NEUROHACKS| 18 August 2014
How to speak the language of thought

We are now beginning to crack the brain’s code, which allows us to answer such bizarre questions as “what is the speed of thought?”

When he was asked, as a joke, to explain how the mind works in five words, cognitive scientist Steven Pinker didn't hesitate. "Brain cells fire in patterns", he replied. It's a good effort, but all it really does is replace one enigma with another mystery.

It’s long been known that brain cells communicate by firing electrical signals to each other, and we now have myriad technologies for recording their patterns of activity – from electrodes in the brain or on the scalp, to functional magnetic resonance scanners that can detect changes in blood oxygenation. But, having gathered these data, the meaning of these patterns is still an enduring mystery. They seem to dance to a tune we can't hear, led by rules we don't know.

Neuroscientists speak of the neural code, and have made some progress in cracking that code. They are figuring out some basic rules, such as when cells in specific parts of the brain are likely to light up depending on the task at hand. Progress has been slow, but in the last decade various research teams around the world have been pursuing a far more ambitious project. We may never be able to see the complete code book, they realised, but by trying to write our own entries, we can begin to pick apart the ways that different patterns correspond to different actions.

Albert Lee and Matthew Wilson, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) first helped to set out the principles in 2002. It progresses like this. First, we record from the brain of a rat – one of our closer relatives, in the grand tree of life – as it runs a maze. Studying the whole brain would be too ambitious, so we can focus our recording on an area known as the hippocampus, known to be important for navigation and memory. If you've heard of this area before it is probably because of a famous result which showed that London taxi drivers developed larger hippocampi the longer they had spent navigating the streets of England's sprawling capital.

Macdoc wrote:This should be a sticky since the philowibble crowd can't seem to grasp the idea

NEUROHACKS| 18 August 2014
How to speak the language of thought

We are now beginning to crack the brain’s code, which allows us to answer such bizarre questions as “what is the speed of thought?”

When he was asked, as a joke, to explain how the mind works in five words, cognitive scientist Steven Pinker didn't hesitate. "Brain cells fire in patterns", he replied. It's a good effort, but all it really does is replace one enigma with another mystery.

It’s long been known that brain cells communicate by firing electrical signals to each other, and we now have myriad technologies for recording their patterns of activity – from electrodes in the brain or on the scalp, to functional magnetic resonance scanners that can detect changes in blood oxygenation. But, having gathered these data, the meaning of these patterns is still an enduring mystery. They seem to dance to a tune we can't hear, led by rules we don't know.

Neuroscientists speak of the neural code, and have made some progress in cracking that code. They are figuring out some basic rules, such as when cells in specific parts of the brain are likely to light up depending on the task at hand. Progress has been slow, but in the last decade various research teams around the world have been pursuing a far more ambitious project. We may never be able to see the complete code book, they realised, but by trying to write our own entries, we can begin to pick apart the ways that different patterns correspond to different actions.

Albert Lee and Matthew Wilson, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) first helped to set out the principles in 2002. It progresses like this. First, we record from the brain of a rat – one of our closer relatives, in the grand tree of life – as it runs a maze. Studying the whole brain would be too ambitious, so we can focus our recording on an area known as the hippocampus, known to be important for navigation and memory. If you've heard of this area before it is probably because of a famous result which showed that London taxi drivers developed larger hippocampi the longer they had spent navigating the streets of England's sprawling capital.

more
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2014081 ... ughts-form

When we have the ability to work out what movies people have watched, simply by processing the electrical and blood flow data, it's game over for magic.

Macdoc wrote:

When we have the ability to work out what movies people have watched, simply by processing the electrical and blood flow data, it's game over for magic.

of course the next step is wetware melding between brain and external neural nets running compatible software.

Calilasseia wrote:Then of course, we have those scientific papers I've presented previously, demonstrating that far from being an unfathomable mystery, human thought is now an active area of scientific research. Papers such as the one devoted to determining which movies had been watched by various experimental subjects. Of course, various members of the magic-addled crowd tried to pretend that the results from these papers were purportedly meaningless, in order to continue maintaining a rather sad attachment to magic, but the anachronistic preference for magic is not merely being rendered irrelevant by research such as this, it's being consigned to extinction. When we have the ability to work out what movies people have watched, simply by processing the electrical and blood flow data, it's game over for magic.

jamest wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Then of course, we have those scientific papers I've presented previously, demonstrating that far from being an unfathomable mystery, human thought is now an active area of scientific research. Papers such as the one devoted to determining which movies had been watched by various experimental subjects. Of course, various members of the magic-addled crowd tried to pretend that the results from these papers were purportedly meaningless, in order to continue maintaining a rather sad attachment to magic, but the anachronistic preference for magic is not merely being rendered irrelevant by research such as this, it's being consigned to extinction. When we have the ability to work out what movies people have watched, simply by processing the electrical and blood flow data, it's game over for magic.

Nobody [with views similar to my own] has ever denied the correlative relations between particular observed brain states and particular thoughts/feelings/sensations/etc.. The problem is that proving that certain mind-states are always associated with certain observed brain-states does not prove that said mind-states are caused by said brain-states. This should be fucking obvious, otherwise there would be no reason why I couldn't say that the aforementioned associations proved that the conscious mind caused all corresponding observed brain-states associated with its particular thoughts/feelings.

