The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 10. 2014
- Brains, Minds and Machines Seminar Series
The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness
Speaker: Dr. Christof Koch, Chief Scientific Officer, Allen Institute for Brain Science
Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Location: Singleton Auditorium, 46-3002
Abstract: The science of consciousness has made great strides by focusing on the behavioral and neuronal correlates of experience. However, such correlates are not enough if we are to understand even basic facts, for example, why the cerebral cortex gives rise to consciousness but the cerebellum does not, though it has even more neurons and appears to be just as complicated. Moreover, correlates are of little help in many instances where we would like to know if consciousness is present: patients with a few remaining islands of functioning cortex, pre-term infants, non-mammalian species, and machines that are rapidly outperforming people at driving, recognizing faces and objects, and answering difficult questions. To address these issues, we need a theory of consciousness - one that says what experience is and what type of physical systems can have it. Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory (IIT) does so by starting from conscious experience itself via five phenomenological axioms of existence, composition, information, integration, and exclusion. From these it derives five postulates about the properties required of physical mechanisms to support consciousness. The theory provides a principled account of both the quantity and the quality of an individual experience, and a calculus to evaluate whether or not a particular system of mechanisms is conscious and of what. Moreover, IIT can explain a range of clinical and laboratory findings, makes a number of testable predictions, and extrapolates to a number of unusual conditions. In sharp contrast with widespread functionalist beliefs, IIT implies that digital computers, even if their behavior were to be functionally equivalent to ours, and even if they were to run faithful simulations of the human brain, would experience next to nothing.
38:47 the part about the Integrated Information Theory starts here
That's the point where I would stop watching
I am going to comment about consciousness here as if I understand what it is.
Exceptionally stimulating talk. I am not certain as to why there is a measurable level of drama around the the idea of there being a hard problem surrounding the phenomenon of consciousness. Regardless of there being hard or soft problems, the ideas and research which help our species to better understand the brain and its emergent properties are a joy to explore. Thank you for sharing this wonderful talk.
+the deeliciousplum the IIT is different from any other previous effort to understand consciousness in the way they started by describing the common basic declarative content of consciousness and regarding it like pure information. previously consciousness was regarded as the colourless, odourless, dimensionless, etc background in which the various manifestations occur (red, hungry, leg, etc). when you have something without any measurable property whatsoever you cannot even begin to understand it. IIT from my understanding says that pure consciousness cannot exist, because consciousness IS IT"S CONTENT; there's nothing left if you take all these away, like red, hungry, leg. so maybe when buddhists and other meditative practitioners describe their experience like letting go of all contend and laying still in pure consciousness maybe they remain literally being a most basic content of information. i may be wrong in my understanding of IIT, but once i saw a short explanation of it i thought that the gist of it is so f... simple, why didn't anyone came with this before? of course, peal it away and you have to be an exceptionally suited individual, with a huge baggage of knowledge to understand it in its essence.
They call it hard in contrast to easy, not in contrast to soft
Utterly fascinating. I intuitively came to agree that we really do need to build neural networks in the physical world in order for it to gain consciousness, instead of simply being able to simulate it.
Although this might be true, but then why did he demonstrate the evolutionary benefit of consciousness in the real world with the simulation of a path finding robot with a neural network with increasing "virtual Φ"? If consciousness is only measured by the Φ value, then why isn't "virtual Φ" equivalent to the "real world Φ"?
I see the neurological sciences now have their own version of string theory.
Ethan Grimmer Nice!
Are you alive?
