He needs to explain what he means by information. Because if he means "structure" or "specified complexity," that still doesn't capture the "aboutness" or "intentionality" of thoughts about Jennifer Aniston. He seems to be equivocating because I don't see how you can give a physical description of a proposition, and that's the difficulty with semantic epiphenomenalism.
His attempts to divorce I formation from intelligence is nothing short of hilarious. Next he'll be touting the physical limits and structures of intelligence too
Why does he need to explain “information”? In this context, clearly utilized it as a driver (or charge) of physical (mass, material, cellular, biological, chemical) activity. There was no wavering of being a self described “physicalist” in his postulations. He was essentially stating that evolution (for example) is driven by natural selection.
I think his explanation is insightful, using mathematical limits or entropic limits combined together as a middleground to get out of the determinism/randomness dichotomy. I don't think he actually says anything about qualia
Amity, I agree. I've seen him in other vids from CTT and he provides a totally material way for causation to be initiated in the mind. It may not be correct, but it is necessary to keep the evil determinists from squashing all inquiry into free will and other interesting concepts.
I think Tse is defining information as the limits in which randomness can occur. Also, once a packet of information causes multiple neurons to fire, the information input cannot be determined because neurons, with their multiple inputs, would have filtered it differently. I'm not sure he was saying this amounts to free will. But, since I want to have free will, I'll interpret it that way.
He is not talking about how the brain gives rise to sensations, only about how the mind can have free will - and actually only about how information could possibly have causal effects. He is saying that the universe is not deterministic, it is random (quantum mechanics), however that random-ness is highly constrained, and the only way to explain in what way it is constrained is by using the concept of information. So although the mind does not directly alter any physical particles, the physical state of the brain can evolve in a very large number of different ways, and we know that way in which it actually does evolve is always consistent with the flow of information. As in the example, the Jennifer Aniston neuron fires when some picture of her is seen, and we cannot actually trace back the exact physical chain of events which caused it to fire since the laws of physics are not deterministic - there are multiple pathways that could arrive at the same thing. The only way to explain what has happened is by reference to the concept of Jennifer Aniston, and in this way information is what caused the neuron to fire.
Nope. "we cannot actually trace back the exact physical chain of events which caused it to fire since the laws of physics are not deterministic" yes the laws of physics are completely deterministic. Once you have the boundary conditions of a system, it evolves the same way. That is physics 101. You mistake our incapacity to predict, that we call "randomness" with the assertion that they cannot be predicted. He is only introducing the concept of information as critical in how organism execute tasks. As in any neural network, once the pattern is recorded, the network has the same outcome. He does not go further enough in that respect. Any convolutional network in machine learning is capable to map inputs and outputs, so there must be a configuration in the network that defines JenifferAnistonness in your brain, it is not a matter of one neuron.
@@cristianproust That depends upon your interpretation of quantum mechanics. A theory such as Bohm's pilot wave interpretation is deterministic like you say, we just don't know how to observe the hidden variables. However, any other interpretation says that there really is a degree of random-ness during the process of wave function collapse, and we can only ever predict things probabilistically even in principle. I do agree that individual neurons do not directly represent concepts, I was just giving exposition in line with the simplified example in the video.
@@Mike-wj1kg I don't like very much the QM conversations because I'm a physicist, but i will say one thing. The equations in QM have the same characteristic as any other equation in physics. If the boundary conditions are the same, you get the same results. If I cast a dice the probability is 1/6 every time. That is QM in a nutshell, a probability distribution, not a prediction per se (as in Newtonian mechanics) Regardless of the result of the dice, the probability is 1/6. But that is a way in which we model system of which we have no much information, not because we think there is anything impossible to predict. You cannot scape that the spacetime is a continuous tissue in which you have all the time contained. Past present and future. That forces everything to be perfectly deterministic, which is consistent with the equations we have. If we have evidence of non-determinism, that would be great, but so far there isn't. The determinism problem in physics bothers people who forget we shouldn't be experiencing a static universe, which means consciousness it the big mystery of humans. That is why I like this channel, because they go deep on the subject. If think physics is real, the battle for determinism was lost a long time ago. Things do not happen out of nowhere(randomly), and certainly your conscious self is not the one taking the decisions, but the primate you inhabit (or you are watching the primate doing it, nobody knows why, or how).
@@cristianproust what are you talking about? QM is demonstaitably indeterministic with something as simple as spin. You can only ever know one axis of spin at a given time, and if you measure a separate axis, and then come back to the previous one, it can be inverted. And all within the same system, and thus the same equation. QM is not deterministic by any stretch.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Jesus Christ, that is depressingly ignorant. Do you really think things happen randomly?. Do you believe in magic? The wording of my comment was quite precise. You do not understand what I said
Great discussion. I think the conjectural idea of mind being equivalent to a highly malleable and self-rewriting neural wetware is not new, but it is simply now called integrated information. However, even everything he said is true, it still doesn’t logically exclude the possibility of philosophical zombies where they lack the feeling of life itself or self-awareness.
I think this “information as cause” idea stems from the mind’s linguistic understanding of the word. All causes appear physical, and nature mostly constructs itself in a mathematical form. The brain is storing and analyzing sense data. It attends to various objects depending on their relation to its total knowledge of the world. These mental actions are brain, i.e. neurons, physiology, chemistry, etc. motions. Since we can’t grasp the world in a purely coordinate and calculus framework, we have an information problem where things are mapped to words by individual brains. But I also don’t feel confident I fully understand what was said here though.
_Cause_ is a philosophical bugaboo. I prefer to speak in terms of _process._ Some very good FMRI studies by neurolingists have shown delays in sensory data processed pre-consciously to consciously, strongly indicating a coarse-grained dataflow organization not unlike design of computer systems. This is only my second exposure to Tse, so I don't know if he said the following, but I doubt he'd disagree. Whatever else you may say, the _conscious_ is the part of the brain/mind/whatever that does language and understanding and occasionally even reason. It operates on data massively pre-cooked by other parts I call _pre-conscious._ The conscious has essentially no insight how the cooking happens. This has led to idiotic classical objectivist ideas about thought, which sweep semiotics under the rug. Noam Chomsky is a perfect exemplar. This pretty much solves and obviates the _qualia_ nonsense. Of course _redness_ does not exist in what I laughingly call _the real world._ But we can point to actual neurons that fire on _redness,_ at least in monkeys. For some reason that I do not quite get, it is considered unethical to point to neurons in PeTA members, though I do see it might be difficult to find any. A great deal of the ostensible magic of consciousness falls apart if you consider this. I am not certain that it all does, but nor am I certain it is any deeper than the fallacies of composition and decomposition.
Basically he is saying what ancient philosophers used to say. That for a human to " know " is to have the " form " - Jeniffer Anistoness - to hit the filter in our brain. That is mind. Form is almost equated with " soul ". This is Aristotle. Do you guys agree ? what do you think ?
I like Aristotle's four types of causation: Efficient, Material, Final and Formal. Scientist, and even philosophers, seem to think there is only efficient and material causation and halved both the description and the explanation of the world.
Human boot-prints would not be on the moon if there hadn't been information processing and transfer among engineers and scientists on the earth, a physical result that depended on information. Information is a real and consequential part of physical reality.
I think everybody gets what you are saying, but because they can't figure out a way to conceptualize the detailed process, they prefer the absolute surety that comes from denial, and avoid admitting that it is just too difficult to understand. It probably isn't that difficult for you or me to understand in a general way because we are not enmeshed in the paradigms of their fields of study. They seem to be required to start from the bottom and find a way to the top. If you start with the phenomena and work down toward the fundamental, you simply come to a point where you say, I don't know, but we can keep looking. They don't seem to be able to do that.
This top-down informational causality is just a different level of abstraction. The difference exists only in the describers mind. The information still enters and affects the system via the conventional forces and particles.
At 0:55 information places constraints on possible outcomes of system interaction. This implies that the mass, velocity, and direction of a Snooker ball will determine the outcome of a collision with a targeted bally. How can Richard question what information is like this at 6:30? Bottom line: can information be developed by a system that is causal like physical system is? I guess information that has been developed by the brain in the past affects the physical systems over time if a concept of Jennifer Anistin has been developed and stored.
