Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

Studies of mental functions, behaviors and the nervous system.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#921  Postby kennyc » May 21, 2014 4:17 pm

zoon wrote:
kennyc wrote:And of course the perspective and approach Michio presents in the opening video and in his book is where we need to restart because consciousness has been completely taken to the wrong and non-scientific approach by the speculation.

You're welcome to be 'reasonable sure' of whatever you like but that's exactly what got us to this idiotic place of misunderstanding what consciousness is and it's reason for being. I encourage you to read up on it. ;)

I've explained everything that need to be explained about my perspective on awareness, consciousness and self-awareness and even how that related to thermostats (and their consciousness) so don't be upset if I refuse to play your little game of going around the block again. I would invite you to reread this and the other threads where I've clearly and concisely explained this. It is not up for debate.

In the opening video Michio Kaku gives this definition of consciousness:

Michio Kaku wrote:Consciousness is the number of feedback loops required to create a model of your position in space with relationship to other organisms and finally with relationship to time.

I’m quoting from posts #74, #118, and #482 from this thread as representative of your views. If you don’t agree, please expand on why.

kennyc #74 wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:Now obviously we will have an entirely different feel from the thermostat. But then our 'feels' are continuously different even from ourselves.


How can a thermostat feel? .....


Wrong question. A more proper question as indicated in the context of the video and in the instances where I have brought it up is in comparing the function of a thermostat to the function of consciousness. They are both feedback systems, monitoring and providing information and potential for action or corrective action. Is that not what 'feelings' do?


kennyc #118 wrote:…You first have to understand what a feedback loop/system is and then you have to recognize that that is exactly the function of consciousness, in the same manner as a thermostat is in its system.

It has nothing to do with what you think of as subjective experience, but certainly a thermostat is aware of and senses the environment and makes conscious decisions based on that experience/awareness/sensation. So yes it does 'model' its environment its 'mind' even as simple as it is.


kennyc #482 wrote:.....There was not a 'time' when consciousness came into existence, it is “a fundamental component of all living things” beginning at least with awareness of boundary, chemical and electrical potentials .... but even beyond that perhaps to naked viruses and dna precursors ability to chemically identify and acquire needed 'nutrients' to grow, multiply, etc.

You and Michio Kaku are both using a definition of “consciousness” which is entirely different from that of scientists who are studying consciousness. Quoting from the Wikipedia entry on “consciousness” which you took your working definition from in post #916 of this thread:

Wikipedia wrote:Experimental research on consciousness presents special difficulties, due to the lack of a universally accepted operational definition. In the majority of experiments that are specifically about consciousness, the subjects are human, and the criterion that is used is verbal report: in other words, subjects are asked to describe their experiences, and their descriptions are treated as observations of the contents of consciousness.[69] For example, subjects who stare continuously at a Necker cube usually report that they experience it "flipping" between two 3D configurations, even though the stimulus itself remains the same.
.......
Although verbal report is in practice the "gold standard" for ascribing consciousness, it is not the only possible criterion.[72] In medicine, consciousness is assessed as a combination of verbal behavior, arousal, brain activity and purposeful movement. The last three of these can be used as indicators of consciousness when verbal behavior is absent.[76] The scientific literature regarding the neural bases of arousal and purposeful movement is very extensive. Their reliability as indicators of consciousness is disputed, however, due to numerous studies showing that alert human subjects can be induced to behave purposefully in a variety of ways in spite of reporting a complete lack of awareness.

That quote from Wikipedia makes it clear that scientists who study consciousness are studying humans, and specifically humans who are capable of giving verbal reports. There is a grey area where people may behave apparently purposefully without being able to report verbally, but anyone who is, for example, unconscious as a result of having been administered anaesthetic does not count as conscious or aware, even though many of the cells of that person’s body are still as actively responsive to external stimuli as any amoeba.

When you or Michio Kaku talk of thermostats or flowers having units of consciousness, you are using the word in an entirely different sense from that in use in current research.