Chirstof is wrong if suggest that enough 'good' simulation of the brain will not produce consciousness. The argue with tree pin transistor vs much more pinouts of the neuron is not proper. Neuron should not be compared with transistor but with some circuit which behave/signal process like neuron. Please note that neuron is assembled by many smaller units which have smaller connection and simpler causal power - sometimes also similar to transistor. Neither neuron nor transistors are not consciousness unit - only working ‘special’ network circuit with similar causal power effect as brain (also on the inside network level not only at the external human behavior). That for example electronic 'special' network circuit will emulate causal power of the natural network in the brain - and that should also be conscious. Moreover simulation of this circuit by digital approximation on the some framework on the powerful set of computers with arbitrary precision will produce the same casual power due to the same signal processing of the 'essential' analysis network level. I agree that eg fire simulation is not the same as real fire but in the context of the brain is huge difference because the essence is the special signal processing which keep the same internal and external casual effect. Moreover if we add in fire simulation (eg based on the chain of the chemical reactions) the some real effectors controlled by output from this simulation then we have the same final effect: real burn ~= external human behavior). As we known any signal processing can be performed by many kind of media: eg: electronic hardware, software and in theory by any other physical medium of the same signal computation (functionalism and multiple realisability).
Stuart Hammeroff's quantum microtubule research suggests that those microtubules are the substrate. Much smaller than neurons
@1:15:00, Koch says that you can not get consciousness in a computer simulation of the brain, but conciseness only appears in simulation (that brain runs) per Josha Bach. Therefore, Koch might be wrong. A computer simulation might be a perfect environment for creating another simulation within it. And therefore, to be conscious.
Mind to elaborate on Bach's ontology, the principles of simulation?
Крутая лекция!
Love this- the way it is set up is so clear and so much better!! Can see him and the slides. Excellent. He covers a lot of great studies and arguments. My book 20 years ago points out the paradox of using an evolved brain to look at brain tissue. Because we project our ideas of space time onto it etc. yet it is free to operate unconstrained beyond our coherent perceptions adapted to the eternal world. Keeping this in mind helps greatly in knowing what the nature of consciousness is. I posited the glial cells not operating according to time. But it would have to be something like that- the claustrum maybe yes. I would ask if the claustrum connects to the glial cells as well. Anyone it may end up just being something we cannot see- like the absence and ultimate connectivity that is beyond space time.
Glaring that he's indulging in the delusion that emotions are separate from consciousness.
Any useful resolution shall be at the level of the quantum (statistical).
Or an absolute identity of memorial-emotional e.g. the classical "stream of consciousness" nexus.
What are these circles in 46:00? Logical gates XOR ,OR and AND have normally 2 inputs and 1 output, but these circles seem to have 2 or 3 input-outputs.
The brain computes something like a wave function, similar to a Restricted Boltzman Machine. The claustrum could be unifying these and selecting the most probable observation. Wave function collapse leads to consciousness. In this particular case, complex consciousness due to the sheer complexity of the wave function being collapsed.
This would help explain the biological observer effect. Biological systems, especially human nervous systems at attention, have a peculiar quantum physical effect on the environment which causes quanta to behave less like waves with distributed momentum and more like particles with defined trajectories along the collapsing wave function.
Consciousness is obviously a two way street with the environment, but if the body takes advantage of non-linear optical properties of DNA or even the cellular structures of the brain or body itself, it is also possible that the body is like a holographic phase conjugate mirror, capable of creating a resonant electromagnetic standing wave or soliton wave which has a sort of 'pressure' upon spacetime and everything interacting with the field through resonance. The environment would then be a part of the mind, or at least it would define the space in which conscious interactions as we define them could manifest. A doppler shift induced biologically or artificially in a holographic pattern would generate a reaction force on interacting quantum systems. Perhaps this is the collapse of the wave function in bio systems, a red shift or a blue shift, or even polarizations and more complex transformations.
I see the evolutionary advantage of this immediately, the first use would be to coordinate biological functions from within a single cell, then across multiple cells in tissues, and finally in complex organisms. This could even be the 'morphic field' that allows superorganism behavior, a species-wide resonant harmonic effect that creates a new composite organism regulating the coherence of the group. Human telepathy or collective consciousness could be a momentum exchange in a resonating structure of the brain, this would be invisible to normal EM radiation detection because it's a passive effect that operates on building up waves that 'cancel' the electric and magnetic field contributions by quantum phase locking, the momentum exchange is still there, but now the energy is conserved in the system and builds up as a standing wave. The human body should have a great deal of energy stored in this field that is not normally visible to our technology.
