Brain Droppings January 2, 2008 (Koch and the Quest for Consciousness)

This is a bit of a data and comment dump.

The first item is a find I'm very excited about. Prof. Koch seems to have done really good, rigorous work studying consciousness and presenting the field and state of knowledge comprehensively. It's a great contrast to Eliezer's approach on overcoming bias. Koch is another great candidate for a co-blogger for Hanson that could lead to a more serious blog than the one he's doing with eliezer. I think they'd have strong overlap with Hanson's interest in Em's but lack of demonstrated high level literacy about neuroanatomy and neuroscience generally. Of all the virgin territory Hanson plays with, the question of preserving subjective consciousness in the probably necessary transition to ems (if we're lucky) is the one that needs the most attention of geniuses for breakthroughs, it seems to me. Koch touches on all the hard problems and weak areas I've brought up in past posts, and acknowledges them rather than looking for an easy dismissal, as Eliezer does and Hanson passively accepts, it seems to me. Koch seems to me to be dangerously underknown and underappreciated. He's up there with Aubrey de Gray and Nick Bostrom, from what I can tell, as important resources to maximize my personal persistence odds.

http://questforconsciousness.com/cont.html

Table of Contents
Foreword by Francis Crick

1. Introduction to the Study of Consciousness
2. Neurons, the Atoms of Perception
3. The First Steps in Seeing
4. The Primary Visual Cortex as a Prototypical
 Neocortical Area
5. What Are the Neuronal Correlates of
 Consciousness?
6. The Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness Are
 Not in the Primary Visual Cortex
7. The Architecture of the Cerebral Cortex
8. Going Beyond the Primary Visual Cortex
9. Attention and Consciousness
10.The Neuronal Underpinnings of Attention
11.Memories and Consciousness
12.What You Can Do Without Being Conscious:
The Zombie Within
13.Agnosia, Blindsight, Epilepsy, and Sleep-
Walking: Clinical Evidence for Zombie Agents
14.Some Speculations on the Functions of
Consciousness
15.On Time and Consciousness
16.When the Mind Flips: Following the Footprints
of Consciousness
17.Splitting the Brain Splits Consciousness
18.Further Speculations on Thoughts and the
Unconscious Homunculus
19.A Framework for Consciousness
20.An Interview

Glossary

Bibliography

Excellent glossary for consciousness terminology:

http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/glossary.html

What could Prof. Koch do with Dr. Ishii levels of ethical latitude in terms of understanding human consciousness?

**********

Preparing ahead to avoid the Feynman danger (changing one's mind about cryonics at the last minute and having one's ashes scattered).

**********

This philosopher/economist is doing interesting stuff with decision theory. Seems to me to be one of the leading thinkers on the topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory

http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/staff/people-profile.php?name=Paul_Anand

************

TGGP, you can't predict what I think on that law and neuroscience article? I'm not sure I ever made it past the abstract and first few paragraphs, but the body of knowledge from neuroscience and other fields should change everything about the law. But insights that should have changed everything about the law occured decades ago. Law maintains its incoherence --I'm not really sure how. I suppose more than anything due to the reluctance to Finkelstein/Caplan legal scholars. The law has responded poorly not just to insights about mental states from neuroscience but efficiency insights from economics. Not to mention acknowledgments of epistemological uncertainty and limitations going back hundreds of years.

But then again, we may live in a world where are sorts of instituions go through the kabuki of rational, technocratic practices, even though they're in large part performing shamanistic functions (for example medicine and higher education, according to recent criticism popular in our sector of the blogospher).

******

TGGP, as for your comment on gerrymandered districts, in general I think technocratic creep and making administrative power more open to competition improves things. So districts designed by more expert designers, and not in such a way as to maximize incumbancy advantage would I think lead to better governance. But it's an empirical question, and I grant that the best answer like with most things is experimentation and analysis by independent experts, not universal imposition of a popular idea.

Comments

[TGGP]

I'm not as interested in consciousness, but it's nice to see a scientist tackling the issue rather than philosophers like Chalmers.

