Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Consciousness May Be the Product of Carefully Balanced Chaos (sciencemag.org)

Posted by Soulskill on from the sometimes-not-so-carefully-balanced dept.

sciencehabit writes: The question of whether the human consciousness is subjective or objective is largely philosophical. But the line between consciousness and unconsciousness is a bit easier to measure. In a new study (abstract) of how anesthetic drugs affect the brain, researchers suggest that our experience of reality is the product of a delicate balance of connectivity between neurons—too much or too little and consciousness slips away. During wakeful consciousness, participants’ brains generated “a flurry of ever-changing activity”, and the fMRI showed a multitude of overlapping networks activating as the brain integrated its surroundings and generated a moment to moment “flow of consciousness.” After the propofol kicked in, brain networks had reduced connectivity and much less variability over time. The brain seemed to be stuck in a rut—using the same pathways over and over again.

21 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Or, it might simply be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a feedback loop.

    1. Re:Or, it might simply be... by kheldan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ..feedback loop

      That's what I was just thinking. Every system in a biological organism is a negative-feedback loop, isn't it? Self-regulating? Why shouldn't the human brain work the same way on a fundamental level? Drugs that we use work because it alters the loop characteristics, right?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    2. Re:Or, it might simply be... by peragrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A feedback loop with some amazing pattern recognition abilities. A little bit of fuzzy logic for memory storage.

      That bieng said I don't think we will ever have our memories downloaded or uploaded. Every persons brain maps out uniquely. Can you image a hard drive that randomly scattered data,Yet could still sort through it?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Or, it might simply be... by Dread_ed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the description in the article it would seem that consciousness is an emergent phenomena based on the interactions of multiple networks in the brain. Turn off the interactions (as they did with propofol) and the emergent phenomena (consciousness) dissipates. Or better stated, consciousness is not inherent in a part of the brain, but a result of the interactions of the different systems of the brain.

      If there are drugs that can inhibit or change the operation of some of these networks individually it would be interesting to see how the other networks are affected, and also to explore how consciousness is affected. The resiliency of consciousness, coupled with its plasticity speaks to a complex system where multiple, simple, and similar components interact chaotically. Tinkering with those networks individually could lead to some profound insights about the nature of consciousness, both objectively and subjectively.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    4. Re:Or, it might simply be... by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 2

      It is that in part, but it would be more completely described as a dynamic self-interacting pattern that integrates external inputs and actuates outputs but can exist while disconnected from it's usual I/O channels because it can use memory as a form of virtual reality, however if you remove it's access to memory it has no means of driving it's dynamism. This is what makes Propofol induced states more like stasis or a temporary death and not like natural unconscious states such as sleep, which can involve REM and dreaming which can form new memories by interacting with old memories.

    5. Re:Or, it might simply be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Correct, but missing the point.

      To clarify: remember that chaotic does not mean unbounded nor non-deterministic, just that the state becomes more and more dependent on the initial/boundary conditions as time passes. So to predict the state at time t0 you might need to know initial conditions to say 20 decimal places, but to predict at time t1>>t0 you might need to know initial conditions at say 500 decimal places, and so on, making the output deterministic in theory but unpredictable in practice (though you sometimes might see things like emergent cyclic behaviour, attractors etc). The state *may* be unbounded ("output" becoming bigger and bigger over time) and chaotic at the same time, but it can also be both bounded and chaotic - google the logistic map for example.

      Back to the article, what they are arguing is that if you have too much connectivity (and yes there are loops, so it is feedback) things just go haywire - like the feedback you get when you put your mic in front of the speaker - and you get things like epilepsy. Too little connectivity (and hence feedback) and things converge to something like a steady state (simplifying obviously, but not overly) - aka anaesthetised/asleep/in coma. Get the level of connectivity/feedback just right and you have a system that is both chaotic and bounded. Unpredictable in practice, but not just randomly shooting off in any old direction as per the over-connected case. And that is where the interesting stuff happens.

      Not actually a new idea, but still an interesting one.

    6. Re:Or, it might simply be... by Chriscypher · · Score: 2

      Seems to me this finding supports:

      Epiphenomenalism --
      An approach to the mind-body problem that is a form of dualism and one-way interactionism (1), assuming as it does that mental experiences are real but are merely trivial by-products or epiphenomena of one particular class of physical brain processes, real but incidental, like the smoke rising above a factory, so that physical processes can cause mental experiences but not vice versa. Compare psychophysical parallelism. [From Greek epi on + phainein to show + -ismos indicating a state or condition]

      http://oxfordindex.oup.com/vie...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      "You have liberated me from thought."
  2. Gibberish by nintendoeats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The question of whether the human consciousness is subjective or objective is largely philosophical."

