Is the human being purely material.......

[HexHammer]

Most people don't think electronics has conciousness, but they have indeed low conciousness, as they can analyse and process vast quanteties of data,

Pure Babylon nose ants. Actually, HexHammer, for all I know you are right, but if consciousness is simply data processing, is the mechanical computer designed by Charles Babbage conscious?

Not in itself, but also the ability to have sensory input and the ability to analyse data, not just processing it.

[Ginkgo]

Most people don't think electronics has conciousness, but they have indeed low conciousness, as they can analyse and process vast quanteties of data, we have seen self driving cars, only when humans interact it will be involved in accidents.
Chess machines, Quiz machines, etc, most people will confuse awareness solely on the ability to talk, which is a logically phallacy.

I have some problems when it comes to computers having, "low consciousness". I would see it more has having the ability to carry out rational functions. If we go with the current experimental information then there is evidence that consciousness is awareness and awareness is the ability of the brain to synchronize.

Without going into details about synchroneity, I don't really see how a computer, using a binary function can reproduce human synchronity. But I am open to suggestions.

[HexHammer]

I have some problems when it comes to computers having, "low consciousness". I would see it more has having the ability to carry out rational functions. If we go with the current experimental information then there is evidence that consciousness is awareness and awareness is the ability of the brain to synchronize.

Without going into details about synchroneity, I don't really see how a computer, using a binary function can reproduce human synchronity. But I am open to suggestions.

Erhmm, a car can drive by itself these days, without this sync nonsense, so therefore sync nonsense is irrelevant.

[Ginkgo]

I have some problems when it comes to computers having, "low consciousness". I would see it more has having the ability to carry out rational functions. If we go with the current experimental information then there is evidence that consciousness is awareness and awareness is the ability of the brain to synchronize.

Without going into details about synchroneity, I don't really see how a computer, using a binary function can reproduce human synchronity. But I am open to suggestions.

Erhmm, a car can drive by itself these days, without this sync nonsense, so therefore sync nonsense is irrelevant.

Sync may well be irrelevant when it comes to self driving cars, but that doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant when it comes to humans. Empirical findings do verify sync.

[Blaggard]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... v38cVcYyUm

This article is pretty fascinating, showing how the brain goes through periods of stability and periods of random noise in order to create a more efficient brain.

Disorderly genius: How chaos drives the brain

At the critical point, however, you get maximum transmission with minimum risk of descending into chaos. "One of the advantages of self-organised criticality is that the avalanches can propagate over many links," says Beggs. "You can have very long chains that won't blow up on you."

Self-organised criticality also appears to allow the brain to adapt to new situations, by quickly rearranging which neurons are synchronised to a particular frequency. "The closer we get to the boundary of instability, the more quickly a particular stimulus will send the brain into a new state," says Liley.

It may also play a role in memory. Beggs's team noticed that certain chains of neurons would fire repeatedly in avalanches, sometimes over several hours (The Journal of Neuroscience, vol 24, p 5216). Because an entire chain can be triggered by the firing of one neuron, these chains could be the stuff of memory, argues Beggs: memories may come to mind unexpectedly because a neuron fires randomly or could be triggered unpredictably by a neuronal avalanche.

The balance between phase-locking and instability within the brain has also been linked to intelligence - at least, to IQ. Last year, Robert Thatcher from the University of South Florida in Tampa made EEG measurements of 17 children, aged between 5 and 17 years, who also performed an IQ test.

He found that the length of time the children's brains spent in both the stable phase-locked states and the unstable phase-shifting states correlated with their IQ scores. For example, phase shifts typically last 55 milliseconds, but an additional 1 millisecond seemed to add as many as 20 points to the child's IQ. A shorter time in the stable phase-locked state also corresponded with greater intelligence - with a difference of 1 millisecond adding 4.6 IQ points to a child's score (NeuroImage, vol 42, p 1639).

Thatcher says this is because a longer phase shift allows the brain to recruit many more neurons for the problem at hand. "It's like casting a net and capturing as many neurons as possible at any one time," he says. The result is a greater overall processing power that contributes to higher intelligence.

Hovering on the edge of chaos provides brains with their amazing capacity to process information and rapidly adapt to our ever-changing environment, but what happens if we stray either side of the boundary? The most obvious assumption would be that all of us are a short step away from mental illness. Meyer-Lindenberg suggests that schizophrenia may be caused by parts of the brain straying away from the critical point. However, for now that is purely speculative.

Thatcher, meanwhile, has found that certain regions in the brains of people with autism spend less time than average in the unstable, phase-shifting states. These abnormalities reduce the capacity to process information and, suggestively, are found only in the regions associated with social behaviour. "These regions have shifted from chaos to more stable activity," he says. The work might also help us understand epilepsy better: in an epileptic fit, the brain has a tendency to suddenly fire synchronously, and deviation from the critical point could explain this.

"They say it's a fine line between genius and madness," says Liley. "Maybe we're finally beginning to understand the wisdom of this statement."

Sadly I can't print the whole article as its subscription only but models that use chaos (complex but deterministic) seem incapable of reproducing brain activity, it is only truly random self criticality that will show an accurate model of the brain during these non quiescent phases.

There's also alot of detail on using networks based on brain architecture produces very efficient phase locking that helps the brain to concentrate or to co-opt other areas and remain relatively unaffected by others.

Anyhow it's pretty relevant I think to this discussion.

[Blaggard]

Most people don't think electronics has conciousness, but they have indeed low conciousness, as they can analyse and process vast quanteties of data,

Pure Babylon nose ants. Actually, HexHammer, for all I know you are right, but if consciousness is simply data processing, is the mechanical computer designed by Charles Babbage conscious?

...sigh! You just missed EVERYTHING I wrote.

..cast pearls before swine..

Yeah frankly it's more dung before dung beatles tbh, I don't see how you can possibly think that computers have low consciousness based on what you say and I agree with Gingko.

I'd read the above post too, it agrees that synchronous brain processing occurs along with periods of asynchronicity and the patterns of periodicity seem to link to IQ.

Deep blue (a super computer devoted to chess) analyses billions of chess moves according to an algorithm selects the one most likely to result in a better chance of winning, where as his opponent doesn't need to, why is of course key.

Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov was a pair of famous six-game human–computer chess matches, in the format of machine and humans, versus a human. In this format, on the machine side a team of chess experts and programmers manually alter engineering between the games.

The matches were played between the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue with a team of IBM programmers and chess experts who directed and reprogrammed the machine between games on the one side, and the World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov on the other side.

The first match was played in February 1996 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Kasparov won the match 4–2, losing one game, drawing in two and winning three.

A rematch was played in 1997 – this time Deep Blue won 3½–2½.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_ ... y_Kasparov

If consciousness is merely analysis, then it's easy to see the brain as nothing more than a data processor, but the reality is of course this could not be further from the 1,0 logic operations of a computer following zombie like and predictably a process it cannot and will never deviate from.

Just because a series of 0s and 1s can perform a trillion calculations per second does not make it conscious it has to do more than that.

[jackles]

iq or intellegents has nothing to do with super consciouse what so ever.that fancy state ment comes from your own egos idea of how or clever it is. the feeling you get on reading this truth is self evidents of the self.

[Blaggard]

iq or intellegents has nothing to do with super consciouse what so ever.that fancy state ment comes from your own egos idea of how or clever it is. the feeling you get on reading this truth is self evidents of the self.

Super consciousness has nothing to do with anything, it's just nonsense, so you are indeed right.

Yeah basically what you are saying is: "halelujah if I relinquish my logic and just happy clap around talking nonsense I can experience bliss!"

"I refuse to believe God has given us the faculty of reason only to forgo its use."

Voltaire.

[jackles]

ahh blags you are then a believer.there is yet hope

[Blaggard]

ahh blags you are then a believer.there is yet hope

If being a believer means I think you are talking cavernous amounts of pseudo religious guff in lieu of making any rational attempt to argue your case then yes I am a believer.

[HexHammer]

Just because a series of 0s and 1s can perform a trillion calculations per second does not make it conscious it has to do more than that.

No, it's low conciouness similar to insect's conciousness, and insects ARE concious!

[Blaggard]

Just because a series of 0s and 1s can perform a trillion calculations per second does not make it conscious it has to do more than that.

No, it's low conciouness similar to insect's conciousness, and insects ARE concious!

I would say only in the most superficial way, and only as a collective hive mind. Low consciousness is something I will agree to in that context.

You could analogise what a computer does to a hive of ants, the single bit has no real input but string enough of them together and you get at least superficially something resembling a conscious will.

[HexHammer]

Sync may well be irrelevant when it comes to self driving cars, but that doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant when it comes to humans. Empirical findings do verify sync.

Then surely it would be easy to prove, link me to some scientific study on the subject, please!

[Blaggard]

Sync may well be irrelevant when it comes to self driving cars, but that doesn't necessarily make it irrelevant when it comes to humans. Empirical findings do verify sync.

Then surely it would be easy to prove, link me to some scientific study on the subject, please!

Actually I already did, scroll up.

He found that the length of time the children's brains spent in both the stable phase-locked states and the unstable phase-shifting states correlated with their IQ scores. For example, phase shifts typically last 55 milliseconds, but an additional 1 millisecond seemed to add as many as 20 points to the child's IQ. A shorter time in the stable phase-locked state also corresponded with greater intelligence - with a difference of 1 millisecond adding 4.6 IQ points to a child's score (NeuroImage, vol 42, p 1639).

Phase locked is another way of saying synchronous. They mean the same thing.

[HexHammer]

I would say only in the most superficial way, and only as a collective hive mind. Low consciousness is something I will agree to in that context.

You could analogise what a computer does to a hive of ants, the single bit has no real input but string enough of them together and you get at least superficially something resembling a conscious will.

Not quite, that would suggest ants are telepathic ..which they are not. Get real.