Thoughts?

[neglect]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Interesting article. Tried posting in the everyone forum, but perhaps it takes those with an interest in the brain to get it.

 

[Buddhi]

Interesting article. Tried posting in the everyone forum, but perhaps it takes those with an interest in the brain to get it.

Very interesting viewpoint of soul. Another view of soul is an entity that lives within a body, one that experiences the world through the body's (and brain's) sensory input and one that is everlasting and able to exist without the body. In this viewpoint, it is presumed that the soul is a separate entity in a symbiosis type relationship. While it provides feedback to the body, especially to those very enlightened ones, it merely appears as another (sixth) sense rather that one modifying existing senses. And perhaps perceiving this sense does not depend upon the existence of an advanced brain (if one believes in lower animals having a soul -- depending upon one's individual religious affiliation).

In all, I do not believe that the concept of soul is outdated yet.

 

[bluntdissector]

In all, I do not believe that the concept of soul is outdated yet.

I do. At best, it's unnecessary. Like pink unicorns, the Easter bunny, and so on. It has all the dualistic baggage, complicated debates about brain death and abortion, et cetera. Yes, there are still people that believe in it, and there probably always will be. I find that good old Mr Occam has severed all intellectual ties with the concept, and it warrants a lot of cognitive dissonance, special pleading and willpower! 🙂

The article is interesting, I remember reading it when PZ linked to it on twitter. However, it's completely devoid of anything new. As doctors, we see conditions that challenge the concept of a unified mind every day:
dissociative identity disorder or
personality changes after traumatic brain injury or
alien hand in patients with corticobasal degeneration
for instance.
Even though it's 20 years old, have a look at Dennett's Consciousness Explained. It doesn't explain consciousness (rather confusingly), but it does dispel numerous myths, and points in the right direction. And, most of the ideas mentioned in the articles are discussed at length in the book.

 

[Buddhi]

Complicated it is like everything that could have been less-understood. Unnecessary it will be when we are able to explain and manage consciousness without resorting to conjectures and theories. Until then, the IDEA of soul as something that can be felt without tormenting one's brain is quite useful to some people. Placebo may not be necessary to explain functioning of brain through reductionism -- yet it is there working through some of those smallest automatons. And the problem of whether thoughts drive the neuronal hardware or the hardware drives the thought is the chicken egg problem still being solved. We know that one doesn't survive for long without the other. So, the question is what does an idea do to a physical brain? And what of specific ideas such as soul?

While Daniel Denett's reductionism seems quite appealing to a scientific mind, I would quote P. W. Anderson who says "Psychology is not applied biology nor is biology applied chemistry."

I do. At best, it's unnecessary. Like pink unicorns, the Easter bunny, and so on. It has all the dualistic baggage, complicated debates about brain death and abortion, et cetera. Yes, there are still people that believe in it, and there probably always will be. I find that good old Mr Occam has severed all intellectual ties with the concept, and it warrants a lot of cognitive dissonance, special pleading and willpower! 🙂

The article is interesting, I remember reading it when PZ linked to it on twitter. However, it's completely devoid of anything new. As doctors, we see conditions that challenge the concept of a unified mind every day:
dissociative identity disorder or
personality changes after traumatic brain injury or
alien hand in patients with corticobasal degeneration
for instance.
Even though it's 20 years old, have a look at Dennett's Consciousness Explained. It doesn't explain consciousness (rather confusingly), but it does dispel numerous myths, and points in the right direction. And, most of the ideas mentioned in the articles are discussed at length in the book.

 

[bluntdissector]

Complicated it is like everything that could have been less-understood. Unnecessary it will be when we are able to explain and manage consciousness without resorting to conjectures and theories. Until then, the IDEA of soul as something that can be felt without tormenting one's brain is quite useful to some people. Placebo may not be necessary to explain functioning of brain through reductionism -- yet it is there working through some of those smallest automatons. And the problem of whether thoughts drive the neuronal hardware or the hardware drives the thought is the chicken egg problem still being solved. We know that one doesn't survive for long without the other. So, the question is what does an idea do to a physical brain? And what of specific ideas such as soul?

While Daniel Denett's reductionism seems quite appealing to a scientific mind, I would quote P. W. Anderson who says "Psychology is not applied biology nor is biology applied chemistry."

Anderson is a (very) accomplished physicist, and I wouldn't like to criticize him! However, that was said in the 70s, and a lot has changed. Neuroscience and cognitive psychology wasn't even paying attention to the highest of higher functions back then As Baars noted in 2005:
Memory came back in the 1960s; mental imagery in the 1970s; selective attention over the last half century; and consciousness last of all, in the last decade or so.

