What is the definition of “I”? -- “I” is the software which runs on neural-network-HW

[Donn]

Line breaks. Use them.

What happens when the clusters require sub-clusters in order to maintain the hypothesis you hold? Is is clusters all the way down?

 

[Myriad]

Question for Myriad: And how exactly do “certain parts of my brain perform their function”? What is the underlying mechanism of “parts of my brain performing their function”? How does the brain “perform its function”? What processes happen during brain “performing its function”?

Neurons operate by pulse-frequency integration against a threshold. Networks of neurons perform the computation.

What you might be meaning to ask is how does this computation produce the "I" of conscious experience? I believe the key is the processing that renders sensory input and memory into narrative ("what's going on around me"). Given the presence of the self as an agent in that narrative (without which the narrative would be poor and incomplete), conscious experience results, must result, from that processing.

Have you ever wondered why verbal stories are so effective at conveying conscious experiences? Probably not; it's something we tend to take for granted. But the above suggests an answer: that stories are to conscious experience what rendered 2-D pictures are to visual processing of 3-D surroundings. That being, replication of the results of the early stages of effortless "hidden" processing.

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

Am "I" the interconnection configuration of the neurons in my brain (the closest thing they have to software)? No.
"I" am what results when certain parts of my brain perform their function. "I" happen at runtime.

Question for Myriad: And how exactly do “certain parts of my brain perform their function”? What is the underlying mechanism of “parts of my brain performing their function”? How does the brain “perform its function”? What processes happen during brain “performing its function”?

Neurons operate by pulse-frequency integration against a threshold. Networks of neurons perform the computation.

That is exactly correct – “networks of neurons perform the computation”.
”Performing the computation” is the job done by the software. Software performs computations. And that means that “I” is the software.

What happens when the clusters require sub-clusters in order to maintain the hypothesis you hold? Is is clusters all the way down?

Neurocluster Brain Model defines “I” as the software which runs on neural-network-hardware (i.e. on neurons of the brain).
When “I” is defined as software that means that “I-object” is a divisible object, it can be divided into many composing parts, just exactly in the same way as the large software program can be decomposed into smaller submodules/subroutines/functions/etc.
That means that large neuroclusters can be decomposed into smaller sub-clusters just exactly in the same way as the large software routines can be decomposed into smaller submodules/subroutines/functions/etc.

Even more, several neuroclusters might have overlapping areas and share the same sub-clusters just exactly in the same way as the large software routines can share the same calls into smaller submodules/subroutines/functions/etc.
As for example, several neuroclusters might share the access to the sensory input information coming from sensory organs (vision, hearing, etc) – this is the typical classic scenario. We will provide typical classic example of such case which is quite common among population. Man X has lost his keys and no matter ho hard he tries he is unable to find his keys. Then this man X goes to bed and in the dream he encounters some dream character (for example his grandfather who is already dead long time ago, or Jesus, or whatever else character) and this dream character tells him in the dream that “your keys are located in the place Y”. When man X wakes up and goes to the place Y he finds his keys in that place Y. He did not know where the lost keys were and grandfather/Jesus/etc told him the correct information. Man X is astonished that information from the dream was confirmed as true and he becomes strongly convinced that his grandfather/Jesus/etc has visited him from spiritual world – that is the only explanation that he is capable to conclude. However the real underlying mechanism of this event is different. When man X was physically nearby his lost keys the main personality missed and did not notice the keys in the visual field. However another autonomous neurocluster (which has access to the same visual field) did notice the keys and has remembered its location. During the dreaming process this autonomous neurocluster can transfer information about the keys to the main personality in the form of dream character telling where keys are located. Hundreds and thousands of such cases happen around the globe everyday.

