@jeeprs,
jeeprs;87989 wrote:I am writing on a computer. You can know all there is to know about this computer, be you a chip scientist from Intel or a Mac software engineer, but that won't necessarily mean that you can make sense of what is being written on here. You could also probably zoom in on the hard drive and find the actual bytes which represent this particular text, on the drive of a server. But then, if they are not interpreted by the operating system, displayed on a screen, and read by another human, how can they actually said to mean anything? Of course every conscious act has a neural correlate. But can the neural correlate be said to constitute a conscious act? That is the question.
I appreciate your taking the time to put together that analogy, jeeprs; it shows seriousness, care,
and inquisitive attitude. (
things which are to be greatly respected) As is often the case, as I have so far found it to be, analogies in this realm, like some of the thought experiments one finds, miss the mark in a number of possible ways, however. (and computer to brain analogies are not as '
hip' today as they once were [in the more scientific method works. . . though still used in explanation from time to time [
not as an analogy, per se])
jeeprs;87989 wrote: You could also probably zoom in on the hard drive and find the actual bytes which represent this particular text, on the drive of a server. But then, if they are not interpreted by the operating system, displayed on a screen, and read by another human, how can they actually said to mean anything?
Here, again, we find the matter of
translation. What we can say has essentially occured, is a translation of information into another format, which can be translated back out of that format by an understander of it, into the original format once again. Of course, we know that the hard drive system and details of how it works and what's basically happening and all, was developed, designed and built by humans, and in that sense, again, is very much like your saying something in English and my transalting it into Japanese amongst others who do not understand Japanese. They may dissect the individual sounds, try to find correlations with English sounds, syllables, and so on, but with just one go at it (or a few even), will not be able to find any meaning. The person who understands Japanese will have to put it back into English.
Of course, if you, the person who had spoken the original English sentence had known that I had been simply translating your English sentence into a Japanese sentence, (
and trusted my Japanese proficiency) wouldn't have to think twice about it--you would know
(to that degree of trust) that the Japanese is carrying the same information as your English. So when one of those who don't know Japanese asks you what I had said (information content), you'd answer in English (information content correlate) and that party would know that the English event and the Japanese event said the same thing.
(1)
Here, I would be the
reporter (2), and you would be the investigator. The infomation content of the Japanese would be the information content in the spiking patterns of neuron maps (or assemblies), and the English translation would be the otherwise already known information pattern (such as would be the case when a test subject is looking at a known-to-all object--
a certain face, a key, etc.). In this way, the '
gap' (so to speak) between the subjective test subject and the subjective-but-objectively-viewing investigator, would only be the spiking pattern.
Then, in that it is known that to a very high degree the brain of all H. sapiens are going to be the same in structure layout and connection, and too a fairly high degree (as seen by test results) the same in processing sensory information and forwarding into (and getting feedback from) higher extended consciousness-related cortical regions, it is secure enough an understanding that what's happening in the brain of the investigator and of the subject, is very much the same. For that reason, therefore, when the neurons are recorded as firing in these situations, we can rest assured that the information content is a translation of the 'external-object-sourced' sensory input, and in that way, to that degree, can say that these spiking patterns correlate the external object, and are most certainly very similar to those in the brain of the investigator.
jeeprs;87989 wrote:Of course every conscious act has a neural correlate. But can the neural correlate be said to constitute a conscious act? That is the question.
Therefore, (and this is based on a greater range of data than on just the above) the word '
have' may be getting in the way here. Neural activity is, essentially, a state producing activity. Not all neural activity is cognized with acknowlegment in the state of consciousness--
much of the brain (brain) is active below that range of conscious which we usually acknowledge as being within the range that we call consciousness The second question, then, appears to be unanswerable--
because, for example, when association cortex works in tandem with the amygdala, it is not an act so nearly described by a conscious (in the sense of being a state of 'consciousnessly' willed activity) command. However, in reasoning on what that second question may have been trying to ask, I'd answer by saying that as far as can be determined at the moment, backed by the better of the average of evidence,
every neural spiking pattern has information content--which is (beyond a certain threshold) what consciousness becomes aware of.
So, as I have tried to amplify above, when we know the information content going into the brain via sensory input, and see the neural activity that can be focused down to having been because of that (and there is always effort to block out, screen, and account for noise) input, we can know that
that neural activty is the translation of that original information content input,
and we can know that
that will be what is very much happening in H. sapien's brain (considering normal brain build) when that specific information content is presented.
jeeprs;87989 wrote:. . . is a video interview with Alva Noe . . . And here's a question: during the interview, he denies he is a [8-letter word, begins with 'v']. But based on what he says after denying it, I think this denial might be questioned. What is it that he denies, and why might this be questioned?
He denied being a vitalist, and I do not gather from what he said afterwards that he is presenting any evidence that he is anything otherwise. He did mention that computationalist attempt to draw the computational aspect of consciousness out of the biological aspect of consciousness, is one outlook in the field, but he was not applying to his opinion actually, only mentioning it. I did notice that he did not really answer the question, "
What could possibly be part of consciousness that is not represented in some way by neural or brain activity/" After that, they kind of got sidetracked a little bit. I did notice that the professor expressed the following, which is an important point, viz.: '
...living beings, whether they are cells or siimple organisms,...' It was a good clip, but as is so often the case (and the problem with such) a full thought is not completed...they always leave scattered points which can lead to misrepresentations and 'out-of-context' applications. He did manage, but did not have to room to anywhere nearly fully explain his sense of consciousness being worked on. (which might be good PR, maybe, making folks feel the need to have to read the book? hee, hee, hee...[
not serious here folks]
OH BOY...in clicking the 'Preview Post,' as I often do when creating a post, I noticed newer incoming posts...I'll have much to answer towards???
1. Therefore, one who knows the whole PC thing inside and out, while perhaps not being able to see what the physical bytes mean when looking at them in the absence of any other information or translation equipment, will know the content those charged spaces correlate with in the event that they know it translates what you had typed into the PC.
2. As touched on in passing in that video clip, it is true that the
reporter is a weak link (if not
THE weak link), however through the volume of tests and research, the weakness of that link is very immaterial, and to actually question that, in refusal to accept honest subjective report in methodologically correct testing, is simply hardheaded.
i wonder how the monkeys confirmed 'they' got it right? maybe they gave 'them' bananas for a reward?
