Composition allows for elementary (first-order) elements to form distinct higher-order mechanisms, and for multiple mechanisms to form a structure. — frank

Does the theory ever address the question of what constitutes a "distinct" mechanism (without a human being making the call)? Without that, the theory doesn't get off the ground, or we have panpsychism, which doesn't explain anything.

I will be moving on regarding IIT, just need a minute to sit down. :) — frank

Can I just say how much I'm enjoying the discussion @Frank, I really appreciate you posting the summaries and will wait patiently until more arrives.

The brain actually is isolated by the blood brain barrier. The CNS has its own private immune system. — frank

It's not entirely isolated though. The blood brain barrier is a filter isn't it, not a seal.

You do see people saying "everything is information" or "everything is energy". That's the sort of theory that explains nothing. — Daemon


Kindly expand and elaborate. — TheMadFool

Well, here's @Pop from @Frank's interesting discussion about IIT:

I think defining consciousness using only the flow of information is lacking. For starters I'd include that conscious entity needs to recognize patterns in this information. — original2


A conscious entity would need to interpret the information flow. But what does interpret mean? In the broadest sense even a rock interprets the information flow in its form and position.

According to Fritjof Capra: "cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state." And it would seem everything is a system in a state. — Pop

If you ask @Pop to explain anything, the response is "it's information".

He's the guy you should be talking to. And maybe Fritjof Capra too.

An "abstract" division, as you say, is enough for our purposes. — frank

I still owe most of my knowledge of IIT to you, but from what I understand, the purpose is to quantify what is required to achieve consciousness. But it seems they are abstracting an arbitrary aspect of the biological machinery, and quantifying that. They aren't taking account of all the brain stuff that isn't just neurons firing (the neuromodulators and so on), they are pretending that neurons are logic gates (which they aren't), and they aren't taking account of the essential involvement of the body beyond the brain.

Do you know of responses to such criticisms? Should I read the Scholarpedia page, or are you planning to post more?

You do see people saying "everything is information" or "everything is energy". That's the sort of theory that explains nothing.

But for you consciousness is different from that kind of function? We can't identify a body part that produces it? — frank

We can identify it in an abstract sense, but not in a practical sense, as we can with a manmade machine.

We have "brainoids" now, grown from adult human skin cells. But unless they are connected to sense organs, and yes, things like feet, they can't do what real brains do. There isn't anything for them to be conscious of.

We can take over the functions of the heart, lungs, and kidneys with machinery. Hospitals do it everyday. The patient can be wide awake while being supported in this way. So whether the body is modular or not, whether a human needs a liver, I think that's a side issue. — frank

There's a point here which I haven't yet properly expressed or thought through (which makes it interesting, to me anyway).

When the hospital takes over vital functions they are taking over something that's already in operation, that already has to be in operation for the person to be in a position to be conscious at all. We can't make the whole thing from scratch, using machinery.

And the brain can't be isolated from the rest of the body, it's enmeshed with the rest of the body. There's no sense in thinking about it operating in isolation, it would have nothing to operate with.

Or to look at it from another angle, feeling is primary.

But it's not like some sort of mystical fuzz. Is it? — frank

Why should it be? Why introduce the idea of mystical fuzz? Seems to me this is to accept the categorisations of cartesian dualism.

I don't see why it would need to recognize a pattern. — frank

And I don't see why the brain would need to recognise a pattern in information as @original 12 has suggested. A person can recognise a pattern, a brain can't (it's the homunculus fallacy).

Consciousness may not require a liver, let's say a lobster is conscious and doesn't have a liver, but the lobster or human does need to have the equipment to remain alive and...conscious. If the human hadn't had a liver to start with, it wouldn't have become conscious.

I do think the idea of the brain and body not being modular is an important one. They haven't been designed in the way we design machines. I don't know how much bearing this has on the maths side of it, that is completely beyond me. But if they are really equating neurons to logic gates, the maths is just meaningless I think. The actual mechanisms are so much more messy, plastic, multifaceted than binary logic gates.

Brains and bodies don't work by processing information. The brain works through things like neurotransmitters, neuromodulators, electrical impulses, wave-like phenomena. Calling all this "information processing" doesn't tell us anything more about what is happening.

"Patterns" is another troublesome concept @original2. Can we think about a relatively simple biological process to see why. Bacteria can swim towards a desirable stimulus (let's say some sugar) or away from a toxic chemical. It seems they would need to recognise a kind of pattern in the increasing or decreasing concentration of the chemical. But in fact we know every detail of the chemical process that achieves the directional swimming, and there's nothing left for "pattern recognition" to do.

The same is true of the more complex processes in the brain. It works through things like electrical impulses and so on, not pattern recognition.

Pattern recognition is something a person does, not their brain.

What does the embodied mind tell us @frank? I suppose it tells us that Tononi isn't seeing the whole picture?

I think the whole thing is scientifically naive. I was thinking about parts of the body that don't participate in consciousness, I thought of hair. But try stroking your hair.

Consciousness is embodied.

But there's no consciousness associated with your liver,

I still maintain that the relevant system is the entire body. The brain is not modular like a man-made machine (see above) and neither is the body. The brain relies on a supply of blood, and the liver plays a major role in providing that.

I only know what you've written here about IIT. I'm not at all sure what it is a theory of.

Is it to be implemented on a digital computer? You mentioned logic gates.

That would be a non-starter, as far as modelling the brain is concerned, for the reasons outlined above, and more. For example there are wave-like phenomena involving large groups of neurons, also what I think is called back-propagation, with impulses travelling both upstream and down.

But the relevant "system" is the whole body. As well as the neurons there is a blood supply, the biochemical bath the neurons are immersed in, the spine, the nervous system, the sense organs.

What interests me is what constitutes a "system". How is the boundary between the "inside" and the "outside" of the system established?

You can treat a neuron as a logic gate, but that's not what it is. Here are some reasons why not, taken from various sections of The Idea of the Brain by Matthew Cobb:

1. A neuron can secrete several different types of neurotransmitter into the synapse.
2. Even in a simple circuit each neuron is connected to many other neurons both by chemical synapses and by what are called gap junctions.
3. Neuronal activity can be altered by neuromodulators, neuropeptides and other compounds that are secreted alongside neurotransmitters and which function as relatively slow-acting mini-hormones, locally altering the activity of neighbouring neurons.
4. The activity of each neuron is affected not only by its identity (that is by the genes that determine its position and function), but also by the previous activity of the neuron.
5. Structures in the brain are not modules that are isolated from one another - they are not like the self-contained components of a machine...neurons and networks of neurons are interconnected and able to affect adjoining regions by changing not only the activity of neighbouring structures but also the patterns of gene expression.

I know this one, ask me sir!!

I cherish Mrs Daemon, QED.

This is enjoyable, thank you Frank. Off to beddybyes now.

I'm interested to see the axioms.

Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms? — Janus

Pluralism (philosophy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pluralism is a term used in philosophy, meaning "doctrine of multiplicity," often used in opposition to monism ("doctrine of unity") and dualism ("doctrine of duality"). The term has different meanings in metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and logic.

In metaphysics, pluralism is the doctrine that—contrary to the assertions of monism and dualism—there are in fact many different substances in nature that constitute reality.

In ontology, pluralism refers to different ways, kinds, or modes of being. For example, a topic in ontological pluralism is the comparison of the modes of existence of things like 'humans' and 'cars' with things like 'numbers' and some other concepts as they are used in science.

-----------------------------------------------

Is Pluralism a nothing-but-ism?

Well no doubt themes and ideas will emerge, but will they be good ideas? What will you get out of it? All I see is verbiage.

So the answer doesn't matter. That's what I think too.

What is it you want to know when you ask "what are we?". What would be a satisfactory answer? How would you know you were getting nearer the truth?