An ugly example of modern science colliding with the law here. As with Sokal, it reminds me that there are instances where they should not be mixed.

[M Paravich]

ah yes, TGGP, the ever present chattering douchebag of the internet that offers an opinion on everything and anything, even when he is wrong.

TGGP, Chalmers was trained in mathematics and computer science as an undergrad. He also did his PhD in cognitive science and philosophy and has worked in research areas of neuroscience and psychology. So your uninformed position about him being just a philosopher is garbage. But it's the typical uninformed swaggering bullshit that I've come to expect from yourself.

[TGGP]

Paravich, I don't remember you commenting anywhere I've been before. On what other sites have you read my comments?

I'm ready to concede being a douchebag. Isn't it somewhat synonymous with "pain-in-the-ass"?

I have a degree in Computer Science. I like to say that it has the word "science" at the end because it isn't one, just like how [insert here] studies aren't genuine fields of study or they wouldn't have to add the word.

I called Chalmers a philosopher because he is one. His approach on consciousness is based on philosophy and thought-experiments about possible but non-existent worlds. I don't view that as at all productive, in contrast to Koch who wants to study actual brains.

[M Paravich]

"I like to say that it has the word "science" at the end because it isn't one, just like how [insert here] studies aren't genuine fields of study or they wouldn't have to add the word."

Meaningless and crappy analogy. The only analogous property to both fields you've provided is the word "science" in the field of study. What a pathetic argument you've provided (and you also draw on the sweeping generalization fallacy). Cognitive science is a field that draws on multiple sciences, not just philosophy.

"I called Chalmers a philosopher because he is one. His approach on consciousness is based on philosophy and thought-experiments about possible but non-existent worlds. I don't view that as at all productive, in contrast to Koch who wants to study actual brains."

All I see here is "blah blah blah I'm not familiar with Chalmers research". Chalmers has, and still does, participate in scientific research, NOT just from a philosophical perspective. For christs sake the guy is trained in mathematics, compsci, and cognitive science. All of which allowed him to do computational neuroscience research, but apparently that isn't REAL science in your topsy turvy bizarro world (I wonder if that REAL sciene is anything like a true scotsman eh?).

All you've shown me is how goddamn ignorant (and fucking arrogant) you are.

[TGGP]

I wasn't reasoning by analogy or talking about cognitive science (which I think is a real science). I was talking about Computer Science, which is why I specifically referred to it. I never even used the phrase "REAL science". I did use the phrase "genuine field of study", which I think does include Computer Science but not Queer Post-Colonialist Lacanian-Marxist Studies or whatnot. You seem predisposed to want to disagree with me, with the result being that you attribute (interpret, to be more charitable) things to me that I didn't actually say.

Here are a list of statements about what Chalmers is or does. Are any of them false?
1. Chalmers is a philosopher.
2. Chalmers makes arguments about consciousness based on philosophical zombies.
3. Chalmers makes arguments about consciousness based on non-existing but possible worlds under different laws than ours.

Here is a statement that is not a fact but my opinion: The referenced arguments made by Chalmers were about as useful as Isaac Newton's search for Bible codes. The reason for that is not that Chalmers isn't good enough of a philosopher or that Newton was a subpar hermeneutician, but simply that those avenues are dead-ends.

[John Sabotta]

"What could Prof. Koch do with Dr. Ishii levels of ethical latitude in terms of understanding human consciousness?

to which I reply -

"The face of the demon is wreathed in smiles"

And I ask - what is wrong with you, Mr. Anonymous? Is your affectless, creepy manner merely a pose, or are you actually just as Awful a person as you seem to be. It would only be simple justice - since you admire Dr. Ishii so much - for you to be subjected to one of the procedures he presided over. One of those practises, as I recall, involved deliberately shooting Chines prisoners in order to provide realism in training to Japanese Army medics.

Anyone who cares to can look up the ugly facts behind your high sounding pseudo-scientific doubletalk.