I'll try to approach this from another angle.

I know that I am 'aware'. That is, not only do I behave as though I was a concious being with self-awareness, I am indeed aware of what's going on. I don't know, however, whether any of you guys are. You certainly behave like it, but there is no way to know for sure.

However, there is no reason to believe otherwise. From an objective point of view, there is nothing about any other human being that is fundamentally different from me, therefore I have no reason to believe that any other human being is not 'aware', just like me.

Now, here's a thought experiment: Make a brain in a vat. Take a live person, somehow extract his brain from his body without killing the poor guy, and place it in a vat. Attach artificial sensory organs and life-support systems, such that all the information that flowed between the brain and the body now flows between the brain and an artificial machine. In the traditional philosophical experiment, the person shouldn't notice any difference, but that's not really important for my purposes. The important thing is that he can experience the outside world.

Is there any reason to doubt his awareness now? I can't see any.

Now continue to mess with our poor victim. Replace his prefrontal cortex with an equivalent ANN (Artificial Neural Network), made out of electronics. Whether or not that's possible, here's the next step:
Abandon the vat and simulate the entire configuration on a computer.

Now we have an ensemble of electronics instead of an ensemble of neurons. Still, the guy's behaviour is essentially the same. The objective facts can be correlated with the facts about the original person. He still has a prefrontal cortex, it just exists in computer memory instead of in a real configuration of neurons.

I still can't find any reason to doubt whether this person is aware. This seems to demonstrate that it's not the 'stuff' you're made of that's important; it's the abstract configurations between the functional units, no matter how the units themselves are manifested in reality. And that seems to argue against any important ontological difference between people and other things.

When I first saw the name NeuralNoise, I was intrigued. What could this cryptic username mean? Was it referring to how the seemingly chaotic maelstrom of neurons firing in all directions gives rise to what we call thought? Or was it perhaps a commentary on the effects of today's information overflow on our psyche?

Alas, upon further inquiry we now find that the username is nothing more than a fratboy's flaunting of his favourite band and/or novel. You know the type; the one who is the only person in the world who Truly Understands these lyrical geniuses, and knows in his heart that everyone else are lesser human beings for not adoring his idols as much as he does. He feels that His Band is under-appreciated by the general public, but he secretly harbors a fear that they will someday actually become popular, since this would render him obsolete. After all, his mindless adulation is his only substitute for a lack of personality. Yeah, NeuralNoise is that guy. No wonder rasch "Dylan" 187 likes him.

This is symptomatic for the rest of NeuralNoise's sorry character. Oh, great, you managed to inseminate some woman. Now this is suddenly all your existence revolves around. You even have the audacity to blog about it. Well, congratulations. You have taken the essence of this narcissistic medium and turned it into a dark and frightening shadow of itself. Exploiting your daughter to feed your exaggerated sense of self-importance; I'm disgusted. Good luck living through your children for the rest of your life.

The shallow nature of NeuralNoise is also evident in his answers:


What is your favorite video on videosift?
Can´t remember anymore. But living in Brazil, I blame videosift on my addiction to Maher, Colbert and Stewart bits
Favorite comment on videosift?
confess you are asking these questions only to make fun of my alzheimer-ridden brain


Yeah right, blame your memory. Can it be so hard to look through the top-rated comments on the site and pick one of them? I rather think you only care about the videos and comments you yourself have posted, and your faux modesty prevents you from mentioning them. VideoSift is simply your arena for assertiveness. Let's hope this roast can rectify some of that.

Consciousness is not necessarily anything in itself, as most cognitive scientists would say, it's the illusion of a separate item - it is the features of the brain that make up the consciousness.

Even if consciousness is an illusion, the illusion is real. (Unless you're arguing you do not have any conscious experience? I've always wanted to meet a p-zombie.) Cognitive Scientists study the neural correlates of consciousness, the objective facts about neurons and such, without having any theory at all about explaining how subjective experience is generated.

This "illusion" of our consciousness did not exist (as far as we can tell) before we were born, so the only fact we have is that consciousness can emerge from nothingness. Perhaps you might draw your own conclusions from that, but the factual evidence of reality does support the notion of life after death over permanent nonexistence.

Of course, I don't expect atheists to pay much attention to facts that disagree with them (we're all humans, naturally), but it is amusing to hear, since atheists tend to pride themselves on their evidence-based worldviews.

"It's often said that an adult chimpanzee weighing in at 150 pounds is three to seven times stronger than a human being."

What's the story? Not a lot was known until recently about this issue, but a study published this April in the journal Current Anthropology explored the issue at a new level of detail.

Our surplus motor neurons allow us to engage smaller portions of our muscles at any given time. We can engage just a few muscle fibers for delicate tasks like threading a needle, and progressively more for tasks that require more force. Conversely, since chimps have fewer motor neurons, each neuron triggers a higher number of muscle fibers. So using a muscle becomes more of an all-or-nothing proposition for chimps. As a result, chimps often end up using more muscle than they need.

Our finely-tuned motor system makes a wide variety of human tasks possible. Without it we couldn't manipulate small objects, make complex tools or throw accurately. And because we can conserve energy by using muscle gradually, we have more physical endurance—making us great distance runners.
Great apes, with their all-or-nothing muscle usage, are explosive sprinters, climbers and fighters, but not nearly as good at complex motor tasks.

In addition to fine motor control, Walker suspects that humans also may have a neural limit to how much muscle we use at one time. Only under very rare circumstances are these limits bypassed—as in the anecdotal reports of people able to lift cars to free trapped crash victims.

"Add to this the effect of severe electric shock, where people are often thrown violently by their own extreme muscle contraction, and it is clear that we do not contract all our muscle fibers at once," Walker writes. "So there might be a degree of cerebral inhibition in people that prevents them from damaging their muscular system that is not present, or not present to the same degree, in great apes." Source

Mysterious 'Neural Noise' Actually Primes Brain For Peak Performance

ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2006) — Researchers at the University of Rochester may have answered one of neuroscience's most vexing questions—how can it be that our neurons, which are responsible for our crystal-clear thoughts, seem to fire in utterly random ways?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061112094812.htm

congratulations on reaching gold!

Thar she be http://www.videosift.com/video/Neurons-How-your-brain-works

I'm gonna repost that one.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
*discard

>> ^andybesy:
OK. So the 'wires' are called axons, and when a neuron recieves an electrical impulse it transmits neurotransmitter chemicals across a synapse to receptors in another neuron?
Is the synapse the area between two neurons?
Are all neurons chemically connected, or do some have direct electrical connections via an axon?


Axons are just a part of the neuron

(simplified picture of a neuron)
http://www.morphonix.com/software/education/science/brain/game/specimens/images/neuron_parts.gif


The synapse is basically the sum of all components: The end of in the axon sending the electrical signal, the space between them ( called a synaptic cleft) and the receiving end of the other neuron.
http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/neuron-synapse.png

The neurons in the video communicate chemically via synapses. Axons are just extensions that each neuron has. Any given neuron can have numerous axons. At the end of each axon, there is an axon terminal this is the rounded ends you see in the video. The space between them is a synaptic cleft. Some neurons have electrical synapses instead. These are found in places where you need the fastest response but dont need to be able to interpret data or make decisions. Reflexes are an example. Electrical synapses are a minority though.

Sorry, I'll edit the description soon to try to make it more clear. I posted it in a rush.

OK. So the 'wires' are called axons, and when a neuron recieves an electrical impulse it transmits neurotransmitter chemicals across a synapse to receptors in another neuron?

Is the synapse the area between two neurons?

Are all neurons chemically connected, or do some have direct electrical connections via an axon?

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
>> ^jonny:
As you mentioned, the amount of evidence required to sustain a belief is partially dependent upon the nature of the belief. So, for instance, how much evidence do you require to believe that a painting is beautiful? Do you trust your own eyes when everyone else is telling you different?
That wouldn't require evidence at all. It's subjective opinion, or reactions inside my brain to what I'm seeing.

Beauty isn't entirely subjective. There are certain forms, combinations of sound, etc., that do have universal appeal. Golden ratio stuff for example.

I also accept the view that perception of beauty is indeed a real, material reaction, entirely non-supernatural in origin. Studies show this all the time, scientist can measure brain activity when showing different faces, pictures etc, and different parts of our brain "lights up", in the same way as when we taste things etc.

What fMRI actually measures is known as the BOLD response - Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent. It is thought to correlate well with neural activity, but there is some debate about that. (This may have been settled - it's been some years since I worked with fMRI.) More importantly, it's still only correlating some neural activity with a particular mental state. AFAIK, no one has ever conducted a study demonstrating a causal relationship between neural activity and particular mental states. The closest we've gotten to that is nerve stimulation during brain surgery. But that is very anecdotal.


Of course we dont know exactly how the brain does all this, but thats why we keep working on it, and its very exciting. But I do not see how all this relates to a divine presence. Infact, it shows the opposite.

The connection is the kind of evidence required to believe something and how we go about analyzing that evidence. I think I've pretty clearly shown that in many cases anecdotal or non-verifiable evidence is plenty good enough.


If you believe love to be some kind of spiritual "force", independent of our brains and all material existence, I suppose the same thing applies, when you feel love, it confirms for you the existence of these supernatural phenomena, including the ever-elusive "higher power".

This is really getting to the heart of it. I'm not suggesting that the possibility of a divine presence is in any way supernatural. It seems possible to me that divinity may be as much a part of the natural world as anything else. For me, divinity does not have to be a creator or controller of the universe, but is something that suffuses every part of it. That we don't understand by what mechanism that happens is incidental. It may be that we are incapable of doing so.

I expect you will respond by saying any such thing could not be divine, because that's how you define it. "Just what is it that you're talking about?" you might ask. It's basically impossible to put into words. It's like trying to describe the taste of steak using the menu. Or describing what the color red looks like. I can describe the wavelength of light and how that affects the neurons involved, but I won't have done anything to convey the mental state of perceiving red.

Unfortunately Sniper, it's highly unlikely that she'll ever be completely normal. The development of the brain is most critical during early childhood, where connections and pathways are gradually formed between the neurons. If this is not done in the first months/years, then it becomes less possible to ever happen.

For example, I'd seen medical show about a 1 year old baby that had developed a cataracht in one eye. There was urgent need to operate to remove this, because the child's brain was in danger of never developing the pathways to see from that one side and become perminantly blinded there. After the surgery, for about a year afterwards, a patch was placed over her good eye - forcing the brain to properly develop its connections in the one denied the early stimulation.

Dani obviously didn't have this problem with her sight, but similarly, she has not developed other responses which are gained through proper nurture.

>> ^NobleOne:I am a firm believer that if you were to have nanobots they would have been produced naturally kind of like white blood cells... I can't see how nanobots is an evolutionary trait....we are meant to live and meant to die....thus continues the circle of life... oh and if you want to work on your neurons in your brain just go get high....take the time and read about pot or watch.... http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Union-The-Business-Behind-Gettin
g-High-1
oh and side note shrooms regardless of where they grow are natural not man made...



I can certainly understand people only wanting "natural" things in their bodies, I just happen not to share that desire. I can think of plenty of natural things that will kill a person (or worse).

I am concerned more with safety and effect than I am with origin. If one of my major organs began to fail then I would not hesitate to replace it with an artificial version (if available).


You also claim that death is a part of the "cycle of life". Would you feel the same way if death were optional? Would you choose to die prematurely to continue the cycle even if living longer did not require artificial means?

Eventually natural death will be "curable". Maybe we'll be alive to see it, maybe not. It will happen though (assuming no cataclysms) and people will have to deal with these questions. Some will opt out of extended life and others will not, but I do believe that the decision should be up to each individual.

I guess I don't see much of a difference between the two. I don't want electrodes sticking out of my head, but if nanobots can some day reverse the damage to the brain through the process of aging then I would have no moral objection to using them (again, after a reasonable level of safety has been established).


I am a firm believer that if you were to have nanobots they would have been produced naturally kind of like white blood cells... I can't see how nanobots is an evolutionary trait....we are meant to live and meant to die....thus continues the circle of life... oh and if you want to work on your neurons in your brain just go get high....take the time and read about pot or watch.... http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Union-The-Business-Behind-Getting-High-1

oh and side note shrooms regardless of where they grow are natural not man made...

>> ^NobleOne:
With regards to the comments i read. why are we so pleased with putting microchips in our body?

I dunno, why are people so pleased to put chemicals in their bodies? I occasionally ingest psychedelics (mostly shrooms) for insight and perspective. I feel I learn a lot from it, and it has led to a better idea of what I want to do with my life.

There are drugs in development that restore the signal strength of neurons to their younger (healthier) state. There are also drugs currently in testing that give the benefits of exercise without the need for exercise. There will always be the need for evidence that these substances do not have unwanted side effects, but if they prove to be safe and effective then I would certainly take them (I enjoy exercise btw).

I see mechanical means in a similar way. Safety will always be a valid concern, but I know people with hearing implants and they have no problem with that. There are nano-based red blood cells in development/testing that are far more effective than natural biological blood cells. I won't be the first in line to test them, but if they prove to be safe then I will certainly use them.

I guess I don't see much of a difference between the two. I don't want electrodes sticking out of my head, but if nanobots can some day reverse the damage to the brain through the process of aging then I would have no moral objection to using them (again, after a reasonable level of safety has been established).

>> ^jwray:
About supercomputers already exceeding the power of the human brain -- I call bullshit and do the math to back it up.
10^11 neurons 10^4 connections per neuron (average) 1 floating point operation per switching event per connection 1000 switching events per second = 10^18 flops. The most powerful supercomputer in the world does 10^15 flops, and is probably too large to have millisecond message passing from point to point.
http://www.top500.org/system/performance/9707


Your neuron count seems accurate, but I've only seen estimates of less than half the number of connections per neuron (2000-5000) that you are using, aside from the fact that not every neuron in the human brain is dedicated to intelligence (less than 85% by weight, not sure about neuron count).

That still puts it over the output of modern supercomputers, but that is also assuming that the human brain runs at full capacity 24/7. Brain power is affected by mood, nutrition, and the need for sleep... computers are not. Brain calculation estimates are also very rough... we're still figuring out what is going on in there. How many of those connections per neuron are actually used? No one really knows how many computations are accomplished by the human brain in a given day.

But I will concede that we cannot currently claim that the fastest super computer on Earth is more powerful than the human brain. Kurzweil predicted that it would happen some time in 2010 (not that it matters). Whether we actually build one at any given time will be mostly a function of whether we feel the need to spend the money on it, but we are still improving the processes needed to build such a machine even if we don't do so immediately.

Like you said, the software is the important part, and that depends on a lot more than what hardware is available at the time.