My dear Sivaramanji
I am extremely happy to find a few interested in
many subjects and you are one among them. I had written in these columns
about Vilayanur Ramachandran HOD In San Diego research center south
California USA. His combination of our Vedic principles discussed along
with the Brain neuron research in mind boggling. He had explained a lot.
And yes as far as IIT (theory) west believes still consciousness can be
traced inside the brain or nothing big about it. I challenge Mr
Ramachandran with due respect to his scholarly wisdom of vedas as well as
in Neurons , NO ONE CAN FIND THE CONSCIOUSNESS AT ANY POINT OF TIME. Mind
,Soul and the Consciousness are abstractly explained by our Vedangas, but
only realisable individually. When Sandiego did experiments over few
santasis adept in yoga , to communicate through minds , by setting them
apart at distances, and measured the Graphs, they the USA , cannot but
admit that there were mind communications and were further stunned to say
that they did not through which medium they waves passed through. So there
are few things human efforts may not reach at all; singularity theory
though being pursued still, dropped by atheist , now no more, Stephen
Hawking. V R as a scientist trying to do justice, but it is tough to see
GOD by science as science and GOD being one only there cannot be a SEER and
the SEEN at one time. Thank u ji KR IRS 11524
On Sat, 11 May 2024 at 10:26, Madras Sivaraman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> IIT says that when neurons gather information it is not always 1+1 is 2
> but more. That is where the problem is. How is it more is that
> consciousness.There is a book by Anil Seth “ Being You” A NEW SCIENCE OF
> CONSCIOUSNESS.He is doing work on this for years now.”At the core ofIIT is
> a single measure called “theta” greek letter.The easiest way to think about
> theta that it measures how much a system is more than the sum its
> parts”This is the relevant quote from the book.
> But Vilayanoor Ramachandran an Indian brain scientist in the US once
> considered a potential for the Nobel,still feels consciousness will be soon
> explained by brain studies as nothing more than a biological phenomenon.
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 11 May 2024, at 7:39 PM, Rajaram Krishnamurthy <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Integrated Information Theory (IIT) is a theoretical framework
> proposed by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi to understand consciousness. It
> suggests that consciousness arises from the integration of information
> within the brain, rather than being a property of specific types of
> neurons or brain regions.
>
> Key principles of Integrated Information Theory include:
>
> Integration: Consciousness is associated with the integration of
> information. This means that a conscious experience cannot be divided
> into independent parts without losing its essential properties.
>
> Western theory and thinking of the consciousness are not different
> from the conscience; it has only a literal mundane meaning; if you are
> conscious, you have the consciousness; it is different from the existence
> theory of epistemology of the integrated Vedic statements of the sanatana
> dharma. According to the west, where there is nil information to grind, the
> consciousness is unaware. Thus, the West believes that consciousness is
> residing only within the brain and neurons, unlike what we say cannot be
> identified as only in one place; according to us it is all around us; it is
> in all the species.
>
> Information: IIT defines information in a specific way, not merely as the
> transmission of data, but as the ability of a system to differentiate
> between a large number of possible states. And west say that any analysis
> of the pros and the cons is determined only by consciousness. Brain is
> reduced to neurons.
>
> Exclusion: Consciousness is exclusive; one conscious experience at a time
> dominates, and others are excluded. The West thinks that it can only work
> one by one and never all together.
>
> Composition: IIT suggests that consciousness can be present in different
> degrees and qualities depending on the level of integration and information
> processing within a system. In short, unless there is information and it is
> not processed, there is no consciousness and we are sleeping; and in sleep
> there is no consciousness. So it varies from person to person and according
> to the significant territory, time and other miscellaneous factors. There
> is no principle focus about it as one can act independent; but determined
> as acting only on data like cell phone memory.
>
>
> Structural constraints: Certain structures and dynamics within the brain
> are more conducive to generating consciousness according to IIT.As
> information is processed, consciousness is generated to feed the brain to
> think over. This theory cannot answer the speed with which decisions are
> flown and if so what is the part of the consciousness is a mute question.
>
> Causal power: According to IIT, conscious systems have causal power,
> meaning they can affect and be affected by other systems. The West thinks
> exactly the opposite to us. It is not a potential force to reckon with
> until, mind is screwed down to coma status, It is a tool of operation with
> a variable factor. A power and powerlessness depends on the information it
> attains.
