And witnessing the brains aha moment signed to shed light on biology of consciousness

#2
Welcome to the forum! I must admit that I am surprised that you found that article so interesting that you chose to start by discussing it!

“If the time reported to us by the participants was valid, we reasoned that it might be possible to predict the accuracy of the decision,” Dr. Shadlen explained. “We incorporated a kind of mathematical trick, based on earlier studies, which showed that the speed and accuracy of decisions was tied together by the same brain function.”
I guess my question would be what is the null hypothesis that they have supposedly dis-proven - that the speed and accuracy of decisions were tied to totally different processes?

It might also be worth waiting to see if the study gets repeated before getting too excited about it.

Would you feel after reading that, that you could make a better decision making machine?

David
 
#3
Welcome to the forum! I must admit that I am surprised that you found that article so interesting that you chose to start by discussing it!



I guess my question would be what is the null hypothesis that they have supposedly dis-proven - that the speed and accuracy of decisions were tied to totally different processes?

It might also be worth waiting to see if the study gets repeated before getting too excited about it.

Would you feel after reading that, that you could make a better decision making machine?

David

Thanks for the welcome been watching the show for a long time and felt like I would get on the discussion. But before I start my viewpoint is I guess I'm sort of a materialist I've been looking into stuff like Alexes work and a few other people I'm trying to find which side has a stronger case but the reason I chose this paper is because it's new and written by a highly regarded neuroscientist and I feel like it's important I don't know about you but I feel like it sheds some light on Consciousness being biological I don't know what you think and I would love to hear from you and other members of this group what you think about it but yeah.
 
#4
http://neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-neuroscience-7189/

Found a pretty interesting article new and written by a very big name in the Neuroscience world
Daniel Wolpert is truly a leading researcher. I have not read any of the other authors before. The testing is well thought-out. Their pre-determined answer not so much. I strongly agree with the idea that the "aha moment" is just a more vivid experience of the model of "decision-making". I did not see their account of what entails a decision, so I put it in quotes. More critical is the lack of a definition of the threshold, separating sub-conscious understandings and conscious ones - other than subjective self-reporting.

I would simply said that they are looking for the timing of the mind making or reaching an understanding. I see no reason to connect the results to exclusive electro-chemical causes for the complex information processes of living things.
 
#5
I would simply said that they are looking for the timing of the mind making or reaching an understanding. I see no reason to connect the results to exclusive electro-chemical causes for the complex information processes of living things.
Yes. A pile of evidence, especially veridical NDEs, points to the filter or receiver theory of consciousness as the explanation for such experimental results. In other words a correllation theory, not a causation theory where the brain creates mind like the pancreas creates insulin. It should be noted that the study makes no progress in trying to understand what is the essence of the consciousness which has the "aha" moment, which still remains a mystery keyed to Chalmers' "hard problem".
 
#6
Yes. A pile of evidence, especially veridical NDEs, points to the filter or receiver theory of consciousness as the explanation for such experimental results. In other words a correllation theory, not a causation theory where the brain creates mind like the pancreas creates insulin. It should be noted that the study makes no progress in trying to understand what is the essence of the consciousness which has the "aha" moment, which still remains a mystery keyed to Chalmers' "hard problem".

I don't know I find some people throwing around correlation and causation a lot I'm not sure if it's people just calling everything a correlation and what does it actually take for the thing to become a causation and I'm not sure how accurate the study is but yeah
 
#8
More critical is the lack of a definition of the threshold, separating sub-conscious understandings and conscious ones - other than subjective self-reporting.
A frontier that is blurried by its very nature... You don't have to jump to NDEs to make a case, taking things like Bem into account complicates the argument (but we were expected to never talk about that, apparently).
 
#9
I don't know I find some people throwing around correlation and causation a lot I'm not sure if it's people just calling everything a correlation and what does it actually take for the thing to become a causation and I'm not sure how accurate the study is but yeah
To evidence causation; the kind of causation need be stated. Physical causation relies on math modeled processes of energy transfer and of molecular rearrangement. There is usually a quantified series of measurements.

Another level of causation can be communication or logic code based, and may have non-physical (informational) causes.

Correlation exist between abstracted data that can be presented as a map. Correspondence implies a stronger connection and can be seen as casual in some cases where events are happening on multiple levels.
 
Top