I'll see your new chip and raise you Intel and NUfab at Northwestern and ok fine you've got an argument but an epistemological argument for consciousness?
What does that have to do with quantum biophysics or actual real wetware neurons? I don't think a "theory of consciousness" is possible. It's a "mu" problem. The universe is saying "unask the question." My arrogant opinion. Greg On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 2:09 AM Colin Hales <col.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > This is to let you know of the arrival of this publication: > > Hales, C.G., and Ericson, M.L. (2022). Electromagnetism’s Bridge Across > the Explanatory Gap: How a Neuroscience/Physics Collaboration delivers > Explanation into all Theories of Consciousness. Frontiers in Human > Neuroscience 16. > https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.836046/full > > https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2022.836046/full#supplementary-material > > > This is the full and final argument. > > Note that on page 9 there is a brief discussion of a new kind of chip. > That is the one I am building at unimelb. AGI because it can't be anything > else. Actual artificial neurons (no general-purpose computing, no software, > no models, no programming). Bottom line line: put the signalling physics of > the brain in in natural form, naturally interacting, naturally adapting on > the chips, NOT the physics of a general purpose computer. > > The abstract is below. Overall: > 1) all theories of consciousness are actually EM field theories. > 2) bringing explanation of the 1st person perspective requires an > epistemic upgrade to the standard model of particle physics. > > Turns out that to properly cover all the bases needed 22 pages and an 8 > page supplementary. Sorry about that. > > Interesting times. > > cheers, > Colin > > > A productive, informative three decades of correlates of phenomenal > consciousness (P-Consciousness) have delivered valuable knowledge while > simultaneously locating us in a unique and unprecedented explanatory > cul-de-sac. Observational correlates are demonstrated to be intrinsically > very unlikely to explain or lead to a fundamental principle underlying the > strongly emergent 1st-person-perspective (1PP) invisibly stowed away inside > them. That lack is now solidly evidenced in practice. To escape our > explanatory impasse, this article focuses on fundamental physics (the > standard model of particle physics), which brings to light a foundational > argument for how the brain is an essentially electromagnetic (EM) field > object from the atomic level up. That is, our multitude of correlates of > P-Consciousness are actually descriptions of specific EM field behaviors > that are posed (hypothesized) as “the right” correlate by a particular > theory of consciousness. Because of this, our 30 years of empirical > progress can be reinterpreted as, in effect, the delivery of a large body > of evidence that the standard model’s EM quadrant can deliver a 1PP. That > is, all theories of consciousness are, in the end, merely recipes that > select a particular subset of the totality of EM field expression that is > brain tissue. With a universal convergence on EM, the science of > P-Consciousness becomes a collaborative effort between neuroscience and > physics. The collaboration acts in pursuit of a unified explanation > applicable to all theories of consciousness while remaining mindful that > the process still contains no real explanation as to why or how EM fields > deliver a 1PP. The apparent continued lack of explanation is, however, > different: this time, the way forward is opened through its direct > connection to fundamental physics. This is the first result (Part I). Part > II posits, in general terms, a structural (epistemic) add-on/upgrade to the > standard model that has the potential to deliver the missing route to an > explanation of how subjectivity is delivered through EM fields. The revised > standard model, under the neuroscience/physics collaboration, intimately > integrates with the existing “correlates of-” paradigm, which acts as its > source of empirical evidence. No existing theory of consciousness is lost > or invalidated. > > > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T347f603b99b79548-Ma58cb9da92de9e5af12335e0> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T347f603b99b79548-M5e07e4a9116c26e26a3d3971 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