Barry Stapleton. Once ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity is recognised & understood (it’s not ‘digits’) no great difficulty attends the task of tracing whatever (real) information is passing through our brains as it is utilised as the means with which we think - perceive, imagine, perform all mental phenomena. This tracing exercise quite unproblematically brings us to any of the brains specific functions - including conscious consciousness. There is one, & one only particular component of our brains located at this (crucial) juncture & like all ‘lumps’ of matter here in a panspsychic universe, this particular little increment of solid matter is sentient, & due to the fact that through it is passing the one last ‘final summation’ signal of all incoming information (Christof Koch’s IIT) this one small component of our thinking machinery becomes ineluctably conscious thereof. Properly analysed our brains not only house cameras & sound recording equipment (our eyes & ears) but also a little private viewing theatre replete with projector & screen AND this little fully sentient, fully cognisant ‘lump’ - homunculus (you & I) - sitting there watching the show. Voila. All of which becomes amply apparent once ‘information’s’ correct identity (it’s not digits) is factored into our view of the world & especially into an understanding of our own consciousness.... Thank you for asking 😃
Not who, but what. It is a combination of attention and awareness, coupled with goal directed behaviour and a self concept, and many other processes, like the “interpreter” function of the right brain, the inner voice, access to episodic memory. All of these functions are amalgamations to form the “I”, but ultimately, they are all a play within awareness, and thus, illusion.
There is not "I" involved. Check how a neural network works (for Machine Learning). The inputs and outputs map themselves once the brain has recorded a pattern.
@@Bringadingus what do you mean by established fact? It is my understanding that our body and therefore our mind is just an "instrument" that our soul uses.
@@Bringadingus Incorrect. As far as we know, the brain could just as well be a radio. When you listen to Mozart on a radio, is the radio the actual source of Mozart?? Currently, all the scientific evidence we have, and there is quite an accumulation, only demonstrates correlation of the brain with consciousness. There (currently) is not scientific evidence or even a theoretical foundation that demonstrates the brain actually does produce consciousness. Unfortunately, people like Robert Kuhn and the Skeptic's Society rely on the ignorance of most ordinary people (and even academics) in their never ending proselytization of their new religion called Materialism. (Very similar to the Christian church). So people assume that science has proven something it really has not. Consciousness is one of the biggest scientific questions of our time. And it is crucial question not only in the field of Psychology, but also in Biology and even Physics. Anyone who tells you that Science has proven the brain 'produces' consciousness is not a real scientist - they are more like a pseudo-skeptic such as Robert Kuhn or Jeff Amos. Again: as far as we know currently, the brain could just as well be a RADIO for consciousness. And the "Transmission" hypothesis goes all the way back to William James.
@@Bringadingus I would argue that the only established thing is that there is a correlation between brain state/activity and consciousness. Correlation does not imply causation.
Reason has downward causation, we learn from the past to increase our luck in situations in the future, we can even take drugs to alter our thinking in ways we can understand and be suprized by... information and the process of its translation and the growth of knowledge opens up possibility space. We may be able to formalize the dynamics of possibility space .
According to Godel incompleteness theorem, mathematics can be used for language and logic statements (even though logic not support mathematics)? So if there is mathematics in particles of brain (maybe from quantum probabilities being measured into particle), can be used to bring about language and logic of mind (although not know how would look physically in brain)? Once language and logic are physically represented in brain, might be able to perform top-down causation through thought / cognition, and maybe other?
Tse makes my cognitive-sceince-type brain happy, or at least happier. Nietzsche once wrote that the soul is a name for something of the body. This is a bit more impressive when you consider _Seele_ can mean _mind_ or _psyche._ English has a lot of words. Things get *really* impressive if you read his "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense."
If particles in brain have mathematical information, which can be used for language and logic, then the physical neurons in brain could operate as a regular computer (below the neuron level possibility for quantum computer like operation)?
Look up David Deutsch's Constructor Theory. He's got it right that these concepts can only be addressed by way of claims of what is and isn't possible, but he's got it wrong in thinking that specfic patterns in the motions of particles are the primitive entities we should refer to, when deciding what is and isn't possible.
He can't. There is no route from inanimate particles to a living thought. It's just more reductive materialism trying to run circles around itself that has gotten us nowhere (with consciousness) for the last 100+ years.
It seems to me that all processes contain information. It also seems to me that consciousness is the continuous simulation of reality through explanations filtered primarily constraint satisfaction and then by error elimination. This might be seen as blasphemy by those who wish humans to be insignificant, but I see the human mind as the most significant entity in the known universe. A person is a mind. The human species is the only known species known to be capable of creation of new knowledge. I have doubts that human creativity will be understood in the near future. But I do think quantum computation will help explain the human mind.
J F, I've heard this particular researcher talk before, and he's trying to explain something that no one knows the answer to. This is literally his area of study, so he is not just "filling in as he goes". He is consistent and seems to make a lot of sense. He may very well be completely wrong, but he is doing his best. I assume you have a favored idea that would not be "malarkey", I would be curious to hear what that might be, as long as you aren't a hard determinist, in which case everyone already knows your position, and indeed, you do not have any choice but to believe it!
@Htx457 Haha, I kind of wanted to be critical of your response, but it isn't completely out there. This is quite entertaining for many people and it maybe even makes them feel smart and important to grapple with these intellectual topics. Fair enough, but this is the actual day job of these guys in the video, so if they enjoy it, that's just a bonus. I'm not entertained by my job. Are you?
Steve C This guy is definitely talking “malarkey.” Just because he has a PhD, it does not mean he is making sense. This guy is a good example of why neuroscientists should study some philosophy.
@@shak5215 I have to agree with you. That's why I asked the person above to specify what his view was that would lead him to use the term "malarkey" to describe a well reasoned point of view from a professional in the field. I don't necessarily agree with his ideas of information as causal, but it is intriguing. I definitely don't agree with the idea that we live in a billiard ball universe where particle interactions determine what flavor of ice cream I like. No one knows the final answer, or if there is a final answer, so we should all be open to having our ideas questioned.
This made me think of the game of Snooker. Let me explain. The game are made through a series of shots that each have two elements one classical determinstic and one probalistic. First The player try to strike the white ball with his que, so the white hits a colored ball that is targeted for a hole. Second he tries to optimize the succes of his next shot by making the white ball end up on the table where his probabilty for success with his next shot is maximized. The first part is classic deterministic newtonian physics, the second part works with probabilities of the future, But there is only one shot with the que, to obtain both goals.
Relations. Atoms smashin eachother have no relations. Jennifer Anistonness and that neuron does. From a physicalism perspective (Kuhn) relations don't matter, from a human perspective it does and is called information. Is causation a human or physicalist concept? That is the point of this discussion I think. It's a lingual problem. We don't know what we mean when we talk about causation, or free will I think Tse is brilliant in trying to combine the physicalist and human perspective of what causation means and reconciling them in a meaningful way, and saying relations are similar to a human perspective of causation but actually have physical effects (even without humans and their concepts), due to limitations in the phase space. Bravo Tse As a sidenote; relations aren't real in time (because the past/history doesn't really exist), thus this makes this information he speaks about Platonic or non-local. Take your pick
Only when you're out of your mind can you look and appreciate yourself. How can you see how beautiful your house looks from the outside from inside your living room. 😒😀
Constrained randomness is nothing but wide-ranged determinism; thus it's not randomness as the public had been understanding but rather probabilistic reasoning. In another word, 'possibly invisible' little changes in the inputs could massively changes the outputs...
@@IGNOBLEVOIDPEEKER Yup been going on for years. Can't remember when it started. Would have to be a retired insider to appreciate my cat jokes. Maybe starting to get senile with to much time thinking about cats and lame philosophy.
@@jeffamos9854 Nah lol thanks for letting me know. I started watching maybe around season 6 on TV but I am just getting into the really old stuff. Like the old roundtable stuff back when Tyson was still doing work at Princeton haha.
Comment about timecode 3:00. The argument (which is confusing) seems to rely on - if you rerun the universe something different will happen next time. That would be debatable. But if true surely this is irrelevant. If x happened first time and y happened second time you might think something different. But this is not an argument that supports an hypothesis of how the mind works.
