On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:36 AM, John Rose via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Matt Mahoney via AGI [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> 1. A state of wakefulness (as opposed to unconsciousness). >> 2. Self awareness or qualia, that which distinguishes you from a >> philosophical >> zombie. >> >> I do dispute that Orch OR has anything to do with explaining 2-consciousness, >> > > No, I think the whole idea of Orch OR is explaining the orchestration of > conscious moments or OR moments occurring around 25ms (40 Hz gamma synchrony) > originating from coherent sets of neurons in the thousands. A moment is an > algorithmic/deterministic Schrödinger evolution to an OR threshold at Planck > level. OR with orchestration as proposed is part of qualia, or your > 2-consciousness. That's what the paper is about, the mechanics behind all > that, now with the added proposal for beat frequencies... > > All Penrose is saying is that according to Gödel's theorem a computational > system requires some non-computable factor for understanding. You always > refer to this same thing, no?
The brain is not a logic system with a set of axioms. Humans can deal with conflicting evidence and statements like "this sentence is false". Penrose argues that it is not computable for us to "know" when a true but unprovable sentence is really true, and therefore it requires something mysterious like phenomenal consciousness (2-consciousness) to know that. But actually the brain learns truth by induction or example. If I want to convince you that something is true, like all swans are white, then I just show you several white swans. But apparently zombie computers can't do this according to Penrose. >> The authors claim that a single neuron performs 10^16 microtubule >> operations per second. But I doubt this is relevant. The standard model of >> neural networks, in which the relevant signal is the firing rate, is well >> tested >> and supported by the success of deep learning networks for processing >> vision and language. We don't need to model neurons at the microtubule >> level, any more than we need to model a CPU running a program at the level >> of electrons and holes moving through silicon. >> > > Your calculations ignore any type of synchrony or coordination, IOW all > neurons are weighted the same. One exception to the standard neural model is the transmission of phase information for stereoscopic sound perception up to 1500 Hz. This requires a signaling rate about 100 times faster than using the average firing rate as the relevant signal, not 10^16. If Penrose and Hameroff want to argue that microtubules are critical to most of what the brain does, then they need to come up with plausible models that require them. We already have models that work just fine without them. But what about a model of phenomenal consciousness? There is a simple, biologically plausible model that explains why we believe it exists, which of course is different than it actually existing. When we think or perceive (write into episodic or 1-conscious memory), we receive positive reinforcement. We want this stream of thoughts and perceptions to continue. It is this reinforcement (as well as negative reinforcement of pain) that we call phenomenal 2-consciousness. This belief exists because it increases our reproductive fitness by giving us a will to live. Penrose is smart enough to know that the brain is capable of false beliefs, such as optical illusions. These beliefs can be explained with conventional neural models. -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