>
> IIT has sparked significant interest and debate within the scientific
> community. While it offers a compelling framework for understanding
> consciousness, it also faces criticisms and challenges, such as
> difficulties in quantifying integrated information and in relating its
> postulates to empirical data.
>
> Overall, Integrated Information Theory represents an ambitious attempt to
> provide a scientific account of consciousness, but it remains an active
> area of research with much yet to be understood and validated.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Rangarajan T.N.C. <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 at 05:53
> Subject: what counts as consciousness
> To:
>
>
> Click here to exit the Postlight Reader view
> [image: nautil.us]nautil.usWhat Counts as Consciousness
> May. 7th, 2024
> Send to Kindle
>
> Some years ago, when he was still living in southern California,
> neuroscientist Christof Koch drank a bottle of Barolo wine while watching *The
> Highlander*, and then, at midnight, ran up to the summit of Mount Wilson,
> the 5,710-foot peak that looms over Los Angeles.
>
> After an hour of “stumbling around with my headlamp and becoming
> nauseated,” as he later described the incident, he realized the nighttime
> adventure was probably not a smart idea, and climbed back down, though not
> before shouting into the darkness the last line of William Ernest Henley’s
> 1875 poem “Invictus”: “I am the master of my fate / I am the captain of my
> soul.”
>
> Which Animals Will Survive Climate Change
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> Koch, who first rose to prominence for his collaborative work with the
> late Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, is hardly the only scientist to ponder
> the nature of the self—but he is perhaps the most adventurous, both in body
> and mind. He sees consciousness as the central mystery of our universe
> <https://nautil.us/the-spiritual-consciousness-of-christof-koch-238327>,
> and is willing to explore any reasonable idea in the search for an
> explanation.
>
> Over the years, Koch has toyed with a wide array of ideas, some of them
> distinctly speculative—like the idea that the Internet might become
> conscious, for example, or that with sufficient technology, multiple brains
> could be fused together, linking their accompanying minds along the way.
> (And yet, he does have his limits: He’s deeply skeptical both of the idea
> that we can “upload
> <https://theconversation.com/when-will-i-be-able-to-upload-my-brain-to-a-computer-184130>”
> our minds and of the “simulation hypothesis
> <https://nautil.us/the-simulated-world-according-to-david-chalmers-238417/>
> .”)
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> In his new book, *Then I Am Myself The World*
> <https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/dr-christof-koch-phd/then-i-am-myself-the-world/9781541602816/?lens=basic-books>,
> Koch, currently the chief scientist at the Allen Institute for Brain
> Science in Seattle, ventures through the challenging landscape of integrated
> information theory <https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44> (IIT), a
> framework that attempts to compute the amount of consciousness in a system
> based on the degree to which information is networked. Along the way, he
> struggles with what may be the most difficult question of all: How do our
> thoughts—seemingly ethereal and without mass or any other physical
> properties—have real-world consequences? We caught up with him recently
> over Zoom.
> [image: In Body Image]*THE SELF*: In his new book, neuroscientist
> Christof Koch grapples with the complexity of consciousness. *Photo
> courtesy of Allen Institute.*
>
> *In your new book, you ask how the mind can influence matter. Are we any
> closer to answering that question today than when Descartes posited it
> nearly four centuries ago?*
>
> Let’s step back. Western philosophy of mind revolves around two poles, the
> physical and the mental—think of them like the north and the south pole.
> There’s materialism, which is now known as physicalism, which says that
> only physical really exists, and there is no mental; it’s all an illusion,
> like Daniel Dennett
> <https://nautil.us/i-never-stopped-learning-from-daniel-dennett-569904> and
> others have said.
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> Then there’s idealism, which is now enjoying a mini-renaissance, but by
> and large has not been popular in the 20th and early 21st century, which
> says that everything fundamentally is a manifestation of the mental.
>
> Then there is classical dualism, which says, well, there’s clearly
> physical matter and there’s the mental, and they somehow have to interact.
> It’s been challenging to understand how the mental interacts with the
> physical—that’s known as the causation problem.
