Post Reply
Page 2 of 13  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Consciousness is an individual product of a biological organism?
3 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 9:29AM #11
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,643

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 10:43AM #12
markom
Posts: 29

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?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 2:47PM #13
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,643

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.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 14, 2012 - 8:08PM #14
Faustus5
Posts: 2,023

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 17, 2012 - 4:16PM #15
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,643

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.





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 17, 2012 - 4:20PM #16
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,643

F5,


as the years go by - is your Dan Dennett action figure showing a little wear?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 17, 2012 - 5:08PM #17
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,643

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?





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 17, 2012 - 7:51PM #18
Blü
Posts: 25,266

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 8:28AM #19
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,643

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.





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 8:54AM #20
Faustus5
Posts: 2,023

May 17, 2012 -- 4:16PM, newchurchguy wrote:

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.


It isn't "my" opinion that the global neuronal workspace model is the one that the cognitive neuroscience community is coalescing around. It is simply a fact.


May 17, 2012 -- 4:16PM, newchurchguy wrote:

Tononi has created a math-based theory, the only kind that is objectively (hence pragmatically) capable of processing data.


And as it turns out, there is very little pragmatic value to the math in his theory, which is why it is not exactly catching on. Rodrick Wallace has a very extensive, highly mathematical treatment of the global workspace model, and guess what? That hasn't exactly been catching on, either.


It's nice when you can model something mathematically and one should always try to see if one can. But when your field is in the business of reverse engineering nature's functions, mathematical models aren't always going to be all that helpful. Perhaps you need to let go of your fetish.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 13  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook