A Conscious Universe

[Surgenator]

Because the experience is also highly complex: high- and long- notes, texture, nostalgia, pleasure, etc.

No doubt, but that's not the question. What is the unifying mechanism? What causes all that complexity to be coordinated into a singular experience?

---

Short answer: I don't know.

Longer answer: I'm making the assumption that brain states are mental states which isn't a big assumption. We can view brain activity via fMRI and deduce (on order of magnitude) how many neurons are involved when having a single expericence or thought. The high number of neurons involved is likely due to the difficulty of the task when working with limited processing speed. There also can be some redundancy built in that might be correlated to the intensity of the experience.

Right, that's what I'm getting at. It seems to me each brain area has a separate task. So does each area have an "output" that is sent to a coordinating unit? And if not, why would redness in part A, apple-taste in part B, and "crunch sound" in part C be experienced as a single experience, rather than having 3 homunculi, each doing its own specialized task? What is the principle, or mechanism, of unity?

I agree that certain parts of the brain are dedicated to specific tasks. I haven't heard of a "coordinating unit" in the brain. So maybe. The spacial and temporal resolutions of fMRI aren't that good, and there is also a lot of noise.

While researching the "coordinating unit", I did stumble on an interested finding that is somewhat related. These guys were able to predict brain activation patterns for nouns.

[IATIA]

The gaussian packet describes the probability distribution of the particle. And note that I did use "appears" rather than "is".

Electron scattering experiments show the electron "appears" as a point particle, not a wave. So saying the electron "appears" as wave when we aren't measuring it is only half right.

Because half the time it is a particle.

The electron displays the same properties as a photon in the double slit experiment. It is unlikely that any particle is really a piece of matter in the truest sense. I believe a particle to be an intersection of the wave front and alternate dimensions/realities. Yes, I subscribe to the many-worlds interpretation of QM.

[bennyboy]

No doubt, but that's not the question. What is the unifying mechanism? What causes all that complexity to be coordinated into a singular experience?

---

Right, that's what I'm getting at. It seems to me each brain area has a separate task. So does each area have an "output" that is sent to a coordinating unit? And if not, why would redness in part A, apple-taste in part B, and "crunch sound" in part C be experienced as a single experience, rather than having 3 homunculi, each doing its own specialized task? What is the principle, or mechanism, of unity?

I agree that certain parts of the brain are dedicated to specific tasks. I haven't heard of a "coordinating unit" in the brain. So maybe. The spacial and temporal resolutions of fMRI aren't that good, and there is also a lot of noise.

While researching the "coordinating unit", I did stumble on an interested finding that is somewhat related. These guys were able to predict brain activation patterns for nouns.

Yes, there have been some very interesting studies. Apparently, there's a drug that will cause one to automatically visualize the words for every noun. So if you are looking at a cat, you will not only see the cat itself, but the word "cat," which will be a very large part of your experience.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have a question about this. Why is it that multiple (VERY multiple) processes manifest as single experiences (like for example the taste of chocolate)?

Works the same way on your computer screen (multiple processes manifesting as a single experience). You see a bouncing ball, but good god the amount of circuitry involved is immense. I suppose you could get a running tally of each operation, but you wouldn't see the ball (with familiarity you may, still........). Now imagine that you are the computer and the ball is a freight train coming at you. Which UI would you prefer? Why?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm going to spend about about 30 minutes trying to catch my brain tricking to me.

Shouldn't take you more than a few seconds...you know that your eyes can't actually -see- everything in your field of view...right?

[bennyboy]

I'm going to spend about about 30 minutes trying to catch my brain tricking to me.

Shouldn't take you more than a few seconds...you know that your eyes can't actually -see- everything in your field of view...right?

Yes, I know a few facts about vision and sound. I know that people can visually track about 7 objects, +/- 2 depending on individual abilities, and that short-term memory for sound is about 5-9 seconds.