>
> And then there are other things like panpsychism
> <https://nautil.us/a-clash-of-perspectives-on-panpsychism-237719>, that’s
> now becoming very popular again
> <https://nautil.us/why-philip-pullman-is-obsessed-with-panpsychism-237726>,
> which is a very ancient faith. It says that fundamentally everything is
> “ensouled”—that everything, even elementary particles, feel a little bit
> like something.
>
> All of these different positions have problems. Physicalism remains a
> dominant philosophy, particularly in Western philosophy departments and big
> tech. Physicalism says that everything fundamentally is physical, and you
> can simulate it—this is called “computational functionalism.” The problem
> is that, so far, people have been unable to explain consciousness, because
> it’s so different from the physical.
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> It may be that a little bacterium feels a little bit like something.
>
> *What does integrated information theory say about consciousness?*
>
> IIT says, fundamentally, what exists is consciousness. And consciousness
> is the only thing that exists *for itself*. You are conscious. Tonight,
> you’re going to go into a deep sleep at some point, and then you’re not
> conscious anymore; then you do not exist for yourself. Your body and your
> brain still have an existence for others—I can see your body there—but you
> don’t exist for yourself. So only consciousness exists for itself; that’s
> absolute existence. Everything else is derivative.
>
> It says consciousness ultimately is causal power upon itself—the ability
> to make a difference. And now you’re looking for a substrate—like a brain
> or computer CPU or anything. Then the theory says, whatever your conscious
> experience is—what it feels like to see red, or to smell Limburger cheese,
> or to have a particular type of toothache—maps one-to-one onto this
> structure, this form, this causal relationship. It’s not a process. It’s
> not a computation. It’s very different from all other theories.
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> *When you use this term “causal powers,” how is it different from an
> ordinary cause-and-effect chain of events? Like if you’re playing
> billiards, you hit the cue ball, and the cue ball hits the eight ball …*
>
> It’s nothing woo-woo. It’s the ability of a system, let’s say a billiard
> ball, to make a difference. In other words, if it gets hit by another ball,
> it moves, and that has an effect in the world.
>
> And IIT says you have a system—a bunch of wires or neurons—and it’s the
> extent to which they have causal power upon themselves. You’re always
> looking for the maximum causal power that the system can have on itself.
> That is ultimately what consciousness is. It’s something very concrete. If
> you give me a mathematical description of a system, I can compute it, it’s
> not some ethereal thing.
>
> *So it can be objectively measured from the outside?*
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> That’s correct.
>
> *But of course there was the **letter* <https://psyarxiv.com/zsr78/>* last
> year that was signed by 124 scientists claiming that integrated information
> theory is pseudoscience, partly on the grounds, they said, that it isn’t
> testable.*
>
> Many years ago, I organized a meeting in Seattle, where we came together
> and planned an “adversarial collaboration.” It was specifically focused on
> consciousness. The idea was: Let’s take two theories of consciousness—in
> this case, integrated information theory versus the other dominant one, global
> neuronal workspace theory
> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8770991/>. Let’s get people
> in a room to discuss—yes, they might disagree on many things—but can we
> agree on an experiment that can simultaneously test predictions from the
> two theories, and where we agree ahead of time, in writing: If the outcome
> is A it supports theory A; if it’s B, it supports theory B? It involved 14
> different labs.
>
> The experiments were trying to predict where the “neural footprints of
> consciousness,” crudely speaking, are. Are they in the back of the brain,
> as integrated information theory asserts, or in the front of the brain, as
> global neuronal workspace asserts? And the outcome was very clear—two of
> the three experiments were clearly against the prefrontal cortex and in
> favor of the neural footprint of conscious being in the back.
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> It’s not my brain that sees; it’s consciousness that sees.
>
> This provoked an intense backlash in the form of this letter, where it was
> claimed the theory is untestable, which I think is just baloney. And then,
> of course, there was blowback against the blowback, because people said,
> wait, IIT may be wrong <https://nautil.us/the-worth-of-wild-ideas-399097>—the
> theory is certainly very different from the dominant ideology—but it’s
> certainly a scientific theory; it makes some very precise predictions.
>
> But it has a different metaphysics. And people don’t like this.
>
> Most people today believe that if you can simulate something, that’s all
> you need to do. If a computer can simulate the human brain, then of course
> [the simulation is] going to be conscious. And LLMs—sooner or later [in the
> functionalist view] they’re going to be conscious—it’s just a question of,
> is it conscious today, or do you need some more clever algorithm?
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> IIT says, no, it’s not about simulating; it’s not about doing—it’s
> ultimately about *being*, and for that, really, you have to look at the
> hardware in order to say whether it’s conscious or not.
>
> *Does IIT involve a commitment to panpsychism?*
>
> It’s not panpsychism. Panpsychism says, “this table is conscious” or “this
> fork is conscious.” Panpsychism says, fundamentally, everything is imbued
> with both physical properties as well as mental properties. So an atom has
> both mental and physical properties.
>
> IIT says, no, that’s certainly not true. Only things that have causal
> power upon themselves [are conscious]—this table doesn’t have any causal
> power upon itself; it just doesn’t do anything, it just sits there.
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> But it shares some intuitions [with panpsychism]—in particular, that
> consciousness is on a gradient, and that maybe even a comparatively simple
> system, like a bacterium—already a bacterium contains a billion proteins,
> [there’s] immense causal interaction—it may well be that this little
> bacterium feels a little bit like *something*. Nothing like us, or even
> the consciousness of a dog. And when it dies, let’s say, when you’re given
> antibiotics and its membrane dissolves, then it doesn’t feel like anything
> anymore.
>
> A scientific theory has to rest on its on its predictive power. And if the
> predictive power says, yes, consciousness is much wider than we think—it’s
> not only us and maybe the great apes; maybe it’s throughout the animal
> kingdom, maybe throughout the tree of life—well, then, so be it.
>
> *Toward the end of the book, you write, “I decide, not my neurons.” I
> can’t help thinking that that’s two ways of saying the same thing—on the
> macro level it’s “me,” but on the micro level, it’s my neurons. Or am I
> missing something?*
>
> Yeah, it’s a subtle difference. What truly exists for itself is your
> consciousness. When you’re unconscious, as in a deep sleep on anesthesia
> <https://nautil.us/under-anesthesia-where-do-our-minds-go-238501/>, you
> don’t exist for yourself anymore, and you’re unable to make any decisions.
> And so what truly exists is consciousness, and that’s where the true action
> happens.
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> I actually see you on the screen, there are lights in the image; inside my
> brain, I can assure you, there are no lights, it’s totally dark. My brain
> is just in a goo. So it’s not my brain that sees; it’s consciousness that
> sees. It’s not my brain that makes a decision, it’s my consciousness that
> makes a decision. They’re not the same.
>
> You can simulate a rainstorm, but it never gets wet inside the computer.
>
> *For as long as we’ve had computers, people have argued about whether the
> brain is an information processor of some kind. You’ve argued that it
> isn’t. From that perspective, I’m guessing you don’t think large language
> models have causal powers.*
>
> Correct. In fact, I can pretty confidently make the following statement:
> There’s no Turing test for consciousness, according to IIT, because it’s
> not about a function; it’s all about this causal structure. So you actually
> have to look at the CPU or the chip—whatever does the computation. You have
> to look at that level: What’s the causal power?
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> Now you can of course simulate perfectly well a human brain doing
> everything a human brain can do—there’s no problem conceptually, at least.
> And of course, a computer simulation will one day say, “I’m conscious,”
> like many large language models do, unless they have guardrails where they
> explicitly tell you “Oh no, I’m just an LLM—I’m not conscious,” because
> they don’t want to scare the public.
>
> But that’s all simulation; that’s not actually being conscious. Just like
> you can simulate a rainstorm, but it never gets wet inside the computer,
> funnily enough, even though it simulated a rainstorm. You can solve
> Einstein’s equation of general relativity for a black hole, but you never
> have to be afraid that you’re going to be sucked into your computer
> simulation. Why not? If it really computes gravity, then shouldn’t
> spacetime bend around my computer and suck me, and the computer, in? No,
> because it’s a simulation. That’s the difference between the real and the
> simulated. The simulated doesn’t have the same causal powers as the real.
>
> So unless you build a machine in the image of a human brain—let’s say
> using neuromorphic engineering, possibly using quantum computers—with that,
> you can get human-level consciousness. If you just build them like we build
> them right now, where one transistor talks to two or three other
> transistors—that’s radically different from the connectivity of the human
> brain—you’ll never get consciousness. So I can confidently say that
> although LLMs very soon will be able to do everything we can do, and
> probably faster and better than we can do, they will never be conscious.
>
> *So in this view, it’s not “like anything” to be a large language model,
> whereas it might be like something to be a mouse or a lizard, for example?*
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> Correct. It is like something to be a mouse. It’s not like anything to be
> an LLM—although the LLM is vastly more intelligent, in any technical sense,
> than the mouse.
>
> *Yet somewhat ironically, the LLM can say “Hello there, I’m conscious,”
> which the mouse cannot do.*
>
> That’s why it’s so seductive, because it can speak to us, and express
> itself very eloquently. But it’s a gigantic vampire—it sucks up all of
> human creativity, throws it into its network, and then spits it out again.
> There’s no one home there. It doesn’t feel like anything to be an LLM.
>
> *Lead image: chaiyapruek youprasert / Shutterstock*
> Nautilus Members enjoy an ad-free experience. Log in
> <https://nautil.us/concierge-login>or Join now .
>
> -
>
> Dan Falk (@danfalk) is a science journalist and broadcaster based in
> Toronto. His books include *The Science of Shakespeare* and *In Search
> of Time*.
>
> [image: new_letter]
>
> Cutting-edge science, unraveled by the very brightest living thinkers.
>
> <https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnautil.us%2Fwhat-counts-as-consciousness-579734%2F%3Futm_source%3Dbigthink-newsletter%26utm_medium%3Dswap-email%26utm_campaign%3D05%252F09%252F24%2BSmarter%2BFaster%253A%2BThe%2Bworld%2Bwide%2Brift%2B%252F%252F%2BThe%2Bworld%2Bwide%2Brift%26utm_content%3D05%252F09%252F24%2BSmarter%2BFaster%26rjnrid%3D5z4OB2E&text=What%20Counts%20as%20Consciousness>
>
> <?subject=What%20Counts%20as%20Consciousness&body=What%20Counts%20as%20Consciousness%0D%0Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fnautil.us%2Fwhat-counts-as-consciousness-579734%2F%3Futm_source%3Dbigthink-newsletter%26utm_medium%3Dswap-email%26utm_campaign%3D05%252F09%252F24%2BSmarter%2BFaster%253A%2BThe%2Bworld%2Bwide%2Brift%2B%252F%252F%2BThe%2Bworld%2Bwide%2Brift%26utm_content%3D05%252F09%252F24%2BSmarter%2BFaster%26rjnrid%3D5z4OB2E>
>
> [image: Postlight Reader] <https://reader.postlight.com/>
>
> A Labs project from your friends at[image: Postlight, an NTT Data Company]
> <https://postlight.com/>
>
> We are now Launch
>
> <https://postlight.com/>
>
>
>
> --
> On Facebook, please join https://www.facebook.com/groups/keralaiyerstrust
>
> We are now on Telegram Mobile App also, please join
>
> Pattars/Kerala Iyers Discussions: https://t.me/PattarsGroup
>
> Kerala Iyers Trust Decisions only posts : https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrust
>
> Kerala Iyers Trust Group for Discussions:
> https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrustGroup
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "KeralaIyers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/CAL5XZooRWkPfvO_HCG3zEurYioeVnrX%3DxBitAnAqceCzrFFstQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/CAL5XZooRWkPfvO_HCG3zEurYioeVnrX%3DxBitAnAqceCzrFFstQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> On Facebook, please join https://www.facebook.com/groups/keralaiyerstrust
>
> We are now on Telegram Mobile App also, please join
>
> Pattars/Kerala Iyers Discussions: https://t.me/PattarsGroup
>
> Kerala Iyers Trust Decisions only posts : https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrust
>
> Kerala Iyers Trust Group for Discussions:
> https://t.me/KeralaIyersTrustGroup
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "KeralaIyers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/88F46AC0-21C2-4F9F-B63B-F14BB71F93D2%40gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/keralaiyers/88F46AC0-21C2-4F9F-B63B-F14BB71F93D2%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorfceM5h9se2ZH%3DajUgk8dhXcNeWEQmF8BTyaB%3DOffW8g%40mail.gmail.com.