Second, the bit quoted above; if the ideomotor effect would be controlled by neuroclusters completely independent of what you call the "main personality of the dowser", it would be hard to explain how the actual conscious knowledge of the dowser can determine when the dowsing rod bends. In dowsing tests, there's typically a preliminary test where the dowser is allowed to know in advance where the water (or whatever is being dowsed for) is located, to test that his dowsing rod "works" to his satisfaction. In these cases, ideomotor effect confirms the dowser's expectation, and the rod bends at the correct location.

Swordfishtrombone’s question about the dowser is answered and explained in this post above. Autonomous neurocluster (which moves the rod) can share access to the same knowledge base as the main personality (actually this is a very common typical scenario). And then based on that knowledge autonomous neurocluster moves the rod without any awareness and any involvement of the main personality.

 

[Donn]

It all sounds a little .. trite. Convenient. The metaphor you deploy, software and its structures, is a neat fit for whatever may be composed of parts that function together in concert to produce some whole.

I don't find it explains anything in a deep sense, but perhaps it does. I've no special learning in biology, but does your cluster idea have any predictions? i.e. Can you predict behaviour under given inputs according to your idea, and also mention how that could be blindly tested and repeated?

 

[dudalb]

Dammit, this thread has made me want to go see "Inside Out" again.....

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

Consciousness is the electro-chemical activity of the brain.

Simple question for the Swordfishtrombone: the consciousness is a 1) divisible object, or 2) indivisible object?
The feature divisibility/indivisibility is the most fundamental feature of the object, because it instantaneously reveals the fundamental flaws in the definition of the object.
So, what is your answer: the consciousness is a 1) divisible object, or 2) indivisible object?

When “consciousness” is defined as indivisible object then this model of “indivisible-consciousness” is totally incapable to explain real world experimental facts – it is incapable to explain the underlying mechanisms of mediumship, psychography, telepathy and all other occult/religious phenomena. And then what is left is simple denial of the existence of all these occult/religious phenomena. However these phenomena do exist and can be verified by reproducible experiments – one such example was provided in previous posts about conducting “spiritualistic séance” using thread with the attached needle method – anybody who wants can carry out these reproducible experiments to check out whether this phenomenon exist or not.
The denial of the phenomena is not the solution because the denial provides no explanation why so many people claim to have experienced various religious and occult phenomena. Instead of denial the scientific explanation of underlying mechanisms is needed.

When “I” is defined as software, when “I” is defined as divisible object then all these occult/religious phenomena become easily explained – and that is the fundamental practical difference from “indivisible-consciousness” model.

It all sounds a little .. trite. Convenient. The metaphor you deploy, software and its structures, is a neat fit for whatever may be composed of parts that function together in concert to produce some whole.
I don't find it explains anything in a deep sense, but perhaps it does. I've no special learning in biology, but does your cluster idea have any predictions? i.e. Can you predict behaviour under given inputs according to your idea, and also mention how that could be blindly tested and repeated?

Donn is correct – Neurocluster Brain Model is very convenient, because it easily solves a whole bunch of previously-unsolvable-problems regarding the underlying nature of various occult/religious phenomena.

I don't find it explains anything in a deep sense, but perhaps it does. I've no special learning in biology, but does your cluster idea have any predictions? i.e. Can you predict behaviour under given inputs according to your idea, and also mention how that could be blindly tested and repeated?

Yes, of course Neurocluster Brain Model is able to make testable predictions.
One of such testable predictions was described in previous posts: if you will carry out experiments of “spiritualistic séances” using thread with the attached needle method on statistically large sample of people (acting as mediums) then some percentage of these people will get induced sleepwalking incidents which can be easily detected by observing these people during their night sleep. That is reproducible predicted outcome result and anybody who wants can reproduce it.

Consciousness is the electro-chemical activity of the brain. Electro-chemical activity is a material thing. Even your comparison with the running of software actually better fits with pure materialism than any imagined middle-state between materialism an immaterialism of religious ideas.
Software doesn't run by itself; it runs in a computer. A software running on a computer is the electric activity of the components of that computer, nothing else. The electric activity is a purely materialistic process.
So nothing at all in your ideas expounded here on what the "I" is goes against pure materialism, unless you define materialism to mean something that no materialist would be willing to identify as their view.