Of course, just because you are using the word in a different way from the neuroscientists who are studying consciousness, doesn’t mean that you are talking nonsense, only that you cannot call on those researchers to support your views. Almost certainly, human consciousness (whether illusory or otherwise) with verbal reports evolved gradually from single-celled creatures, and it’s also the case that feedback loops are heavily involved in both systems. Those statements, however, are extremely vague and general. In particular, what GrahamH and I are saying is entirely compatible with both of those statements: modelling oneself evolved slowly, without saltations, and lots and lots of feedback loops are involved. In that respect, GrahamH and I are not contradicting what you are saying, we are merely attempting to add some of the details which are relevant to human awareness. Both you and Michio Kaku, in the quotes I’ve given above, speak of consciousness as involving the creation of models, why do you regard self-modelling as necessarily incompatible with your view?


You are wrong - as I've explained. You are the one that has a 'special sauce' definition and approach to consciousness. I've also explained my approach and understanding multiple time and will not go round that block again. You are welcome to reacquainting yourself with my numerous posts on the topic in this thread and others. I'm not discussing it with you further because you are the one that doesn't understand the field. I'm not here to debate it. But I will continue to point out errors in you and other's understanding as I come across them.

Michio in the opening video -- which is a small introduction to his approach -- is revisiting, rebooting and attempting to restart the field from a more fundamental perspective in order to drop the baggage and bullshit which has been built around it since before Descartes. He says that in the video. It's really quite simple. You and others need to drop the baggage and begin to learn beyond your narrow approach to the field.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#922  Postby zoon » May 21, 2014 7:32 pm

kennyc wrote:Michio in the opening video -- which is a small introduction to his approach -- is revisiting, rebooting and attempting to restart the field from a more fundamental perspective in order to drop the baggage and bullshit which has been built around it since before Descartes. He says that in the video. It's really quite simple. You and others need to drop the baggage and begin to learn beyond your narrow approach to the field.

You are including among the “others” the majority of scientists working in the field, I’m happy to be classified alongside them.

Googling Michio Kaku’s recent book “The Future of the Mind”, he doesn’t seem to think that feedback loops are incompatible with modelling as a feature of human consciousness, including the likelihood of our simulating ourselves for self-awareness:

From a review of “the Future of the Mind” by Michio Kaku, on amazon 23rd Jan 2014:
According to the author, consciousness is a process of creating a model of the world using multiple feedback loops in various parameters (spacetime, temperature, pressure and in relation to others) to find friends, food, shelter, and other survival necessities. Level 0 consciousness that exist among plants which doesn't have nervous structure but responds to heat, light and pressure. Level-1 consciousness exists at the lower side of evolution where the central nervous system is primitive (brain structure: brain stem) and reacts only in space but not time (no sense of past or future). Level-2 consciousness that exists among mammalian systems where the nervous system is evolved (brain structure: limbic system) which has a well-defined social structure. Level-3 consciousness exists only in humans where the brain structures consists of prefrontal cortex, and operate in space and time, especially future: Feedback loops evaluate the past and simulate the future. It follows from this that self-awareness is creating a model of the world and simulating the future in which you appear.


A quote from The Future of the Mind, on Goodreads:
“Gossiping is essential for survival because the complex mechanics of social interactions are constantly changing, so we have to make sense of this ever-shifting social terrain. This is Level II consciousness at work. But once we hear a piece of gossip, we immediately run simulations to determine how this will affect our own standing in the community, which moves us to Level III consciousness.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3230

Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#923  Postby zoon » May 21, 2014 7:32 pm

Double post
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3230

Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#924  Postby zoon » May 22, 2014 7:39 am

kennyc #903 wrote:Theory of mind is bullshit when it comes to consciousness. Consciousness is BUILT UPON awareness.
The theory of mind bullshit is something way and far removed from awareness and layered on top of consciousness and self-consciousness in a context of survival and social interaction.