Good stuff, mind is a huge mess, makes sense what was said in interview. So we have those atoms and molecules stacked together in our brain, coming in our body with food. Brain is very resilient organ, if i'm not mistaken, doesn't replace molecules as fast as skin, for example. But particles do get replaced either way and we can feel sensations immediately after we smell something or drink a glass of wine. That sensation doesn't mean molecules of smell actually penetrated our brain, nose picked them up and translate chemical interaction into information our mind understand as distinctive odor. Question is, what do we mean by a flow of energy from nose to brain, where signals get translated in conscious information. But OK, we can imagine chains of neurons vibrating at specific rate and causing electrons to charge certain brain regions. Atoms vibrate, when they couple with foreign chemical bonds, vibration change and new levels of charges are send trough conducting organic pathways. It's just electric signals, charge must do something physical to specific molecules inside brain cells. But what can electricity actually change, perhaps signal influence how atoms are stacked inside a matrix of molecules, it could be also energy force cells replacement. Than electricity doesn't influence molecules directly but shift position or polarization of entire cells. So which is it, atoms or cells? Some mechanics must apply or information would get scrambled, signals are tinny streams of vibrations, anything can cause them to vibrate differently. But if it's about large cells, made from millions of molecules, than those have many ways to align inside an organic matrix, can't be displaced by weak electric charges so easy. Cells are like small cities, they contain complicated inner mechanics, perhaps they can works as small biological computers. Or it could be pure physics, each atom and every electron contribute to over all quantum wave function, when something interact, effect get translated over entire quantum system at once and mind arise from those supernatural happenings somehow. Problem is, same apply to molecules of cells, they could be like miniature brain, so again we must talk about wave functions and other quantum stuff, just on a much smaller scale, but on an insane levels of complexity, since cells must coordinate somehow, like billions of tinny quantum computers working like a network of some strange kind. Easier way out might not be closer to truth, it mind is not how cells communicate with another, than we are stuck for who knows how long, because we are talking about impossible to comprehend problem, we will never be able to count and track all those atoms.
I see no reason of why JeniferAnistoness cannot be defined as the input of a convolutional neural networks (in the machine learning sense) that defines an output. I'm not sure that this could qualify as mysterious at all, or that makes any difference in the evolution of a physical system
Noise generally hinders neural performance, but recent studies show, in dynamical non-linear neural networks that does not hold true. //Synaptic release noise// Action potentials are transferred down a neuron, which then are converted to either electrical or chemical signals between neurons. Chemical synapses are not deterministic, which means that every action potential produced does not result in the release of neurotransmitters. Rather, the release of vesicles containing neurotransmitters are probabilistic in nature . The number of vesicles released by a single synapse is random in response to a specific input signal and is further influenced by the firing history of the pre- and post-synaptic neurons. This means that neurotransmitters can be released in the absence of an input signal. Johnson-Nyquist noise occurs due to the thermal motions of ions producing voltage fluctuations proportional to temperature Atomic collisions are termed "noise."[4] While it isn't clear on what theoretical basis neuronal responses involved in perceptual processes can be segregated into a "neuronal noise" versus a "signal" component, and how such a proposed dichotomy could be corroborated empirically, a number of computational models incorporating a "noise" term have been constructed. Sensory systems rely on populations of neurons to encode information transduced at the periphery into meaningful patterns of neuronal population activity. This transduction occurs in the presence of intrinsic neuronal noise. This is fortunate. The presence of noise allows more reliable encoding of the temporal structure present in the stimulus than would be possible in a noise-free environment. Simulations with a parallel model of signal processing at the auditory periphery have been used to explore the effects of noise and a neuronal population on the encoding of signal information. The results show that, for a given set of neuronal modeling parameters and stimulus amplitude, there is an optimal amount of noise for stimulus encoding with maximum fidelity. This enhanced responsiveness is a very robust feature of neurons in the presence of synaptic background activity (Ho and Destexhe, 2000; Shu et al, 2003), and a similar phenomenon has also been called "gain modulation" (Chance et al., 2002), reflecting the fact that the slope of the response curve is modulated by background inputs. Investigating the effect of the different components of background activity revealed that the conductance shifts the response curve (rightward arrow in Fig. 3B), while the "noise" component modulates the slope (gain) of the response curve //Gain Modulation// One of the key components of gain-field encoding is the variability in the response amplitude of the action potentials from neurons. This variability, when independent of change in response selectivity, is called gain modulation. Gain Modulation takes place in many cortical areas and is believed to be a common mechanism of neuronal computation. It allows for the combination of different sensory and cognitive information. For example, neurons implicated in processing a part of the visual field see again in the response amplitude due to shifting focus to that part of the field of vision. Therefore, neurons that are gain modulated can represent multiple types of information. The multi-modal nature of these neurons makes them ideal for specific types of computations, mainly coordinate transformations. This creates the ability to think spatially, the main contributor to physical coordination . Some investigators have shown in experiments and in models that neuronal noise is a possible mechanism to facilitate neuronal processing.[11][12] The presence of neuronal noise (or more specifically synaptic noise) confers to neurons more sensitivity to a broader range of inputs, it can equalize the efficacy of synaptic inputs located at different positions on the neuron, and it can also enable finer temporal discrimination . //signal-to-noise ratio// It must be noted that the phenomenon of enhanced responsiveness is similar to stochastic resonance phenomena, which have been thoroughly studied by physicists (reviewed in Gammaitoni et al., 1998; Wiesenfeld and Moss, 1995). Stochastic resonance is a noise-induced enhancement of the signal-to-noise ratio in nonlinear systems; it usually appears as a peak of the signal-to-noise ratio as a function of noise amplitude (thus the system appears to "resonate" for an optimal amount of noise). While neurons can also show such a behavior if subject to noise (Levin and Miller, 1996; Stacey and Durand, 2000), the situation is more complex than for classic stochastic resonance phenomena, because in neurons the noise source is also a conductance source, and conductances have an additional shunting effect (see Rudolph and Destexhe, 2001). /////////// neuronal noise is a possible mechanism to facilitate neuronal processing //////////////// The presence of neuronal synaptic noise confers to neurons more sensitivity to a broader range of inputs, it can equalize the efficacy of synaptic inputs located at different positions on the neuron, and it can also enable finer temporal discrimination. (Location independence of synaptic inputs) . Stochastic resonance phenomena has been thoroughly studied by physicists.. Stochastic resonance is a noise-induced enhancement of the signal-to-noise ratio in nonlinear systems; it usually appears as a peak of the signal-to-noise ratio as a function of noise amplitude . Location independence of synaptic inputs in high-conductance states. A. Somatic response amplitudes for inputs located at different positions in dendrites. In a quiescent neuron (left), somatic input amplitudes decrease as a function of distance to soma. With a static conductance (middle), this attenuation is stronger. By including both conductance and noise (right), the probability of somatic spikes becomes much less dependent of the position of the input in dendrites. ///////////////////////////// END
We cannot disprove it any more than we can disprove that the universe is only 5 minutes old with the "history". Baked into the creation 5 minutes ago. BUT we can make very good arguments that neither is very probable.
He doesn’t answer how mind comes out of brain? Or mind controls brain? QM controls material or other way? Is mind Quantum mechanical? Below planks level? Created when certain patterns developed by brain structure arrangement? As pattern evolves mind evolves?
Agreed. Probably couldn't answer. Great teachers describe complex phenomena simply, rather than make simple questions harder to answer. He didn't answer the question at all. Shame he missed his chance.
What you have to understand is that you can study the brain all you want but the information of what it is like being human or even being " you " won't be understood by studying the brain because those experiences are purely subjective and not objective.
Sort of. We will never understand conciousness by only studying physiology of the brain in the same way we will never decipher the software programming of PowerPoint by studying the microprocessor it runs on.
Dear Mr. Kuhn, There is no meaning in all these qustions I analyse, viz. "Free will, consciousness, Truth, ... ", so long as I haven't defined "I" as a particular sequence of particles and specify a definite criterion of proof related to satisfaction of my needs to verify the acuracy of the theory I assume as to the origin of those particles.
Again, it's rather simple. The brain. It is what it is. There are subjects of study which Can not be analized for their substance . But you Can ponder their actions. The mind is an activity. The brain is the matter where the activity happens. Conciousness is a function of the mind. Like I said. KISS....
