Are you everybody?/Are we all the same person?

[dimreepr]

Take flying for example, is it a coincidence that our airplanes use the same technique to fly as birds? No of course not, it birds use the same laws of physics as we, and given those laws there are specific flying techniques that work.

 

 

No-one explained that to the birds, bats or the fish that stumbled onto the idea.

[loginorsignup]

 

 

No-one explained that to the birds, bats or the fish that stumbled onto the idea.

I'm not sure what you mean, but my point is that if we would ever found an alien planet and if there are lange things that live in the athmosphe there. We choudn't be suprised if they use the same technique as our birds use. Edited July 5, 2016 by loginorsignup

[dimreepr]

I'm not sure what you mean, but my point is that if we would ever found an alien planet and if there are lange things that live in the athmosphe there. We choudn't be suprised if they use the same technique as our birds use.

 

 

Knowing how to fall without hitting the ground doesn't automatically mean I understand aerodynamics.

Edited July 5, 2016 by dimreepr

[DrmDoc]

I understand, and ofcouse the 'technology' of the brain is ofcourse different that that of our computers. Its very possible we can't create consciousness with current day technology nomatter how complex we build the computer. My guess is brains use quantum mechanics and who knows. We also know that for example while a single transistor is conectet by only 2 or 3 other transistors, a single neuron is connected to several thousand other neurons etc.

Can I also add that there is for example no coincidence that our computers use electrons to comunicate and the brain does also.

Take flying for example, is it a coincidence that our airplanes use the same technique to fly as birds? No of course not, it birds use the same laws of physics as we, and given those laws there are specific flying techniques that work.

The same goes for computers and brains. Given the laws of physics there are techiques that are more efficient in computing informations than others. There is no coincidence in that both our computers and brains use electricity.

Now apparently scientist tell us that quantum computers are much much stronger. Would it be a coincidence that the brain uses this? Again offcourse not.

 

If our ideas regard the production of consciousness by brain function, the neuron minutia isn't as important to our understanding as is the overall functional contribution of separate and distinct neuronal groups and how those groups interact to produce consciousness. For example, no spontaneous activity occurs in our cerebral cortex without a neural connection to subcortical structure, primarily the thalamus. Also, the cortex can sustain and recover from substantial injury without a threat to life; however, similar damage to the thalamus would be fatal. These separate functional effects positions the thalamus as more important to the organ that produces consciousness--the brain--than the cortex. These functional effects also tell us that the cortical neuronal groups are dependent on the thalamus neuronal group for functionality, which suggests that thalamic function is likely the root of consciousness construction. So, our investigation should involve what the thalamus neuronal group contributes to consciousness. What this neuronal group contributes is most completely explained by how and why the structure evolved--in my opinion.

[loginorsignup]

 

If our ideas regard the production of consciousness by brain function, the neuron minutia isn't as important to our understanding as is the overall functional contribution of separate and distinct neuronal groups and how those groups interact to produce consciousness. For example, no spontaneous activity occurs in our cerebral cortex without a neural connection to subcortical structure, primarily the thalamus. Also, the cortex can sustain and recover from substantial injury without a threat to life; however, similar damage to the thalamus would be fatal. These separate functional effects positions the thalamus as more important to the organ that produces consciousness--the brain--than the cortex. These functional effects also tell us that the cortical neuronal groups are dependent on the thalamus neuronal group for functionality, which suggests that thalamic function is likely the root of consciousness construction. So, our investigation should involve what the thalamus neuronal group contributes to consciousness. What this neuronal group contributes is most completely explained by how and why the structure evolved--in my opinion.

You obviously know a lot more about the brain than I do, I am planning to learn more about the brain in the future.

Now whether the brain is a computer or not is also a semantics question.

Obviously computers and brains are enourmously different, but the point of the of the two it is the same. You have input signals which need to be processed so output signals can be created.

A computer that logicly computes input signals to create output signals is different in structure depending on its job and the complexity of it.

A processor of a calculator is pretty simple compared to that of a gaming computer, because making sure that the output signals are correct depending on the input signals is much more simple.

Similarly the brain is much more complex than a gaming computer, because the logic that needs to be aplied to the input signals is so much more complex to come to its output signals.

Now why I say that conscious experience is dependant on the information within the logical computation is because experience is clearly dependant on the input signals of what the brain is processing. If you look at something red, then this information that the eyes send to you brain translate in a specific experience, the same goes for hunger when your stomach sends signals to your brain etc.

Whe you walk ouside and look around, the information of you experience is correlated with the information of the outside world. The information about temperature, lights, etc are picket up by sensors of the body and send to the brain.

Thats what I mean when I say experience is dependant on the information being processed.

Edited July 7, 2016 by loginorsignup

[DrmDoc]

You obviously know a lot more about the brain than I do, I am planning to learn more about the brain in the future.

Now whether the brain is a computer or not is also a semantics question.

Obviously computers and brains are enourmously different, but the point of the of the two it is the same. You have input signals which need to be processed so output signals can be created.

A computer that logicly computes input signals to create output signals is different in structure depending on its job and the complexity of it.

A processor of a calculator is pretty simple compared to that of a gaming computer, because making sure that the output signals are correct depending on the input signals is much more simple.

Similarly the brain is much more complex than a gaming computer, because the logic that needs to be aplied to the input signals is so much more complex to come to its output signals.

Now why I say that conscious experience is dependant on the information within the logical computation is because experience is clearly dependant on the input signals of what the brain is processing. If you look at something red, then this information that the eyes send to you brain translate in a specific experience, the same goes for hunger when your stomach sends signals to your brain etc.

Whe you walk ouside and look around, the information of you experience is correlated with the information of the outside world. The information about temperature, lights, etc are picket up by sensors of the body and send to the brain.

Thats what I mean when I say experience is dependant on the information being processed.

 

I try to frame my thoughts around simplistic points of logic; e.g., if a = b, then b = a. I've asked myself, using that type of framing, if our brain is a computer, is a computer also a brain? For me, in view of what we know about brain function, the answer is confidently no because computers do not produce consciousness. Although our brain and computers share a type of input/output functional distinction, that distinction in computers do not lead to consciousness, which suggest that there is something more to brain function and consciousness than we can determine from mere processes of input and output. I agree that normal brain function is dependent on sensory input; however, analogous machinery processes convey an incomplete and unreliable picture of consciousness producing brain function. Our understanding of afferent (input) and efferent (output) data streaming processes doesn't tell us how those processes produce consciousness in the brain. If you're interested in learning more about brain function, I think it is best to begin with how our brain likely evolved, which may be difficult if you don't know where to begin your investigation of that aspect. Regardless, the functional anatomy of brain structure remarkably reveals its contiguous path of evolution.

Edited July 7, 2016 by DrmDoc

[dimreepr]

Theres no need to become so hostile and use ad hominem attacks.

Can you agree that conscioness has to do with logical computations? Or some form of logic that is aplied so specific input signals create specific output signals?

 

 

My apologies bad day.

 

Not with the word computations, the computer analogy, like every analogy, isn't completely accurate, electricity is involved but that's where it ends.

Edited July 7, 2016 by dimreepr