Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘consciousness’

‘Thinking’ as a class of potential behavior is hard to study and thus, makes it ripe for speculation and interpretations beyond the data. As things are today, thinking is made more significant because it is presumed that humans are the only ones that do it making is a signature feature on what is human and what isn’t. “Mind”, “consciousness”, thought and all sorts of covert related properties are offered as evidence that humans are different and somehow more substantive than other animals. The past and existing organizations of what is going on inside the ‘vault’ [read: brain, head, mind, neural node, CNS] have been dismal. Answers are as elusive as they were 2000 years ago and are made more mysterious for some by being out of reach.

We have made no progress in regards to our understanding of what goes on there and how those things relate to subjective or empirical states of man or our institutions, including governance and law. They have suffered most while we hack away at deciphering the muddled mess of metaphysics and logically indefensible postulates that are put forth to explain how man behaves and why.

the verbal community has not yet been able to connect with what is going on that the community cannot experience. Any reinforcements that are delivered are not contingent on specific behavior because they can’t be seen in time or space. This comes to create a response class that looks like behavior that is reinforced on a VI schedule independent of a specific response on the part of the target organism. Yes; the prime requisite for development of superstitious behavior is non-contingent VI delivery of a reinforcer.

thinking may occasion in a person a fixed gaze, unblinking or reduced eye blinks, change in gate, or time insensitivity to many external stimuli, changes in galvanic responses and lowered heart and breathing rates. However, these are not thinking per se but may be part of what is inferred to be happening when one is doing any covert behaviors including thinking. All are part of other behaviors as well as behaviors with parameters of their own.

In describing thinking there is a lack of external conformation possible that any observer or the free-floating reinforcements can access. Thus, there is no connection between a specific covert behavior and a potential reinforcer. Thus, there is no way to show an increase in the future probability of occurrence of a target covert behavior occurring when the potential reinforcer was delivered.

Our covert behavior [including thinking] has several problems as a behavior class.

  1. it is not sensed and can’t be verified or falsified
  2. it does not have standard units of measurement
  3. results will depend on the way it is measured
  4. it is experiences through filters that transducer it to something else based on history and context
    1. vocabulary
    2. environment context
    3. culture
    4. in articulation of aspect (what parts are of interest – dreams, impulses, value, etc.)
    5. unknown empirical properties

Ultimately, the products of processes generated from within the ‘vault’ of the listener are routed and locked there. Everyone will continue to investigate how and what is going on there with whatever methods that can be mustered. Today the neurosciences are taking their shot at deciphering the relationships between what is going on inside our head and what we experience. To that end they are using 19th century models of man and behavior mixed with decrepit autonomous man inklings and sophisticated 21st century technology and chemistry. For some there is value in how they postulate the working of man and his mind. Those values are the same as postulated 2000 years ago and haven’t benefited our species as much as science methods have benefited biology, chemistry and anthropology. The value to science will depend more on changes in approach to man than the power of the magnet used in a portable fMRI.

Any set of the things related to what happens when someone is thinking is all just that, related to thinking for that person and not thinking itself. All the covert events can be related to things associated with other behaviors done when a person is not thinking as well as when some are thinking. The set of responses become associated as events related to a state that may be referred to as ‘thinking’ for that person who, when asked, “What are you doing?” or “Why don’t you answer me?” may report, “I was thinking…” and otherwise communicate something the other person will probably relate to as a set of private covert actions (events) that can be arbitrarily called ‘thinking.’

Of course it is very true that if thinking were an operant the people in the examples above would not have to ask, “What are you doing?” or “Why don’t you answer me?” If thinking were doing something overt, the observer could learn from observing or measuring behavior and would know the answers to those questions after learning to discriminate what was/is thinking and what is something other than thinking.

Psychotherapists, bosses, clergy, spouses, friends, parents etc., all have a version of why we do what we do. They have a story about what relationships exist between us and the world around us; the environment. There is a good chance that, after some time experiencing a person, that each could be right. Of course their story is riddled with inaccuracies as well seeing how they only see what they were trained to see. Seems impossible but consider that each of us has a VERY broad and complex behavior repertoire. Our complex behavior allows us to behave differently and distinctly in the different environments and contexts of different people. Sometimes the people we are, how we behave, overlaps. Sometimes they don’t.

SUMMARY

Great thinkers as well as the delusional philosophers, pontiffs, despots and princes and even the man and woman on the street have been reinforced for reporting their internal covert musings in subjective and fantasy terms focusing on the exhaust of the human thinking process – emotions and feelings. These 3 thousand years of focus has outdistanced the empirical study of thinking by overlooking histories of the individuals and the use of the least productive research methods NOT found in 17th century science! In the not-so-grand scale of things, it is more interesting for the lay person and the scientist alike to be enamored by the fantasy than by the environmental contingencies. We pay for that interest every day we live on this earth.

Read Full Post »

This is just about the best dialogue I’ve read on consciousness. Alva Noë’s model is plausible and falsifiable.  And it correctly rejects the notion of internal motive events and the good ol’ mind/body duality.

In many ways, the new thinking about consciousness and the brain is really just the old-fashioned style of traditional philosophical thinking about these questions but presented in a new, neuroscience package. People interested in consciousness have tended to make certain assumptions, take certain things for granted. They take for granted that thinking, feeling, wanting, consciousness in general, is something that happens inside of us. They take for granted that the world, and the rest of our body, matters for consciousness only as a source of causal impingement on what is happening inside of us. Action has no more intimate connection to thought, feeling, consciousness, and experience. They tend to assume that we are fundamentally intellectual—that the thing inside of us which thinks and feels and decides is, in its basic nature, a problem solver, a calculator, a something whose nature is to figure out what there is and what we ought to do in light of what is coming in.

We should reject the idea that the mind is something inside of us that is basically matter of just a calculating machine. There are different reasons to reject this. But one is, simply put: there is nothing inside us that thinks and feels and is conscious. Consciousness is not something that happens in us. It is something we do.

Read the entire piece or watch the video.

Read Full Post »

Typically I am put off by analogies but consider…

Scientific symmetry demands that there should be a fourth fundamental circuit element to compliment resistors, capacitors and inductors. The fourth circuit, which would make it possible to build more complex electronic devices was theorized to exist by Leon Chua, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, and called a “memristor” (memory resistor), that registers [remembers?] how much current flowed through a device.

Stan Williams, who heads up the Information and Quantum Systems lab at HP Labs, thinks that they have found it and how it works. – Nature, April 30, 2008 –

Forget all the sophisticated electronics and chemistry which should launch a new programming branch in a move away from silicon. Instead, imagine, if you will, that this discovery is analogous to how memory works neurologically. Sounds like blasphemy buy consider it for a bit. Without staining the logic, consider a memristor-like functioning of sets of neuorchemical – electrochemical flow rather than memory being a place or network of neural areas.

A memristor stores information based on changers of the resistance when an electrical current is applied. Memristors can have a high level of resistance, interpreted as a “1” in data terms, and a low level interpreted as a “0.” Thus, information [data] is electronically recorded (– absorbed – present, whatever new diction describes it) by controlling current. The memristor acts as a variable resistor that, through changes in its own resistance, reflects its own history, according to Williams of HP.

In an analogous scheme being suggested here for organisms, memories occur due to the flow and patterns of resistance changes in the 100 billion neurons in the brain factored by other billions of interconnections of neuro-electrical impulses that exist throughout the brain and central nervous system.

The amount of energy required to push around a very small number of atomic vacancies in a crystalline material to get memristors to work parallels what would be required to move electrical impulses throughout the nervous system net that is hypothesized to be what memories are. Williams said. “We can switch it [current] very fast, faster than we can measure” which is just what is experienced when evoked potential recordings are captured in neural recordings which makes them almost useless considering the number and speed of the differing neurotransmitters.

Memristor chips will be designed function like flash memory and retain data even after a computer is turned off, just like happens to some neural areas during sleep, conscious attention and the flow of moving in an out of the “zone” at work, play or when focused on any value-laden activities in life.

Just a thought.


This was written after an article in CNet.com www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9932054-7.html?tag=nefd.top

Read Full Post »