Dennett's book only serves as a nice introduction. But so much has changed in the last 20 years, especially with AI researchers modeling neural networks, creating artificial children and attempting to create a conscious machine.

There's a good paper on the issue of reductionism here. A nice bit, where the levels of explanation is addressed:

Just as chemistry and geology emerge from fundamental physics plus special circumstances, so biology on Earth emerges from physics and chemistry and geology plus the special circumstances attending the origin of life and the accidents occurring in biological evolution ever since. No serious scientist today believes that life depends on special “vital forces” alien to physics and chemistry. But reduction has to include the special circumstances as well as the more fundamental sciences. Even so, we must recognize that as a strategy reduction by itself is wholly inadequate. Bridges or staircases can be built to connect biology with chemistry and physics, but, in addition, treating biological phenomena at the level of biology is just as important as not dealing with earthquakes in terms of quarks. We see how using this concept of emergence frees us from silly, sterile controversies over the merits of “reductionism.”

It's important that these levels of explanation, and emergence, does not imply that biology isn't in actual fact applied chemistry, just that it would be impossibly complex and needlessly time consuming to explain every biological process with the discourse used in chemistry.

It's obviously a fascinating time to be involved with any neuroscientific endeavor. Oh, lastly, physicists do like to venture out of their area of expertise, and seem convinced that they can solve everything! Just look at Penrose. 🙂

 

[neglect]

Very interesting viewpoint of soul. Another view of soul is an entity that lives within a body, one that experiences the world through the body's (and brain's) sensory input and one that is everlasting and able to exist without the body. In this viewpoint, it is presumed that the soul is a separate entity in a symbiosis type relationship. While it provides feedback to the body, especially to those very enlightened ones, it merely appears as another (sixth) sense rather that one modifying existing senses. And perhaps perceiving this sense does not depend upon the existence of an advanced brain (if one believes in lower animals having a soul -- depending upon one's individual religious affiliation).

In all, I do not believe that the concept of soul is outdated yet.

The soul seems to be shrinking. If we can't imagine what the soul is, why do we need one?

 

[coup de chance]

Deep 👍

Looking forward to brainiac colleagues 👍👍

 

[medc]

It's obviously a fascinating time to be involved with any neuroscientific endeavor. Oh, lastly, physicists do like to venture out of their area of expertise, and seem convinced that they can solve everything! Just look at Penrose. 🙂

Quantum pysicists have gotten to a point where the way forward doesn't make sense if they don't get into cognitive neuroscience (and vice-versa) and even philosophy. Quantum physics and cognitive neuroscience have in fact converged in the quantum mind-body problem as they're trying to make sense of the measurement problem. But to venture as far as Penrose has, I think very few have dared 🙂

 

[bluntdissector]

Quantum pysicists have gotten to a point where the way forward doesn't make sense if they don't get into cognitive neuroscience (and vice-versa) and even philosophy. Quantum physics and cognitive neuroscience have in fact converged in the quantum mind-body problem as they're trying to make sense of the measurement problem. But to venture as far as Penrose has, I think very few have dared 🙂

I think you are overstating the 'problem' faced to an extent, especially from the neuroscience point of view - there might well be no need for quantum mechanics in an explanation of consciousness. Penrose's ideas are, in my opinion at least, ******ed.

Similarly, I think it's premature to say that QM doesn't make sense unless they get into neuroscience. However, QM is certainly not a strength of mine!

 

[bluntdissector]

Interesting article. Tried posting in the everyone forum, but perhaps it takes those with an interest in the brain to get it.

PS - BTW, I hope you have seen the value of coming to the neurology forum with interesting things. 🙂

(Thanks, by the way, we mostly just get match-related posts)

 

[IT514]

Yeah, its an interesting take, but not one that I think most people who believe in the soul should be worried about. The author makes a pretty big leap when he describes a 1:1 relationship between the "unified mind" (whatever the hell that means) and the soul. My bias is that I believe in the soul, but I do not believe in a unified mind.

For those who have read Gazzaniga, LeDoux, and perhaps the last chapter in Blumenfeld's neuroanatomy, the concept of "the interpreter" (think left dorsal prefrontal cortex) is probably the best modern day conceptualization of how consciousness works. This is the view that the author of the article seems to take, and I'm totally in line with it, I'm just not buying that it provides evidence against the soul. The unified mind, yes, but not the soul. And if the soul is ontologically amaterial, I'm not sure how science, which is material in terms of epistemology, will ever provide an answer.

 

[bluntdissector]

Yeah, its an interesting take, but not one that I think most people who believe in the soul should be worried about. The author makes a pretty big leap when he describes a 1:1 relationship between the "unified mind" (whatever the hell that means) and the soul. My bias is that I believe in the soul, but I do not believe in a unified mind.

For those who have read Gazzaniga, LeDoux, and perhaps the last chapter in Blumenfeld's neuroanatomy, the concept of "the interpreter" (think left dorsal prefrontal cortex) is probably the best modern day conceptualization of how consciousness works. This is the view that the author of the article seems to take, and I'm totally in line with it, I'm just not buying that it provides evidence against the soul. The unified mind, yes, but not the soul. And if the soul is ontologically amaterial, I'm not sure how science, which is material in terms of epistemology, will ever provide an answer.

I'd say that Baars, Dehaene and co are much better as a modern day conceptualization. Global Workspace models are more promising, both in terms of simulating neural networks, and for simulating conscious behavior (like the IDA, which is rather neat!) Koch is also fond of the idea of something (like the DFC) 'looking back' into the brain, and interpreting what it 'sees'. As far as I can tell, however, this is a rather controversial claim.

The relationship between the soul and the unified mind is a fair one I think. Although, I'd agree that science can't disprove an a-material thing. Bear in mind, however, that most people believe the soul is either interacting with matter (giving you free will proper) or that the matter in your head influences the soul (so you go to heaven knowing what mom looks like). These are physical effects which should be observable. If the soul doesn't do that, then wtf? Why not just believe that you have 10 000 souls, that they live in another universe, that life after death involves ice cream and loads of sex? We can believe in any number of crazy a-material and un-falsifiable things. 😱

Most people believe that they exist in the form of a 'me', a single entity. Neuroscience has shown (or is beginning to show) that this assumption might be false, that it only seems like you are a 'thing', when actually there are loads of competing specialists sitting between your ears, creating a narrative or flow of sorts, which seems like it represents the serial thoughts/actions/feelings of a thing, a single entity, a 'unified mind'.

Google Baars or Dehaene or Edelman or Tononi or Naccache for a more modern view of consciousness. Or, I should say, for what I find to be a better representation of our modern view of consciousness! Even Gazzaniga likes the global workspace idea:

"Integrated awareness emerges from modular interactions within a neuronal workspace…The presence of a large-scale network, whose long-range connectivity provides a neural workspace through which the outputs of numerous, specialized, brain regions can be interconnected and integrated, provides a promising solution."

We are all riddled with cognitive biases, not to mention post-call fatigue! 🙂

 

[IT514]

Thanks, I'll look more into the references when I have the time. Sounds like a more elaborated/updated view of what I already believe.

The reason why I like LeDoux's work is that he spends a lot of time on basic drive models and how they influence consciousness, which a lot of cognitive science people seem to ignore, or at least focus most of their efforts elswhere. I also like Paul Cisek's work, which focuses on the brain as a bunch of different systems that ultimately act as a control mechanism with the environment...seems like a good marriage of neuroscience and behaviorism, and its about time.

While its true that most people who believe in a soul may also believe in a unified mind, I just do not believe its necessary that the two go together. You make fair points, but my worldview/theology is a bit different and leads me to conceptualize differently, even to the point of expecting a bunch of different neural systems evolving and developing for certain purposes, all of which can go wrong for whatever proximal reason, but may not implicate the soul. I'm definitely more comfortable talking about the brain/mind than I am about the soul, and I'm always torn when patients (dementia, TBI, parents of kids with autism) bring it up. Kind of rare, but it happens.

 

[bluntdissector]

While its true that most people who believe in a soul may also believe in a unified mind, I just do not believe its necessary that the two go together. You make fair points, but my worldview/theology is a bit different and leads me to conceptualize differently.

As we are all entitled to do! 👍

I must confess, I'm not familiar with Cisek's work - I'll be sure to check it out. Thanks!

PS - be sure to grab Gamez's review article on machine consciousness. It's OKAY with regards to human consciousness, but it really brilliant in showing how far the AI folks have come.

I swear, while us scientists and philosophers are still bickering over what consciousness IS, they'll simply send a consciousness robot to one of our conferences...

 

[IT514]

I swear, while us scientists and philosophers are still bickering over what consciousness IS, they'll simply send a consciousness robot to one of our conferences...

I'm game as long as they can get as drunk and crazy as the rest of us. Just kidding...maybe.

 

[bluntdissector]

I'm game as long as they can get as drunk and crazy as the rest of us. Just kidding...maybe.

For sure. It's an even better test than Turing's:

A system is only truly conscious in the human sense when it can, in a move of extreme hedonism, disregard future benefits in favor of instant reward, i.e. booze and sex now outweighs liver disease and ulcers on your robotic genitalia. Furthermore, it needs to be able to rationalize this, and deal with the cognitive dissonance. And it should laugh when a fellow drunk walks into the door.

If a robot does that, I'd let it vote.

 

[Lil Mick]

I would recommond Chalmer's "Conscious Mind," as well as some of Polkinghorne's articles in Zygon for those interested in the relation of quantum physics to the mind-body problem, as well as implications for neuroscience. These are fairly non-technical treatments of the problem...

 

[neglect]

I would recommond Chalmer's "Conscious Mind," as well as some of Polkinghorne's articles in Zygon for those interested in the relation of quantum physics to the mind-body problem, as well as implications for neuroscience. These are fairly non-technical treatments of the problem...

I find all these quantum thinkers applying themselves to the mind to be insane. They think they know how photons work, so they apply that to the mind in an analogy. But the truth doesn't need to turn out that way. It also isn't very helpful when someone is having a stroke in the ER or dementia in the office. But it gets a lot of press and some of the analogies are lovely.

The picture this article puts forward to explain the mind isn't a quantum net, but a delusion that emerges from the brain's activity.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

I'm interested in neurology and I'm just a pre-med who likes observing this forum, but I'm coming from a math/physics background rather than from any knowledge of neuroscience. So I'll limit myself to that area:

The quantum mind body problem is a non existent issue. "Consciousness causes collapse" is a pretty stupid argument. In fact, the whole Copenhagen interpretation is flawed in that it treats the observer and the phenomena being observed as somehow obeying different laws, when being part of the same universe, they obviously are bound by the same laws. The distinction is arbitrary. In one of my seminar courses in physics during my senior year, we discussed that very issue, and if anyone is interested, Stephen Weinberg writes very well about it.

But the main point is - the principles don't apply, and even if they did, the interpretation of quantum consciousness makes no scientific sense.

 

[medc]

The quantum mind body problem is a non existent issue. "Consciousness causes collapse" is a pretty stupid argument. In fact, the whole Copenhagen interpretation is flawed

I would be cautious about discrediting the Copenhagen interpretation as it is still the most conservative and accepted out of all of them. Eventhough a couple of interpretations have taken out of the picture the role of consciousness, they remain interpretations just like the others.

Stephen Weinberg writes very well about it.

Stephen Weinberg is a respected old school scientist that has become intransigent to new ideas, specially those related to string theory. The debate over quantum interpretations have as much to do with quantum physics as with personal worldviews.

But the main point is - the principles don't apply, and even if they did, the interpretation of quantum consciousness makes no scientific sense.

This is true. But none of the quantum interpretations make scientific sense. They are all highly speculative, philosophical and controversial and cannot be proven. So in a strict sense, how much can we call them science or philosophy. This is something Weinberg would be the first to point out.

Is consciousness required to collapse the wavefunction? maybe not. probably not. But there's no final answer yet. Options are still on the table.

 

[medc]

It also isn't very helpful when someone is having a stroke in the ER or dementia in the office.

true, true hahaha. but we're just having fun here. but you have a point. let's just shut up and work!! or should we?

 

[IvyHopeful20]

This is true. But none of the quantum interpretations make scientific sense. They are all highly speculative, philosophical and controversial and cannot be proven. So in a strict sense, how much can we call them science or philosophy. This is something Weinberg would be the first to point out.

Is consciousness required to collapse the wavefunction? maybe not. probably not. But there's no final answer yet. Options are still on the table.

There in lies the issue. The math of quantum mechanics works. More than the math of pretty much any other scientific theory or prediction.

However, the interpretations are not really scientifically verifiable as of yet. So to go another step and somehow apply them to consciousness (which in itself is a very hard to define and nebulous issue) would be stretching it past all scientific and logical boundaries.

So yes, there is no final answer yet. But actually, I'd say there's not even a well defined question yet. The business is worse than conjecture, especially if argued in a cloak of supposed scientific validity, instead of what describing what it actually is at this point - mysticism.

 

[neglect]

true, true hahaha. but we're just having fun here. but you have a point. let's just shut up and work!! or should we?

My point was that quantum theories should make some sense of the things we see every day. They don't, because they are rubbish.