Bioholographic standing waves protect the body from entropic decay by cohering environmental noise into the soliton field of higher amplitude, the higher the better. DNA is a good example of this effect on the smallest scale, where DNA double helix is entangled with it's compliment, reducing the possible uncertainty and thus slowing the decay of DNA greatly. The electromagnetic 'tune' is defined geometrically by the body of an organism like an instrument is shaped to resonate with a particular sound. The body then forms guided by the light/sound just like a pattern of sand develops on a cymatic plate vibrating with a certain frequency, except with complex biological chemistry being guided rather than sand.
I don't understand how we fix the points or mechanisms in the causal state space. There's got to be some equivalence classing going on somewhere that makes functionalism work.
I mean I'm probably misunderstanding, but why are the transistors the points in the computer simulation he discusses towards the end? Why not electrons? Or more abstract data structures? Don't we also have to look at all possible assignments of physical systems to networks that we then compute phi over?
I don't know, lots of good ideas but I feel like this isn't the whole picture. If I'm missing something, someone please correct me.
Awesome!!!!!
The yellow squares didn't disappear for me, does it need to be seen on a bigger screen?
Those only coming for a rough description of the Integrated Information Theory, it starts at 39:20 czcams.com/video/LGd8p-GSLgY/video.html
Would it be correct to think that synesthesia, associations cause consciousness? Analogy could 3D illusion in 2D plane with details giving depth
IIT should be household conversation!
9:51 C does not require LTM (long-term memory)
Can a bit exist without a transistor or its analogue?
I wonder if the simulation of a brain at the end, which Christof says behaves and has outputs identical to a conscious brain expresses itself as if it were conscious.
It would be a strange state of affairs for something to have intimate and self-discovered knowledge of the nature of consciousness (or questions thereof) but not be conscious. Any ideas?
Yes thats exactly it. It would even argue with you that it is conscious and considering you make it similar to human behaviour enough it would behave creatively and curiously investigate nature just like scientists do and it wouldn't be conscious. Its like make a perfect fire simulation, in the simulation it burns everything nearby just like a real fire, it behaves like a fire does exactly like a fire but its a simulation and will never burn your house
Then, philosophically speaking, the zombie is not ontologically conscious.
@Thanos Sofroniou - However, a critical point is, that within the simulation, a fire simulated from our outside perspective would be "real" from the inside perspective of the simulation and would burn other things within the simulation. Likewise, a simulated brain in a simulated environment with other simulated things will be conscious within that simulation.
. It would behave as if it were conscious, sort of like a human deepfake. It would seem very conscious but wouldn't actually have an inner experience. Like a zombie.@@BigMTBrain
@@Zopicloned - Ahhh, I see. So WE couldn't possibly be living in a computed simulation, as Elon and many top mathematicians and physicists suggest is highly more probably than not, because if it were true, you'd simply be a zombie without consciousness or an "inner exterience". THERE!... proof we're NOT living in a computed simulation. QUICK!... call Elon and let him know you've figured it all out, that his and the other so-called "scientists'" argument is silly and without need of consideration! ...
Joking aside... RIGHT NOW, if we WERE living in a computed simulation, you wouldn't have a clue. You'd still be presenting a simulated argument on a simulated CZcams that entities inside a human created simulation couldn't possibly become "conscious" because, unlike everyone else in the simulated world, YOU and YOU alone know EXACTLY what "consciousness" is and how it comes about. You would be arguing that, and feeling proud of yourself inside, JUST like the simulated environment and your simulated brain of about 100 billion simulated neurons and about 80 trillion simulated synapses and all the simulated biology, chemistry, and physics underlying them compelled you to. Again, you wouldn't have a clue. ...
Oh, by the way, top physicists have all started leaning toward the notion that "energy" (as in physics) may have no actual "real" foundation... it seems to be just relative values. Hmmm... "values"... hmmm... as in... computation.
Unified Perspective
what i dont understand is how does consciousness not require language? how are we able to experience anything (consciously) without the ability to describe those experiences, through the medium of language?
The axiom of Existence is blown out of the water by the anomaly regarding the non-existence of Nothingness.
1:10:15 Braitenberg vehicles
What does a system with maximum phi look like?
It should be easy to create a system with more phi than even the human brain, if we exploit the math. Has anyone done that? What happens? What would that look like?
+Stephen Kamenar Some examples would be: the solar system. A galaxy. The universe.
However, what is THE maximum phi? does it exist?
+Farzher i think a famous one(criticism) is this: www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 . i haven't read that through. impression is IIT at least current state could be quite flawed, although it's does yield some interesting results (e.g. it states that a feed forward neural network has zero phi compared to an equivalent system that has a positive phi). and my personal judgement is it's about information processing/integration but not about (human) consciousness per se at least in its narrowest sense and therefore doesn't solve the hard problem, yet its very good effort (at least it's a rigorously defined mathematical model and testable and falsifiable...).
Right
I thgought Sott Aaronson demolished this ?
1:06 I think captions should say "languages of philosophers"
I don‘t get the irreducible aspect. Anyone care to explain?
no surgeon will find consciousness at the tip of his scalpel
I think in simple terms, it is that if you attempt to divide the interacting components that give rise to consciousness, then consciousness will be lost.
Is it convincing that the cerebellum is not involved in consciousness because of the graph properties of its network connectivity ? Isn't it obvious that the reason is that it is not involved in the mental processes that constitute conscious experience ? By his logic the retina is definitely involved in visual consciousness yet its network organization is just as different from cortex than the cerebellum.
what does he mean by existence? if two things are integrated they become one conscious thing. ok, understand that, but that one thing is still made up of two things regardless. this newly integrated thing should not negate the existence of its parts, right?
The parts become differentiated retroactively by the subject
I think human has something extra in vission. E.g. i can find easy my lighter staight away everytime in the total darkness when ima smoke under the ventilator in the kitchen.
1:11:45 Which systems are not conscious (predictions): the computer doing the weather simulation doesn’t get wet; the computer simulating a Black Hole doesn’t bend spacetime. (Argument against functionalism; the Zombie-Problem). (Also: Sherlock Holmes earlier: it matters why the dog didn’t bark. Why one couldn’t tell the color of the Apple).
(The discernible difference of existence must be satisfied not only to the outside world, but also from inside: the system has to make a difference to itself, but also to the outside world.)
P.S. now I need a talk between Joscha Bach and Christof Koch… - I assume even simulations make a difference to themselves; it’s just that everything that can be said about “the outside world” has to exist inside the simulation / world model first, else it can not even be talked or thought about… - but on the other hand the existence of the universe doesn’t stop when a single brain / mind / world simulation / representation dies. It’s just that we can’t say anything about it outside of our world model. - I wonder wether they actually disagree: when Joscha says, that they have it backward, that only simulations can be conscious, but still admits that there is a underlying physical reality that contains the pattern / runs the simulation, it fits that need for existence/ implementation / making a difference. How could it be otherwise? Not sure if there is (or even can be) a contradiction? The pattern might only be visible / discernible from inside, yet it still has to exist. And the fact that it exists across individual brains, in my understanding makes it acquire the quality of existence and discernible difference “from outside” as well? - Well: I guess Joscha is still right: body and mind are two domains within the same realm: they only exist as tags in our mind / world simulation. Even if we conclude that minds don’t get wet, but brains do: all our integrated model of the world is actually doing, is sticking labels on things it handles / discerns: it never can even get a handle on “the thing itself”, all it will ever handle are labels, stickers, concepts. - Somehow I fear that I’m back to square one: what can be known about the world? How does deduction work?: Saying that the Universe is one thing, and all subdivisions/ pattern recognitions are only done within our world model to facilitate understanding at different levels makes sense and delivers the different arts and sciences in all their richness and diversity and individual realms of applicability, but it still feels like fraud: like Münchhausen pulling himself out of the swamp on his own hair…
I am sorry information is not conciousness but it can say how our conciousness may be operating ?
I made one with C# codes in Unity. So to me, it is a c# script. (class, with several sub classes)
It may just be my conscious mind, but it seems the sound quality in this video is awful.
can someone explain this phi concept to me? what does he mean by measuring the irreducibility of the system?
Example: A car can take you places. Two halves of a car cannot. Thus a functioning car is irreduceable to the pieces of metal. A certain amount of Integrated Information has to mold it together for it to work.
In roughly 7:00, dr. Koch states we know that consciousness doesn't require language nor self-consciousness. He states as resource: "from clinics and FMRI exams" . Practically how?
How does a clinic measure a distinction between consciousness and self-consciousness? And, to what extend is self-consciousness expressed (or implicit) in consciousness? Can there even be such a thing as consciousness without self-consciousness?! Does the phenomena itself even allow for that? Just because X subject hasn't realized that he is self-existing, doesn't mean in some way he isn't employing or making use of it anytime he is "being conscious".
Can one be found conscious yet lacking in realization that it itself exists? What would consciousness consists of in someone who is aware of mere manifestations? To realize that, he is already implicating he exists.
Next point:
C doesn't require long term memory.
It clearly does. That conductor is able to access portions of it, albeit in a limited fashion. And it's precisely this level of "dialed down memory" leaving an imprint in him being "differently conscious" the one which points to the active role memory plays in consciousness.
Failing to assess the existence of variables inside the whole is not only unscientific, but it reeks of dogma.
On my first listen...It sounds like a very complex and convoluted way of reaching a very simple conclusion- all matter has consciousness. Simple matter has simple,basic consciousness and it can combine to give rise to complex one. Also a system trained to emulate human behaviour can't be sentient/ conscious as consciousness is duplicated and not unique in this case.
Also this sounds humblingly similar to what Indian Vedantins have been saying for 3000 years, although there consciousness is taken in broader term rather than perception alone.
It doesn't say that all matter has consciousness. In fact, it very clearly argues against it. It says that matter which can organize into feed-back systems have the ability to evolve consciousness (if the information is integrated in accordance with the theory).
Heeeeja daaaaa, ja ja.
"I do not accept Koch's working definitions of the words Consciousness and Experience as used in this presentation"
The theory is flawed in its explanation of confusing consciousness with experience. The one is not the other.
To exemplify, in his description of axioms he states: “Consciousness is structured: each experience is composed of multiple phenomenological distinctions, elementary or higher-order. For example, within one experience I may distinguish a book, a blue color, a blue book, the left side, a blue book on the left, and so on”. Here, the word consciousness should be replaced with experience, as it is experience that is structured; being composed of perceptual, and multiple phenomenological distinctions, elementary or higher order; not consciousness.
Secondly, “Consciousness is specific: each experience is the particular way it is-being composed of a specific set of specific phenomenal distinctions-thereby differing from other possible experiences (differentiation).” Again, consciousness is not specific - however, experience or perception of experience is, and fits well to his description.
Thirdly, “Consciousness is unified: each experience is irreducible to non-interdependent, disjoint subsets of phenomenal distinctions. Thus, I experience a whole visual scene, not the left side of the visual field independent of the right side (and vice versa).” Again the same problem. Consciousness is not being discussed here, however the awareness of sensory perception of experience is. Thus, I experience the whole sensory perception that is integrated by my awareness of my senses, hence I see a whole visual scene.
Fourthly, “Consciousness is definite, in content and spatio-temporal grain: each experience has the set of phenomenal distinctions it has, neither less (a subset) nor more (a superset), and it flows at the speed it flows, neither faster nor slower”. Again he describes awareness and not consciousness.
Consciousness is aware of awareness itself, which is aware of experience. Thus, he has certainly not explained what consciousness is - only the physical and external aspect of the awareness of experience. The problem lies in defining the properties of consciousness as objects and matter. Consciousness does not exist in a world of cause and effect, however - awareness, cognition, reactive patterns and behavior do - which are registered by consciousness - and are not consciousness itself. Independent of this, it is a courageous attempt that explains the phenomenology of awareness and experience. Well done.
Not even wrong.
You heard of Mind Phishing?
What makes this talk so confusing is terminology. He uses the word consciousness and experience interchangeably and in ways I wouldn't traditionally uses them. Like at 44:30 when he's talking about the oneness of the self that is an aspect of our experience but he's still referring to it as an experience. I don't know that all in the field of the study of consciousness would agree that the sensation of being one is really an experience in the same way that sight or sound are experience.
+quagmire444 as i see it, it's one of the most essential experiences of human life, it always stays with us, it's at the base of every human experience. we're always conscious of it except when we lose our consciousness or when we take serious mind altering substances like LSD, DMT. if you take a serious dose of MDMA you might look everywhere around you and feel every human, rock and blade of grass as if it's you. if you take a large enough dose of PCP or LSD the 'self/point of view' disappears altogether! people who do not use drugs cannot even begin to comprehend how real these states are, they're as real as any pain, happiness, sound, touch or colour. all these are distorting the 'experience of self' because self as 'one point perspective' is an experience of consciousness, manufactured by the brain - thus available to all kinds of altering. this experience of being 'one' was manufactured by evolution to serve the organism helping it to relate to the environment. the drug experience is not a 'lie' or 'illusion', it's just another way of experience. people think they experience things how things 'really are', the Truth, but who certificates that their particular wiring of the brain or particular amounts of neurotransmitters are the "official universal standard for experiencing Truth". a colony of alien creatures that are closely linked through some kind of telepathy might have the most terrible experience of 'self'... while thinking the 'self' of a human or a dog is so very strange.
Every model must start with its own definitions. One can argue about them later. But if they prove useful in context, then we can build from there.
Here are the *5 axioms/definitions of Integrated Information Theory:*
1) EXISTENCE: _Consciousness exists_ - it is an undeniable aspect of
reality. Paraphrasing Descartes, _‘‘I experience therefore I am’’._
2) COMPOSITION: _Consciousness is compositional (structured):_ each
experience consists of multiple aspects in various combinations. Within
the same experience, one can see, for example, left and right, red and
blue, a triangle and a square, a red triangle on the left, a blue square
on the right, and so on.
3) INFORMATION: _Consciousness is informative:_ each experience differs
in its particular way from other possible experiences. Thus, an
experience of pure darkness is what it is by differing, in its
particular way, from an immense number of other possible experiences. A
small subset of these possible experiences includes, for example, all
the frames of all possible movies.
4) INTEGRATION: _Consciousness is integrated:_ each experience is
(strongly) irreducible to non-interdependent components. Thus,
experiencing the word ‘‘SONO’’ written in the middle of a blank page is
irreducible to an experience of the word ‘‘SO’’ at the right border of a
half-page, plus an experience of the word ‘‘NO’’ on the left border of
another half page - the experience is whole. Similarly, seeing a red
triangle is irreducible to seeing a triangle but no red color, plus a
red patch but no triangle.
5) EXCLUSION: _Consciousness is exclusive:_ each experience excludes all
others - at any given time there is only one experience having its full
content, rather than a superposition of multiple partial experiences;
each experience has definite borders - certain things can be experienced
and others cannot; each experience has a particular spatial and
temporal grain - it flows at a particular speed, and it has a certain
resolution such that some distinctions are possible and finer or coarser
distinctions are not.
I would suggest "awareness" rather than experience.
The axiom of Intrinsic Existence states that one can only be sure of one's own consciousness in the immediate moment. Based off of this, does the theory involve a certain skepticism of the consciousness of others?
Also, does the fact that multiple people have individually developed theories of consciousness prove that one's self is not the only conscious being? Could philosophical zombies discuss ideas of consciousness without receiving input about consciousness from a conscious person (one's self).
Assuming the axiom is correct, is the import of the awareness of consciousness fully understood? Awareness of consciousness begs the question whether consciousness came into being at that moment or preceded said moment. If the latter, consciousness precedes awareness of it and thus may be concomitant with or life itself...universal consciousness? This question is put forth in the wonderful book The Conscious Universe and is brought forth via investigating findings of quantum physics.
About 1:05:58, where he explains the first experimental prediction of IIT and makes the claim, "This doesn't violate physicalism." However, if he is predicting that the subject will respond "no color" or "red" -- even though in both cases no neurons are firing in V4 -- because the cause-effect repertoire of the subject's brain has changed, this would seem to violate physicalism. In the perfect rendition of the experiment, the neural firing patterns across the entire brain are exactly the same. The manipulation makes no change to neuronal firing, only to the cause-effect repertoire. Yet he claims that the subject will be able to respond with a different answer. At some point down the line, neuronal firing must change for this to occur, or so physicalism would seem to require. I grant that perhaps the percept would change. But to make the claim that you can achieve an experimental result with such a manipulation postulates not only that consciousness obeys IIT, but that consciousness itself is capable of producing an EFFECT on the world. That is the part that I think still clearly violates physicalism unless we radically change the laws of physics.
fascinating research but materialist, brain-generated, Consciousness is, perhaps unsurprisingly, an inversion
Consciousness is non-experience experiecing experience.
Consciousness is the hard drive, self-consciousness is the software.
Consciousness is universal because it cosmically exists, hence is not planetary of planetary origin.
Consciousness is "that" which is currently writing this comment, but also that which is reading it.
As "that" which is currently writing and reading "every ones" comment continuously moves "faster" than the actions itself; thus it is unable of encapsulating its "true" form, as it always is - a step ahead of itself.
However, this can also be looked at the opposite way: consciousness has never moved - just the form that it is in, has.
We are not our consciousness. Consciousness is just part of the experience and even if you can understand what makes consciousness you still have not addresses what is the you the experiencer that is experiencing the consciousness.
Clyde Ssites Eh?
bpansky who was the you experiencing the confusion of my comment? The explanation is in the answer to that question.
Clyde Ssites
No, I think you don't have a coherent idea that you are capable of communicating clearly.
bpansky There is no existing defined words in the human language to describe what I am saying. What I am saying though is coherent if you are not closed minded with your preconceived philosophical views of reality. Let me explain it another way. Just like there is a user for a computer there is also a user for your body and mind. The computer and software running on it are not the user that experiences the interaction with the computer application and in just the same way the "user" of your living human biological machinery that allows you to experience and interact with the world around you is not the same thing. They get spoken as the same and my point is just that they are not the same. So that is the meaning behind me saying you are not your consciousness. Consciousness is a manifestation of the biological body functioning in this physical reality but who is behind that conscious interaction is the real you and not the consciousness itself. If you are not grasping what I am explaining then you are either very close minded or determined to not understand it.
You are still difficult to understand. Yes, we do observe other parts of our mind in a sort of sensory perception way, and it is like virtual reality or watching a computer. But you seem to be claiming that we are not our physical brain or something. Really it is just one part of the brain reporting info to another part of the brain, which observes etc.. Since you don't admit the possibility of miscommunication, only "closed minded" and all that nonsense, you are delusional and I'm just going to mute you.
The biggest problem I have with all these talks is: they never define what the consciousness that they are talking about is. Is it just perception? Is it SELF-conscious?
You can't make a rigorous model of anything if you're not giving a clear and unambiguous definition of the objects involved in your model.
The next problem here is, that they act as if the brain was required for consciousness (whatever they mean by that) by default. The result is a big circular argument.
+Nal "You can't make a rigorous model of anything if you're not giving a clear
and unambiguous definition of the objects involved in your model."
It sounds justifiable to demand definitions for terms but it is actually frequently (always) necessary to use undefined terms because one would then have to define the words used in the definitions. If you try to define all your terms you do so using other terms.Those terms will also have to be defined. And then again the terms used to define those. The process either becomes an infinite regress or terms are defined in terms of earlier defined terms - which is circular. This is a problem with a philosophical approach to analysing scientific concepts. It is the great strength of the sciences that has led to their incredible success and the awe inspiring knowledge of how the world works that it doesn't try to define all it's concepts. Instead of infinite or circular endless chains of definitions the theories statements are tied to experimental/observational outcomes.
Here is the official set of *5 axioms/definitions of Integrated Information Theory:*
1) EXISTENCE: _Consciousness exists_ - it is an undeniable aspect of reality. Paraphrasing Descartes, _‘‘I experience therefore I am’’._
2) COMPOSITION: _Consciousness is compositional (structured):_ each experience consists of multiple aspects in various combinations. Within the same experience, one can see, for example, left and right, red and blue, a triangle and a square, a red triangle on the left, a blue square on the right, and so on.
3) INFORMATION: _Consciousness is informative:_ each experience differs in its particular way from other possible experiences. Thus, an experience of pure darkness is what it is by differing, in its particular way, from an immense number of other possible experiences. A small subset of these possible experiences includes, for example, all the frames of all possible movies.
4) INTEGRATION: _Consciousness is integrated:_ each experience is (strongly) irreducible to non-interdependent components. Thus, experiencing the word ‘‘SONO’’ written in the middle of a blank page is irreducible to an experience of the word ‘‘SO’’ at the right border of a half-page, plus an experience of the word ‘‘NO’’ on the left border of another half page - the experience is whole. Similarly, seeing a red triangle is irreducible to seeing a triangle but no red color, plus a red patch but no triangle.
5) EXCLUSION: _Consciousness is exclusive:_ each experience excludes all others - at any given time there is only one experience having its full content, rather than a superposition of multiple partial experiences; each experience has definite borders - certain things can be experienced and others cannot; each experience has a particular spatial and temporal grain - it flows at a particular speed, and it has a certain resolution such that some distinctions are possible and finer or coarser distinctions are not.
Nal that is what he attempted at the beginning. He was trying to define the qualities of consciousness from introspection and examination.
These people are trying to promote the idea of a materialistic view of consciousness.
yes..?
...And? We have very good reasons to suppose consciousness is the result of material processes.
@@eosapienrancher4045 Proof ?
Phi, then, is a measure of ignorance.
More of a vile attempt to separate emotions from consciousness, because consciouness is the seat of "pure reason" which can't be tainted by emotions.
Not even close to what he's talking about here.
Another scientist falling prey to representationalism... there is no "movie in your head"! Perception is of things, not of images of things. It's a shame because this person has a sound methodology (induction).
Um…dreams. That’s a movie in your head.
@mattsigl1426 I meant that when you perceive, there's no video. When you perceive, you're "online," you are actually registering facts directly by interacting with relevant objects.
In the Bible, G*D ask 'Eve' how do you know you're naked? Prior to the incident in the Garden *With Satan, Eve didn't know she was Naked, she wasn't conscious prior to the incident. After the incident, they were totally different, I believe 'Man' become conscious at that point. Similar to a child not knowing they are naked, and then one day, the 'Child' will say, Dad give me a towel I'm naked, but the day prior they didn't know?
I don't hear too many PhD Blokes talking about that too much, but prior to that event, they didn't know.
I do not think consciousness is the same as awareness. Imagine an incident where you hair is on fire, but you don't feel it. Then, at some point, you realize and you behave accordingly. You were conscious, you just wasn't aware. The example of children not knowing they are naked, just to use the same one you did, can be thought as the kid having conscious at that point, yet having another point, the awareness one, where before it the kid did not know about the concept of being naked but after it they did. I think that, so far, for all examples of realization of self we can give, it is possible to have a conscious mind before and after it. Even if no human can remember exactly what is like to be born, you cannot say a newborn baby is not conscious. You can just infer that the memory part of the brain wasn't fully developed yet, but this does not say about conscious because it could, the same way as it couldn't, require simpler neural structure.
So what was the big deal about being naked? Adam had no clothes so she had no knowledge of clothes. Therefore it wasn't nakedness that was the issue. It was the hang up of sex: the original sin. Yet God made them clothes and told them to have sex to people the world! Seems to me the whole story was written from the perspective of a person with a sexual hang up, not the word of God.
You're right, you don't hear too many PhD "blokes" taking their cues from Biblical allegory.