Thirdly, I don't see at all how - even if we were to think that the ideomotor effect works isolated from the "main personality" - that would in any way imply anything other than a materialist conception of brain processes, as briefly described in my previous post.

Explanation is bellow.
Neurocluster Brain Model is strictly scientific model.
Usually people by default automatically associate the word “scientific” with the word “materialistic”, usually people assume by default that “scientific” is equal to “materialistic” – however, if strictly speaking this assumption is not correct.
There are scientific fields (as for example: information theory and computer science) which deal only with pure information and do not deal with material objects.
It is important to note that Neurocluster Brain Model describes all processes in the brain from the information processing point of view. All objects/terms used in the dictionary of Neurocluster Brain Model (like “main personality”, “egregor”, “dream characters”, etc) actually denote information objects which have more of less equivalents in computer science like “software”, “program”, “routine”, “subroutine”, “function”, “procedure”, etc.
And this raises an interesting technical question: Neurocluster Brain Model is a materialistic model or not? The answer depends on how you answer the question: information is matter or not? Information cannot exist without a material carrier, however information itself is not a matter.

 

[Kid Eager]

Okay, so you have formed a hypothesis and given it a cool name.

You have asserted that current science is wrong because etymology.

Now produce the evidence.

PS. Please instruct whatever personality that is in charge of punctuation and formatting, to pick up its game.

 

[dlorde]

...In other words, according to barehl, intelligence is defined via consciousness, and consciousness is defined via intelligence.
As we can clearly see, this definition is recursive, in other words, it is pointing to itself. --> "To define recursion, we must first define recursion."

This is clearly a Wittgensteinian problem, in that we know what we mean by consciousness through shared experience, but can't adequately describe it through analogy.

But if you're comfortable defining it as an illusion (I see what you're getting at, but surely you see the irony of a conscious being defining consciousness as an illusion and then rejecting recursive definitions?), then I'm comfortable with an even tighter recursive definition - consciousness is the capacity to believe one is conscious

 

[tsig]

The most fundamental existential question is “who am I?” – the same question rephrased in more scientific way is “what is the definition of “I”?”.
If we answer this question incorrectly then all our subsequent actions in our life are meaningless.

Let's do simple thought experiment. Suppose I am sitting in the room and I cut off my one leg and throw it out the window, and now the question – where I am left: inside the room or outside the window? The answer is obvious – I am in the room and not outside the window, which means that the location of “I” is not in the leg which was cut off. Now let’s cut off the arm and throw it out the window, and now the question – where I am left: inside the room or outside the window? The answer is obvious – I am in the room and not outside the window, which means that the location of “I” is not in the arm which was cut off. In the same way we can cut off other parts of the body and throw them out the window as well, we can replace all internal organs with artificial ones (artificial heart, etc) throwing original organs out the window, and every time when we cut off some piece of my body and throw these pieces out the window – “I” still remains in the room and not outside the window. Some people think that “I” is located in the neurons of the brain. Well, theoretically we can replace a single original natural neuron by artificial neuron which has exactly the same functionality as the original natural neuron – in that case “I” will remain unchanged. Then we can replace the second original natural neuron by artificial neuron, then we can replace the third neuron, the fourth neuron, and so on – even when all neurons in the brain will be replaced by artificial neurons – the “I” will remain unchanged.
So what is “I”, where “I” is located? Neurocluster Brain Model provides the answer to this question.