I don't know how to say it any more clearly than I have. If you have PROOF, EVIDENCE, or even RATIONAL REASONING that TOM comes or came before consciousness then let's see it,…

“Consciousness” as you and Michio Kaku are using the term (and as it is generally used) takes for granted, as a foundational assumption, that any conscious system, however simple (including thermostats), is goal-directed. Thermostats sense the temperature in order to control it, a flower senses gravity and light in order to grow upwards and photosynthesise its food. Awareness is an inherently teleological (goal-directed) concept. By contrast, modern science since Newton rejects teleology as a foundational concept, this is a basic difference from Aristotle and mediaeval theology, which took for granted that ultimate explanations are in terms of goals, either “final ends” (Aristotle) or the will of God (theologians).

So the concept of awareness or consciousness which you and Michio Kaku are using is a prescientific one, but it’s one which feels very natural and simple to all of us. We have no trouble in thinking that a flower has the goal of growing upright, or a reptile has the goal of catching prey, even though the mechanisms involved are (in modern scientific terms) very complex. (Thermostats are mechanistically simple enough, but their goal-directedness comes from the brains of their human designers, which are anything but simple.)

I am not claiming that the Theory of Mind (ToM) mechanisms in our brains are simple, or that they came before the sensory systems of, for example, reptiles – on the contrary, they are among the most recently evolved parts of the human brain. My claim is that “awareness” and “consciousness” are not among the foundational concepts of modern science, but they feel intuitively simple and foundational to us because human brains have the evolved ToM processes which enable us to predict other people rapidly and easily.

I am claiming that Theory of Mind is basic to the explanation of consciousness because it is the reason we automatically think of consciousness as simple, when in modern scientific terms it isn’t. I am not claiming that the ToM mechanisms in our brains evolved before other sensory systems.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3230

Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#925  Postby DavidMcC » May 26, 2014 3:46 pm

Late post on Ame's room illusion. Here is a correct explanation of the illusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ames_room.svg
Unfortunately, no 2D image comes with this one, so it does not provide the complete answer.
The "3D" explanatory diagram previously linked by GrahamH is wrong, because it would make the girls of different actual sizes on the image, so that the size effect would not be an illusion.

EDIT: Sorry about that. As you were...
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#926  Postby DavidMcC » May 26, 2014 4:09 pm

... I can't get the video embedded in the Wiki page to run, but it looks like that is also going to be wrong, as it makes the rear wall appear rectangular, not trapezoidal! :doh: :(
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#927  Postby DavidMcC » May 30, 2014 4:56 pm

Graham, as I seem to be unable to send PMs at the moment without special permission, I am responding to your PM in the thread. Hope that's OK, but I have no alternative.
I think there is, indeed, much similarity between the Mueller-Lyer illusion and the Ame's room illusion. I satnd by my previous position that the posted examples are not illusions at all, as the figures really are of very different heights on the screen. By definition, that means there apparent height difference would not be an illusion at all.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#928  Postby GrahamH » May 30, 2014 5:15 pm

DavidMcC wrote:Graham, as I seem to be unable to send PMs at the moment without special permission, I am responding to your PM in the thread. Hope that's OK, but I have no alternative.
I think there is, indeed, much similarity between the Mueller-Lyer illusion and the Ame's room illusion. I satnd by my previous position that the posted examples are not illusions at all, as the figures really are of very different heights on the screen. By definition, that means there apparent height difference would not be an illusion at all.


I was trying to be helpful, but if you prefer to ignore every example and explanation of the Ames Room illusion and 'stand by my [contrary] previous position' you are only going to remain looking foolish.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#929  Postby DavidMcC » May 30, 2014 6:37 pm

GrahamH wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:Graham, as I seem to be unable to send PMs at the moment without special permission, I am responding to your PM in the thread. Hope that's OK, but I have no alternative.
I think there is, indeed, much similarity between the Mueller-Lyer illusion and the Ame's room illusion. I satnd by my previous position that the posted examples are not illusions at all, as the figures really are of very different heights on the screen. By definition, that means there apparent height difference would not be an illusion at all.