    I have a philosophy degree and I have no idea what this sentence means. I think they mean whether consciousness is the product of a deterministic process or some kind of dualism (a soul, whatever that is). Either way, the experience of consciousness must be objective because what the thinker experiences IS the consciousness. In fact, I would argue that consciousness is the only thing that can be experienced objectively, since all other senses and experiences are filtered through consciousness. Cogito ergo sum and all that jazz.

    But that's all rubbish anyway because as far as I'm concerned the question itself doesn't make sense.

    1. Re:Gibberish by turbidostato · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Either way, the experience of consciousness must be objective because what the thinker experiences IS the consciousness."

      So can I observe that very consciousness and say "yes, that's the consciousness you described to me"? Because, lacking that, your definition of objectiveness is quite useless, both on its definition (objective implies verifiable, which can't be done if not repeatable by a third party) and its operative value (you can't inject -not even theoretically, consciousness into an object if you can't objectively set what's the thing).

    2. Re:Gibberish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact, I would argue that consciousness is the only thing that can be experienced objectively, since all other senses and experiences are filtered through consciousness.

      Except that our brains process far more information than we are "consciously" aware of. I think if we had to be ever-conscious of everything we sense, we'd go nuts - which may be why "consciousness" developed in the first place, to provide a filter and focus for our decision-making based on sensory input.

      The Power of Habit starts out with an interesting anecdote about a patient who was brain-damaged by a viral infection and couldn't remember what he was talking about even a few minutes prior. Yet, when he wandered off, he found his way home. He couldn't tell you how to get to the kitchen, yet when he was hungry, he just got up and went there to get some food. He was given cognitive tests that showed he was forming new memories, but wasn't aware of them.

      There is a pile of intriguing evidence that consciousness may not strictly be necessary for a lot of the things we do everyday!

    3. Re:Gibberish by gweihir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The neuro-"scientists" have this little problem that consciousness does not fit their models at all. (Neither does intelligence, but they have not noticed that little problem so far...) Hence they invent colorful non-explanations to misdirect others and themselves by claiming there is no problem.

      The real problem is that they are not doing science. They assume physicalism as ground truth and that is a religious approach, not a scientific one. Actual scientists would realize that the question is still open at this time (but the more we know, the more it goes towards "some kind of dualism", although certainly not a religious one) and would search in both directions. They do not.

      I do agree that the question does not make sense. Perhaps the strongest thing human beings find when entering this world is that they have a consciousness. (Well, unless this is solipsism where you are all p-zombies...) That is ground truth. Physics is less solid in comparison and physics actually does not seem to have a place for something like consciousness. It cannot explain it. In a rather strong sense, it does not apply to the question. Sure, there must be some kind of interface between consciousness and physical reality, but so far, it is completely unclear how that works. Interestingly, quantum-physics has the concept of an "observer", but the observer seems to be extra-physical as it can do "magic" and drag superposed quantum-states into a definite state. No purely physical object should be able to do that and yet it seems human beings can.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Gibberish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps I can help, one philosopher to another.

      The word "objective" has multiple meanings. We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us.

      In the scientific context, "objective" usually means "can be observed by multiple extrinsic observers, and they all describe their observations similarly after the fact." This would forcefully exclude your argument, inasmuch as the phenomenon in question is precisely that which is used to establish objectivity. Put differently...the reason why we need multiple extrinsic observers is because the singular act of experiencing is subjective (the opposite of objective). One cannot observe the content of another's observations (if we could, this definition of "objective" wouldn't even need to exist, let alone serve as the foundation for our single most-effective truth-testing method).

      What the author might have been trying to get at, though, is whether or not consciousness is a physical phenomenon. In common parlance, "objective" is often used to mean "pertains to the real world" whereas "subjective" is used to mean "pertains to that private inner world which is of a different essence than the physical world." Since most scientists are philosophical physicalists to begin with, such a distinction is meaningless. To those who accept it as a given that reality includes a "spiritual" side, and that this spirit-world is where all subjective experience occurs, the question seems already-answered.

      As an aside...in the domain of psychology, "objective" often means "without interpretive influence from emotion or forgone conclusion." This would also exclude your proposed definition. In fact, I am hard-pressed to think of any human discipline in which your notion of consciousness being intrinsically objective really makes sense.

      I do agree, however, that consciousness is all we have to work with. Every "fact" we know about the external world (including the "fact" that it is external) is mediated to use by means of sense data, the experiencing of which is called "consciousness." Its incapability, however, doesn't automatically make it qualify as "objective" by any useful definition.

    5. Re:Gibberish by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      From a practical side, conscientious can be, and sometimes is, described as an awareness of one's immediate surroundings. Thus, a robot that responds and reacts to objects around it in predictable way(s) could be said to be "conscious" to some extent.

      A "degree" of consciousness could perhaps be assigned based on knowledge of one's surroundings, such as the ability to offer different responses based on the "kind" of things around, and the ability to predict their behavior (usually based on observations, computations, and/or past knowledge).

      This does require some responses, though. If a person in an apparent coma is fully aware of everything around them but cannot move or talk, then observers will never be able to verify their perception (assuming they don't describe it later when they regain speech).

      If you base the definition on feelings instead of observable interactions, then you'll have a tricky time objectively verifying the existence, levels, and/or properties of "consciousnesses". This is not saying that a definition based on feelings is "wrong", but merely that it's harder to work with and talk about. A definition being accurate (reflecting human usage of terms) and being useful are sometimes at odds.

      For example, we all know what "hate" is, but defining it based on observable behavior can get sticky. Maybe Bob smacked Harry because Bob is insane, not necessarily because Bob hates Harry. Generally we'd try to spot multiple different behaviors that triangulate to "hate" to confirm it's existence, such as frowning when the person is around. We could make a check-list of behaviors associated with hate and maybe require a certain percent be covered before we conclude "likely to be hatred".

      (My interactions with domestic telecoms would probably fill the checklist.)

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    6. Re:Gibberish by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but the more we know, the more it goes towards "some kind of dualism", although certainly not a religious one

      I'd have to ask where you're getting this from. It's one thing to suggest that science does not yet have a good answer and so the actual mechanism are unclear, but it is quite another to suggest that a lack of understanding suggests a kind of mysticism that people refer to as dualism. In fact, I think that as we progress we'll eventually find that consciousness is hardly unique, but is merely that result of having enough sophisticated hardware wired together in the correct way. We're only scraping at the crust in terms of understanding the human brain and as our tools and knowledge improves, so too will our ability to make better hypotheses.

      We're also approaching answers to these questions with computers. I recall a story were researchers were able to model a simple brain in software and use a hardware interface to simulate the body by using sensor feedback to represent input to the software brain. It turned out that this robot behaved quite similarly to the organism which is was modeled after. In time we'll be able to build more complex robots that more closely model our own selves, and I suspect that consciousness is merely an emergent property of the way our brains are physically arranged.

      We're increasingly finding more support for this as personality traits (empathy, aggressiveness, etc.) or other characteristics (sexual attraction, gender perception) are tied to different areas or the physical arrangements of parts of the brain. There's still a lot of work to be done to fully understand how the mechanism works, and studies that can show a casual relationship still need to be conducted, but we're getting closer and technological advances will allow us to conduct the types of experiments in the future, that are not currently possible.

      What will become more interesting is when humans unlock the knowledge required to build advanced consciousnesses or to modify our own biology in such a way to free ourselves from evolutionary baggage that often clouds or consciousness or manifests itself in other undesirable ways. Eventually consciousness will be no more remarkable than phototropism.

    7. Re:Gibberish by nintendoeats · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Consciousness cannot be defined as an awareness of one's immediate surroundings because

      A: It is possible to have a consciousness that exists in a vacuum.
      B: It is possible for that consciousness to believe that it is not in a vacuum because its method of detecting the outside world is faulty.
      C: A and B both being the case, qualification as a consciousness must not require knowledge of anything outside itself.

      Because of this, and some other sticking points, there is no test for whether or not something else is "conscious". In fact, we don't really know what consciousness is, only that there is some bundle of qualities which we call consciousness not all of which we can define or be aware of but which be believe must exist.

    8. Re:Gibberish by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Au contraire, the question is where you are getting this from. Your position is certainly not a scientific one and you are rather severely misinformed about what software can do (most people are). You are also severely misinformed about how complex a human brain is. Still, it is quite likely that a human brain is not enough to do what smart human beings can to. Just not enough computing power.

      The problem is there is still absolutely no indication that human-equivalent intelligence can be implemented in machines. There is no credible theory how it can be done. The only known thing (automated theorem proving) does not scale up in this universe to what smart human beings can do when you assume a digital computer. There is just not enough matter, energy and time, so that cannot be it. And consciousness? The question just does not apply to software at all. It cannot do that. No really not. The best it can maybe do is a p-zombie. There are however about 50 years of intensive AI research that has completely failed in that direction. It has produced a lot of useful things, but they are not intelligence of the quality humans can do.

      You also seem to be unaware that the term "emergent property" is a joke between scientists, not anything real. In physics, the whole is not more than it parts, as it cannot be. Expecting it to be _is_ some kind of mysticism.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Gibberish by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your position is certainly not a scientific one and you are rather severely misinformed about what software can do (most people are).

      Can you point out a specific problem with any part of what I've stated or demonstrate with sufficient proof that it won't work or cannot be done, not just now, but also at no point in the future?

      The problem is there is still absolutely no indication that human-equivalent intelligence can be implemented in machines.

      At one point in human history there was no indication that humans would be able to travel through outer space either. It was squarely in the realm of fiction and human fancy or utterly beyond our ability to conceive of considering it possible because we could not yet fly through the air or rapidly travel over land without the aid of other animals.

      There is no credible theory how it can be done.

      What's to stop someone from building a hardware approximation using circuitry or other approaches that models the human brain? We know that we don't possess the technology to do that right now, but that's different from claiming that it's completely impossible. Even if you can't build an exact hardware approximation (assuming you can manipulate cells in a controlled way, we wouldn't even have to use different materials so it's not even a requirement to use a computer if you can learn how to create brain cells and get them to arrange themselves in a particular pattern), if you can build hardware that's powerful enough to allow software emulation of a larger brain, what would stop us from being able to conduct this experiment? We might someday attempt to test this hypotheses and find that the it is wrong, but proposing a hypotheses (there's nothing special about consciousness, it's merely an emergent property of the physical construction of our brains, much like water freezing is simply a consequence of how molecules of water behave at low temperatures. We might not know exactly why it happens, but it can be empirically demonstrated to occur under precise conditions.) is definitely science so long as the hypotheses is testable. Just because we currently lack the ability to actually perform the test doesn't mean that it's not science.

      You seem to be arguing from a perspective of just because something hasn't yet been done it can never be done, while not demonstrating any formal proof as to why. To even declare it definitively impossible would require a far greater understanding of how the universe operates than we currently have available. Furthermore, we don't even need computers or software to test this theory if we can gain knowledge which allows scientists to construct and study primitive brains (of which we have enough living examples of to already perform rudimentary experiments). Do you also believe that such knowledge is also forever beyond our grasp and if so, why specifically? What is so special about it that we'll never be able to understand it more than other fields of knowledge that provide us a better understanding of the universe?

    10. Re:Gibberish by bluegutang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have a philosophy degree and I have no idea what this sentence means.

      That's a common danger with philosophy degrees, you can never be sure what anything means any more...

  3. New? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought it was pretty much established that anything interesting happens on the border between chaos and stagnation. Had an old book about it once.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. Function of Consciousness from Documentary by shoor · · Score: 2

    I recently watch a Documentary TV series on PBS called "The Brain WIth David Edelman" which I thought was excellent. There was a place where the series talked about consciousness. First, it pointed out how most of the activity in the brain is unconscious. When people are learning a skill, they are doing things consciously and badly, but later, it becomes an unconscious activity and is done more efficiently.

    I was going to call this Edelman's definition of consciousness, but decided that it's really his description of the function. Still worth considering I think. According to the documentary, the function of consciousness is to deal with unexpected and novel events. Edelman compared it to the CEO of a big corporation, and there was a scene of him in a power suit on the top floor of some building. This executive doesn't know about all the goings on on the floors below, maintenance, processing sales orders, etc. The executive is there to handle the unusual matters. In the same way, consciousness doesn't usually involve itself much with breathing or walking. A person might not remember anything about going to the kitchen to get a drink of water unless something unusual happened on the way for example.

    So, thinking about the function of consciousness might shed light on what it is exactly.

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
  5. Re:Corrections [Re:Gibberish] by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    " I just don't want to be nagged by anal trolls."

    Ouch! Next time, try sleeping on your back.