The brain and the body is (most likely) similar to a space suit an astronaut will put on, in order to operate in space, but necessary in order to operate in the reality we find ourselves in. Because consciousness is highly complex, it is necessary for the brain to be complex as well. Much like a radio must have quite a few circuits to play a piece of music that is being broadcast to it. On what scientific grounds do I make the hypothesis above? Easy. The scientific collected work of the SPR & ASPR over the last 100+ years, and also more recent 30+ years of over 65+ scientific studies into NDEs. I should also mention the seminal work of Freud and Carl Jung in psychoanalytical theory in Psychology as well. But unfortunately, when you have the pea brains and critical thinking skills of the likes of Robert Kuhn or Jeff Amos, the scientific work above might as well be on the planet Pluto and beyond. These two dimwits are incapable of conceiving anything beyond their religion of Materialism.
Huh?... I have no idea what this fella is on about... I think you rather Dr Neil Tyson on if you want clarity for the masses... this exploration is just confusing because of all the repetitive jargon and analogies that don't allow for any better visualisation on the subject. Isn't the Mind just the collection and storage point, while being the decoding/processing apparatus of physical information generated by the world around it?🤷♂️ The Mind is the collective noun in my opinion of all the neurons firing to decode and interact with the information of the world around us. It's a mechanism and is vastly different from Consciousness. Consciousness for me is the next level mechanism that views what the Mind is absorbing and takes action based on this. The Mind is like the amazing mechanism of the Eye... but without the Eye being IN a person, no action or decision can result from the information it takes in.
Yes, you are on the right rack on several levels, one being the different levels of complexity. Another is the processing of data or information to effect outcomes. And a third is that it is the interaction of sensors providing input, like the eye, to the central processor.
I think the Rachel Green/mess is a substitution. Another object. Could be anybody else except so many in the zUS know JA. That’s a parameter, s possibility, “ any concept,” . But no JA in the Bush in Botswana! But the firing ...
Any good theory about the cause and effect needs to explain how a given cause makes its effects happen. You need to describe the mechanism of how it works. Or else the theory assumes that the cause and effect is connected by magic, or by God, by some other supernatural means. The only known way in which information can cause things to happen in the future is when you use information to predict the future and then act based on this prediction. So, you need to have some kind of a computing and acting mechanism. Which includes all living things and today's computers built by people too. Information can't cause anything directly, and it doesn't do anything on its own either. It only contributes passively to some event in the future, when a computing mechanism takes the information and uses it to predict the future and act accordingly. So, information is a necessary part in this mechanism. But it's not the sole cause of anything. Without a mechanism to translate the information into prediction and action, the information doesn't cause anything.
Very weird. This is a sentient issue. What is love in quantum? Energy, force, rythym, firing state, pattern, equilibrium distribution, gravity, mass, flow, ... oh nope. It's the stability gyroscope in higher information processing states. Relevant information to the parameter optimiser forces the mind to locate last known projected outcomes and scale relevance against the prerequisite goals. Geezus science sure knows how to kill the fun in imaginal explorations.
Perhaps mechanism is like an allergy, except it's not chemical influence but radiation from environment radiating on it's skin that cause immune system to react and emit different chemicals in cells.
@@glynemartin The same way I know that the weather has no intention to destroy the crops, or a volcano doesn't intend to destroy my town, or even a virus does not intend to make me sick. Only intelligent beings with foresight can make plans and work with intention toward a goal. Mindless physical processes, like evolution, do not work this way. I hope that answers your question.
It's not 0/1 It is deterministic for God since God knows everything, past future For humans it's partially random since we can still predict to some extent For lower animals it's close to chaos but, they deal with it with adaptation
Nope. 100% wrong. God is the superstition Magic explination. The lazy explination: "I don't understand how this can happen naturally, therefore magic God". This is the same thought process that pointed to lightning during the times of the ancient Greeks as proof of an angry Zeus.
Shoe has no skills regarding soccer game,soccer player has. And yet it is shoes that touch and push the ball. If mind is soccer player ,brain is shoe. Brain does nothing on its own, it just acts along with Mind.
@@lepomirbakic4422 For most people, what you added was pretty obvious. We don't know how the brain creates mind, but it's for sure that the mind disappears as soon as the brain stops functioning. Everything else is probably up for grabs.
A concept can only exist when instantiated in something, and the brain is that something, and it is physical. It might not make sense to us, but that is what is there.
@@blaster-zy7xx Software is physical. If you had software that was not instantiated in a physical medium like a chip then it wouldn't exist, and it physically interacts with other chips to give an output. I think this means that information or concepts are really only in our minds. All the rest is dead matter.
@@caricue We are getting into the weeds now, but when saying "all the rest is dead matter" Is that referring to the rest of the living brain and or body? Or is "all the rest" referring to the computer, chip and software?
@@blaster-zy7xx Good question. I use the term "mind" as a shorthand, but it really refers to the mental world of a living human organism. Dead matter is that which is not alive. I don't think it would make sense to talk about minds in terms of single cells or simple creatures, but they are still active and alive, so very different from a mechanism with software.
Information is still physical. You either see it, touch it, hear, smell it or taste it. It is still physical through our brain. Now, if you wanna disregard our senses as information sources, then you must admit you’re a solipsist. In this case, I can’t disagree with you.
Nothing is multiple realisable. Each "informational parameter" has a weight which dictates what gets triggered and hence the system is truly deterministic. He's obviously trying to introduce quantum wuwu to shill his books.
There is absolutely no evidence or demonstration of how electro-chemical reactions can create a single thought. Science knows very well the properties of electrons, and how electricity operates in a circuit. There is yet to be demonstrated in any kind of lab, or even theoretical paper - that one can extract a living thought from 'electrical fields'. So if someone comes to you and states that electrical fields makes minds - that is not yet established by 'science'. That is just either their assumption or hope for the future - or hypothesis. But what produces consciousness remains unknown in science, and anyone who tells you otherwise does not know what they are talking about.
More reductive materialism. Good going Kuhn. You should rename your show "Further from the Truth", a propaganda show by and for Materialists. I can think of nothing worse in Science then someone pushing their ideology and pretty much marginalizing everything else. It's intellectual hubris bar none.
Robert: “Peter, how does the mind come from the brain?”
Peter: “I have no idea, but I’ll talk about other crap to fill up the time.”
He needs to explain what he means by information. Because if he means "structure" or "specified complexity," that still doesn't capture the "aboutness" or "intentionality" of thoughts about Jennifer Aniston. He seems to be equivocating because I don't see how you can give a physical description of a proposition, and that's the difficulty with semantic epiphenomenalism.
His attempts to divorce I formation from intelligence is nothing short of hilarious.
Next he'll be touting the physical limits and structures of intelligence too
Lumbergh thinks you didn't get the memo.
Why does he need to explain “information”? In this context, clearly utilized it as a driver (or charge) of physical (mass, material, cellular, biological, chemical) activity. There was no wavering of being a self described “physicalist” in his postulations.
He was essentially stating that evolution (for example) is driven by natural selection.
I thought he said information sets the limits for randomness. I think that is his definition - information is the limits (parameters) of the universe.
I think his explanation is insightful, using mathematical limits or entropic limits combined together as a middleground to get out of the determinism/randomness dichotomy. I don't think he actually says anything about qualia
Peter Ulric seems very down to Earth. Information as a system of constraint is a fascinating idea. Great vid. 👍🏻
Amity, I agree. I've seen him in other vids from CTT and he provides a totally material way for causation to be initiated in the mind. It may not be correct, but it is necessary to keep the evil determinists from squashing all inquiry into free will and other interesting concepts.
I think Tse is defining information as the limits in which randomness can occur. Also, once a packet of information causes multiple neurons to fire, the information input cannot be determined because neurons, with their multiple inputs, would have filtered it differently. I'm not sure he was saying this amounts to free will. But, since I want to have free will, I'll interpret it that way.
He is not talking about how the brain gives rise to sensations, only about how the mind can have free will - and actually only about how information could possibly have causal effects. He is saying that the universe is not deterministic, it is random (quantum mechanics), however that random-ness is highly constrained, and the only way to explain in what way it is constrained is by using the concept of information. So although the mind does not directly alter any physical particles, the physical state of the brain can evolve in a very large number of different ways, and we know that way in which it actually does evolve is always consistent with the flow of information. As in the example, the Jennifer Aniston neuron fires when some picture of her is seen, and we cannot actually trace back the exact physical chain of events which caused it to fire since the laws of physics are not deterministic - there are multiple pathways that could arrive at the same thing. The only way to explain what has happened is by reference to the concept of Jennifer Aniston, and in this way information is what caused the neuron to fire.