I was trying to be helpful, but if you prefer to ignore every example and explanation of the Ames Room illusion and 'stand by my [contrary] previous position' you are only going to remain looking foolish.

:scratch:
How is ignoring the simple fact that images that really are different sized are not different by illusion supposed to be "helpful"?
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#930  Postby DavidMcC » May 30, 2014 6:40 pm

... A better example of the Ame's room type of illusion is the one in which two cars are shown on a road that goes into the distance.The one shown further "up" the road looks bigger, but they are actually the same size. Sorry I haven't got time to search for an image of that one. I saw it her a few years ago, when the subject of optical ilusions was better covered on the internet than it is now.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#931  Postby GrahamH » May 30, 2014 6:50 pm

DavidMcC wrote:...I saw it her a few years ago, when the subject of optical ilusions was better covered on the internet than it is now.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#932  Postby DavidMcC » Jun 01, 2014 3:20 pm

GrahamH wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:...I saw it her a few years ago, when the subject of optical ilusions was better covered on the internet than it is now.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry about the two typos (especially the "her" instead of "here"). Maybe that was what made you laugh. :dunno:
Otherwise, your post does not make sense, unless you are using it as a cover for not having an answer to my point that the Ame's room "illusion" images are so defective that they are not even illusions, and anyhow contradict the written descriptions of the illusion on the very same pages.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#933  Postby kennyc » Jun 06, 2014 9:07 pm

I finally got Michio's book from the library. Woo-Hoo! Will be reading it as time allows. Thought you'd like to know even though as you all know this thread shot its wad many many many pages back. :lol:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#934  Postby GrahamH » Aug 07, 2014 1:48 pm

Recently uploaded to YouTube - Kaku's 'Space time theory of consciousness'.



He's actually describing intelligence or 'easy problem' cognition rather than 'hard problem consciousness', but it's reasonable as far as it goes. Note references to self modelling and the significance he gives to social models. One small step further with that and he could address subjectivity, sensation etc.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#935  Postby SpeedOfSound » Aug 07, 2014 1:55 pm

So reptiles have space consciousness A. Mammals add social and other layers B. Humans add time and a few more things maybe C.

Do you get that humans have A+B+C? So A is still part of human consciousness?
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32086
Age: 70
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#936  Postby GrahamH » Aug 07, 2014 2:18 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:So reptiles have space consciousness awareness A. Mammals add social and other layers B. Humans add time and a few more things maybe C.

Do you get that humans have A+B+C? So A is still part of human consciousness?


'A' is part of human intelligence, of course.

I don't think awareness of time / temporal ordering / casuation is limited to humans. Corvids, cetaceans and apes, maybe others, seem pretty good at that.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#937  Postby SpeedOfSound » Aug 07, 2014 3:21 pm

GrahamH wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:So reptiles have space consciousness awareness A. Mammals add social and other layers B. Humans add time and a few more things maybe C.

Do you get that humans have A+B+C? So A is still part of human consciousness?


'A' is part of human intelligence, of course.

I don't think awareness of time / temporal ordering / casuation is limited to humans. Corvids, cetaceans and apes, maybe others, seem pretty good at that.

Missed my point a bit.
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32086
Age: 70
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: Quantified Consciousness - Michio Kaku

#938  Postby GrahamH » Aug 07, 2014 4:01 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:So reptiles have space consciousness awareness A. Mammals add social and other layers B. Humans add time and a few more things maybe C.

Do you get that humans have A+B+C? So A is still part of human consciousness?


'A' is part of human intelligence, of course.

I don't think awareness of time / temporal ordering / casuation is limited to humans. Corvids, cetaceans and apes, maybe others, seem pretty good at that.

Missed my point a bit.

What is your point?
Is A, B or C 'consciousness'? As described they are all cognitive functions, not subjectivity.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Previous

Return to Psychology & Neuroscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest