Is the internet conscious of itself yet ?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Which topic ? There were a few bundled together there ...

Scientism as a social phenomenon

 

[apophenia]

Scientism as a social phenomenon

No. Just personal observation over the forty years or so that it has interested me. It was Weizenbaum's book which really alerted me to it, before the term was coined (to my knowledge).

But if I have inspired you to consider it then I am pleased, because I think it is a huge subject.

The only remarks I have ever read about it were those of Weizenbaum and Dr Manfred Clynes, and I can't cite Dr Clynes' references for you unfortunately. Apart from that, a lama I studied with made some remarks about it (in fact that was the first time I ever heard the term, in 1994). I had asked him a question about whether he thought the contemporary scientific models of mind/brain could be incorporated to teach dharma in the west ( I was of the opinion that they could be easier to grasp and maybe more appropriate than the traditional sanskrit terms used to describe features of consciousness, particularly the five skandhas). His answer included the remark that such usage would only encourage deeper attachment to scientism, or something like that, which prompted my interest in the phenomenon.

After spending a lot of time reading science vs religion debates on myspace and here, I realised that it is a significant social development with serious ramifications.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No. Just personal observation over the forty years or so that it has interested me. It was Weizenbaum's book which really alerted me to it, before the term was coined (to my knowledge).

But if I have inspired you to consider it then I am pleased, because I think it is a huge subject.

The only remarks I have ever read about it were those of Weizenbaum and Dr Manfred Clynes, and I can't cite Dr Clynes' references for you unfortunately. Apart from that, a lama I studied with made some remarks about it (in fact that was the first time I ever heard the term, in 1994). I had asked him a question about whether he thought the contemporary scientific models of mind/brain could be incorporated to teach dharma in the west ( I was of the opinion that they could be easier to grasp and maybe more appropriate than the traditional sanskrit terms used to describe features of consciousness, particularly the five skandhas). His answer included the remark that such usage would only encourage deeper attachment to scientism, or something like that, which prompted my interest in the phenomenon.

After spending a lot of time reading science vs religion debates on myspace and here, I realised that it is a significant social development with serious ramifications.

Thanks. I'll look up the two you mentioned. You might be interested in the works of Kuhn, Quine, and perhaps in particular Feyerabend.

 

[apophenia]

It is very nice to discuss this with them they are a wealth of information. Something I would note is that organisms have awareness without brains, like jellyfish. I would think that replicating a neuron is next to impossible as we don't yet have the technology to get that micro yet. However consciousness isn't necessarily about reproducing a brain. My field is heavy in networking and programming and I've found that there is always more than one way to skin a cat. The problem usually isn't how to do it but the best most efficient way to do it.

It seems to me that there have been lots of valuable developments, from Prolog-style AI through massive parallelism, neural nets, fuzzy logic etc, and we are still scratching the surface of what those technologies might achieve, especially in combination. What I have not seen is any suggestion of a paradigm which could result in self-organised general learning.
Computing is still waiting for its Einstein in that regard.

As for consciousness, perhaps we simply mean different things.

I can imagine some kind of fusion of brain and machine. In fact I have at least one idea which I think could be very worthwhile to investigate, but I am only an interested layman with limited computing skills and resources and only a few decades of active life remaining (probably, unless I can access the next generation of anti ageing drugs !).

On the subject of cyborgs (cybernetic organisms), that is a term originally coined by Dr Manfred Clynes. In regard to imbuing machines with recognisable emotional forms, he is the man to read.

He has written software which can adjust the micro-timing and dynamics of musical phrases produced by computers, such that they have authentic emotional characteristics. His field of study in that regard is called sentics.I think you would find it very interesting.

In the early 1990s I read his warning that our natural animistic tendencies plus sentics posed a novel threat to humanity, because it opened up the possibility of machines with persuasive 'charisma' ( machines which employ natural language processing and synthetic speech). I recommend you read his work. He is a classic 'renaissance man', trained in neurophysiology, computing and music. Some of his other experiments with brainwaves and perception are amazing.

It is the combination of 'persuasive machines' employing sentic forms, plus animism plus the mindset of scientism that makes me shudder and worry for my grandchildren and their children. Propaganda will be very subtle indeed ... and embedded in entertainment. Operant conditioning via entertainment will probably make political propaganda as we know it obsolete. Pixar are well down that road ...

That is what I am exploring in this debate - how 'primed' is the population for that kind of development.

 

[apophenia]

Thanks. I'll look up the two you mentioned. You might be interested in the works of Kuhn, Quine, and perhaps in particular Feyerabend.

Thank you. I will follow that up. Hopefully they will be comprehensible to a layman ! A quick glimpse at the wikipedia entries indicates that I would be interested in reading them.

BTW.. regarding the Weizenbaum book, most of it is an explanation of how a computer actually computes, using an idealised Turing machine as the model, simply to indicate the lack of any structure which would relate to consciousness. It is only in a short appendix that he makes his philosophical/social analysis. The book is downloadable.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thank you. I will follow that up. Hopefully they will be comprehensible to a layman ! A quick glimpse at the wikipedia entries indicates that I would be interested in reading them.

BTW.. regarding the Weizenbaum book, most of it is an explanation of how a computer actually computes, using an idealised Turing machine as the model, simply to indicate the lack of any structure which would relate to consciousness. It is only in a short appendix that he makes his philosophical/social analysis. The book is downloadable.

I would start out with Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I think it is compreensible to the layperson. Also, the book A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-positivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour is a good survey of the philosophy of science and epistemology.

Do you have a link for Weizenbaum's book?

 

[apophenia]

BTW idav, I am interested to hear your opinion on my ideas of the emergence of the social phenomenon of scientism.

You were involved in many debates on myspace R&P, so I know you are well versed in the contemporary religion vs science arguments.

Do you agree with my assertion that there is evidence of people taking on 'scientism' for reasons which are more social than strictly scientific ?

Some are perhaps just anti-religious for whatever reason, others like to appropriate the 'credibility' of siding with science against superstition, still others are technophiles who associate science with a modern lifestyle.

But I am mainly referring to the belief that science can and will make total sense of a life which may otherwise feel mysterious, threatening or 'messy' . i.e in the way many people use religion.

Do you get where I am coming from ? I assume that by now you realise that I hold science in high regard, and irrational belief is not something I value. But have you noticed anything like what I am referring to as the new fundamentalism ( i.e. a belief which is not necessarily the result of understanding and discipline) ?

Just curious, because both on myspace and here, it seems that there is evidence for people using science as a psychological crutch in the way that some use religion. ( Which is an entirely different proposition from the validity of science).

Your thoughts ?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Neurons send input to other neurons in very much the same manner that we use binary to a machine that has to be translated.

Even if true, don't you see the fallacy in that reasoning? WE create programs which determine how binary operations in a computer occur. Who determines the operations of neurons? Who or what translates it, and who understands the translation?

But regardless, this is simply completely false. Neurons send information in ways completely differently from binary code. A single neuron requires dynamical models involving fuzzy set theory just to understand how it sends an electrical signal. And this signal isn't even the information. The 0 or 1 of a bit IS the complete amount of information that the bit can convey. The neuron CAN'T rely on binary switches like this, because it isn't binary. See here.

Yeah I know it is different and but it doesn't make the way the brain does it any better. The similarity as I described above is that the neuron isn't holding any real images or sounds. It isn't recording like off of a tape just like there aren't literally images on a hard drive.

You are missing the point. A computer can only store a specific sequence of data streams we hear as music. It can't understand "music." All the bits in a computer do nothing other than store data like words in a book. I can write musical notes on a page and record sounds on a computer.

But bits work nothing like neurons, nor are they capable of awareness in any shape or form which doesn't destroy the meaning of the word. Bits are either on or off. What determines wheter they are in one state of another is a different device switching the this state. The bits don't interact at all. They are determined by something else we control. Neurons are connected in extremely complex ways, A single neuron can receive input from many, many, other neurons. But none of this determines when it might fire.

More importantly, as I said before, the firing itself isn't the 0's and 1's of a computer. In a computer, that's what stores the data. In the brain, the firing itself is nothing. Simplistically, the frequency of firing is the data. That isn't anything like a computer. Each bit is either on or off, and that's the information capacity it has. A single neuron is vastly more complex, receiving input from so many others and comunicating not via binary code but by vastly more complex methods.


You keep comparing these things. Again, I have to ask, on what are you basing your understanding? If you are privy to sources I'm not aware of, I would very much appreciate you sharing them. I've spent some time studying this (making it into a career), and if I'm missing something you've come across I would really like to hear it.

Again it doesn't have to do it the same way the brain does it, it just needs the same end result ie cognition.

That's true. But so far, no other system comes remotely close.

 

[apophenia]

I would start out with Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I think it is compreensible to the layperson. Also, the book A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-positivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour is a good survey of the philosophy of science and epistemology.

Do you have a link for Weizenbaum's book?

Try here, Computer Power and Human Reason, they have lots of his work. You need to set up an account with them, and I think they only have an excerpt, but from the page numbers I'd say it's his conclusions which are the interesting part.

Amazon have it of course, only hardcopy, but very cheap used copies as well.

I tried one link that claims to have the whole book , but got a security warning about the site.

 

[idav]

BTW idav, I am interested to hear your opinion on my ideas of the emergence of the social phenomenon of scientism.

You were involved in many debates on myspace R&P, so I know you are well versed in the contemporary religion vs science arguments.

Do you agree with my assertion that there is evidence of people taking on 'scientism' for reasons which are more social than strictly scientific ?

Some are perhaps just anti-religious for whatever reason, others like to appropriate the 'credibility' of siding with science against superstition, still others are technophiles who associate science with a modern lifestyle.

But I am mainly referring to the belief that science can and will make total sense of a life which may otherwise feel mysterious, threatening or 'messy' . i.e in the way many people use religion.

Do you get where I am coming from ? I assume that by now you realise that I hold science in high regard, and irrational belief is not something I value. But have you noticed anything like what I am referring to as the new fundamentalism ( i.e. a belief which is not necessarily the result of understanding and discipline) ?

Just curious, because both on myspace and here, it seems that there is evidence for people using science as a psychological crutch in the way that some use religion. ( Which is an entirely different proposition from the validity of science).

Your thoughts ?

Yeah there is a lot of focus on materialism as the means for gaining knowledge. This has been an issue for a while and a book I've been reading gets into that a little bit, the tao of physics. It's an older book but still relevant. We often get caught up in one of extremes of science or religion.

 

[idav]

Even if true, don't you see the fallacy in that reasoning? WE create programs which determine how binary operations in a computer occur. Who determines the operations of neurons? Who or what translates it, and who understands the translation?

But regardless, this is simply completely false. Neurons send information in ways completely differently from binary code. A single neuron requires dynamical models involving fuzzy set theory just to understand how it sends an electrical signal. And this signal isn't even the information. The 0 or 1 of a bit IS the complete amount of information that the bit can convey. The neuron CAN'T rely on binary switches like this, because it isn't binary. See here.

It is these spikes that I see in terms of binary. On off switches, spike or no spike. Granted a neuron has tens of thousands of these so it is quite complex. Still the neuron firing is sending on or off signals as a message. There isn't really an image of a red car in the neuron nor is there one in a computer. The message is translated and projected by having the message decoded.

 

[PolyHedral]

Who determines the operations of neurons? Who or what translates it, and who understands the translation?

The laws of physics, and nothing. Why must there be understanding?

You are missing the point. A computer can only store a specific sequence of data streams we hear as music. It can't understand "music." All the bits in a computer do nothing other than store data like words in a book. I can write musical notes on a page and record sounds on a computer.

The entire field of data structure design disagrees with you. A rather complicated problem in compiler design is actually getting the computer to understand "high-level" language well enough to translate it into a more basic language. Once you can define what exactly mean by "understanding" music, it's entirely possible for a computer to do it.

But bits work nothing like neurons, nor are they capable of awareness in any shape or form which doesn't destroy the meaning of the word. Bits are either on or off. What determines wheter they are in one state of another is a different device switching the this state. The bits don't interact at all. They are determined by something else we control. Neurons are connected in extremely complex ways, A single neuron can receive input from many, many, other neurons. But none of this determines when it might fire.

A neuron firing is most definitely determined by its connections to others; what else could it be determined by?

More importantly, as I said before, the firing itself isn't the 0's and 1's of a computer. In a computer, that's what stores the data. In the brain, the firing itself is nothing. Simplistically, the frequency of firing is the data. That isn't anything like a computer. Each bit is either on or off, and that's the information capacity it has. A single neuron is vastly more complex, receiving input from so many others and comunicating not via binary code but by vastly more complex methods.

It only takes a finite amount of bits to store the activity of a neuron perfectly. They're functionally identical, even if they differ in "implementation."

You keep comparing these things. Again, I have to ask, on what are you basing your understanding? If you are privy to sources I'm not aware of, I would very much appreciate you sharing them. I've spent some time studying this (making it into a career), and if I'm missing something you've come across I would really like to hear it.

You can imagine a (small) Turing machine, and calculate with it, and so therefore your brain must be at least as powerful as it. However, real computers (which are Turing-equivalent, although they do not fit Turing's model exactly) can simulate physics, and by extension the brain, so therefore must be the same "type" as the brain. The only way that can be true is that they are equal in "power;" that is, they are two different forms of the same underlying mechanisms.
(Please note that in CS theory, the power of a machine isn't directly to its hardware. A CPU with 1MB of memory can obviously simulate less than one with 1GB, but they both use the same method, and so therefore are the same power.)

 

[idav]

But regardless, this is simply completely false. Neurons send information in ways completely differently from binary code. A single neuron requires dynamical models involving fuzzy set theory just to understand how it sends an electrical signal. And this signal isn't even the information. The 0 or 1 of a bit IS the complete amount of information that the bit can convey. The neuron CAN'T rely on binary switches like this, because it isn't binary. See here.

Also I forgot to ask this question on my last post. How does a neuron use fuzzy logic when it is using spikes which are on and off as a huge part of the communication process? How do the spikes relate to fuzzy logic? That is quite a document you posted and will take a while to digest.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The laws of physics, and nothing. Why must there be understanding?

I was pointing out the inadequacy of the analogy.

The entire field of data structure design disagrees with you. A rather complicated problem in compiler design is actually getting the computer to understand "high-level" language well enough to translate it into a more basic language.

"Understand" meaning "capable of processing" is NOT understanding in they way people who study "understanding" use the term, from A.I. researchers to psychologists.

A neuron firing is most definitely determined by its connections to others; what else could it be determined by?

I didn't say it wasn't, although there is some question about that. The following is from a paper in the edited volume The Re-Emergence of Emergence (Oxford University Press, 2006). However, the paper may also be found here. There are theories (including quantum theories of mind, and I provided some links before to papers expaining some of these) which argue that neural configuration (firing patterns) are not controlled by other neurons alone:
"A more dramatic example of mind– brain causation comes from the world of neurophysiology. Recent work by Max Bennett (Bennett and Barden, 2001) in Australia has determined that neurons continually put out little tendrils that can link up with others and effectively rewire the brain on a time scale of twenty minutes! This seems to serve the function of adapting the neuro-circuitry to operate more effectively in the light of various mental experiences (e.g. learning to play a video game). To the physicist this looks deeply puzzling. How can a higher-level phenomenon like ‘experience’, which is also a global concept, have causal control over microscopic regions at the sub-neuronal level? The tendrils will be pushed and pulled by local forces (presumably good old electromagnetic ones). So how does a force at a point in space (the end of a tendril) ‘know about’, say, the thrill of a game?"

However, that is a more extreme claim. What I meant was lots of input into a neuron may still not push it to its "fuzzy" threshold.

It only takes a finite amount of bits to store the activity of a neuron perfectly. They're functionally identical, even if they differ in "implementation."

Which neurocomputational model are you using?

The only way that can be true is that they are equal in "power;" that is, they are two different forms of the same underlying mechanisms.
(Please note that in CS theory, the power of a machine isn't directly to its hardware. A CPU with 1MB of memory can obviously simulate less than one with 1GB, but they both use the same method, and so therefore are the same power.)

That was the position of classical cognitive science. The implementation matters, not the hardware. That's no longer the dominant view in the field.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It is these spikes that I see in terms of binary.

But the spikes, unlike binary bits, do not constitute information flow.

Also I forgot to ask this question on my last post. How does a neuron use fuzzy logic when it is using spikes which are on and off as a huge part of the communication process? How do the spikes relate to fuzzy logic? That is quite a document you posted and will take a while to digest.

Neurons have different thresholds (the "naturally" have a negative charge). When the electrical charge rises to a certain point, the neuron fires. This point is "fuzzy." That is, it is not well-defined for a single neuron, and differs from neuron to neuron.

 

[idav]

But the spikes, unlike binary bits, do not constitute information flow.

Why wouldn't it? Then how is data transferred?

Neurons have different thresholds (the "naturally" have a negative charge). When the electrical charge rises to a certain point, the neuron fires. This point is "fuzzy." That is, it is not well-defined for a single neuron, and differs from neuron to neuron.

Ok but this doesn't change the fact that when a neuron fires it is sending spikes or non-spikes. You don't even need a negative charge to do it is would just either send the charge or not.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why wouldn't it? Then how is data transferred?

First, not all neurons fire spikes, some fire bursts. Second, "The discussion to this point has focused on information carried by single neurons, but information is typically encoded by neuronal populations...Synchronous firing of two or more neurons is one mechanism for conveying information" (Theoretical Neuroscience, 2001, MIT press). Third, oscillating thesholds, spike latency, switching from in integrator to a resonator, and a lot of other things constitute the mechanisms of data transference. However, much more simplistically, you can think of the data not as a spike or burst itself, but the frequency of spikes. Very simplistically, one bit might be a spike train with a particular frequency, and another a different frequency. A lot of other things come into play, but the point is the single spike conveys on its own no information. Other neurons which receive the information respond to to the spikes but to things like the frequency of spikes in a spike train. That's (again, simplistically) the "bit."

 

[idav]

First, not all neurons fire spikes, some fire bursts.

What is the difference there?

Second, "The discussion to this point has focused on information carried by single neurons, but information is typically encoded by neuronal populations...Synchronous firing of two or more neurons is one mechanism for conveying information" (Theoretical Neuroscience, 2001, MIT press).

This doesn't change what I've said. I understand this which is similar to a raid system for hard drives so one can go down without losing the information. Complex but still comparable.

Third, oscillating thesholds, spike latency, switching from in integrator to a resonator, and a lot of other things constitute the mechanisms of data transference. However, much more simplistically, you can think of the data not as a spike or burst itself, but the frequency of spikes. Very simplistically, one bit might be a spike train with a particular frequency, and another a different frequency. A lot of other things come into play, but the point is the single spike conveys on its own no information. Other neurons which receive the information respond to to the spikes but to things like the frequency of spikes in a spike train. That's (again, simplistically) the "bit."

Sure but "frequency" of spikes is how often and how quickly etc. Frequency doesn't mean the neurons have to distinguish different levels of spikes does it? I understand that more or less power can be used but it still at the basic level is dependent on the spike pattern in combination with one or several neurons. I know the spikes don't convey information because it has to be translated into something useful. Just like ones and zeros don't have any info per se.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What is the difference there?

Go to page 289 in the document I provided. There's a graphic which illustrates the difference.

This doesn't change what I've said. I understand this which is similar to a raid system for hard drives so one can go down without losing the information. Complex but still comparable.

The point is that synchronization involves a single "bit" coming from multiple neurons. That isn't possible with a computer.

Sure but "frequency" of spikes is how often and how quickly etc. Frequency doesn't mean the neurons have to distinguish different levels of spikes does it?

Actually they distinguish between a lot more. But I'm stripping most of that away. Think of it this way-

Morse code involves two types of "spikes" as it were. Long and short (neuronal spikes are more complex but that's not important here). Morse code was used to send messages in english. Each letter corresponded to a particular sequence of dashes and dots. Alone, a dash or a dot is meaningless. The unit of information is composed of 5 elements (the dot, dash, and three different latencies). It's quinary, not binary. The neural "bits" are even more complex.

 

[idav]

Go to page 289 in the document I provided. There's a graphic which illustrates the difference.

Fascinating but do the bursts have anything to do with actual information being sent or is it just residual-current causing dysfunction? I noticed it said something about the neuron having to recover. I've heard that only the spikes are actually saying something.

The point is that synchronization involves a single "bit" coming from multiple neurons. That isn't possible with a computer.

I don't know that I agree with this. What are you describing as a bit. In a stanford lecture I watched on youtube they said that even with the multiple cells that send the potentials, each cell is giving a unique piece of the puzzle and I described a way we already do this with computers for redundancy purposes. Sure it takes the team of neurons to determine which ones should fire but each neuron is unique even if they are doing the same functionality in a certain region of the brain. Is this inaccurate?

Actually they distinguish between a lot more. But I'm stripping most of that away. Think of it this way-

You have to strip a way a lot to get to the fundamentals of how a neuron holds information.

Morse code involves two types of "spikes" as it were. Long and short (neuronal spikes are more complex but that's not important here). Morse code was used to send messages in english. Each letter corresponded to a particular sequence of dashes and dots. Alone, a dash or a dot is meaningless. The unit of information is composed of 5 elements (the dot, dash, and three different latencies). It's quinary, not binary. The neural "bits" are even more complex.

Regardless of the complexity of how the neuron does it the main idea behind my thoughts is that data is a result of something physically a part of the neuron. Consciousness is essentially the data that is a result of a physical brain. When we think of a car, many neurons are sending a piece of the signal for our sensory neurons to experience but what we are experiencing isn't really a picture of a car. The picture we see is a result of the physical structure of the signal being sent and is then interpreted into something that we perceive as actual. What we perceive isn't really actual.