Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
your mind is your most valuable tool
thinking you are your mind is your primary distraction
while you relinquish control, your mind ties up your energy and runs amok
so your mind is being kept busy with distractions
keeping your mind distracted is the primary method used by the controllers
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 7, 2018 - 10:05am PT
|
Ed and MH2 --- if you were to take up Jstan's challenge to look at what you just posted in terms other than linear causal, what might you find?
Also, some might find this conversation interesting per neurons, neural nets, etc:
 neurons are not linear.
neurons are not time-invariant.
neurons are not causal.
neurons and actual anatomical connectivity do not map well to electronics-inspired wiring diagrams. (see: dendritic arbor)
anatomical structure does not imply functional connectivity.
functional connectivity does not imply anatomy!
synaptic junctions respond more or less well to different neurotransmitters, all of which are continuously present, at different times. We don't know why.
So far, what we have observed about anatomy and physiology of the brain does not look like a RNN.
The relationship between the meat architecture and the phenomena it hosts may not be as 1:1 as you'd like. Opinions vary.
My favorite analogy about relating brains to consciousness is this: "if you believe that brains are like computers, (which you shouldn't, but just for the sake of argument, let's), then even if you really and truly produce a full map of the brain, what you've _got_ is the spec sheet for an x86 processor. What you _want_ is the user manual for Mac OS, or perhaps the kernel's source code."
> - neurons are not causal.
What does that mean?
[-]
the same input does not always produce the same output. IN fact it's guaranteed not to for at least three reasons:
repeatedly presenting the same input to a neuron has a response that depends on neurotransmitter reuptake rates. If the synapse isn't "recovered", you get a different spike rate out.
neurons fire stochastically in the absence of stimulus. Responses to small stimuli are indistinguishable from noise.
The above two phenomena propagate through connected series of neurons in a nonlinear way.
[-]
Right, but these properties don't make neurons acausal, it makes them stateful and sensitive to noise which is not explicitly modelled as an input in your view. You can model noise as a constant input variable.
Note how people cling almost desperately to preserve causality as the central mode of inquiry, even abandoning determinism if required.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
For example, nobody, no other conscious agent, can read your thoughts, feel you feelings, know your sensations themselves.
When I take some LSD or mushrooms I swear I almost can. Or maybe even more than almost.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Almost is NOT you can
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 7, 2018 - 11:01am PT
|
Wayno ... pretty much.
But it does beg the question: We all know we cannot directly observe consciousness itself as a 3rd person phenomenon - that is, none of us can observe another person's 1st person experience - so why is this simple fact so vigorously refuted? Using this fact as a starting point for investigation is not anti-science and is not a vote for neurobiology and biological physics to stop doing their work on brain function, which shows without a doubt the physical processes associated WITH consciousness. But it's a curious thing to see people doing all of these illogical gyrations involved in wanting to believe what they DO observe IS consciousness, as though complexity, structure, processing speed, the juxtapositioning of content, mirror neurons, quantum processing, various computations, etc. are identical to awareness itself.
Seems to be that if our consciousness and awareness clearly DOES exist withing our subjective bubble, and that awareness is capable of observing external objects like the brain, it is logical to run a two-pronged investigation, whereby data gathered both within and without the bubble would be crucial for the view in the round.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
Some time back I described an incident that occurred while in a hypnagogic state in which I shifted to another person's mind in another setting for a few brief moments. I don't recall much, other than being in a room, perhaps in Ireland, and feeling and seeing as the other person, in that gestalt. It was an astounding though fleeting adventure.
So, it is possible to experience the feelings and sensations of someone else, or so it would seem, as the brain once again obliges and produces an entertaining result.
How all of this could be explained through neuroscience is an open question. As John S said, we should look at things differently. But meditation might not be a path that leads to anything other than enjoying marvelous tricks of the brain. Or maybe not.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 7, 2018 - 11:19am PT
|
But meditation might not be a path that leads to anything other than enjoying marvelous tricks of the brain.
Hasn't been my experience with meditation. Fascination with the content of awareness swallows up years of practice for most people. It did for me, anyhow. But once you can detach from content, "tricks of the brain," and all content, become nothing more than background noise, like a dog barking in an alley. At that point the focus shifts from WHAT we are aware of (including channeling another person's experience, if that is what happened), to what the hell is being aware really about. This is when the teacher - if properly experienced - informs the student that no matter how august and rarefied the tricks of the brain, none of it is real. It's all just passing stuff, impermanent as clouds. Then comes the never-ending process of clarifying that awareness itself is not content, is not an impression OF something, is not an idea (which is content), is not a function that we learned, and is not a thing or phenomenon that "we only think" is this or that, because awareness is neither this, NOR that, both of which have qualities.
