[ad_1]
Panpsychism consciousness is the belief that is found throughout the universe — not only in people and animals, but also in trees, plants, and bacteria. Panpsychists say that some aspects of the mind are also present in basic particles. The idea that consciousness is widespread is appealing to many, for intellectual and perhaps even emotional reasons. But can it be tested empirically? Surprisingly, maybe. This is one of the most popular scientific theories of consciousness, integrated information theory (IIT) shares many, but not all, characteristics of panpsychism.
Like the American philosopher Thomas Nagel he has argued that something conscious is something that is in a state of “something like it is”. The awakened human brain feels something specific.
The IIT specifies a unique number, integrated system information, labeled with the Greek letter φ (pronounced phi). Φ If zero, the system feels nothing; in fact, the system does not exist in its entirety, as it is completely restricted to additional components. The higher the φ, the more conscious the system and the more unrestricted it is. Given a detailed and complete description of a system, IIT predicts the quantity and quality (if any) of its experience. The IIT predicts that because of the structure of the human brain, people have φ high values, animals have lower (but positive) values, and classical digital computers have almost no value.
The value batek of a person is not constant. Self-development increases in early childhood and may decrease with the onset of dementia and other cognitive problems. φ It will change during sleep, grow in dreams and grow in deep dreamless situations.
IIT begins by identifying five real and essential properties of conscious experience that can be thought of. For example, experiences are specific (exclusion). This means that one experience is no less than that (living only the sensation of blue color but not a floating ocean that brings color to mind), nor more than that (say, knowing the living of the ocean is also awning for deck trees). In a second step, IIT derives five associated physical properties that any system (brain, computer, pine, sand dune) must show to feel like something. A “mechanism” in IIT is anything that has a causal role in a system; this can be a logic gate in the computer or a neuron in the brain. The IIT argues that consciousness arises only in systems of mechanisms that have a certain structure. To simplify it somewhat, this structure needs to be integrated as much as possible — it is not accurately described by dividing it into its components. It must also have a cause-and-effect effect, i.e., the current state of a particular mechanism must limit not only that particular mechanism but also the future state of the entire system.
Given a detailed physical description of a system, the theory provides a way to calculate sistema of that system. There are technical details on how to do this complicated, but the result is that, in principle, the φ of the system can be measured objectively if there is an accurate description of it. (We can calculate φ of computers, once built, because we understand them exactly. Calculating φ of the human brain is still an estimate.)
Discussing the nature of consciousness may seem like an academic exercise at first, but it has real and important implications.
Systems can be evaluated at different levels: one can be a part of the size of a sugar cube in my brain, or the size of my brain as a whole, or one can measure me and you together. It can also measure the set of microchips that make up a silicon atom, a particular microchip circuit, or a supercomputer. According to the theory, consciousness is for systems with a maximum φ. It is for all such systems, and only for those systems.
My brain φ is greater than any of its φ values, however, it is divided. So I am conscious. But me and you together is less than my φ or your than, so we’re not “together” conscious. However, if a technology of the future were to create a dense communication site between my brain and your brain, this bridge of the brain would create a single intelligence, divided into four cortical hemispheres.
Conversely, the φ of a supercomputer is smaller than the φs of one of the circuits that make it up, so a supercomputer – whether large or powerful – is not conscious. Theoretically, even if some in-depth learning system could pass the Turing test, it would be called a “zombie” – simulating consciousness, but not really conscious.
Like panpsychism, then, IIT sees consciousness as an inherent and fundamental property that is graded and probably widespread in the tree of life, because any system that is not an amount of integrated information will feel like something. That doesn’t mean the bee feels fat or makes weekend plans. But a bee can feel a measure of happiness when pollen loaded in the sun returns to its hive. When the bee dies, it stops experimenting with anything. Also, given the high complexity of a single cell, where millions of proteins interact, it’s like something.
Discussing the nature of consciousness may seem like an academic exercise at first, but it has real and important implications. Clearly, it’s important how we think about people in vegetative situations. Such patients may moan or otherwise move unprovoked, but may not respond appropriately to signaling commands by moving their eyes or gesturing. Are conscious minds, trapped in the affected body, unable to perceive but unable to respond? Or are they unconscious?
It is difficult to assess these patients in the face of consciousness. Proponents of her case have been working to make the actual transcript of this statement available online. First, they created a network of EEG electrodes that can measure electrical activity in the brain. They then stimulate the brain with a gentle magnetic pulse, and record the echoes of that pulse. They can then calculate a mathematical measure of the complexity of these echoes, called the perturbation complexity index (PCI).
In healthy, conscious people — or in people with brain damage but who are clearly conscious — PCI is always above a certain threshold. On the other hand, 100% of healthy people are asleep below their PCI threshold (0.31). It is therefore reasonable to take PCI as a proxy for the presence of a conscious mind. If the PCI of someone in a persistent vegetative state is measured to be below that threshold, we can confidently say that that person is not a hidden consciousness.
This method is being researched in several clinical centers in the US and Europe. Other tests aim to validate the predictions IIT makes about the location and timing of traces of sensory awareness in the brains of humans, non-human primates, and mice.
Unlike panpsychism, IIT’s astonishing claims can be empirically tested. If they could hold on, science philosophers have found a way to cut the knot that has captured philosophy.
Christof Koch He is a senior scientist in the MindScope program at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle.
[ad_2]
Source link
