complicated for the layman to ever understand... Perhaps it's about time that there was more interdisciplinary criticism, so that people like McFadden don't exaggerate the implications of their (otherwise pretty valid) theories. Quantum physics is currently being portrayed (perhaps by the people involved, perhaps by the media) as having all the answers(so to speak), when in fact it doesn't even have all the questions.
 
 
Magic Mutley
09:33 / 15.09.02
I'm currently reading Chalmer's book, The Conscious Mind - which is coming from the philosphical point of view. I came across this passage, which I think is relevant -

"The second constraint I have followed is to take science seriously. I have not tried to dispute the current scientific theories in domains where they have authority. At the same time, I have not been afraid to go out on a limb in areas where scientists' optinions are as ungrounded as everyone else's. For example, I have not disputed that the physical world is casually closed or that behaviour can be explained in physical terms; but if a physicist or a cognitive scientist suggests that consciousness can be explained in physical terms, this is merely a hope ungrounded in current theory, and the question remains open. So I have tried to keep my ideas compatible with contemporary science, but I have not restricted my ideas to what contemporary scientists find fashionable."
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:00 / 15.09.02
No, I'm not misunderstanding you laurence.

It is true that specialist knowledge becomes difficult to sensibly critique. But I think you completely misunderstand the nature of informed debate. One doesn't need to grasp all the detail to the highest level in order to have a reasonable opinion. If that were true, science would have stalled about a hundred years ago. To put it another way, I don't need to know the names of all the American senators in order to comment on US foreign policy. Perhaps you are projecting your own inability to sensibly discuss the subject onto others?

I probably overstated the case when I said I was largely ignorant because I wanted to make clear my appreciation of the complexity of the issues. I don't particularly enjoy ignorant debates, but neither do I demand to know if the participants are "hard scientists". Your references to "ignorance" are consistently and exclusively tied up with your perception of their intellectual status that denials of elitism are rather hollow. Content seems irrelevant to your analysis.

So when you ask (rhetorically) whether an ignorant person can have a deep insight, I think you betray your attitude. How can you know the person is ignorant unless you pay attention to what they say?

I think I know what point you are trying to make. You want to say that we shouldn't dismiss others or talk with authourity without justification. You are making it on a thread where people are being fairly cautious and are referring to primary sources. The opinions expressed here have been neither dismissive nor contrarian.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:13 / 15.09.02
Wheaty-G. Good quote. It is an excellent basis for both debate and to some extent, research. This approach is particularly valid for the subject at hand. As iivix23 says, this debate is inherently multi-disciplinary and so I think it fairly safe to assume that any one person will not be a specialist in all the pertinent areas.

Getting back to McFadden, I think I broadly agree with iivix. I can't imagine a purely scientific explanation of consciousness. I don't think you can avoid deep philosophical questions no matter how much science you use. The "hard" question of consciousness is, by its very nature, not easily amenable to scientific enquiry. Having said that, satisfactory answers to the problems of consciousness will doubtless incorporate scientific knowledge and have interesting consequences for science.
 
 
.
11:59 / 15.09.02
I like that quote Wheaty-G. Chalmers' work is interesting in itself, but that's a different thread entirely.

Since this thread has become a debate as to the methodology of addressing the problem of consciousness, as opposed to McFadden specifically (and this is an issue that I for one would be happy to see further discussion in) I suggest that either this thread be moved to Head Shop, or else a new thread be started there, all parties willing.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:46 / 15.09.02
Or we could go back to discussing McFadden's work. I'm game.

BTW - I think that a discussion about methodology should be kept in the Lab.
 
 
Magic Mutley
20:14 / 15.09.02
I'd say discussing the workings of consciousness in general is within the title & abstract - thought I'd be happy to start a new thread if stuff spins out of it...
 
 
grant
15:47 / 16.09.02
So - this definition of consciousness seems to rely on little more than two elements:
complexity and continuity.

A "consciousness" solves (or works on) multiple problems at one time, and does so without ceasing - each new element is added to the ongoing problem-solving set without an interruption of identity.

So, I suppose the question is: what else is there?

I'd propose a sense of recursion - a self-awaress - but I'm not sure how to distinguish that from a sense of continuity.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:44 / 16.09.02
Its fascinating, isn't it? Because it is just possible that enough complexity and interconnectivity by itself allows self referentiality and recursion.

A bit off topic, I know, but this is exactly how Godel's theorems work. Just allow enough structure and reflexivity abounds. Then again, pinning down exactly what is meant by complexity is fairly non trivial.
 
 
Magic Mutley
18:34 / 16.09.02
Interesting idea - recursion in consciousness. I think consciousness itself is the pure feeling of processing information. Something I'd say that animals generally would possess, but a rock would (probably) not.

Self-consciousness would be the next layer - the feeling of processing the feeling of consciousness. I think there's an idea in Zen Buddhism called "nen". The first nen is pure awareness, the second nen is awareness of the first nen, and the third nen is awareness of the second.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply