a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by b_b
b_b  ·  4595 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Kolmogorov Complexity, Causality And Spin
    how many neurons must we rub together to get a basic Turing Machine?

I think the more neurons you put together, the less like a Turing Machine your system will look. The firing of each has a stochastic component that combines in some way (I don't exactly know how, but probably something less than purely additive) with its neighbors. The uncertainly is too high to be a Turing machine; its the reason you can't throw a dart the same way each time.





alpha0  ·  4595 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Fine, but then as mk pointed out, where do we find this reality constructing machines? (I have my own views, but they are entirely of a meta-physical nature ;-) Dara's view (as he states in reference to Maxwell's cogs and wheels) per my reading is that that is irrelevant, so long as the conceptual model is effective. But clearly, if there ever was a viable avenue of pursuing the relationship between consciousness and materiality, this is it. Don't you agree?
b_b  ·  4594 days ago  ·  link  ·  
    ...if there ever was a viable avenue of pursuing the relationship between consciousness and materiality, this is it. Don't you agree?

I'll give a qualified "yes" to this question. Here's the qualification: I think it is wise to look for a connection between consciousness and materiality in some conceptual, perhaps mathematical (perhaps purely philosophical, although I find that much less appealing), framework. Whether its this particular one, I can't say, because I don't understand his logic entirely yet. But I certainly grant that I like his approach.

I think the manner in which consciousness is broached in neuroscience is one of the great scientific farces of the day (and its also one of the most romanticized, unfortunately). The attempts to atomize consciousness to statements like "your occipital cortex merges image for you", or "your amygdala gives you 'fight-or-flight' instructions" make me sick to my stomach. There is not one sensible statement that grants faculties to the brain itself, yet that is the norm in neuroscience. We, as individulas, are conscious beings, whether purely material or material-metaphysical. I hope one day we can discover a conceptual framework in which this idea can be interpreted, but I know beyond doubt that it will never be discovered by a traditional neuroscientist.

alpha0  ·  4594 days ago  ·  link  ·  
    I think the manner in which consciousness is broached in neuroscience is one of the great scientific farces of the day ..

The 'just so' science. I share your revulsion regarding this matter.

    .. (and its also one of the most romanticized, unfortunately).

An entirely chance phenomena? Consider the socio-political dimensions ...

b_b  ·  4594 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I think the brain is the new space exploration, which was the new sea exploration. In each of the former cases we had dramatic and fantastical tales, canelli on Mars, serpents past Gibraltar, etc. The unknown leads to rampant speculation, often wild and romantic speculation. The brain is so unknown that we ascribe to it all of our unknowns. We can find love, loss, smart, stupid, creative, dull, etc. in the brain. Its mysteriousness and complexity is what drives these speculations. (Well, that and a non-existent emphasis on philosophy in secondary and university education).