Neurocluster Brain Model defines “I” (a.k.a. “spirit”, “soul”, “consciousness”, etc) as the software which runs on neural-network-hardware (i.e. on neurons of the brain).
“I” is not the material neurons themselves however “I” is the software which runs on neural-network-hardware. “I” can be cloned/copied or ported to another hardware and can successfully run on another hardware even when the first hardware is physically destroyed – exactly in the same way as the computer program can be cloned/copied or ported to another hardware. Thus, periodical transferring of “I-software” to another new hardware provides unlimited existence time (a.k.a. “immortality”).

And this raises an interesting technical question: this definition of “I” is a materialistic or not? The answer depends on how you answer the question: information is matter or not? Information cannot exist without a material carrier, however information itself is not a matter.

More detailed description is at the address:
http://neuroclusterbrain.com

What happens when you cut off your head and throw it out the window?

 

[Myriad]

”Performing the computation” is the job done by the software. Software performs computations. And that means that “I” is the software.

"'Performing a symphony' is the job done by the symphony orchestra. Orchestras perform symphonies. And that means that 'The 1812 Overture' is the orchestra."

Nope. The performer is not the performance (the thing performed).

 

[Kid Eager]

Performing a computation is done by hardware, according to software instructions. Sheesh, back to basics...

 

[barehl]

In other words, according to barehl, intelligence is defined via consciousness, and consciousness is defined via intelligence.
As we can clearly see, this definition is recursive, in other words, it is pointing to itself. --> "To define recursion, we must first define recursion.

Your reading comprehension seems to be impaired; you might want to get that checked out. What I actually said was:

However, the ability to manipulate abstractions to create derivative inferences is intelligence.

This was my definition of intelligence. It is easy for most people to see that it is not based on consciousness.

Apparently the part that is confusing you is:

To the best of my knowledge, there are no organisms that have intelligence without consciousness.

That was a statement of association. Again, most people would be able to read this and see that I didn't limit consciousness to intelligence or intelligence to consciousness. I can write at a lower reading level if this is required. What grade level would be appropriate?

Consciousness in organisms is a continuous monitoring and optimization of personal actions by means of intelligence within the constraints of the environment.

Consciousness in organisms uses intelligence. I can try to work out a theoretical definition that would include AI. Again though, what reading level should it be written in?

By the way, the argument you were trying to make was that I was making a circular argument, not a recursive one. Apparently you aren't really familiar with recursion either.

 

[barehl]

Barehl, please provide us the exact list of exact criteria (the list of exact features) which would allow unambiguously determine if object X has consciousness.

Again, since you are having trouble understanding what I write, please list the characteristics of object X. For example, does it have communication ability? Does it have memory? Can it manipulate abstractions?

And now the second question for the barehl: the consciousness is a 1) divisible object, or 2) indivisible object?

Tell me clearly what you mean by divisible.
Do you mean that you could have two half consciousnesses or four one quarter consciousnesses?
Or do you mean division into functional parts?
Or do you mean some kind of scale of consciousness?

To try to help you understand, I can give examples.

An engine is made of functional parts. However, one engine cannot be divided into two working engines. On a scale there are engines with one cylinder, two cylinders, four cylinders, etc.

There are varying degrees of consciousness from territorial fish to reptiles to mammals. However, you could not divide a mammal brain and get two fish consciousnesses.

 

[barehl]

Barehl claims that he believes that “consciousness is purely materialistic”. Well…, barehl can believe anything he wants, however that is pure faith, that is not science.

You seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding what I write. You in fact claimed that having children was a direct result of a belief in materialism. How did you forget that when critiquing my response?

provide at least one proof that you yourself have “consciousness”.

To be completely honest with you I'm thinking that anything I write is lost on you. However, others here can probably understand what I write. A good starting point is a fairly simple test of autism spectrum disorder.

John loaned a book on the history of cars to his friend Steve.
Steve noticed that the pages in the chapter on 1930's cars were worn.
Steve was visited by his friend Ryan who had never met John.
Steve took Ryan to meet John.
John asked if Steve and Ryan wanted to see his model cars.
Ryan said, "I'll bet they are 1930's cars."
Why did Ryan say this?

A person with autism is unable to figure this out. This seems to be a good starting point for human level intelligence. Now, let me guess; you are going to complain that this is a test of intelligence rather than consciousness even though you already claimed that I defined consciousness as intelligence. You can still make this assertion if you admit that you were intentionally misreading my earlier definition. There are in fact ways of determining consciousness separately from intelligence.

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

Performing a computation is done by hardware, according to software instructions. Sheesh, back to basics...

That is exactly correct – “a computation is done according to software instructions”.
Without “software instructions” computation is impossible by definition. You need have “software instructions” in order to do computation.
“I-software” processes information incoming from sensory inputs (and also processes information stored in the knowledge database) and “I-software” produces some output (contractions of muscles, speech generation, finding solution to problem X, etc).
And that means that “I” is the software.

Question: why do we claim that “I” is the software and not the “hardware”?
The answer is very simple. You can shut down information processing (turn off information processing) in the computing machine’s hardware – and in this case you will have still exactly the same hardware, however this hardware is completely “silent” – “I” has vanished and disappeared.
In electric computers the shut down of information processing can be done by turning of the electricity. In biological brain the shut down of information processing can by done by injecting special drugs/chemicals.

=======================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wada_test
The Wada test, also known as the "intracarotid sodium amobarbital procedure" (ISAP) is used to establish cerebral language and memory representation of each hemisphere.
The test is conducted with the patient awake. Essentially, a barbiturate (which is usually sodium amobarbital) is introduced into one of the internal carotid arteries via a cannula or intra-arterial catheter from the femoral artery. The drug is injected into one hemisphere at a time. The effect is to shut down any language and/or memory function in that hemisphere in order to evaluate the other hemisphere ("half of the brain"). Then the patient is engaged in a series of language and memory related tests. The memory is evaluated by showing a series of items or pictures to the patient so that within a few minutes as soon as the effect of the medication is dissipated, the ability to recall can be tested.
=======================

 

[Donn]

Software is only a quixotic expression of a chained set of logic gates. A calculator has no software because it needs to do only one task; its logic is directly on the board. The circuit is the software burned into place.

Software is not a result, it's a factor. To call the "I" software is to mistake an engine for the petrol.

I know of no science that reveals actual opcodes and data being fetched by neurons or processed.

It does not follow that there is software in the brain as well as the stuff already there.

Can you point to the source code? Where does it wait? Can one disassemble the data to produce mnemonics for study?



Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

I know of no science that reveals actual opcodes and data being fetched by neurons or processed.

Bellow is homework reading for Donn. Just search with google for keyword “brain–computer interface” (a.k.a. “BCI”) and you will find out more.

=======================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain–computer_interface
A brain–computer interface (BCI), sometimes called a mind-machine interface (MMI), direct neural interface (DNI), or brain–machine interface (BMI), is a direct communication pathway between the brain and an external device. BCIs are often directed at assisting, augmenting, or repairing human cognitive or sensory-motor functions.
<…>
Miguel Nicolelis, a professor at Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina, has been a prominent proponent of using multiple electrodes spread over a greater area of the brain to obtain neuronal signals to drive a BCI.
After conducting initial studies in rats during the 1990s, Nicolelis and his colleagues developed BCIs that decoded brain activity in owl monkeys and used the devices to reproduce monkey movements in robotic arms. Monkeys have advanced reaching and grasping abilities and good hand manipulation skills, making them ideal test subjects for this kind of work.
By 2000 the group succeeded in building a BCI that reproduced owl monkey movements while the monkey operated a joystick or reached for food. The BCI operated in real time and could also control a separate robot remotely over Internet protocol. But the monkeys could not see the arm moving and did not receive any feedback, a so-called open-loop BCI.
Later experiments by Nicolelis using rhesus monkeys succeeded in closing the feedback loop and reproduced monkey reaching and grasping movements in a robot arm. With their deeply cleft and furrowed brains, rhesus monkeys are considered to be better models for human neurophysiology than owl monkeys. The monkeys were trained to reach and grasp objects on a computer screen by manipulating a joystick while corresponding movements by a robot arm were hidden. The monkeys were later shown the robot directly and learned to control it by viewing its movements. The BCI used velocity predictions to control reaching movements and simultaneously predicted handgripping force. In 2011 O'Doherty and colleagues showed a BCI with sensory feedback with rhesus monkeys. The monkey was brain controlling the position of an avatar arm while receiving sensory feedback through direct intracortical stimulation (ICMS) in the arm representation area of the sensory cortex.
<…>
Other laboratories which have developed BCIs and algorithms that decode neuron signals include those run by John Donoghue at Brown University, Andrew Schwartz at the University of Pittsburgh and Richard Andersen at Caltech. These researchers have been able to produce working BCIs, even using recorded signals from far fewer neurons than did Nicolelis (15–30 neurons versus 50–200 neurons).
Donoghue's group reported training rhesus monkeys to use a BCI to track visual targets on a computer screen(closed-loop BCI) with or without assistance of a joystick. Schwartz's group created a BCI for three-dimensional tracking in virtual reality and also reproduced BCI control in a robotic arm.[20] The same group also created headlines when they demonstrated that a monkey could feed itself pieces of fruit and marshmallows using a robotic arm controlled by the animal's own brain signals.
Andersen's group used recordings of premovement activity from the posterior parietal cortex in their BCI, including signals created when experimental animals anticipated receiving a reward.
=======================

 

[Donn]

Just search with google for keyword “brain–computer interface” (a.k.a. “BCI”) and you will find out more.

How does adding a computer to a brain help your case?

Your response does not follow.

 

[neuroclusterbrain]

Software is only a quixotic expression of a chained set of logic gates. A calculator has no software because it needs to do only one task; its logic is directly on the board. The circuit is the software burned into place.
Software is not a result, it's a factor. To call the "I" software is to mistake an engine for the petrol.

That is exactly the reason why we have named our model as “Neurocluster Brain Model” – the “cluster of neurons” is a material tangible object, so it is much easier for common people to grasp the idea.
Let’s suppose that we would had named this model something like “Neurosoftware Brain Model” – in that case it would be instantaneous resistance among common people who would immediately start to attack: “what software? are you nuts? brain has no software! etc”
“Software” is an abstract object, and many common people have huge troubles in solving problems which require abstraction capabilities.
So much better name is “Neurocluster Brain Model” – in that case common people ponder: “neurons? cluster of neurons? oh yes, indeed, the brain is composed of neurons. yeah, good, ok”.

Okay, so you have formed a hypothesis and given it a cool name.

That is exactly correct – we “have formed a hypothesis”, a scientific testable hypothesis which can be verified by reproducible experiments. And we have named it as “Neurocluster Brain Model”, using the etymology which would be easy for common people to understand.
The advantage of “Neurocluster Brain Model” is that it is able to explain and reveal the underlying nature of occult/religious phenomena.
“Neurocluster Brain Model” is the ultimate tool/weapon to deal with superstitious claptrap of occultists/pseudoscientists – feel free to use this tool and crush these occultists/pseudoscientists to dust.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Bellow is homework reading for Donn. Just search with google for keyword “brain–computer interface” (a.k.a. “BCI”) and you will find out more.
<snip>

There, a source code is created as a translation of the activity of the neurons. I don't think that means that this code is somehow the basis for how the neurons operate, much like the alphabet is not the basis of how language functions, it's a way of facilitating communication.

Compare this, where the neural network of a nematode was copied into a (LEGO) robot body. No programming, no software, just a replica of the sensors and neural pathways the original has. Turns out it acts just like the real thing. There's no secret source code, no subliminal software, the worm behavior, the "I", arises from the way the network is structured.