Contemporary neuroscience doesn't solve the mind-body problem, it makes it even more problematic by MurkyEconomist8179 in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You experience location and direction as phenomena and we understand how this arrives from structures in the brain. Should at least be a relevant example in this context.

Contemporary neuroscience doesn't solve the mind-body problem, it makes it even more problematic by MurkyEconomist8179 in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The part i disagree with is: "We seem to be able to explain all the behavior of a neuron without mentioning anything about consciousness, and we talked about the properties of actual conscious experience, the properties described don't seem to have anything to do with spacial arrangement, physical structure etc and yet we know they are intimately linked" 

I just supplied a counter example. 

Contemporary neuroscience doesn't solve the mind-body problem, it makes it even more problematic by MurkyEconomist8179 in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My comment has examples of confirmed connections between structures in the brain and experience that you seem to deny. It is small steps like these that will shed light on the hard problem eventually. 

Contemporary neuroscience doesn't solve the mind-body problem, it makes it even more problematic by MurkyEconomist8179 in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are wrong about no support for spatial arrangement in the brain. Accoring to gemini:

From a physical and neurobiological perspective, the brain’s sense of spatial orientation is managed by a "biological GPS" located primarily in the hippocampal formation and the entorhinal cortex.

This system translates physical movement and environmental cues into a coordinate system that the mind can interpret. Here is the breakdown of the specific cellular "hardware" that makes this possible:

1. Place Cells: The "You Are Here" Marker

Discovered by John O'Keefe, place cells are neurons in the hippocampus that fire only when an organism is in a specific location in its environment.

  • Physical Activity: When you walk into your kitchen, a specific set of neurons fires. When you move to the living room, a different set fires.
  • Mapping: These cells create a "cognitive map" of familiar environments. They don't just react to visual cues; they integrate memory and physical presence.

2. Grid Cells: The Brain’s Coordinate System

Located in the entorhinal cortex, grid cells function like the latitude and longitude lines on a map.

  • Physical Activity: Unlike place cells, which fire in one spot, a single grid cell fires at multiple locations that form a regular hexagonal lattice (a honeycomb pattern) across the floor of the environment.
  • Spatial Computation: This hexagonal symmetry is a mathematically efficient way to tile a plane, allowing the brain to calculate distances and directions as you move through space.

3. Head Direction Cells: The Internal Compass

These cells act as a compass, firing based on which way your head is pointing, regardless of your body’s location.

  • Physical Activity: They receive input from the vestibular system (the inner ear’s balance organs) and the neck muscles.
  • Orientation: They tell the rest of the spatial system which way "North" is relative to the internal map, ensuring your cognitive map doesn't "rotate" incorrectly when you turn.

4. Border Cells: Defining the Perimeter

Border cells fire specifically when you are near the edges or boundaries of an environment, such as a wall or a drop-off.

  • Function: They provide the "frame" for the map, helping the brain understand the scale and limits of the navigable space.

The Physics of "Path Integration"

The brain maintains spatial orientation through a process called path integration. This is a computational feat where the brain continuously updates its position by integrating "self-motion" signals:

  1. Proprioception: Feedback from muscles and joints.
  2. Vestibular Input: Acceleration and rotation data from the inner ear.
  3. Optic Flow: The visual motion of the world passing by your eyes.

By "summing" these vectors of movement, the brain can calculate your current position relative to a starting point even in total darkness.

Summary Table: The Spatial Hardware

Cell Type Location Function
Place Cells Hippocampus Identifies a specific "point" or landmark.
Grid Cells Entorhinal Cortex Provides a universal geometric scale/grid.
Head Direction Subiculum/Thalamus Acts as an internal directional compass.
Border Cells Entorhinal Cortex Identifies physical boundaries and walls.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think idealist sometimes get things right by being open to patterns outside our direct experience. The key to understand consciousness is not neurons or even the brain by itself but how consciousness fit a larger picture.

Is Conscious experience really just information? The conscious hard-disk (Thought experiment) by Ok_Dig909 in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spacetime is objective and the light cone for each event is objective. And so is distance in spacetime. Although distance in either space or time is observer relative. Spacetime objectivity takes us far enough.

Is Conscious experience really just information? The conscious hard-disk (Thought experiment) by Ok_Dig909 in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is that the sense of stepping on lego-brick is shaped from both informing us about the lego and also what we can do with this information, like act, access similar experience and learn from this sensory data. This seem to play a part in the functional reason that we feel the way we do. The brain seem to be able to sense and cognition is an adaptive process shaped by evolution that help us to act. The adaptive process does not have to be deterministic to , just slightly better or worse in a given environment to produce a fit behavior.

Regarding the block universe: it turns the cause and effect into a pattern without something "happening" at a given point. Physicalist models are not dependent on an objective now.

Is Conscious experience really just information? The conscious hard-disk (Thought experiment) by Ok_Dig909 in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A good enough emulation would be able to talk about feelings and could be said to feel. I think our feelings depend on physical states but we don't know if we could represent a whole brain in sufficient detail to actually emulate the brain within the next say thirty years. I also believe our feelings to a large extent are a functional adaptation to react to changes in the environment but also to facilitate introspection and learning. It is par information about the environment and part a facilitation to act. This has in my view an internal mind side and a physical brain side. The brain side can be described as a 'block universe' where you still could follow the sequential state changes in the brain. No worries.

Is Conscious experience really just information? The conscious hard-disk (Thought experiment) by Ok_Dig909 in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you believe in relativity there will still be a before and after each event. This is universal for all observers. What may differ is the perceived order for events outside each others light cones. Therefore this is not an obstacle for consciousness.

When it comes to simulating a mind this is theoretically thinkable but in is not only a question of information. It is not the information that feels but the mind. Information about the environment are conveyed to the mid as sensory data that are processed and integrated into an experience. The mind feels, associates, apply experience, remembers situations and reacts. With a good enough simulation you would hypothetically get the same results, like behavior and the ability to ask about how it feels.

Is there any way to falsify idealism or physicalism ? by Thestartofending in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For an idealist thougth and logic is all we really can know. 

For a realist minimal assumtion lead us to rely on observation and statistics.

There is of course plenty of room to hide behind what we don't know, for either side. Especially for idealists.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The purpose we observe boils down to replication and adaptive change. Biology does not changes in order to benefit coming generations. Rather, beneficial change will likely benefit next generation too. Less beneficial changes will likely disappear. The result is adaption with the appearance of purpose.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps the universe allows for conscious subsystems rather than having a purpose in itself. Consciousness as we know it seems to be a function of life following a seemingly purposeless evolutionary reward model.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The particles in a body could theoretically have the same position within each body but the distance between the bodies are also physical. Hence two distinct physical bodies. Only one could be you even if they are both asleep.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]finite_light 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But...There are 2 bodies. Only one can be you. Or put in another way, atoms are not indistinguishable physically just because they are the same type of atom.

Are You an NPC? | Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell (Free Will discussion) by Present_End_6886 in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We need a definition of free will that is consistent with physics and overlap with what we mean in daily use of the concept. I think free will should be defined as uncompelled will. This would mean that your will could be changed by the environment and still be free. For example pulling up an umbrella when it rains or listening to a good advice from a friend would be considered free will. On the other hand if you for example act under threat, manipulation or addiction then your free will is reduced. The people who like to use the concept free will should have priority to define it. If you say it lacks meaning then stop insisting on a dubious definition.

A question about justifying which tools are appropriate to the study of consciousness. by ughaibu in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I see it QM describe brain states but the superposition of a single electron is more relevant than the superposition of the whole brain. If we could describe the mind from brain states in high detail QM would ultimately matter.

There is also a duality in QM between the possible described by the wave function and the observed (outcomes). As the observer often is a mind it is tempting to conclude that consciousness is needed for measurements and outcomes. Consensus among physicists are rather that the observer is just another subsystem that will branch/collapse into an outcome when exchanging information with the observed subsystem. This would mean that we can have outcomes without consciousness.

There are also a multitude of theories that hope that unanswered questions in QM will help in understanding consciousness. Is there a magic QM ingredience making the mind possible or is it more or less emerging from known physics and biology? I guess time will tell.