Nope. "we cannot actually trace back the exact physical chain of events which caused it to fire since the laws of physics are not deterministic" yes the laws of physics are completely deterministic. Once you have the boundary conditions of a system, it evolves the same way. That is physics 101.
You mistake our incapacity to predict, that we call "randomness" with the assertion that they cannot be predicted.
He is only introducing the concept of information as critical in how organism execute tasks. As in any neural network, once the pattern is recorded, the network has the same outcome. He does not go further enough in that respect.
Any convolutional network in machine learning is capable to map inputs and outputs, so there must be a configuration in the network that defines JenifferAnistonness in your brain, it is not a matter of one neuron.
@@cristianproust That depends upon your interpretation of quantum mechanics. A theory such as Bohm's pilot wave interpretation is deterministic like you say, we just don't know how to observe the hidden variables. However, any other interpretation says that there really is a degree of random-ness during the process of wave function collapse, and we can only ever predict things probabilistically even in principle.
I do agree that individual neurons do not directly represent concepts, I was just giving exposition in line with the simplified example in the video.
@@Mike-wj1kg I don't like very much the QM conversations because I'm a physicist, but i will say one thing.
The equations in QM have the same characteristic as any other equation in physics. If the boundary conditions are the same, you get the same results.
If I cast a dice the probability is 1/6 every time. That is QM in a nutshell, a probability distribution, not a prediction per se (as in Newtonian mechanics)
Regardless of the result of the dice, the probability is 1/6. But that is a way in which we model system of which we have no much information, not because we think there is anything impossible to predict.
You cannot scape that the spacetime is a continuous tissue in which you have all the time contained. Past present and future.
That forces everything to be perfectly deterministic, which is consistent with the equations we have.
If we have evidence of non-determinism, that would be great, but so far there isn't.
The determinism problem in physics bothers people who forget we shouldn't be experiencing a static universe, which means consciousness it the big mystery of humans. That is why I like this channel, because they go deep on the subject.
If think physics is real, the battle for determinism was lost a long time ago.
Things do not happen out of nowhere(randomly), and certainly your conscious self is not the one taking the decisions, but the primate you inhabit (or you are watching the primate doing it, nobody knows why, or how).
@@cristianproust what are you talking about? QM is demonstaitably indeterministic with something as simple as spin. You can only ever know one axis of spin at a given time, and if you measure a separate axis, and then come back to the previous one, it can be inverted. And all within the same system, and thus the same equation.
QM is not deterministic by any stretch.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Jesus Christ, that is depressingly ignorant. Do you really think things happen randomly?. Do you believe in magic?
The wording of my comment was quite precise. You do not understand what I said
Great discussion. I think the conjectural idea of mind being equivalent to a highly malleable and self-rewriting neural wetware is not new, but it is simply now called integrated information. However, even everything he said is true, it still doesn’t logically exclude the possibility of philosophical zombies where they lack the feeling of life itself or self-awareness.
Consciousness is not quantifiable. It is qualitative. You can't calculate a 'feeling'. (Why computers will never be conscious.)
I think this “information as cause” idea stems from the mind’s linguistic understanding of the word. All causes appear physical, and nature mostly constructs itself in a mathematical form. The brain is storing and analyzing sense data. It attends to various objects depending on their relation to its total knowledge of the world. These mental actions are brain, i.e. neurons, physiology, chemistry, etc. motions. Since we can’t grasp the world in a purely coordinate and calculus framework, we have an information problem where things are mapped to words by individual brains. But I also don’t feel confident I fully understand what was said here though.
_Cause_ is a philosophical bugaboo. I prefer to speak in terms of _process._ Some very good FMRI studies by neurolingists have shown delays in sensory data processed pre-consciously to consciously, strongly indicating a coarse-grained dataflow organization not unlike design of computer systems.
This is only my second exposure to Tse, so I don't know if he said the following, but I doubt he'd disagree. Whatever else you may say, the _conscious_ is the part of the brain/mind/whatever that does language and understanding and occasionally even reason. It operates on data massively pre-cooked by other parts I call _pre-conscious._ The conscious has essentially no insight how the cooking happens. This has led to idiotic classical objectivist ideas about thought, which sweep semiotics under the rug. Noam Chomsky is a perfect exemplar.
This pretty much solves and obviates the _qualia_ nonsense. Of course _redness_ does not exist in what I laughingly call _the real world._ But we can point to actual neurons that fire on _redness,_ at least in monkeys. For some reason that I do not quite get, it is considered unethical to point to neurons in PeTA members, though I do see it might be difficult to find any.
A great deal of the ostensible magic of consciousness falls apart if you consider this. I am not certain that it all does, but nor am I certain it is any deeper than the fallacies of composition and decomposition.
Basically he is saying what ancient philosophers used to say. That for a human to " know " is to have the " form " - Jeniffer Anistoness - to hit the filter in our brain. That is mind. Form is almost equated with " soul ". This is Aristotle. Do you guys agree ? what do you think ?
I like Aristotle's four types of causation: Efficient, Material, Final and Formal. Scientist, and even philosophers, seem to think there is only efficient and material causation and halved both the description and the explanation of the world.
Human boot-prints would not be on the moon if there hadn't been information processing and transfer among engineers and scientists on the earth, a physical result that depended on information. Information is a real and consequential part of physical reality.
I think everybody gets what you are saying, but because they can't figure out a way to conceptualize the detailed process, they prefer the absolute surety that comes from denial, and avoid admitting that it is just too difficult to understand. It probably isn't that difficult for you or me to understand in a general way because we are not enmeshed in the paradigms of their fields of study. They seem to be required to start from the bottom and find a way to the top. If you start with the phenomena and work down toward the fundamental, you simply come to a point where you say, I don't know, but we can keep looking. They don't seem to be able to do that.
This top-down informational causality is just a different level of abstraction. The difference exists only in the describers mind. The information still enters and affects the system via the conventional forces and particles.
At 0:55 information places constraints on possible outcomes of system interaction. This implies that the mass, velocity, and direction of a Snooker ball will determine the outcome of a collision with a targeted bally. How can Richard question what information is like this at 6:30? Bottom line: can information be developed by a system that is causal like physical system is? I guess information that has been developed by the brain in the past affects the physical systems over time if a concept of Jennifer Anistin has been developed and stored.
But who is the "I" that is focused on the Jennifer Aniston nueron ??
Barry Stapleton.
Once ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity is recognised & understood (it’s not ‘digits’) no great difficulty attends the task of tracing whatever (real) information is passing through our brains as it is utilised as the means with which we think - perceive, imagine, perform all mental phenomena.
This tracing exercise quite unproblematically brings us to any of the brains specific functions - including conscious consciousness.
There is one, & one only particular component of our brains located at this (crucial) juncture & like all ‘lumps’ of matter here in a panspsychic universe, this particular little increment of solid matter is sentient, & due to the fact that through it is passing the one last ‘final summation’ signal of all incoming information (Christof Koch’s IIT) this one small component of our thinking machinery becomes ineluctably conscious thereof.
Properly analysed our brains not only house cameras & sound recording equipment (our eyes & ears) but also a little private viewing theatre replete with projector & screen AND this little fully sentient, fully cognisant ‘lump’ - homunculus (you & I) - sitting there watching the show.
Voila.
All of which becomes amply apparent once ‘information’s’ correct identity (it’s not digits) is factored into our view of the world & especially into an understanding of our own consciousness....
Thank you for asking 😃
Not who, but what. It is a combination of attention and awareness, coupled with goal directed behaviour and a self concept, and many other processes, like the “interpreter” function of the right brain, the inner voice, access to episodic memory. All of these functions are amalgamations to form the “I”, but ultimately, they are all a play within awareness, and thus, illusion.
@@margrietoregan828 Can you explain more clearly please ?
There is not "I" involved. Check how a neural network works (for Machine Learning). The inputs and outputs map themselves once the brain has recorded a pattern.
How brain makes mind. And up next, how rocks make consciousness!
And after that: God is a rock made up of particles!!
@@Bringadingus what do you mean by established fact?
It is my understanding that our body and therefore our mind is just an "instrument" that our soul uses.
@@Bringadingus Incorrect. As far as we know, the brain could just as well be a radio. When you listen to Mozart on a radio, is the radio the actual source of Mozart?? Currently, all the scientific evidence we have, and there is quite an accumulation, only demonstrates correlation of the brain with consciousness. There (currently) is not scientific evidence or even a theoretical foundation that demonstrates the brain actually does produce consciousness.
Unfortunately, people like Robert Kuhn and the Skeptic's Society rely on the ignorance of most ordinary people (and even academics) in their never ending proselytization of their new religion called Materialism. (Very similar to the Christian church). So people assume that science has proven something it really has not.
Consciousness is one of the biggest scientific questions of our time. And it is crucial question not only in the field of Psychology, but also in Biology and even Physics.
Anyone who tells you that Science has proven the brain 'produces' consciousness is not a real scientist - they are more like a pseudo-skeptic such as Robert Kuhn or Jeff Amos. Again: as far as we know currently, the brain could just as well be a RADIO for consciousness. And the "Transmission" hypothesis goes all the way back to William James.
@@Bringadingus I would argue that the only established thing is that there is a correlation between brain state/activity and consciousness. Correlation does not imply causation.
@@Bringadingus:
That the brain causes the mind is as far from established fact as you can possibly get.
Reason has downward causation, we learn from the past to increase our luck in situations in the future, we can even take drugs to alter our thinking in ways we can understand and be suprized by... information and the process of its translation and the growth of knowledge opens up possibility space. We may be able to formalize the dynamics of possibility space .
According to Godel incompleteness theorem, mathematics can be used for language and logic statements (even though logic not support mathematics)? So if there is mathematics in particles of brain (maybe from quantum probabilities being measured into particle), can be used to bring about language and logic of mind (although not know how would look physically in brain)? Once language and logic are physically represented in brain, might be able to perform top-down causation through thought / cognition, and maybe other?
Tse makes my cognitive-sceince-type brain happy, or at least happier.
Nietzsche once wrote that the soul is a name for something of the body. This is a bit more impressive when you consider _Seele_ can mean _mind_ or _psyche._ English has a lot of words. Things get *really* impressive if you read his "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense."
If particles in brain have mathematical information, which can be used for language and logic, then the physical neurons in brain could operate as a regular computer (below the neuron level possibility for quantum computer like operation)?
How would this notion explain creativity, though - i.e., the conceptualization (from neuronal activity) of things that have never been information?
Look up David Deutsch's Constructor Theory. He's got it right that these concepts can only be addressed by way of claims of what is and isn't possible, but he's got it wrong in thinking that specfic patterns in the motions of particles are the primitive entities we should refer to, when deciding what is and isn't possible.
He can't. There is no route from inanimate particles to a living thought. It's just more reductive materialism trying to run circles around itself that has gotten us nowhere (with consciousness) for the last 100+ years.
I think a lot of Art comes from combining things... were not as original as we think we are. We copy nature a lot... but idk
It seems to me that all processes contain information. It also seems to me that consciousness is the continuous simulation of reality through explanations filtered primarily constraint satisfaction and then by error elimination. This might be seen as blasphemy by those who wish humans to be insignificant, but I see the human mind as the most significant entity in the known universe. A person is a mind. The human species is the only known species known to be capable of creation of new knowledge. I have doubts that human creativity will be understood in the near future. But I do think quantum computation will help explain the human mind.
@@jamenta2 Totally agree with you there. Well said.
the phrase, "barking up the wrong tree" seems so appropriate here. what a bunch of malarkey. this guy is just filling in as he goes.
J F, I've heard this particular researcher talk before, and he's trying to explain something that no one knows the answer to. This is literally his area of study, so he is not just "filling in as he goes". He is consistent and seems to make a lot of sense. He may very well be completely wrong, but he is doing his best. I assume you have a favored idea that would not be "malarkey", I would be curious to hear what that might be, as long as you aren't a hard determinist, in which case everyone already knows your position, and indeed, you do not have any choice but to believe it!
@Htx457 Haha, I kind of wanted to be critical of your response, but it isn't completely out there. This is quite entertaining for many people and it maybe even makes them feel smart and important to grapple with these intellectual topics. Fair enough, but this is the actual day job of these guys in the video, so if they enjoy it, that's just a bonus. I'm not entertained by my job. Are you?
Steve C This guy is definitely talking “malarkey.” Just because he has a PhD, it does not mean he is making sense. This guy is a good example of why neuroscientists should study some philosophy.
@@shak5215 I have to agree with you. That's why I asked the person above to specify what his view was that would lead him to use the term "malarkey" to describe a well reasoned point of view from a professional in the field. I don't necessarily agree with his ideas of information as causal, but it is intriguing. I definitely don't agree with the idea that we live in a billiard ball universe where particle interactions determine what flavor of ice cream I like. No one knows the final answer, or if there is a final answer, so we should all be open to having our ideas questioned.
This made me think of the game of Snooker. Let me explain.
The game are made through a series of shots that each have two elements one classical determinstic and one probalistic.
First The player try to strike the white ball with his que, so the white hits a colored ball that is targeted for a hole.
Second he tries to optimize the succes of his next shot
by making the white ball end up on the table where his probabilty for success with his next shot is maximized.
The first part is classic deterministic newtonian physics,
the second part works with probabilities of the future,
But there is only one shot with the que, to obtain both goals.
Relations. Atoms smashin eachother have no relations. Jennifer Anistonness and that neuron does. From a physicalism perspective (Kuhn) relations don't matter, from a human perspective it does and is called information. Is causation a human or physicalist concept? That is the point of this discussion I think. It's a lingual problem. We don't know what we mean when we talk about causation, or free will
I think Tse is brilliant in trying to combine the physicalist and human perspective of what causation means and reconciling them in a meaningful way, and saying relations are similar to a human perspective of causation but actually have physical effects (even without humans and their concepts), due to limitations in the phase space. Bravo Tse
As a sidenote; relations aren't real in time (because the past/history doesn't really exist), thus this makes this information he speaks about Platonic or non-local. Take your pick
Can there be mathematical information in the particle that constrains its path into future?
Do the neuron firings have any mathematical input?
Did I miss the definition of " Mind" ? was that reviewed?
Only when you're out of your mind can you look and appreciate yourself. How can you see how beautiful your house looks from the outside from inside your living room. 😒😀
Constrained randomness is nothing but wide-ranged determinism; thus it's not randomness as the public had been understanding but rather probabilistic reasoning. In another word, 'possibly invisible' little changes in the inputs could massively changes the outputs...
Wow, this guy is a real deep thinker! I think he is trying to bring DeBroglie - Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics into neuroscience.
no is he is very smart stem undergrad from good school but cant hack with very best so he became psychology prof
Mediocre. Falls in line with Academic approved thought. Will never amount to much.
@@jamenta2 way better than you tho, what's that say about you
@@funbigly oh you got me Bigly. Cut to the core!
Concept of Cat ? Informational feline causation reinforced by kitty parameters with discrete carnivore reductionism.
What is a tiger than?
Xspot box , I hope your question is rhetorical and does not imply my comment has any merit or makes any sense. Lol
@@jeffamos9854 I always see comments on cats. Is the cat an inside joke based on a past video or something haha?
@@IGNOBLEVOIDPEEKER Yup been going on for years. Can't remember when it started. Would have to be a retired insider to appreciate my cat jokes. Maybe starting to get senile with to much time thinking about cats and lame philosophy.
@@jeffamos9854 Nah lol thanks for letting me know. I started watching maybe around season 6 on TV but I am just getting into the really old stuff. Like the old roundtable stuff back when Tyson was still doing work at Princeton haha.
How words make sentence?
Very good.
Comment about timecode 3:00. The argument (which is confusing) seems to rely on - if you rerun the universe something different will happen next time. That would be debatable. But if true surely this is irrelevant. If x happened first time and y happened second time you might think something different. But this is not an argument that supports an hypothesis of how the mind works.
Good stuff, mind is a huge mess, makes sense what was said in interview.
So we have those atoms and molecules stacked together in our brain, coming in our body with food. Brain is very resilient organ, if i'm not mistaken, doesn't replace molecules as fast as skin, for example. But particles do get replaced either way and we can feel sensations immediately after we smell something or drink a glass of wine. That sensation doesn't mean molecules of smell actually penetrated our brain, nose picked them up and translate chemical interaction into information our mind understand as distinctive odor.
Question is, what do we mean by a flow of energy from nose to brain, where signals get translated in conscious information. But OK, we can imagine chains of neurons vibrating at specific rate and causing electrons to charge certain brain regions. Atoms vibrate, when they couple with foreign chemical bonds, vibration change and new levels of charges are send trough conducting organic pathways. It's just electric signals, charge must do something physical to specific molecules inside brain cells.