What would constitute a satisfactory answer to the question?

Soap operas and entertainment aren't trying to do philosophy though.

I think that many people do not even stop and consider the question of what are we? — Jack Cummins

Well done them! It's a stupid, vague and therefore pointless question, and generates the sort of nebulous waffle we see in the present discussion.

I find it both exhilarating and also terrifying that if one has to, in a sense, engage in true philosophy one must be willing to descend into the dark and unforgiving regions of the human psyche which are but outposts of Algea & Thanatos. — TheMadFool

Your psyche may be dark and unforgiving, mine is generally lighthearted and easy-going. I'd recommend avoiding Camus and other miseryguts authors.

People using different meanings are already muddying the discussion and causing misunderstanding. — T Clark

If you're talking about me, I was attempting to clarify the discussion, which has been muddy right from the start and is now only getting muddier. @Charles Ferraro began by talking about "consciousness", then switched to "self-consciousness", and now we've zoomed off on the downhill path leading inexorably to a messy collision with Sartre and his pretentious psychobabble.

This is my stop and I'm getting out.

Questions: But at what crucial point in the process does self-consciousness arise? And who experiences it? Were Neanderthals self-conscious in the same way and to the same degree as Homo Sapiens? What evolutionary purpose(s) does self-consciousness serve? — charles ferraro

To be self-conscious is to be excessively aware of oneself, to be unduly concerned with how others might perceive one's appearance or actions. That isn't what I am talking about.

I'm talking about consciousness, by which I mean feeling, hearing or seeing things.

I don't know when in the evolutionary process feeling, hearing and seeing arose. Neanderthals I'm sure could feel, hear and see, I am pretty sure fish can feel hear and see, maybe worms can.

What evolutionary purposes does being able to hear, see, feel have? Surely this is obvious? You can feel if you are too hot or too cold, see or hear predators or prey.

Consciousness, by which I mean feeling things, hearing things, seeing things and so on, is a development of non-conscious biological capabilities like "sensing". A bacterium is able to swim towards a desirable chemical in water, or swim away from an undesirable chemical. We understand every detail of how this is achieved and it is a biochemical process. Google "chemotaxis" to learn more.

The roots of the individual, personalised nature of our highly developed consciousness are here, and evolved billions of years ago. For the bacterium there is a "self" and an "other". Of course the bacterium has no awareness of this, but it's there. There's an "inside" and an "outside", delineated by the cell wall.

We are only responsible for our own individual contributions. Be the change you want to see.

There's a whole lot there to be unpacked. First of all, it's not going to help you or us get clear about thoughts and consciousness and the brain, if you use words for things you don't necessarily believe in, like soul. So let's have no more of that.

Then there's this "abstract approximation" stuff, the soul, the self and the mind are all abstract approximations. Well what does that mean? Is it possible to say what you mean without using abstract approximations?

Your ideas about thoughts coming from a source, which you think implies something beyond the physical brain...I'm still completely in the dark about why you think any of that. And why are you not convinced that consciousness and the brain are identical?

I feel that my thoughts seem like they are from some underlying source, such as that of a soul. — Jack Cummins

How would it feel if they weren't from some underlying source such as a "soul"? This was a serious question Jack. If you want to talk about "thoughts" then you need to get your own thinking straight. You don't want to be throwing out wild ideas about underlying sources like souls, unless there's some justification. So what it is about your thoughts that makes it seem like they are from some underlying source?

I feel that my thoughts seem like they are from some underlying source, such as that of a soul.

How would it feel if they weren't from some underlying source such as a "soul"?

Any particular branch of philosophy?

To some extent it's what you make it. What would you like it to be?

Hi Daniel, Can you give an example of a limit independent of reason? Actually, I suppose the speed of light is an example. Thanks!

Space and limits have different ontologies. Limits you might say are man-made, but space is whatever it is regardless of what we say about it.

It’s not my theory, it’s Darwin’s.

What?