May 13, 2012 -- 3:36PM, markom wrote:

Have you read the Mind of Wigner's friend by Bass & co. : http://www.scribd.com/doc/90917219/The-Mind-of-Wigner-s-Friend-Ludwig-Bass

It seems to address conciousness issue by quantum mechanics. I havent read that article very well because it inclused mathematical data I cannot understand anyway, but maybe you know that branch also?

From this point of view Global workspace seems to be an umbrella name for all generally accepted related work. Is it rather a big supportive framework or just colllection of minor frameworks?

The Global Workspace conceptual viewpoint is a valuable semantic account that is cobbled together in search of a working model.

The developing work of Tononi & Sporns - ITT - is a much more pragmatic and science based approach; where data specific to the hypothesis can be collected and measured.

I am going to be very simple in my comments.  F5 has been playing nice and I want to see it stay that way.

Dr Tononi has a lab and active research ongoing at the U of Wi.  He has just produced another peer-reviewed paper in the last couple of months.

He is a leader in the field of consciousness studies,^[9] and has co-authored a book on the subject with Gerald Edelman. ^{[10] [11]} Dr. Tononi developed Integrated Information Theory (IIT): a scientific theory of what consciousness is, how it can be measured, how it is realized in the brain and, why it fades when we fall into dreamless sleep and returns when we dream. The theory is being tested with neuroimaging, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and computer models. His work has been described as "the only really promising fundamental theory of consciousness" by Christof Koch^[12]. 

I have just started to learn about J. Hawking since your reference to him.

F5,

I have already cited Christof Koch's acknowledgement of Tononi's methodology.  I see no such objective citation for your view, except - well your opinion.

Tononi has created a math-based theory, the only kind that is objectively (hence pragmatically) capable of processing data.  This is the reason why he is emerging as the shinning star.

Please note that Tononi's conclusions are very different than mine and I don't see him as being on some team of action figures that fight for my fastasy team.  His work is positioned to be directly supportive of a view that is against my positions - I just respect the science.

May 14, 2012 -- 8:08PM, Faustus5 wrote:

May 14, 2012 -- 9:29AM, newchurchguy wrote:

The Global Workspace conceptual viewpoint is a valuable semantic account that is cobbled together in search of a working model.

Wrong. It is the best confirmed general model of consciousness in cognitive neuroscience today.

May 14, 2012 -- 9:29AM, newchurchguy wrote:

The developing work of Tononi & Sporns - ITT - is a much more pragmatic and science based approach; where data specific to the hypothesis can be collected and measured.

Don't be ridiculous. There is nothing Tononi is doing that is even remotely more "pragmatic" or "science based" than Baars. He is just focusing on a narrow part of the issue--and over-reaching beyond that data, I might add. Once again you are letting your fantasies about the powers of information theory as a solution for everything under the sun cloud your judgment. These guys are a wonderful team working together. Too bad you only want to focus on one piece of the puzzle.

Markom,

If you mean testable in "public and private neurological labs" - yes.  As to a method that non-scientists can use - no.  However, the math is always open to use, as computer simulation.  Tononi's formuli and units of measure are spelled out exactly.

May 14, 2012 -- 10:43AM, markom wrote:

Do you mean these wo guys "Measuring information integration" www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/4/31/ ? Do they share testable framework for public usage like Jeff Hawkins is doing?

Blu,

I surely agree and practice in my work what you wrote - with one glaring exception.

Science, in the last 60 years, is no longer material based.  It is empirical evidence (as data) based and there is data about non-material phenonmena such as evidenced by logical coding and decoding processes.

Material science has specific units of measure!  Some number of times I have linked to a list of those units.  That list does not include bandwidth, an important measure needed to understand communication channels.  Tononi's intergrated information - likewise will not qualify for the list of physical units of measure.  There is no mass or force related values.

I know you want to believe differently.

You and others continue to conflate a metaphysical position of materialism - with one of evidence based science. 

May 17, 2012 -- 7:51PM, Blü wrote:

In one sense it doesn't matter whether the Global Workspace hypothesis is right or not.

The real debate here is between science, which is materialistic and evidence-based, and magic, which emotional, imaginary and unexamined.

That's to say, science can and does explain its arguments in great detail and tests them with research and debate.

We lack any coherent description of the magical case, how it arose and how it works; and we lack any examinable evidence to suggest that anything magical is going on at all, whether in the brain or anywhere else.