But what can electricity actually change, perhaps signal influence how atoms are stacked inside a matrix of molecules, it could be also energy force cells replacement. Than electricity doesn't influence molecules directly but shift position or polarization of entire cells. So which is it, atoms or cells? Some mechanics must apply or information would get scrambled, signals are tinny streams of vibrations, anything can cause them to vibrate differently. But if it's about large cells, made from millions of molecules, than those have many ways to align inside an organic matrix, can't be displaced by weak electric charges so easy. Cells are like small cities, they contain complicated inner mechanics, perhaps they can works as small biological computers.
Or it could be pure physics, each atom and every electron contribute to over all quantum wave function, when something interact, effect get translated over entire quantum system at once and mind arise from those supernatural happenings somehow. Problem is, same apply to molecules of cells, they could be like miniature brain, so again we must talk about wave functions and other quantum stuff, just on a much smaller scale, but on an insane levels of complexity, since cells must coordinate somehow, like billions of tinny quantum computers working like a network of some strange kind. Easier way out might not be closer to truth, it mind is not how cells communicate with another, than we are stuck for who knows how long, because we are talking about impossible to comprehend problem, we will never be able to count and track all those atoms.
Good Information ! Only our ways to understand gets too complex !
Could mind to brain be bottom up, from energy to information?
I see no reason of why JeniferAnistoness cannot be defined as the input of a convolutional neural networks (in the machine learning sense) that defines an output. I'm not sure that this could qualify as mysterious at all, or that makes any difference in the evolution of a physical system
That explanation is certainly a "convoluted network."
Noise generally hinders neural performance, but recent studies show, in dynamical non-linear neural networks that does not hold true.
//Synaptic release noise//
Action potentials are transferred down a neuron, which then are converted to either electrical or chemical signals between neurons. Chemical synapses are not deterministic, which means that every action potential produced does not result in the release of neurotransmitters. Rather, the release of vesicles containing neurotransmitters are probabilistic in nature
.
The number of vesicles released by a single synapse is random in response to a specific input signal and is further influenced by the firing history of the pre- and post-synaptic neurons. This means that neurotransmitters can be released in the absence of an input signal.
Johnson-Nyquist noise occurs due to the thermal motions of ions producing voltage fluctuations proportional to temperature
Atomic collisions are termed "noise."[4] While it isn't clear on what theoretical basis neuronal responses involved in perceptual processes can be segregated into a "neuronal noise" versus a "signal" component, and how such a proposed dichotomy could be corroborated empirically, a number of computational models incorporating a "noise" term have been constructed.
Sensory systems rely on populations of neurons to encode information transduced at the periphery into meaningful patterns of neuronal population activity. This transduction occurs in the presence of intrinsic neuronal noise. This is fortunate. The presence of noise allows more reliable encoding of the temporal structure present in the stimulus than would be possible in a noise-free environment. Simulations with a parallel model of signal processing at the auditory periphery have been used to explore the effects of noise and a neuronal population on the encoding of signal information. The results show that, for a given set of neuronal modeling parameters and stimulus amplitude, there is an optimal amount of noise for stimulus encoding with maximum fidelity.
This enhanced responsiveness is a very robust feature of neurons in the presence of synaptic background activity (Ho and Destexhe, 2000; Shu et al, 2003), and a similar phenomenon has also been called "gain modulation" (Chance et al., 2002), reflecting the fact that the slope of the response curve is modulated by background inputs. Investigating the effect of the different components of background activity revealed that the conductance shifts the response curve (rightward arrow in Fig. 3B), while the "noise" component modulates the slope (gain) of the response curve
//Gain Modulation//
One of the key components of gain-field encoding is the variability in the response amplitude of the action potentials from neurons. This variability, when independent of change in response selectivity, is called gain modulation. Gain Modulation takes place in many cortical areas and is believed to be a common mechanism of neuronal computation. It allows for the combination of different sensory and cognitive information. For example, neurons implicated in processing a part of the visual field see again in the response amplitude due to shifting focus to that part of the field of vision. Therefore, neurons that are gain modulated can represent multiple types of information. The multi-modal nature of these neurons makes them ideal for specific types of computations, mainly coordinate transformations. This creates the ability to think spatially, the main contributor to physical coordination
.
Some investigators have shown in experiments and in models that neuronal noise is a possible mechanism to facilitate neuronal processing.[11][12] The presence of neuronal noise (or more specifically synaptic noise) confers to neurons more sensitivity to a broader range of inputs, it can equalize the efficacy of synaptic inputs located at different positions on the neuron, and it can also enable finer temporal discrimination
.
//signal-to-noise ratio//
It must be noted that the phenomenon of enhanced responsiveness is similar to stochastic resonance phenomena, which have been thoroughly studied by physicists (reviewed in Gammaitoni et al., 1998; Wiesenfeld and Moss, 1995). Stochastic resonance is a noise-induced enhancement of the signal-to-noise ratio in nonlinear systems; it usually appears as a peak of the signal-to-noise ratio as a function of noise amplitude (thus the system appears to "resonate" for an optimal amount of noise). While neurons can also show such a behavior if subject to noise (Levin and Miller, 1996; Stacey and Durand, 2000), the situation is more complex than for classic stochastic resonance phenomena, because in neurons the noise source is also a conductance source, and conductances have an additional shunting effect (see Rudolph and Destexhe, 2001).
/////////// neuronal noise is a possible mechanism to facilitate neuronal processing
////////////////
The presence of neuronal synaptic noise confers to neurons more sensitivity to a broader range of inputs, it can equalize the efficacy of synaptic inputs located at different positions on the neuron, and it can also enable finer temporal discrimination. (Location independence of synaptic inputs)
.
Stochastic resonance phenomena has been thoroughly studied by physicists..
Stochastic resonance is a noise-induced enhancement of the signal-to-noise ratio in nonlinear systems; it usually appears as a peak of the signal-to-noise ratio as a function of noise amplitude
.
Location independence of synaptic inputs in high-conductance states. A. Somatic response amplitudes for inputs located at different positions in dendrites. In a quiescent neuron (left), somatic input amplitudes decrease as a function of distance to soma. With a static conductance (middle), this attenuation is stronger.
By including both conductance and noise (right), the probability of somatic spikes becomes much less dependent of the position of the input in dendrites.
/////////////////////////////
END
"I don't think you can have physics of the universe that ignores Jennifer Aniston"
I am now really interested in Jennifer Aniston. Humm
Ever tried to 'disprove' that mind isn't primary (IOW, 'mind makes brain')?
We cannot disprove it any more than we can disprove that the universe is only 5 minutes old with the "history". Baked into the creation 5 minutes ago. BUT we can make very good arguments that neither is very probable.
He doesn’t answer how mind comes out of brain? Or mind controls brain?
QM controls material or other way?
Is mind Quantum mechanical? Below planks level? Created when certain patterns developed by brain structure arrangement? As pattern evolves mind evolves?
Nailed
Agreed. Probably couldn't answer. Great teachers describe complex phenomena simply, rather than make simple questions harder to answer. He didn't answer the question at all. Shame he missed his chance.
What you have to understand is that you can study the brain all you want but the information of what it is like being human or even being " you " won't be understood by studying the brain because those experiences are purely subjective and not objective.
Sort of. We will never understand conciousness by only studying physiology of the brain in the same way we will never decipher the software programming of PowerPoint by studying the microprocessor it runs on.
Dear Mr. Kuhn,
There is no meaning in all these qustions I analyse, viz. "Free will, consciousness, Truth, ... ", so long as I haven't defined "I" as a particular sequence of particles and specify a definite criterion of proof related to satisfaction of my needs to verify the acuracy of the theory I assume as to the origin of those particles.
Again, it's rather simple. The brain. It is what it is. There are subjects of study which Can not be analized for their substance . But you Can ponder their actions. The mind is an activity. The brain is the matter where the activity happens. Conciousness is a function of the mind. Like I said. KISS....
The brain and the body is (most likely) similar to a space suit an astronaut will put on, in order to operate in space, but necessary in order to operate in the reality we find ourselves in. Because consciousness is highly complex, it is necessary for the brain to be complex as well. Much like a radio must have quite a few circuits to play a piece of music that is being broadcast to it.
On what scientific grounds do I make the hypothesis above? Easy. The scientific collected work of the SPR & ASPR over the last 100+ years, and also more recent 30+ years of over 65+ scientific studies into NDEs. I should also mention the seminal work of Freud and Carl Jung in psychoanalytical theory in Psychology as well.
But unfortunately, when you have the pea brains and critical thinking skills of the likes of Robert Kuhn or Jeff Amos, the scientific work above might as well be on the planet Pluto and beyond. These two dimwits are incapable of conceiving anything beyond their religion of Materialism.
Huh?... I have no idea what this fella is on about... I think you rather Dr Neil Tyson on if you want clarity for the masses... this exploration is just confusing because of all the repetitive jargon and analogies that don't allow for any better visualisation on the subject.
Isn't the Mind just the collection and storage point, while being the decoding/processing apparatus of physical information generated by the world around it?🤷♂️
The Mind is the collective noun in my opinion of all the neurons firing to decode and interact with the information of the world around us. It's a mechanism and is vastly different from Consciousness. Consciousness for me is the next level mechanism that views what the Mind is absorbing and takes action based on this. The Mind is like the amazing mechanism of the Eye... but without the Eye being IN a person, no action or decision can result from the information it takes in.
Yes, you are on the right rack on several levels, one being the different levels of complexity. Another is the processing of data or information to effect outcomes. And a third is that it is the interaction of sensors providing input, like the eye, to the central processor.
So what about Rachel Green-ness? Is that different from, or a reducible part of Jennifer Aniston-ness?
I think the Rachel Green/mess is a substitution. Another object. Could be anybody else except so many in the zUS know JA. That’s a parameter, s possibility, “ any concept,” . But no JA in the Bush in Botswana! But the firing ...
hes a physicalist so i carnt take exerting he says as true
Quantum mechanics holds the key. My guess is its determinism.
Any good theory about the cause and effect needs to explain how a given cause makes its effects happen. You need to describe the mechanism of how it works. Or else the theory assumes that the cause and effect is connected by magic, or by God, by some other supernatural means.
The only known way in which information can cause things to happen in the future is when you use information to predict the future and then act based on this prediction. So, you need to have some kind of a computing and acting mechanism. Which includes all living things and today's computers built by people too.
Information can't cause anything directly, and it doesn't do anything on its own either. It only contributes passively to some event in the future, when a computing mechanism takes the information and uses it to predict the future and act accordingly. So, information is a necessary part in this mechanism. But it's not the sole cause of anything.
Without a mechanism to translate the information into prediction and action, the information doesn't cause anything.
It's AnisTon
Very weird. This is a sentient issue. What is love in quantum? Energy, force, rythym, firing state, pattern, equilibrium distribution, gravity, mass, flow, ... oh nope. It's the stability gyroscope in higher information processing states. Relevant information to the parameter optimiser forces the mind to locate last known projected outcomes and scale relevance against the prerequisite goals. Geezus science sure knows how to kill the fun in imaginal explorations.
This makes me think how does an insect evolve camouflage to look exactly like leaves of a tree.
Cali Jo, one thing we know for sure is that there was no intention or plan to look like a leaf.
Perhaps mechanism is like an allergy, except it's not chemical influence but radiation from environment radiating on it's skin that cause immune system to react and emit different chemicals in cells.
@@caricue I thought the buggers had good eyes.
@@caricue How do you know this?
@@glynemartin The same way I know that the weather has no intention to destroy the crops, or a volcano doesn't intend to destroy my town, or even a virus does not intend to make me sick. Only intelligent beings with foresight can make plans and work with intention toward a goal. Mindless physical processes, like evolution, do not work this way. I hope that answers your question.
Brain Dont makes Mind, and
Radios Dont makes Programs,
Mr. Kuhn, how old are You ?
I wonder what view does Knuth have on vedic definition on the subject of brain mind. Will he dare to?
It's not 0/1
It is deterministic for God since God knows everything, past future
For humans it's partially random since we can still predict to some extent
For lower animals it's close to chaos but, they deal with it with adaptation
Nope. 100% wrong. God is the superstition Magic explination. The lazy explination: "I don't understand how this can happen naturally, therefore magic God". This is the same thought process that pointed to lightning during the times of the ancient Greeks as proof of an angry Zeus.
A simple question: is mind a biological substance or biological event?
Mind is mind. You could equally ask if a biological substance is a mental substance or a mental event?
Neither, it is a biological process. It is a system of interaction of data inputs, information processing, and outputs.
Shoe has no skills regarding soccer game,soccer player has. And yet it is shoes that touch and push the ball. If mind is soccer player ,brain is shoe. Brain does nothing on its own, it just acts along with Mind.
@@lepomirbakic4422 For most people, what you added was pretty obvious. We don't know how the brain creates mind, but it's for sure that the mind disappears as soon as the brain stops functioning. Everything else is probably up for grabs.
@@lepomirbakic4422 Can you sell us some industrial secrets about brain machinery and technologies?
@@lepomirbakic4422 ,Its like saying soccer game is a product/result of movement of shoes and a ball.
If information is conceptual then how is it physical? This sounds self-defeating.
A concept can only exist when instantiated in something, and the brain is that something, and it is physical. It might not make sense to us, but that is what is there.
You could ask the same question about software programs.
@@blaster-zy7xx Software is physical. If you had software that was not instantiated in a physical medium like a chip then it wouldn't exist, and it physically interacts with other chips to give an output. I think this means that information or concepts are really only in our minds. All the rest is dead matter.
@@caricue We are getting into the weeds now, but when saying "all the rest is dead matter" Is that referring to the rest of the living brain and or body? Or is "all the rest" referring to the computer, chip and software?
@@blaster-zy7xx Good question. I use the term "mind" as a shorthand, but it really refers to the mental world of a living human organism. Dead matter is that which is not alive. I don't think it would make sense to talk about minds in terms of single cells or simple creatures, but they are still active and alive, so very different from a mechanism with software.
His trying to divorce information from intelligence is almost hilarious...
Be nice, Glyne! Where was he trying to divorce information from intelligence?
Interesting, never knew that Angela Merkel had red hair.
Does not make any sense for a common person
Even for an uncommon person. Trust me.
Thank you
Information is still physical. You either see it, touch it, hear, smell it or taste it. It is still physical through our brain. Now, if you wanna disregard our senses as information sources, then you must admit you’re a solipsist. In this case, I can’t disagree with you.
Information is not physical. And that's precisely the problem with Materialism in a nutshell.
Nothing is multiple realisable. Each "informational parameter" has a weight which dictates what gets triggered and hence the system is truly deterministic.
He's obviously trying to introduce quantum wuwu to shill his books.
Sorry to say but this guy is confusing.i do not believe a phd can be so out of touch . simplify simplify simplify (as location location location)
Electrical fields make minds.
There is absolutely no evidence or demonstration of how electro-chemical reactions can create a single thought. Science knows very well the properties of electrons, and how electricity operates in a circuit. There is yet to be demonstrated in any kind of lab, or even theoretical paper - that one can extract a living thought from 'electrical fields'. So if someone comes to you and states that electrical fields makes minds - that is not yet established by 'science'. That is just either their assumption or hope for the future - or hypothesis. But what produces consciousness remains unknown in science, and anyone who tells you otherwise does not know what they are talking about.
@@jamenta2 Never been shocked before have you?
Electric fields also make power lines. Do power lines have minds? Maybe we should go ask them?
@@danzigvssartre The definition of power lines can include simulated tokens as people.
Ok got it. Now can you explain how biden continues to move around the white house with only 3 living brain cells?
Better looking Elon Musk?
More reductive materialism. Good going Kuhn. You should rename your show "Further from the Truth", a propaganda show by and for Materialists. I can think of nothing worse in Science then someone pushing their ideology and pretty much marginalizing everything else. It's intellectual hubris bar none.
Nothing more productive then marginalizing your wuwuism
Lol there can be no science without "materialism".
@@jeffamos9854 Coming from a pseudo-skeptic who confuses scientific objectivity with his asshole.
@@zverh Materialism is not science. You are one confused puppy. Good luck graduating kindergarten!
Dante Edmundo , being marginalized must hurt. Enjoy your insignificance.
psychology is bs degree
Einstein often had lunch with Carl Jung. They both bounced ideas off each other.
You have a lot to learn johnny lee.
Compared to what?