I harp on awareness because it is the key to the whole shebang, in my opinion. No awareness, no consciousness. You just have machine registration.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Without our even realizing it, we tend to embed our fundamental assumptions, axioms if you will, into the way we frame questions. What we think an open minded question, at least on a subliminal level, is just one more attempt to show our preconceived notions are CORRECT. When two persons with different fundamental assumptions converse, the subliminal conflict may occasionally have a chance to become visible. Let's attempt another reframing.
Rather than ask if Trump is right, how about this question. Has the US now shown it does not need to have a chief executive? That in turn leads one to ask if our problems arise because we have an unrealistic idea of what chief executives do?
At this point RIGHT versus WRONG discussions can yield nothing.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
The point, Ward, is that linear causation dominates our thinking, especially when trying to "explain" what mind is. For most, it is, IF BRAIN (A), then MIND (B). A came before B, and caused B.
And there is a good reason why causation has occupied an exalted position in the pantheon of the brain: it is an enormously useful instrumental abstraction in lowering the noise to signal ratio, when coupled with repeatability, as science does structurally, and the thinker does conceptually. A ball is pushed ,then it rolls off the table. Repeated, same outcome. This is one of the ways we can make sense of the universe.
No one should be faulted for applying the inductive capacity of causation when it comes to the brain: a climber falls, smacks his head, and thereafter his "mind" thinks he is Napolean Bonoparte. It is not a question of an inquirerer into this event as being "dominated" by such causative orthodoxy - rather as being compelled by a notably successful track record in trying to forge a enlightening relationship between a smack in the head and life afterwards as the Corsican corporal.
what might you look for beyond physical causes, and how might you do so? What questions might you ask?
Perhaps this is the moment you remove your arbiter posture and answer your own question.
Assume that in fact Ward has a nonlinear brain and therefore his brain is capable of resonating with such an answer-- presumably a non-physical origins of the mind-- which you are able to proffer with the inadequate strictures of the language we are all forced to employ.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 7, 2018 - 12:42pm PT
|
Ward, I wasn't seeking an apology for anyone using linear causation as a means to understanding Nature. As mentioned, this is not only how we think, but it has been exceptional in its ability to pull us out of the caves and into the modern world.
And I didn't repeat John's question only to have it turned back on me. But I'm game no matter.
For me, the most interesting part of this is to investigate the relationship, the back and forth, between brain and awareness, which is a fluid, if not seamless loop. I have always thought it useful to empirically show, in a way that was not debatable, that awareness itself, and the WHAT that we are aware of, is not observable from a 3rd person perspective, and that awareness itself is not identical with neuronal activity.
So the question is (for the moment): when you observe your own creative process while engaged in a brand new endeavor, what do you notice re the interface of awareness and brain function (which in my view, creates all the content of awareness)?
Grappling with this question takes us out of first assumptions and directly into empirical experience, and you answer from that perspective.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
we are all one
so of course we can share experiences and thoughts and feelings
it is only the overactive mind creating the illusion of separateness
this is a basic mental misunderstanding perpetuating much of this discussion
i am surprised that people who have shared a rope on climbs would think otherwise
drugs and other experiential contrivances can bust down mental barriers and give you a look at this for a while before the mind reacts to raise even more powerful barriers
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
that awareness itself is not identical with neuronal activity.
What are the non-neuronal elements ? And do you know where they are located locally or non-locally? And how do they function? Neurons employ mitochondrial energy derived from electrons-- what is the source or the nature of the energy for those components of awareness outside of awareness delivered by neurons?
It's okay if the answers are unavailable to the current state of human language.
In asking them I am not attempting to subject you to an orthodoxy buried within a polemic.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
Neurons employ mitochondrial energy derived from electrons-- what is the source or the nature of the energy for those components of awareness outside of awareness delivered by neurons?
This is a great question from the perspective of Newtonian physics ... which is the perspective driving much of this discussion.
The answer is elementary from the perspective of quantum physics ...
The material universe is all energy, and that is all it is ... vibrational wave forms propagating through energy fields ...
And all energy derives from consciousness.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
when you observe your own creative process while engaged in a brand new endeavor . . .
A tactic that seems bound to interfere with one's focus on a new task. I've tried this while doing math research and it is a hindrance to creativity. Do you watch yourself when you write an article? I'm assuming you are addressing a truly sophisticated inner process rather than simply talking to yourself, as I do all the time while looking for a breakthrough.
When you say "when you observe . . ." it appears you are engaging your I-consciousness, something you have been taught is a fabrication. If it is not "I" that is observing, is it empty awareness peeking out from the bed covers searching for an object?
My guess is this kind of introspection is a path towards mind that leads into a bramble patch. Let us know, however if you find something of value - anything of value. And, yes, What is value? Philosophical rambles.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
The Tale of Two Johns. Narrative. It is fun for me to see you two guys go back and forth. I can see both your points and then another John comes in and throws a wrench in the works and sparks fly again. You can't make this stuff up. I learn things on this thread but it's not what you guys are talking about.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
I learn things on this thread but it's not what you guys are talking about.
