tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9043319857943176014.post1101631496610160654..comments2023-12-22T03:37:00.559-05:00Comments on sent2null space: Integrated Information does not equate to consciousness on its ownDavid Saintlothhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08003376317566794366noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9043319857943176014.post-71601339396966178602012-04-20T15:57:05.956-04:002012-04-20T15:57:05.956-04:00Great points Matt, regarding memory I see it as im...Great points Matt, regarding memory I see it as important for our type of consciousness which is a dynamic consciousness. Rather than being snapshots of moments taken in response loosely to stimuli (as say it surely is for a gnat or dragon fly) ours is a running *internal* and external dialogue and that necessarily factors into the network of neuronal connections being re-weighted across the levels of cognition involved.<br /><br />To me we see our model quite clearly in the various structures of the brain as they differ between different animals and an appeal to comparative brain science can help us quickly separate the wheat from the chaff as it were. At least in trying to understand what I call "emotional resolution" a key factor that we'll need to master if we are to create stable cognitive rather than pathological agents.<br /><br />I wrote a bit more on the natural connection in this blog post from february:<br /><br />http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2012/02/with-completion-of-ada-action-delta.htmlDavid Saintlothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08003376317566794366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9043319857943176014.post-14254105454208506842012-04-11T18:35:46.544-04:002012-04-11T18:35:46.544-04:00Just a quick note on your thoughts. I can't sa...Just a quick note on your thoughts. I can't say I followed your entire blog post (more due to confusion on my part than with your writing, I'm sure.) but Tononi is quite clear that his theory does apply to any physical object. To be more specific, he makes it clear that where there is causation, there is information, and where there is information, there is consciousness. Since there is causation everywhere (and at every physical scale from quantum to neuronal to universal) there is consciousness everywhere, hence panpsychism. I'm not extrapolating; Tononi is quite clear about the theory's panpsychist implications, as is Christof Koch, another IIT defender. How different is a simple experience (say of 1 bit) to our daily consciousness? Well, how different is our whole body to single atom? That's probably a fair comparison. <br /><br />Information integrates at different timescales, in neurons it looks like it's somewhere around 300-700 milliseconds, and so humans have a consciousness that runs at this rate. It is a prediction of the theory that any collection of elements that have integrated causal interactions over a certain time-scale will, at some level, generate conscious experience. The conscious experience's character is defined wholly by the abstract informational relationships generated by the system. In fact what the system IS (neurons, transistors, planets) is irrelevant to the experience just as Microsoft Word doesn't care which brand of PC it is on. <br /><br />That being said, it seems given the random "connectome" of most collections of non-neural entities, the phi value (the measure of the amount of consciousness generated) is either zero or infinitesimally small. It took eons of evolution to carve out of nature an information processor that could generate such complicated information structures. The people of the United States as a whole may indeed generate a conscious experience, but that experience would most likely be mind-numbingly basic. More interesting is the way the quantum world integrates information both with the wave-function collapse and with the concept of entanglement. Tononi briefly and tantalizingly addresses these issues in a footnote in his manifesto.<br /><br />You bring up memory. Although memory is not necessary for consciousness according to the IIT, experiments done on computer systems in an attempt to generate phi show that applying memory functions to the system as it programs itself can help it create causal structures that DO amplify phi growth. Memory appears to be an important aspect of how nature created consciousness even if it is not, strictly speaking, necessary for any particular instance of consciousness. <br /><br />As far as neural circuity goes, the theory makes a specific prediction. It claims that in any conscious human experience there should be a network of neurons in the brain connected in such a way that, when activated, engages a causal structure that cannot be reduced to the sum of its parts. While uncovering this "central" neuronal object is a challenge, in theory it should nonetheless be empirically verifiable.<br /><br />Anyway, glad you wrote the post. Science is finally getting around to the mind and it's great to see people paying attention.Matt Siglhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18192264713975819929noreply@blogger.com