Thursday, December 11, 2014
Is Consciousness More than the Brain? | Interview with Dr. Gary Schwartz
Fascinating interview with human consciousness researcher Gary Schwartz below at the Electric Universe youtube channel.
Provides some thought provoking observations on human neural characteristics and consciousness (our memories may not reside in our brains?!?!?! Holy S--t!!!!) and in addition, provides a very nice review of 3 forms of system investigatory techniques known as "correlation", "ablation", and "stimulation" and especially their limitations in regard to solely relying on them to confirm a theory.
Schwartz uses an analogy of a television receiver system to demonstrate the limitations of these 3 techniques in their use to attempt to explain the operation of a system.
The limitations of these 3 techniques would apply to the analysis of any on-the-run system imo, whether the human brain OR an operating monetary system.
I would point out that these 3 techniques would apply to the analysis of a system and are not typically used in the creation of a system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
A television set performs a number of functions. As does the brain. When the components of a television degrade or are damaged, the set no longer functions properly or ceases to function. As does the brain.
You cannot tune in to broadcasts with a busted television set. You cannot experience consciousness without a brain. That is material reality.
Is this tinfoil hat science supposed to bring comfort to people?
These 'scientists' are in a state of unconsciousness, which can be defined as a lesser state of awareness. Or maybe they've been hypnotized by undetected external signals pervading the cosmos. The latter assertion requires evidence.
For goodness sake Matt, stay away from the Electric Universe people.
Bob,
"you cannot experience human consciousness without a brain"
Nothing Schwartz asserts here conflicts with this statement....
and btw, so if we put in all the work to put up the SOHO system and when it starts to report data back, we are supposed to ignore it?
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
Then why did we put it up there?
To ignore it?
??????
This is the way science works... thru observations..
And I've never heard a better explanatory example of the phrase "correlation is not causation" ever... than from Schwartz here...
This is like the idiots who look at Debt:GDP ratio and try to correlate this with currency devaluations/defaults... the two are not functionally related and the former is comparing a stock to a flow without acknowledgement.... yet people do it all the time...
We should be mindful of the limitations of these 3 techniques like Schwartz points out here when we examine any operational system...
I dont know if Schwartz conclusions are accurate (he has made some incredible claims which seem over the top for sure) I am looking at his methodology here...
rsp,
How do you observe an external contribution to consciousness? With what instrument?
When there's no data, what is there to ignore?
If it were part of the electromagnetic spectrum we could isolate test subjects from EM fields and look for changes in brain function or behavior.
It is known that in order for the brain to develop, it requires sensory input. And we have a good idea of what those inputs need to be.
Bob could you not have said the same thing about EM before we developed that theory?
To me Schwartz here is just doing some typical science in an area many people find interesting. .. who knows where it may lead or what may be revealed along the way... rsp
http://skepdic.com/essays/gsandsv.html
We wouldn't know about EM if there had been no observations or data to work with. Nothing to explain means no basis for conjecture.
A misunderstanding of the definition of consciousness is no basis for conjecture.
Science-fiction writers have done what this guy is doing. And that's fine - just don't call it science.
"We wouldn't know about EM if there had been no observations or data to work with. "
How do you measure EM without a spectrum analyzer outside the visible frequencies?
So this whole EM theory took decades to develop and it is still developing as we learn more...
"no observations to work with"
Schwartz is observing and recording data.... How is Schwartz not observing anything here?
Schwartz is observing human reactions and recording it..
Our Roger Erickson here has done the same types of things in his neuro physiology studies... listen to his latest podcast with Mike from the other day...
rsp,
One of the difficulties is instrumentation. Humans have already discovered that the human apparatus itself is only able to perceive a relatively narrow band of available information unaided by instrumentation. Now instrumentation is the limit of human cognizance.
What else there may be is an unknown unknown and perhaps an unknowable unknown using physical means. Some have suggested that consciousness may be a developable instrument for coming to knowledge about itself that is not accessible through other means.
It is emerging that some who report non-ordinary cognition and affect do exhibit correlated physical phenomena. such as brain functioning and biochemistry, that seem to be unique or at least not observed under ordinary conditions.
Of course, correlation reported experience with physiology says nothing about the import of the reports beyond the reported phenomena. What is interesting is that this correlation between experience and the functioning of the physical system can be induced and replicated using the traditional means recommended by spiritual teachers of various traditions historically and geographically. Moreover, the results can be located on maps of the structure and functioning of consciousness found in various wisdom traditions.
These effects have been the subject of rigorous study for decades and a body of research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals.
These practices are being integrated into health care, business, the military, schools, etc. in the West after having been used for millennia in non-Western cultures. They were only adopted widely in the West after having been "discovered" scientifically. Prior to this, they were mostly closeted monastic teachings in the West, where they were preserved at all. In fact, it is looking like the next frontier is not going to be limited to outer space but also include inner "space."
How do you measure EM without a spectrum analyzer outside the visible frequencies?
You can't until you build one. How you build one and the necessity of building one come from prior observations and data.
Maxwell's equations did not emerge purely from his imagination.
So this whole EM theory took decades to develop and it is still developing as we learn more...
Yes, so long as new observations and data can be collected. That is a difference between a conjecture and a hypothesis.
Schwartz is observing and recording data.... How is Schwartz not observing anything here?
Schwartz is observing human reactions and recording it..
He can observe a person's brain and tell if that person is conscious or in a coma. His assertion that there must be 'something more' contributing to the brains function is not an observation. It is conjecture and it is based on a misunderstanding of the definition of consciousness.
Our Roger Erickson here has done the same types of things in his neuro physiology studies... listen to his latest podcast with Mike from the other day...
I failed to detect any woo in that conversation. And it wasn't billed as a scientific discussion.
I have to agree with Bob on most of these points.
All sensory systems & nervous systems of all species are tuned to ability to navigate their context. They arrive at their characteristic bandwidths by natural selection, not by lack of design or construction capabilities.
Yes, Schwartz strikes me too as someone pursuing the science of what can be imagined.
Admittedly, there's no proof of where that leaves off & where pragmatism starts. If he, donors & readers enjoy it ... no problem.
In these crazy days, it's not clear that Arizona would attract even more funding by calling that group the Dept of Science Fiction AND human psychology. However, that might cover all ends while avoiding unnecessary frictions.
My only surprise is that Arizona U funds such research. Competition for faculty research support is currently vicious in all disciplines.
Maybe Arizona Psych has a significant private donor. Kochs? Scientologists?
Tinfoil hats off to Schwarz. He's probably laughing all the way to tenure and the bank. All while still adhering to the Hippocratic oath.
So Roger you are saying that spectrum analyzers dont exist????
Yes they do you can buy them on eBay...
????
Roger you are saying that ALL species only are aware of whatever EM bandwidth they 'evolved' .... by that same logic, mankind could never have come up with the EM spectrum analyzer.. rsp
The journey to discovering EM fields and building spectrum analyzers may have begun with the first compass.
If I had to point out just one of the contributors, it would be this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
Roger I dont see any chimpanzees swinging from trees in the dark with night vision goggles on... if you can see what I mean here...
iow at some point, we were ignorant completely about what we now term the EM spectrum... over time and with continued study, we continue to learn and develop theories
Its like Bob is saying we can know what we will never know...
bob is saying "if you cant see it then it doesnt exist..." if that is so then how can you explain the non-visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum?
We cant see pathogens with naked eye... so they dont exist?????
etc..
Matt: "you are saying that spectrum analyzers dont exist"
We're muddling this topic, Matt.
Physiological spectrum analyzers are called sensory systems. Their characteristics are redesigned per the demands of natural selection
... with a half-life determined by the rate of mutations & sexual recombination.
It typically takes several generations to re-tune physiological spectrum analyzers to environmental survival REQUIREMENTS.
While anything can, in theory, exist, Bob's correct in pointing out that there's no significant physiological evidence that individual humans worry overmuch about cosmic influences on local decisions (disregarding astrology). We've always had more pressing navigational demand to worry about, and more useful signals to analyze.
The types of spectrum analyzers you're talking about - in modern electronics - are aggregate-sensory-system capabilities invented by group-brains, for group organizational interests & organizational needs.
Individual humans interact indirectly with your defined EM spectrum analyzers, through specific interfaces, which are tuned to the requirements of currently evolved human sensory systems.
There's no significant evidence that human brains need extra EM spectrum analyzers. No more than spleen cells do. Our ~300 cell types & our ~7billion humans don't need to over complicate local features. They just need to do THEIR job in serving all other emerging layers in the aggregate that they're a part of.
When needed, it appears to be more pragmatic to extend our EM analysis through indirect methods (in the cloud, so to speak, of cultural discourse, & NOT in the inter-neuronal comms of the human CNS).
There is documented evidence for various sensory systems in diverse species having sensory-system sensitivity curves that differ from humans. Ultrasonic hearing in bats/cetaceans, infrared & UV sensitive photoreceptors in various non-vertebrates, and even magnetic field detection is some migratory animals (using statocysts w charged crystals).
However, despite what Schwarz imagines IS possible, there's no significant evidence that any primates - let alone humans - have been under any adaptive pressure whatsoever to evolve individual sensitivity to cosmic rays.
Leave that to SETI, and astronomy in general.
The distribution of energy that reaches the Earth may account for why our eyes are adapted to visible light, and our skin to the infrared.
The sun emits wavelengths according to its composition. Earth's atmosphere determines which wavelengths reach the ground.
An example of what we can see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9BqrSAHbTc
From Wikipedia:
The compass was invented in China, during the Han Dynasty between the 2nd century BC and 1st century AD.[1] The first compasses were made of lodestone, a naturally magnetized ore of iron.[3] Ancient Chinese people found that if a lodestone was suspended so it could turn freely, it would always point in the same direction, toward the magnetic poles.
This may have been the first observation of the effect of Earth's magnetic field. Explaining it has been a remarkable journey. Trips not over.
"The distribution of energy that reaches the Earth may account for why our eyes are adapted to visible light, and our skin to the infrared."
Yes, but that's only part of it. Every species sensory systems are tuned to whatever things they look for (navigation) in a particular biological niche. That becomes a function of what their food/dangers/obstacles absorb & reflect.
"The sun emits wavelengths according to its composition. Earth's atmosphere determines which wavelengths reach the ground."
& the absorbance/reflectance of key niche compounds further affect what wavelengths each species visual systems are tuned for
Post a Comment