of the internet and intelligence

[Messier Undertree]

Sure.  Conceptually.  Remember that X-Files episode that William Gibson did?  Sort of reminds me of that, minus the HIMEOBS style weaponry.

I just know there are several flaws in how consciousness is being explained here.  I can't remember why, but I know which book its in.  Sadly, said book is 500 miles away.

I bet you could find it on the internets somewhere... o-o

[Cramulus]

This isn't quite meant to be literal. I wouldn't say the internet is achieving consciousness in the same way that humans are conscious. I don't think we're ever going to have a conversation with the internet.

The part about the internet being like a cloud is a more appropriate summary. We can see intelligence in the internet like we can see a cloud's shape as a big truck. But the cloud doesn't look like a big truck to anyone but humans. And the internet will display intelligent properties if we look for patterns of intelligence. And I think those intelligent properties are becoming more pronounced as the internet grows.

I've been thinking of starting an internet cult, but with the same trappings as a Cthulhu cult. =)

[Cramulus]

incidentally, this is somewhat related to a BIP conversation I vaguely recall about how the more complex a system gets the more it starts to look intelligent. I think the internet is probably the most complex manmade thing so far.


IT'S COMING
IA! IA! INTERNET FHTAGN!

[B_M_W]

Yes, I do have some corrections to make. No, I am not going to flame. Cramulus is cool, and he deserves some respect for putting this all together. I only flame when A) the post is total bullshit B) When the poster is an idiot and C) when I am in that kind of a mood. This is none of those.

First, out of the 100 billion neurons in the brain, only about a tenth of those are actively carrying an action potential. The rest are support cells, and while they are very very important for brain function (VERY important) they cannot signal other cells, they don't have the voltage gated channels needed to carry that ion flow along the axon. So its more like ten billion active neurons. So, 10% of users as the brain has active cells. You're right about the synapses though. its only with the peripheral nervous system do you ever get neurons connecting to one neuron. Lots and lots of synapses.

Secondly, I know you were talking about CAT scans, but try to avoid associating neurons with light, or lightning or electricity. Too many people get it in their heads that the brain looks like a bunch of light strings, prolly from bad science classroom videos in high school. All the signal is traveling down the axon is a current of sodium ions. Its not even the same ions down the whole axon; the whole thing is set off by a system of voltage gated channel proteins, meaning proteins that open their channels when they come into contact with a current of ions. The whole process is rather complex, but I will say that it has nothing to do with photons, or current of electrons.

Otherwise, I understand that this piece is mostly philosophical metaphores and comparison between visuals of conection in the brain and the internet. In all, I thought it was an interesting read. Thought the pictures were nice too.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Yes, I do have some corrections to make. No, I am not going to flame. Cramulus is cool, and he deserves some respect for putting this all together. I only flame when A) the post is total bullshit B) When the poster is an idiot and C) when I am in that kind of a mood. This is none of those.

First, out of the 100 billion neurons in the brain, only about a tenth of those are actively carrying an action potential. The rest are support cells, and while they are very very important for brain function (VERY important) they cannot signal other cells, they don't have the voltage gated channels needed to carry that ion flow along the axon. So its more like ten billion active neurons. So, 10% of users as the brain has active cells. You're right about the synapses though. its only with the peripheral nervous system do you ever get neurons connecting to one neuron. Lots and lots of synapses.

Secondly, I know you were talking about CAT scans, but try to avoid associating neurons with light, or lightning or electricity. Too many people get it in their heads that the brain looks like a bunch of light strings, prolly from bad science classroom videos in high school. All the signal is traveling down the axon is a current of sodium ions. Its not even the same ions down the whole axon; the whole thing is set off by a system of voltage gated channel proteins, meaning proteins that open their channels when they come into contact with a current of ions. The whole process is rather complex, but I will say that it has nothing to do with photons, or current of electrons.

Otherwise, I understand that this piece is mostly philosophical metaphores and comparison between visuals of conection in the brain and the internet. In all, I thought it was an interesting read. Thought the pictures were nice too.

You realise you just disappointed everyone who was waiting for a big BMW^tm Bitchslap!

yuor public has expectations you know 

[LMNO]

If you want a bitchslap, just say that evolution doesn't exist, because monkeys are still around.

[Messier Undertree]

Evolution doesn't exist, because monkeys are still around.

[B_M_W]

Evolution doesn't exist, because monkeys are still around.

Oh, you tease. 

[P3nT4gR4m]

Just out of interest BMW, how do you approach things like the nature of consciousness?

Never really heard a scientific person's take on this phenomena.

[B_M_W]

Just out of interest BMW, how do you approach things like the nature of consciousness?

Never really heard a scientific person's take on this phenomena.

In all truthfulness, thats about the point where biology falls out and psychology comes in.

I never claimed to be a psychologist.

Still, I will assent that the mind is not just contained in the brain. If the mind is the sum of all its parts, then it also includes the sensory neurons throughout the body. I don't know what that might mean to you, but thats about as far as I can go into the study of conciousness with the knowlege I have.

I can tell you about neurotransmitters and synapses and what parts of the brain seem to participate in certain actions. But as to what conciousness is, I have no clue.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Does it interest you at all?

Reason I ask is that any science I've seen (gotta admit I see psychology as verging on a pseudo science) seem to just brush over it, as if the subject doesn't interest them.

It's sorta esoteric, the whole notion of consciousness, with real, deep experimentation yielding only a subjective result. I'm curious if scientific study factors this in at any level. Or is it strictly left to the occultists?

[Cramulus]

Does it interest you at all?

Reason I ask is that any science I've seen (gotta admit I see psychology as verging on a pseudo science) seem to just brush over it, as if the subject doesn't interest them.

It's sorta esoteric, the whole notion of consciousness, with real, deep experimentation yielding only a subjective result. I'm curious if scientific study factors this in at any level. Or is it strictly left to the occultists?

I know you're addressing BMW, but I'm answering anyway.

Psychology has some fringe parts that verge on pseudoscience, but most psychology is done through experimentation, analysis of empirical results, etc. It most certainly is a science, unlike, say, sociology.

As far as how science handles the nature of consciousness... it's kind of a broad question. Also, when you talk about a things nature, you're usually talking philosophy. There's whole bodies of psych research which focus on the parts of consciousness, like perception, but I don't think there's any broad study of consciousness itself. (incidentally, there are some cool studies in the realm between social psych and the psychology of perception.)

If you're interested, there's a good wikipedia article on how cognitive neuroscience approaches consciousness - at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Cognitive_neuroscience_approaches


This stuff's always been interesting to me - so I got my bachelors in experimental psychology.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I guess the psychology diss was a bit innacurate. To be fair psychology generally does take the scientific tact of experiment ... measure results ... repeat experiment ... compare results

The thing that irks me about it is it's so 'black box'

Consciousness exists - we can (more or less) empirically prove this. But exploration seems limited to observation from outside. It's a fairly straightforward process to enter you're own consciousness and explore ,directly and experientially, it's domain.

Why does nobody outside the fringes seem to want to do this?

I will check out the link later. If it poo poos that statement then let me know - I'd be glad to find out there were some scientific mind surfers out there.

[B_M_W]

Does it interest you at all?

Reason I ask is that any science I've seen (gotta admit I see psychology as verging on a pseudo science) seem to just brush over it, as if the subject doesn't interest them.

It's sorta esoteric, the whole notion of consciousness, with real, deep experimentation yielding only a subjective result. I'm curious if scientific study factors this in at any level. Or is it strictly left to the occultists?

The reason that most people brush over it is because it is so damn complex. Really, we're talking the combined processes of billions of neurons working synergistically. Computers don't come anywhere close to calculating the possibilities. We can easily know how a single neuron works, but a single neuron, as stated before, may have 10,000 synapses with 10,000 other neurons. The neurons themselves are quite simple. And there really aren't that many different neurotranssmiters (any physiologist worth a grain of salt will tell you that its not the neurotransmitters that determine the "message", its the type of receptor proteins that determines whether there is an inhibatory or excitatory synapse. Learning those is a class in itself.)

Consider this alone: a single neuron recieving 10,000 "signals into its dendrites all at once, some of them inhibitory (80% of the synapses in the brain are inhibitory, btw. Thats right, 80% of the synapses in your brain STOP things from happening.) and some of them excitatory. if the excitatory outweighs the inhibitory, and the current of positive charged ions is enough (sodium ions, to be precise) then the action potential fires. And that action potential might cause a release of neurotransmitters at the terminal end that secrete off into another 10,000 synapses for 10,000 other neurons.

When you look at it this way, and realize that the brain has to be intact and alive for us to study conciousness, you will realize just how difficult a thing conciousness would be to figure out. Its not that we don't want to know. Its rather that we realize that we don't know, and don't try to make up bullshit to fill in the gaps with.

[Cain]

Figments of Reality by Cohen and Stewart is a good book for exploring some of these ideas.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Figments-Reality-Evolution-Curious-Mind/dp/0521663830/ref=sr_1_18/203-0644131-6366349?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176239315&sr=1-18

Both are really lucid writers (one is a physicist, the other an evolutionary biologist IIRC) and it involves no complex maths.