If you know what we are talking about, that's probably more than we know.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
The answer is elementary from the perspective of quantum physics ...
The material universe is all energy, and that is all it is ... vibrational wave forms propagating through energy fields ...
And all energy derives from consciousness.
Forget about physics for a bit and think about biology. You pretty much dismiss biology altogether in your worldview from what I can tell. Biology only makes sense in light of evolution. Evolution is a theory that is absolutely testable and has passed every time it's been tested so far. You can talk about mystical energy waves all you want, but biology leaves an historical record of the arrow of time in our human universe. Consciousness evolved to what it is, and human mind is a particular kind of consciousness. Human mind wasn't present first. Duh!
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
STDP induced synchrony in inhibitory neural networks: theory and experiments
Abstract
Gamma rhythms have been the focus of significant research interest within the neuroscience community in recent years [1]. Earlier theoretical studies focused on the question: how can a network of GABA containing neurons generate gamma oscillations? The findings suggest that for non-instantaneous synaptic events, inhibition rather than excitation is a better synchronizing mechanism for the generation of gamma rhythms [2]. Synchrony in inhibitory neural networks however is extremely sensitive to intrinsic heterogeneity in the network [3]. Based on the evidence for spike timing dependent plasticity (STDP) in inhibitory neurons [4,5], we hypothesize that STDP of inhibitory synapses can promote robust neural synchrony in inhibitory neuronal networks in the presence of heterogeneity. We investigate our hypothesis in a computational (Figure (Figure1a)1a) and a hybrid (Figure (Figure1b)1b) uni-directionally coupled network (UCI) of two fast-spiking inhibitory neurons. In the computational model, each neuron is modeled using the Hodgkin-Huxley (HH) framework [4]. Heterogeneity (H) is modeled by the difference in the intrinsic firing activity of the coupled neurons resulting from different DC current input. In the presence of STDP, the strength of synaptic coupling between the coupled neurons is modeled using a linear additive rule as: gs(t) = gs(t – 1) + ΔgSTDP(Δt), where Δt = tA – tB is the time interval between successive spikes of the post-synaptic and the pre-synaptic neurons and ΔgSTDP is the STDP rule adapted from [4]. In Figure Figure1a,1a, we demonstrate the effect of STDP on synchrony between coupled neurons in the presence of and the absence of STDP for network heterogeneity H=12%. Theoretical analysis using the concept of spike time response curves and Arnold tongue revealed that STDP induced 1:1 synchrony in the UCI network is (i) robust against a large range of heterogeneity in the intrinsic firing activity of coupled neurons, and (ii) in-phase i.e., Δt ≈ 0. Furthermore, the time to in-phase synchronization increases with increasing heterogeneity. Figure 1 a) Theoretical model of UCI. Autaptic synapse is introduced to mimic spike frequency adaptation in neuronal firing activity. b) Hybrid UCI network. Dynamic clamp experimental results for experimental protocol with fixed static-synaptic strength gs(0)=0.5 ... We used the dynamic clamp technique to construct a hybrid UCI network consisting of an HH based model of a inhibitory neuron coupled to a living inhibitory neuron in the stratum oriens of area CA1 of the hippocampus. Whole cell patch clamp recordings were obtained from the live cell under the following experimental protocols: (i) Fix H, vary the static synapse coupling strength gs(0) and (ii) Fix static synapse coupling strength gs(0) and vary H. In Figure Figure1b,1b, we present results from the second experimental protocol. We see that as predicted by our theoretical model, the time to in phase neural synchrony in the hybrid UCI network increases with increasing heterogeneity. We conclude that STDP of inhibitory synapses is a putative mechanism for robust neural synchrony in inhibitory neuronal networks.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
The way the brain works -- its neural network processing and higher processing centers will never get at the fundamental reason for consciousness. The fundamental reason for consciousness can't be consciousness itself -- or intelligence, which is something used by consciousness. It has to be something more fundamental. That more fundamental thing, I think, is the original evolutionary mandate from the first replicators -- build a better mousetrap that will result in more replicators. This is the first cause for biology. Human mind resulted from some branch on the tree of life that propagated from that original mandate.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
That more fundamental thing, I think,
Classic nonscience (scientism) as usual and proves that modern science is pure mental speculation with no actual real clue.
You people do it every time.
The absolute truth is never there only mental speculation and theories masquerading as knowledge.
You only have theories because you ultimate are totally clueless .....
Puny little defective gross materialists always masquerade themselves as authority.
The gross materialists never fully test any of their theories.
They only test to the limits of their own defective limited senses.
The whole foundation of their modern science is rooted in this defective method.
They are masquerading as god (authority) but end up just looking like a dog barking into the wind.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!