But the question is whether the conscious mind, i.e. the self, can be fully aware of more than one single object. So let's say I'm tracking 7 objects. Can I actually consciously see them all, or is it just that the unconsious "buffer" tracks 7, and I quickly think about each one for a few milliseconds at a time?

[Chas]

Shouldn't take you more than a few seconds...you know that your eyes can't actually -see- everything in your field of view...right?

Yes, I know a few facts about vision and sound. I know that people can visually track about 7 objects, +/- 2 depending on individual abilities, and that short-term memory for sound is about 5-9 seconds.

But the question is whether the conscious mind, i.e. the self, can be fully aware of more than one single object. So let's say I'm tracking 7 objects. Can I actually consciously see them all, or is it just that the unconsious "buffer" tracks 7, and I quickly think about each one for a few milliseconds at a time?

You have a blind area in each eye. There is an area in your field of view from which you have no information - you literally cannot see it.

Your mind fools you into seeing a continuous image.

[bennyboy]

I have a question about this. Why is it that multiple (VERY multiple) processes manifest as single experiences (like for example the taste of chocolate)?

Works the same way on your computer screen (multiple processes manifesting as a single experience).

No it doesn't. The screen is a grid of pixels which turn on and off, right? I think you're trying to equivocate against the same way of looking at things that was making you cranky just a few posts ago.

---

You have a blind area in each eye. There is an area in your field of view from which you have no information - you literally cannot see it.

Your mind fools you into seeing a continuous image.

Yes, there's also a similar effect with movement: i.e. we are programmed not to notice things that aren't moving, even if we are trying to. Thus camouflage.

[The Grand Nudger]

No it doesn't. The screen is a grid of pixels which turn on and off, right? I think you're trying to equivocate against the same way of looking at things that was making you cranky just a few posts ago.

The pixel map (which is, as far as your screen is concerned, many things, yes...but as far as the map and your experience of it just one) is generated by your processor and all associated memory. There's a hell of alot of things -actually going on-, but, what you see, is the bouncing ball - what the screen "sees' is a pixel map. The screen can no more see the gates and memory which generated the map than you can see the working of your own head. Each proceeds, however, with the information it has in the language it understands.

Does this not seem to you to be a case of multiple processes manifesting itself as a single experience, and is it so surprising that this would be so - however it was accomplished (short of a little man looking through the windows of your/the screens eyes)? Aren;t you explicitly invoking an executive summary of experience in the first place? If that is what is required, why would it be different, what would be so mystifying about it? If you ask for the solution to 1+1 do you need to see the problem written out and a description of the theory that underpins that solution plus the schematics of whatever machinery was involved, do you need to see all of that..... or is "2"- what you're looking for?

Ask yourself this....what do you think would be more useful if a boar was charging you - an exhaustive summary of every little click and tic - every minority report and all possible interpretations from each individual "operator", or, do you think a summary like "a boar is charging at me" is what the situation calls for? I always try to keep in mind that this machinery evolved to find dinner (and prevent us from becoming dinner) - not for introspection or explanation of process. If a water clock could run the human system and keep us alive long enough to breed it wouldn't surprise me to find a water clock in our heads. Brute force, task specific - no considerations, pass/fail is life or death...not truth or accuracy.

[bennyboy]

Ask yourself this....what do you think would be more useful if a boar was charging you - an exhaustive summary of every little click and tic - every minority report and all possible interpretations from each individual "operator", or, do you think a summary like "a boar is charging at me" is what the situation calls for?

1) Evolution is a great idea, but not when it causes people to start making up imaginary narratives in which they outline any trait they want to explain in terms of fitness.

2) I've never exprienced a charging boar, but I've experienced other significantly dangerous events, and I'm pretty sure I was aware not only of the singular fact of the threat, but of many individual aspects in the environment. And yet, they were bound together by some kind of unifying factor-- maybe "me," or maybe something else.