What's always missing when I review threads such as this, is any acknowledgement from the atheists/materialists that there is a TWO-way causal relationship between conscious sensations/thoughts/feelings and observed brains. Certainly, we should all know from personal experience just how much potential our abstract thoughts and associated feelings have to effect significant bio-chemical changes in both the brain and body. For instance, consider how many times you've become angry by religious viewpoints, or any viewpoints. Indeed, our history is riddled with war caused by opinion. Your subjective opinions are here instrumental in effecting significant changes within your body.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Then of course, we have those scientific papers I've presented previously, demonstrating that far from being an unfathomable mystery, human thought is now an active area of scientific research. Papers such as the one devoted to determining which movies had been watched by various experimental subjects. Of course, various members of the magic-addled crowd tried to pretend that the results from these papers were purportedly meaningless, in order to continue maintaining a rather sad attachment to magic, but the anachronistic preference for magic is not merely being rendered irrelevant by research such as this, it's being consigned to extinction. When we have the ability to work out what movies people have watched, simply by processing the electrical and blood flow data, it's game over for magic.

Nobody [with views similar to my own] has ever denied the correlative relations between particular observed brain states and particular thoughts/feelings/sensations/etc.. The problem is that proving that certain mind-states are always associated with certain observed brain-states does not prove that said mind-states are caused by said brain-states. This should be fucking obvious, otherwise there would be no reason why I couldn't say that the aforementioned associations proved that the conscious mind caused all corresponding observed brain-states associated with its particular thoughts/feelings.

Right. Correlation is all we ever get. If someone comes along with proof or evidence that something else is actually causal then we adopt that view. But!!! It REQUIRES proof and evidence before said adoption occurs.

What's always missing when I review threads such as this, is any acknowledgement from the atheists/materialists that there is a TWO-way causal relationship between conscious sensations/thoughts/feelings and observed brains. Certainly, we should all know from personal experience just how much potential our abstract thoughts and associated feelings have to effect significant bio-chemical changes in both the brain and body. For instance, consider how many times you've become angry by religious viewpoints, or any viewpoints. Indeed, our history is riddled with war caused by opinion. Your subjective opinions are here instrumental in effecting significant changes within your body.

Presumptive in your paragraph here is that mind or thought is apart from the physical changes in the brain.

Once you accept that it's physical all the way down

Back to the first paragraph. What's always missing when I review threads such as this, is any acknowledgement from the theists/idealists that they have no proof or evidence of any other causal connection. That they don't even have a proper model and can't answer the simplest questions either.
You have your work cut out for you squire.

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Then of course, we have those scientific papers I've presented previously, demonstrating that far from being an unfathomable mystery, human thought is now an active area of scientific research. Papers such as the one devoted to determining which movies had been watched by various experimental subjects. Of course, various members of the magic-addled crowd tried to pretend that the results from these papers were purportedly meaningless, in order to continue maintaining a rather sad attachment to magic, but the anachronistic preference for magic is not merely being rendered irrelevant by research such as this, it's being consigned to extinction. When we have the ability to work out what movies people have watched, simply by processing the electrical and blood flow data, it's game over for magic.

Nobody [with views similar to my own] has ever denied the correlative relations between particular observed brain states and particular thoughts/feelings/sensations/etc.. The problem is that proving that certain mind-states are always associated with certain observed brain-states does not prove that said mind-states are caused by said brain-states. This should be fucking obvious, otherwise there would be no reason why I couldn't say that the aforementioned associations proved that the conscious mind caused all corresponding observed brain-states associated with its particular thoughts/feelings.

Right. Correlation is all we ever get. If someone comes along with proof or evidence that something else is actually causal then we adopt that view. But!!! It REQUIRES proof and evidence before said adoption occurs.

The ONLY evidence of anything comes in the form of sensation/thought/feeling (give Descartes a round of applause). So you're screwing yourself up the arse by suggesting that the ONLY evidence of anything is of a physical reality. A very naive and erroneous mistake made by people who refuse to question their agenda. You can lead a horse to water...
...

by suggesting that the ONLY evidence of anything is of a physical reality.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Before you wooists get your panties in a bunch this thread suggested correlations between thought and the brain. Hence cracking the code. No one said a fucking thing about cause.

If you hear a buzzing in your ear and you feel a tickle in your ear then you see a mosquito fly out of your ear this could very well be correlated with the mosquito in your ear. One could postulate that the cause of the buzzing in your ear was the Great Mosquito Man in the sky. But I think one has to do a little proving first. Maybe it's just me.

SafeAsMilk wrote:It's just you, boss. Just because you can detect that mosquito, and just because you can repeatedly detect that mosquito, and just because other people can detect that mosquito too, doesn't mean the mosquito exists. It's probably just an experience in your brain. Therefore, God.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Still stalling?

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Still stalling?

Have you seen Reservoir Dogs? I'm Mister Blonde, cutting off the policeman's ear.

Calilasseia wrote:

jamest wrote:
Nobody [with views similar to my own] has ever denied the correlative relations between particular observed brain states and particular thoughts/feelings/sensations/etc.. The problem is that proving that certain mind-states are always associated with certain observed brain-states does not prove that said mind-states are caused by said brain-states.

The mere fact that such a correlation is established, tells us that it's more than mere coincidence. Or didn't you work out this elementary concept, before rushing to post the usual wibble?

If certain thoughts are demonstrated to be present when specific clusters of neurons are firing, and demonstrated in addition to be absent when those clusters of neurons are not firing, it's pretty good evidence that the firing of those clusters of neurons produces those thoughts.

Once again, go and learn some actual neuroscience.