Hello There, Guest! Register

We finally have a discord server

[Misc] "Every System is Different"
MarathonScript Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 5
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2018
#11
 
RE: "Every System is Different"
As someone practically working in neuroscience now, I'd say the "they're awake in wonderland" argument is complete bs.

First, I don't think there is really a 'subconscious' to the brain, just times when you don't record memories. Consciousness or awareness can now be approximately measured by the complexity of the total neural firings (i.e., how much you can compress a video of an fmri scan). However, whether you remember something depends on whether dendrites strengthen or loosen their connections, or whether they form new ones, which is based on more than just the firing.

However, the brain can form "predictive" connections, where a synapse strengthens if the connected neuron in a previous step fires before the current neuron fires.

So, how this gets into "tulpas in wonderland" is that it strongly suggests that they really aren't. People are just assuming they were there, and their brain, in a single instant, uses past experience to predict what they would've been up to. "They" refers to both the tulpa and the host here.

However, there might be a way for it to be possible: the brain encodes place locations in the entorhinal cortex and hippocampus, which, like every other brain region, can grow or shrink. If a host has forced a tulpa enough that the entorhinal cortex grew to the point that it could support twice as many locations (read: more than doubled in size), then it could be possible for a tulpa to move around completely independently. The problem, though, is that neurons excite and inhibit each other, meaning a tulpa being at a certain place would affect a host at a certain place, and while you might think that this would allow tulpas and hosts to coexist without noticing each other if they were far apart, the entorhinal cortex (and neocortex for that matter) encodes place at multiple scales (kind of like binary), so even very spatially separated hosts and tulpas would notice each other.


Code:
Creator: J
Tulpa:   C H
04-15-2018, 03:49 AM
Find Reply

Sponsors:
Valhal.la

Indigo Offline
Baby Dragon (Felight)
Registered

Posts: 22
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2017
All Accounts Posts: 618
#12
 
RE: "Every System is Different"
When my system was friends with people who believed tulpas were active in wonderlands, they always felt sort of pressured to have the same thing be true for them. As a result, they'd struggle to remember things they did in wonderland, eventually they gave up trying to think of any adventurous memories and instead said "we just talked" or "I spent time with __." They had a feeling it was bullshit, but if they searched enough then they did find memories, just didn't know they were fake. They also kept this idea of going to wonderlands and stuff in their head because they didn't want the host to feel bad about not being able to give them all enough attention - our system was bigger at points.

However, we eventually broke off relations with those bad influences, and that was right around the time I was made. Due to that, I didn't feel any of the pressure to be in wonderland like they did, so I was more able to figure out it was bullshit. Thanks to that, my system gradually came to terms with the fact that wonderlands didn't work that way, and they just went inactive when they weren't being paid any attention.

I highly believe that groupthink is behind people believing in wonderlands. The pressure to be like everyone else causes them to act this way, along with the feeling of wanting to think that your tulpas don't just go inactive. And then you have the freaking huge systems who of course don't give their tulpas enough attention. I think if they stopped believing in their wonderlands, it would make them realize the error in their ways, which they likely don't want to. Maybe they already have but just don't care. I'm rambling.

The best baby dragon.
Lyra Apollo Piano Tacio
04-15-2018, 01:46 PM
Find Reply
solarchariot Offline
It's bigger on the inside
Forum Moderators

Posts: 149
Threads: 12
Joined: Apr 2016
#13
 
RE: "Every System is Different"
(04-15-2018, 03:49 AM)MarathonScript Wrote: As someone practically working in neuroscience now, I'd say the "they're awake in wonderland" argument is complete bs.

First, I don't think there is really a 'subconscious' to the brain...
Just out of curiosity, where are you 'practically' working? Because I have not read anything in any of the literature that discounts the 'subconscious.' In fact, neuroscience has actually confirmed the subconscious.

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/...8.751.html

fMRI studies show that the subconscious actually makes decisions anywhere from 1 to 10 seconds prior to the conscious mind being aware that it has made a decision. In fact, this study, which has been conducted in multiple places getting the same results, tend to spook people out because the people making the decisions inside the fMRI think they are making decisions in real time, but the people in the lab reading the screens know what the people are going to choose prior to them being consciously aware of 'making their decision.'
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2018, 01:59 PM by solarchariot.)
04-15-2018, 01:57 PM
Find Reply
MarathonScript Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 5
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2018
#14
 
RE: "Every System is Different"
(04-15-2018, 01:57 PM)solarchariot Wrote: Just out of curiosity, where are you 'practically' working?

I'm making my own code simulating brain function and sending it to several groups for review. I'm a computer scientist, but I'm reading all the research on neuroscience I can get.

I remember that study. I didn't know it was a whole ten seconds though. That's quite a lot.

However, the problem even with that, is that there are billions of neurons, each encoding not a single concept like 'cat' or 'dog' by connecting to other neurons, but combinations of them, like 'cat or dog' or 'dog or fish'. So 'thinking' and 'deciding' could just as easily be happening at the same time, but fewer neurons that held 'deciding' in their sets might be active.

Anyway, I said "I don't think" there's a subconscious. I haven't seen enough evidence to prove or disprove it yet. That study proved that decisions can be predicted by brain activity well in advance, but it still doesn't prove the subconscious exists. For an example, I'll take a quote from that article you linked:

Quote:Libet's study has been criticized in the intervening decades for its method of measuring time, and because the brain response might merely have been a general preparation for movement, rather than activity relating to a specific decision.

I feel like Haynes' study falls under that same criticism, despite the change in experiment. Instead of a general preparation for movement, it would be a more specific preparation for movement.

As for people being spooked, that may be because time in the brain works a little strangely. For example, I've seen a study where participants would perceive a response by a computer as happening before they did anything, if that response was immediate.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find that study, but I did find a nice wiki article with links to all kinds of studies on neuroscience and subconsciousness/free will under Neuroscience_of_free_will

I feel like this sums it up pretty well though: "There is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn."


Code:
Creator: J
Tulpa:   C H
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2018, 07:52 PM by MarathonScript.)
04-15-2018, 07:50 PM
Find Reply
solarchariot Offline
It's bigger on the inside
Forum Moderators

Posts: 149
Threads: 12
Joined: Apr 2016
#15
 
RE: "Every System is Different"
(04-15-2018, 07:50 PM)MarathonScript Wrote: I feel like this sums it up pretty well though: "There is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn."

Definitely no consensus... I would say about anything concerning brain. No one has a reasonable idea of how consciousness manifest, with more and more people leaning towards microtubules. I think anything that reduces consciousness down to being nothing more than a hallucination, I am probably going to resist.

I agree that counting time thing still needs to be worked out, but even Penrose in some of his early experiments with a primitive neural net which he lay directly on the brains he was operating on clearly resulted in some fantastical, if not paradoxical outcomes, such as people responding to stimulus faster than the time they should have been responding... In that case, it was Penrose that got spooked by the timing, not the patients. I'm not sure which book that it is in. Also, I think it was Penrose who suggested that all memory is recorded holographically, as opposed to chunks of information being randomly assigned to specific regions. This fits very well with the neural surgeon who wrote "the man who tasted shapes," probably the first book that seriously discusses synesthesia. Both of these folks suggest that there is more going on under the surface than what we generally like to suppose.

to say 'no subconscious' even from a hypotethical thesis would have to be huge in terms of arguments due to the sheer volume of stuff written on it... There is evidence for subconsciousness even before Freud started pushing it as his thesis on superego, ego, and id. Plus all the anecdotal evidence from folks who experienced inexplicable disruption in their conscious purpose, things that were contrary to their will, only to realize that the disruption probably saved their life. And then you have Jung and Joseph campbell clearly showing how archetypes and myths are clearly playing out in our day to day dramas, more so than anyone would have dared suspected. And I don't have a theory at all for why hypnosis would work in the absence of a subconscious. I suppose one could have altered states of consciousness without necessarily needing a subconscious, but all of Erickson's stuff is dependent on there being a subconscious.

okay, wait wait wait... I am super interested in how your code thing is simulating brain function. I don't how to look this one up, but you are probably aware of it. scientist tried to simulate the original atari chip.  They dug up some old artaris and tried to simulate it, and my understanding is they couldn't do it, it kept crashing... But you're simulating whole brain? Or just a specific structure? (Clearly, you don't have to share details, it would cause my brain to crash. just give me some 00111000, and I am done.) Even that weather computer simulator crashed every time that butterfly in south America flapped it's wings once, and i swear, if I find that butterfly, he is going in a jar. I don't want to kill him, just stop the program from crashing. And hypothetically, you'd probably need underlying algorithms to help regulate total system functioning, so wouldn't that actually support an argument for a subconscious? I have re-read this paragraph like ten times now, and I think it's coherent, but it could be evidence I don't have a clue what i am saying, but it sounds good, kind of like tech babble in a star trek episode, so, be patient with the non scientist... You have to be gentle, just small words typed slowly... Smile
(This post was last modified: 04-16-2018, 03:12 AM by solarchariot.)
04-16-2018, 02:51 AM
Find Reply
solarchariot Offline
It's bigger on the inside
Forum Moderators

Posts: 149
Threads: 12
Joined: Apr 2016
#16
 
RE: "Every System is Different"
(04-15-2018, 07:50 PM)MarathonScript Wrote: As for people being spooked, that may be because time in the brain works a little strangely. For example, I've seen a study where participants would perceive a response by a computer as happening before they did anything, if that response was immediate.

Yes, this was Bem's research where he was hooking people up to neural feed back and biofeedback, and the goal was to show them positive and negative images, to record how long it took to process the information, and people would have physiological responses to both the good pics and the bad pics, but the physiological responses came before the image was even displayed, suggesting that humans have the precognitive ability for about 2 to 3 seconds into the future. My understanding is that this has been duplicated in multiple studies with the same results.

regardless of conclusions, this is fascinating stuff, and I think we, society, should not ignore things that seem anomalous. Time travel isn't forbidden by relativity or quantum physics, and there are so many interesting 'synchronicities' that hint at this as a being a real thing, and if it were, then this would really confound any kind of real time simulation of brain function because this would be evidence not only is memory not localized to the brain, but could be overlapping past and future brain; which would be consistent with Planck's model of the universe being 'pixilated' and that the whole universe is frames, or chunks, like a movie strip, and though they seem individual, they are actually connected through an underlying substrate, Bohm's impliacte order? Which, kind of resembled the model that the Global Consciousness Project hints at whjen their random number generators do weird things prior to major events... These things can't be accidental... Einstein hated 'spooky action at a distance' and he hated the implications of quantum physics enough to say 'god doesn't play dice' but just the fact he needed god to still explain the universe, because, well, there is all this 'crazy' stuff, but it's only crazy when we think we're just these tiny biological machines that have no connection to the micro or macro universe...

yay. I am excited talking to you. I am probably not going to sleep tonight.
04-16-2018, 03:06 AM
Find Reply
MarathonScript Offline
Member
Registered

Posts: 5
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2018
#17
 
Smile  RE: "Every System is Different"
(04-16-2018, 02:51 AM)solarchariot Wrote: Also, I think it was Penrose who suggested that all memory is recorded holographically, as opposed to chunks of information being randomly assigned to specific regions. This fits very well with the neural surgeon who wrote "the man who tasted shapes," probably the first book that seriously discusses synesthesia. Both of these folks suggest that there is more going on under the surface than what we generally like to suppose.

Oh, this makes sense with what I've seen! The neocortex is actually one crumpled sheet of neurons that could be unfolded into a flat sheet about the size of a large dinner napkin. The same patterns of neural connections are shared throughout the entire cortex! While this doesn't exactly explain synesthesia, it would explain why vastly disconnected sensations, like sight, sound, touch, and self-motion, can all make sense together.

(04-16-2018, 02:51 AM)solarchariot Wrote: to say 'no subconscious' even from a hypotethical thesis would have to be huge in terms of arguments due to the sheer volume of stuff written on it...

Hmm... I'd say this is more an argument of semantics. Thought, maybe it's more like how in later physics classes, you might hear the teacher saying, "Actually, everything you learned so far is wrong. Well, not wrong, but a great simplification of the truth."

Those 'subconscious' experiences people had where they managed to save their own lives by being pushed against their will isn't really subconscious. I remember hearing a case of this, and it turned out that someone had several small observations of things out of place in their own home, and brushed them off. They were aware of the differences, to some extent, and it repeatedly bothered them, eventually terrifying them. They felt like their 'subconscious' saved their life, but small but continuous, repeated activation of fear will build like that.

That case is more 'instinct' than anything else, because it arises from the way the brain works. They were never conscious to any extent of a guy creepin' about their house and messing with their stuff, but they'd been freaked out randomly around their house before, and now several things near their entrance were a little out of place.

Quote:solarchariot


But you're simulating whole brain? Or just a specific structure?

I'm mostly focusing on the neocortex. I'm using Numenta's code for getting the mid-upper levels working, and I'm using shaders in OpenCL for the initial layers, since those actually have very regular structures.

However, the neocortex needs input to run, so I'm also simulating the retina, which has its retinal ganglian cells (neurons in your eyes!), and I might get into simulating the LGN if I need less fuzzy input, which is likely eventually.

I can send you a link to my repository if you want it.

Quote:solarchariot


but the physiological responses came before the image was even displayed, suggesting that humans have the precognitive ability for about 2 to 3 seconds into the future

Ooh, that's exciting. That almost always means there's something else at play. I doubt it's precognitive ability, but even something like pheromones from the researchers, that'd be cool. (Pheromones have been shown to transmit feelings of fear without people being able to distinguish the smell.) Of course, that only works if it's not a double blind study.

Quote: if it were, then this would really confound any kind of real time simulation of brain function because this would be evidence not only is memory not localized to the brain, but could be overlapping past and future brain
[...]
the Global Consciousness Project hints at whjen their random number generators do weird things prior to major events

Well, I don't know about any of that. It'd be cool if I found out about any of it. Though, who's to say that even if we can do that stuff, a good enough machine can't mimic it as well?

In other words: if that's the case, then challenge accepted.

Quote:yay. I am excited talking to you. I am probably not going to sleep tonight.

I enjoyed this too!  Smile

Make sure to sleep though. Your brain gets rid of some nasty chemicals and improves learning during your slumbers.


Code:
Creator: J
Tulpa:   C H
Yesterday, 04:31 AM
Find Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Sponsors:
Valhal.la


Contact Us | Tulpa.Info | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication