100 Trillion Connections: New Efforts Probe and Map the Brain's Detailed Architecture

[Newfound_wonder]

animals don't have the prefrontal cortex at all.
for this reason, they lack the ability to make things up, conspire, and engage in political
shenanigans. they operate on basic social instincts.

Um... humans are animals and humans have prefrontal cortices, therefore at least some animals have the prefrontal cortex. What I want to know is at what point in the phylogenetic tree of life did this "consciousness" trait emerge. Did our ancestors from 2000 years ago possess consciousness? What about 4000 years ago? Did beings living 100,000 years ago possess consciousness? Maybe a million years ago? Do all primates possess consciousness? Do all mammals experience consciousness? All vertebrates? How far back does consciousness go?

 

[۩]

All living things possess consciousness to variable degrees.

It's even variable from human to human.

 

[gibran2]

objective observation is one made where no judgement is made on a phenomena, and it can be experienced by anyone.
an empirical interpretation may be made made for a given event, where a hypothesis is tested, in the presence of a control, and the outcome can be observed by anyone.

a subjective observation is solely dependent on the individual experience, thus so is its interpretation. therefore, it is rooted in personal bias.

Difference between objective and subjective? - Answers

Subjective observations cannot be seen. They are ideas, thoughts, or opinions. If you cannot see it, feel it, hear it, or smell it, it is a subjective observation. Objective observations can be seen. If you can see it, feel it, hear it, or smell it, it is an objective observation. Objective...

wiki.answers.com

this is why science is the ultimate equalizer against megalomaniacs like the pope or jesus.

The primacy of consciousness paradigm doesn’t disallow the objective world, or objective observation (as you define it), or science, or the scientific method. If this isn’t clear, then maybe I haven’t sufficiently explained my understanding of the primacy of consciousness.

Your knowledge of the world comes exclusively from your own conscious experiences. Your conscious experiences, due to their persistent, coherent, patterned structure, “suggest” a reality outside of consciousness, but the suggested reality may very well not exist, at least not in a material form.

There is no test to “prove” the ultimate nature of reality – there is no test that can prove whether any particular paradigm is “correct”, so this is all really an intellectual/philosophical exercise anyhow.

 

[benzyme]

psychobabble

which is all fun and good, yet evidence is lacking.
I didn't decide that objective observation was the model for conducting
experiments; it's the generally accepted definition.

yes, there may be no way of testing what's real vs. what isn't, but that hasn't
stopped theoretical physicists from trying; they devise all sorts of elaborate mathematical models to describe such intangibles as antimatter... scichobabble

 

[gibran2]

psychobabble

which is all fun and good, yet evidence is lacking.
I didn't decide that objective observation was the model for conducting
experiments; it's the generally accepted definition.

yes, there may be no way of testing what's real vs. what isn't, but that hasn't
stopped theoretical physicists from trying; they devise all sorts of elaborate mathematical models to describe such intangibles as antimatter... scichobabble

Describing how the universe works, describing the behavior of subatomic particles, etc. is not the same as describing the “true” nature of reality.

For example, it is possible that we are contained in some sort of hyper-sophisticated computer simulation. If so, then all of our discoveries and theories about how the “universe” works actually describe how the simulation works and says nothing at all about an “ultimate” reality.

If you’ve read any of Richard Feynman’s musings on the subject, you’d understand that physicists are concerned with the universe as it’s presented to us, and are not concerned with any “ultimate” reality that we can’t observe and measure. That’s for the philosophers to ponder.

Finally, you keep saying that there is no evidence that the primacy of consciousness paradigm is correct, and I agree. But what you seem to sidestep is what I consider to be the most important part of this whole topic; namely, that there is no evidence the primacy of matter paradigm is correct.

 

[benzyme]

oh no, I acknowledge that there is no evidence to show that the primacy of matter is correct. it largely doesn't matter, as with consciousness.
the latter is why I bring up the objective vs. subjective observation argument.
ultimately, it's purely subjective.

 

[burnt]

Here is why I don't believe in the primacy of consciousness and why I think the brain and its interaction with your environment generates human consciousness. Firstly as was already stated I don't think its possible to have consciousness without having a place in which to have it. I don't see how any philosophical argument can get around that. But I'm not philosopher so I leave it to someone else to explain a way in which its possible to have pure consciousness absent of any objective reality. Until then I think its reasonable to assume that there is some kind of objective reality out there.

Second its important to note that consciousness is a multitude of cognitive abilities. So when asking questions like do other primates have consciousness your not really asking the right question. The question should be if other primates have some aspects of consciousness what aspects do they have and what do they lack? There are examples of primates which have aspects of consciousness such as emotional states, memory, and the ability to learn from past experiences. But they certainly lack other aspects of human consciousness like highly complex language. Many primates have simple, as far as we can tell, languages but no where near as complex as human. Probably we can find more examples of organisms that have some aspects of consciousness and some that have none. I do not think organisms such as bacteria and plants have any sort of consciousness. My point is that different kinds of consciousness are probably more like some kind of continuum rather then an all or none.

There is a large amount of evidence that different aspects of consciousness can be removed and enhanced by altering brain chemistry or brain structure. Neuro-degenerative diseases such as dementia show how damage to certain areas of the brain remove memory, sense of time, and abilities to connect events. Brain damage provides a large set of examples for which aspects of an individuals consciousness were removed upon injury. Conditions such as blindsight, temporal lobe epilepsy, agnosia, phantom limbs, and many more demonstrate clearly that the brain is involved in generating various aspects of our conscious experience. Drugs provide another excellent example of this. By altering brain chemistry we can profoundly alter conscious experience to the point where its almost indescribable and unrecognizable.

For these reasons I think there is plenty of evidence that consciousness is generated by an interaction of a brain with an external world. Different kinds of consciousness can also probably exist. Consciousness can probably come about from different structural arrangements of matter other then neurons and glia. But I don't see any way for consciousness to exist without matter. Therefore the point that all you can know is your subjective experience is essentially just a philosophical argument. I accept that I can't prove that I am not in some machine in some space aliens ship making up a fake reality so they can feed off my innards. But even if I am there is still an objective reality and my consciousness still exists within a material framework even if I have never observed it.

 

[Citta]

Consciousness goes through all of existence the way I see it. How can I claim so? Because all phenomena, everything from thoughts, feelings, ideas, observations - everything that is us, that is human, is mental phenomena. For example, there are no photons in the brain. The whole representation of light occurs as electro-chemical impulses in the brain. The brain only processes electro-chemical signals and impulses within itself. We can mean a lot about these photons, but light as we perceive it they are most likely not. What are photons? What are particles, atoms, molecules? What is all of this shit? All of these things are (effective) thought constructs, enabling us to "understand" certain chosen phenomena that occurs with regularity within our collective experience of reality - which doesn't mean much else then the possibility for prediction under certain circumstances. Whether or not particles, gods or the chair I am sitting on really exists lies outside the limits of science, as the particle really is nothing if removed from the physicist and the apparature he uses in his study of them.

I agree that there is possibly some objective reality out there (or in here), because the very fact that I am having an experience suggests that some underlying structure gives rise to this. If this is solely the fancy party between neurons, if it's my whole body, or whatever it is I don't know. From a philosophical point of view we are in principle unable to say anything about the "ding an sich" (Kant), because all we have is mental phenomena, and so the quest of science then is to track down all the far aspects of experience. The founders of one of the most successful scientific theories acknowledged this as well;

“In our description of nature the purpose is not to disclose the real essence of phenomena but only to track down as far as possible relations between the multifold aspects of experience.” – Niels Bohr

Before any of you call all of this new age nonsense or something, I wanna beg to differ. These are merely philosophical considerations and reflections about what science is and what it does. As a student of science myself, I feel naturally drawn to questions like these, and I consider them important.

 

[gibran2]

Here is why I don't believe in the primacy of consciousness and why I think the brain and its interaction with your environment generates human consciousness. Firstly as was already stated I don't think its possible to have consciousness without having a place in which to have it. I don't see how any philosophical argument can get around that. But I'm not philosopher so I leave it to someone else to explain a way in which its possible to have pure consciousness absent of any objective reality. Until then I think its reasonable to assume that there is some kind of objective reality out there.

Second its important to note that consciousness is a multitude of cognitive abilities. So when asking questions like do other primates have consciousness your not really asking the right question. The question should be if other primates have some aspects of consciousness what aspects do they have and what do they lack? There are examples of primates which have aspects of consciousness such as emotional states, memory, and the ability to learn from past experiences. But they certainly lack other aspects of human consciousness like highly complex language. Many primates have simple, as far as we can tell, languages but no where near as complex as human. Probably we can find more examples of organisms that have some aspects of consciousness and some that have none. I do not think organisms such as bacteria and plants have any sort of consciousness. My point is that different kinds of consciousness are probably more like some kind of continuum rather then an all or none.

...

Consciousness IS an objective reality. It doesn’t require anything else to exist. It doesn’t require a “place” to exist.

We don’t need a philosophical argument to show that things can exist without having a pre-existing place in which to exist. If we accept current understanding of physics, the physical universe doesn’t exist within a space or place (or time). It is not correct to think of the universe as some sort of expanding sphere that exists or is contained in a larger space – there is no physical “outside” of our physical universe. So the universe itself doesn’t require a “place” to exist. The universe in effect creates it’s own place – it’s own space. In the same sense, consciousness doesn’t need a place to exist – it is its own place.

I’ve never before heard of consciousness described/defined as “a multitude of cognitive abilities”. That sounds more like a definition of intelligence. “Emotional states, memory, and the ability to learn from past experiences” are cognitive states/abilities, but not aspects of consciousness. Language is not an aspect of consciousness.

There’s no question that the cognitive/brain states that you described are “products” of the brain. But your logical error is to conflate cognitive brain states with consciousness. Of course, if we start by defining consciousness as cognitive brain states, then show that cognitive brain states are physical phenomena, it naturally follows that consciousness is a physical phenomena. The error with this line of reasoning is that you begin by assuming true that which you are trying to prove to be true.

 

[benzyme]

how can consciousness be an "objective reality"?
I can't observe your consciousness, and vice-versa.
everyone interprets their own state of consciousness differently
and it does indeed require a place to exist.. the synaptic field.

the objective, measurable aspect of consciousness is that chemical-electrical impulses may be mapped, indicating consciousness is physiological; but interpreting consciousness, as you've already said, is an exercise in philosophy.

 

[gibran2]

how can consciousness be an "objective reality"?
I can't observe your consciousness, and vice-versa.
everyone interprets their own state of consciousness differently
and it does indeed require a place to exist.. the synaptic field.

the objective, measurable aspect of consciousness is that chemical-electrical impulses may be mapped, indicating consciousness is physiological; but interpreting consciousness, as you've already said, is an exercise in philosophy.

Well, we’re each viewing consciousness through the window of a different paradigm. You are viewing consciousness as a product of synaptic function: the primacy of matter.
I view consciousness as the progenitor of what appears to be the material world: the primacy of consciousness.

If consciousness is all that exists, then it is reasonable to say that consciousness is objective reality.

 

[benzyme]

how can that be, if you can't measure it? you can measure the processes
involved with various states, but you can't measure something that doesn't have
a point of reference.
objective reality is based on tangible evidence.

this is why psychology/psychiatry are not really considered "pure" science; too much ambiguity, overlapping symptoms, etc.
I used to think Leary's "Exopsychology" was brilliant, until I actually learned more about neurobiology.

 

[gibran2]

how can that be, if you can't measure it? you can measure the processes
involved with various states, but you can't measure something that doesn't have
a point of reference.
objective reality is based on tangible evidence.

this is why psychology/psychiatry are not really considered "pure" science; too much ambiguity, overlapping symptoms, etc.
I used to think Leary's "Exopsychology" was brilliant, until I actually learned more about neurobiology.

You cannot tell me the weight in carats of the largest diamond on planet Earth. Yet it exists. It is objectively real.

You seem to be defining objective reality something like “the world of things that can and have been measured”. If this were the case, most of reality would cease to exist!

 

[benzyme]

literally

dark matter is one of the most perplexing concepts known to man, yet it comprises over
90% of the universe.

now, I'm not saying that subjective reality, or various states of consciousness for that matter, isn't real.
just not observable by everyone at the same time; the intangible.

 

[burnt]

We don’t need a philosophical argument to show that things can exist without having a pre-existing place in which to exist. If we accept current understanding of physics, the physical universe doesn’t exist within a space or place (or time). It is not correct to think of the universe as some sort of expanding sphere that exists or is contained in a larger space – there is no physical “outside” of our physical universe. So the universe itself doesn’t require a “place” to exist. The universe in effect creates it’s own place – it’s own space. In the same sense, consciousness doesn’t need a place to exist – it is its own place.

That's an extrapolation with no basis. An analogy with no connection. Besides we could live in a multiverse or something like it.

I’ve never before heard of consciousness described/defined as “a multitude of cognitive abilities”. That sounds more like a definition of intelligence. “Emotional states, memory, and the ability to learn from past experiences” are cognitive states/abilities, but not aspects of consciousness. Language is not an aspect of consciousness.

Maybe intelligence is a better term I'm not sure. I'd say language is an aspect of consciousness but that's only because most my general awareness is based in thoughts which consist of language. But whatever it doesn't matter for my general point.

There are many general definitions of consciousness but I don't want to debate what those are.

There’s no question that the cognitive/brain states that you described are “products” of the brain. But your logical error is to conflate cognitive brain states with consciousness. Of course, if we start by defining consciousness as cognitive brain states, then show that cognitive brain states are physical phenomena, it naturally follows that consciousness is a physical phenomena. The error with this line of reasoning is that you begin by assuming true that which you are trying to prove to be true.

So wait a second. You accept that cognitive abilities and intelligence are products of the brain but somehow consciousness is beyond all that? That makes no sense and seems quite arbitrary.

 

[burnt]

I agree that there is possibly some objective reality out there (or in here), because the very fact that I am having an experience suggests that some underlying structure gives rise to this. If this is solely the fancy party between neurons, if it's my whole body, or whatever it is I don't know. From a philosophical point of view we are in principle unable to say anything about the "ding an sich" (Kant), because all we have is mental phenomena, and so the quest of science then is to track down all the far aspects of experience. The founders of one of the most successful scientific theories acknowledged this as well;

“In our description of nature the purpose is not to disclose the real essence of phenomena but only to track down as far as possible relations between the multifold aspects of experience.” – Niels Bohr

I don't really see how this makes any difference. Of course we don't directly perceive many aspects of reality. And of course words are just words. But we are still describing real things that have real consequences. Thats the important part.

 

[burnt]

The Myth of Quantum Consciousness

A new myth is burrowing its way into modern thinking. The notion is spreading that the principles embodied in quantum mechanics imply a central role for the human mind in determining the very nature of the universe.

www.huffingtonpost.com

This is a nice article written by a physicist about the history of this whole universal consciousness idea. The author Victor Stenger has also written a number of nice books on topic. It really is a lot of rubbish.

 

[gibran2]

The Myth of Quantum Consciousness

A new myth is burrowing its way into modern thinking. The notion is spreading that the principles embodied in quantum mechanics imply a central role for the human mind in determining the very nature of the universe.

www.huffingtonpost.com

This is a nice article written by a physicist about the history of this whole universal consciousness idea. The author Victor Stenger has also written a number of nice books on topic. It really is a lot of rubbish.

I agree – that particular interpretation isn’t satisfactory. The main reason is this: It attempts to use the “old” paradigm, the primacy of matter, to explain consciousness. Many scientists attempt to do this. They try to explain consciousness in terms of physical phenomena – either, as is the case in this article, quantum mechanics, or as Roger Penrose has stated, via cellular microtubules, or more conventionally, as an emergent property of a very complex brain. If the primacy of consciousness or something like it is correct, then all of these physical and physics-based ideas of consciousness are nonsense.

The primacy of consciousness is an entirely different paradigm. It doesn’t attempt to explain consciousness in terms of anything physical, because it posits that consciousness lies outside of the physical.

Regarding your definition of consciousness – it is generally accepted that familiar cognitive processes, including perception, are not a part of consciousness. If they were, then we would have to conclude that computers and even simple mechanical sensors are conscious. This may be the case, but it doesn’t seem to be. Also, if we define consciousness in this manner, then there is obviously no debate that “consciousness” is a physical process/manifestation.

Regarding your notion that consciousness needs a “place” in which to exist, I gave an example of something “real” that doesn’t need a place to exist. This wasn’t an analogy or an extrapolation. I was simply pointing out an example of something real that exists yet doesn’t need a place to exist. You had previously suggested that everything that exists needs a “place” to exist. This is not true. (And even if our universe is part of a larger multiverse, it is reasonable to think that the multiverse doesn’t exist in some larger “place”.)

 

[Cheeto]

i'm not trying to argue anything, just curious how you can tell weather something has consciousness? I always viewed basic consciousness as the ability to expirence reality, no matter how dumb you may be or the lack of memory or emotion. And like with a plant, without knowing what makes basic consciousness, how could you state that a plant has no consciousness?