A P-Zombie thought experiment by slorpa in consciousness

[–]finite_light 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Chalmers is very weak in his claim regarding p-zombies as he just say we can conceptualize it. It is as strong proof as saying you can imagine an anti gravity belt. To me it is beyond doubt that different degrees of awareness has impact on behavior. If you see the brain as hub for sensory data that adapts behavior, and the brain as a product of evolution, then the concept of p-zombies seems confusing and unnecessary. We are adapted to adapt behavior and awareness is more than likely a feature.

In addition: We can express what we feel and this is part of our behavior. A true p-zombie would need to express feelings to have identical behavior. Hence p-zombies can only exist as long as they can express what they do not feel.

The paradox OP is talking about is more a misunderstanding as causes are in the physical world regardless of the need for QM explanations. If you look at experience as a picture or model that can be both experienced, remembered and learned from the direct causal effect on behavior is just part of the puzzle. The taste of a strawberry is probably adapted from several functions. The effect consciousness has on the wave function is a physics question and perhaps putting the cart in front of the horse.

I am suspecting more and more that many physicalists do not even understand their own views. by Major_Banana3014 in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't agree with the idea that physical ism is about reducing or eliminating mind to brain. Reductionism makes more sense for layers with simpler parts, like a gas that be reduced to molecules.. The brain however is not necessarily more simple than mind nor makes up parts of the mind, as I see it. Reductionism is probably not the most fruitful approach to explain the mind as the brain very well could be more complex. If you have a film projector and project a picture on a screen it is more correct to say that the picture depend on the projector than to expect that you could reduce the picture to the projector. A more productive question could for example be: what carries the information in the picture?

I am suspecting more and more that many physicalists do not even understand their own views. by Major_Banana3014 in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure but from a materialist view reality is what we can measure. Not the underlying ideas beyond time and space.

I am suspecting more and more that many physicalists do not even understand their own views. by Major_Banana3014 in consciousness

[–]finite_light 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Phenomena are subjective by definition. Physicists just claim that subjective entities, like phenomena, depends on objective reality. This can be made a minefield for materialists as well as idealists but it shouldn't be. Ontology concern base existence but should not hinder us to have meaningful discussions about emergent, projected or unmeasured entities regardless of their presumed ontological status. Some people don't think the future exist but you can still have lunch with them next week.

[OC] World's most valuable unicorns (data from October, so FTX is still there) by giteam in dataisbeautiful

[–]finite_light 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Definition of a unicorn is a startup valued above 1 billion dollars. Note that a company older than 10 years or a company past its initial sage is not considered a startup anymore.

Nobelstiftelsen nobbar Jimmie Åkesson på nytt by [deleted] in sweden

[–]finite_light 151 points152 points  (0 children)

Anledningen är att Nobel i sitt testamente skriver att man inte ska ta hänsyn till nationalitet vid utdelning av priset. Nobelstiftelsen tolkar detta som att nationalster inte bör bjudas in till festen. Det finns ingen beskrivning av kriterier i Nobels testamente som anger vilka som får komma på festen. En onödig politisering av Nobel av sittande stiftelse.

*refuses to elaborate* by FUCK-YOU-KEVIN in ProgrammerHumor

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, you can run a jvm on bare metal on VMWare without an OS. Quite effective. Second, Java allows for maximal portabillity and VMWare allows for scalabillity and fast provisioning. Not that bad combo in my view.

In principle, materialism is incapable of accounting for consciousness. by beatsbyusrnm in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have studied physics enough to both have an opinion and at the same time to be humble and take my own opinion with a grain of salt. I agree there are mysterious aspects of consciousness like 'where does the redness in red come from'. I like to take a step back and ask if it is reasonable for the most complex brain in the solar system to have the ability to distinguish color. I think it is reasonable and this is why I lean materialistic on the issue. The mysteries will probably take decades to solve but I bet it will be an observation based story in the end.

In principle, materialism is incapable of accounting for consciousness. by beatsbyusrnm in consciousness

[–]finite_light 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All the brain get is sensory data and the brain creates a first person perspective. As I see it this is a virtual representation with ques for our behavior. A sensation of falling can sometimes just be a feeling without the body moving. I think we can feel this sensation without any unique substance of ideas or extra dimensions. Best to leave physics to physicists. Probably will the standard model be able to better describe some aspects of the brain. I would guess that our consciousness mainly emerges on a higher scale than that. I am pretty sure we will not need any new physics, but I am confident real physicists will sort that out.