Donald Hebb proposed that consciousness is synonymous with learning, and he believed that the neocortex is centrally involved in this process (Hebb 1949, 1961, 1968). In humans, electrical stimulation of the posterior cingulate cortex adjacent to the parietal cortex and M1 evokes sensations related to the vestibular sense: vertigo, dizziness, and a sense of falling (Caruana et al. 2018). This region of the cingulum innervates many regions of the neocortex that have been implicated in balancing the head with respect to the gravitational axis: the supplementary motor area, the retrosplenial cortex, the inferior parietal cortex, MT/MST, and the insular cortex (Fig. 1; Caruana et al. 2018; Chen et al. 2011; Fukushima et al. 2011; Guldin and Grüsser 1998; Rancz et al. 2015). Under normal circumstances when fully adapted, the vestibular sense via the otolith hair cells operates unconsciously through the cerebellum (Eccles et al.1967). However, once there is a change in the gain of the vestibular input, consciousness is summoned to signal the start of the adaptation process. After returning from space astronauts typically experience dizziness and disorientation which can lead to vomiting (Demontis et al. 2017). Dizziness and disorientation can last up to five days (Carriot et al. 2021). Returning astronauts have difficulty standing, stabilizing gaze through the vestibular reflex, and walking and turning their bodies at every corner (Lawson et al. 2016). In fact, they voluntarily suppress their head movements to minimize the use of the vestibular system before adapting to earth’s 1G gravitational field. The adaptation process can be eased by spending time in a swimming pool. Also, when in a space station for many days astronauts can feel that they are resting on their side, i.e., 90 degrees with respect to the vertical, visual axis, due to the lack of gravity (Carriot et al. 2021). This is especially true when the eyes are closed. Indeed, it is known that vestibular illusions can negatively affect the way astronauts pilot their space crafts (Carriot et al. 2021).
A trip to Mars and back will require four separate adaptations to changes in gravitational force, all of which will be experienced consciously: (1) going from 1 G to 0 G when leaving the earth; (2) going from 0 G to 0.38 G when landing on Mars; (3) going from 0.38 G to 0 G when leaving Mars; and (4) going from 0 G to 1 G when landing on earth (Lawson et al. 2016). Both neocortex and cerebellum are involved in the adaptive process. The neocortex consciously monitors the process, and the cerebellum finalizes the adaptation at the level of the Purkinje neurons by resetting the vestibular gain (Lisberger et al. 1984).
The next time you decide to drink too much alcohol remember that you are putting your vestibular system under conscious/neocortical examination, since the alcohol diminishes the responsivity of the vestibular hair cells by altering the fluid in the vestibular canals (Shibano 2013), thereby causing a decrease in the gain of the vestibulo-ocular reflex (Tianwu et al. 1995).
To conclude, anytime the brain needs to adapt to a new sensory experience consciousness is summoned. Awareness of all sensory changes imposed on the body is central to survival. For example, being conscious of an upset stomach that lasts for weeks can compel many to go to a doctor to avert death through cancer.
Figure 1: Regions of human neocortex that mediate the vestibular sense as verified with fMRI: the parietal cortex, the temporal cortex (including MT/MST), the insular cortex, and the premotor cortex (including the supplementary motor area). From figure 3B of Lenggenhager and Lopez (2015).
We measure it by the educated person himself. Is he intellectually, culturally, and socially aware? Otherwise, he is considered to have acquired knowledge only.
Cosmin Visan
So, you suggest technology doesn't exist ... just theory?
To answer scientifically the question “How do we know consciousness is intimately tied to learning?” it is necessary before to understand what is “we”? for that is necessary before to understand what is “consciousness”?.
That is fundamentally impossible in framework of mainstream philosophy and sciences, since in the mainstream all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational - while really all these phenomena/notions can be scientifically defined only together; and so, say, that
“…our madness of trying to perceive that which is not perceiable is going on for dont know how many centuries.…..”
- really is, though looks as too impressive, correct.
The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, really rigorously scientifically defined/understandable only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
More see the link above, here only briefly note that in the conception it is rigorously scientifically proven that that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.
Including “Matter” and "Consciousness” both are nothing else than some informational systems/the Set’s elements;
- however, despite that both are made from one stuff “Information”, they are fundamentally different, since are based on fundamentally different sets of fundamental laws/links/constants that determine the systems existence and evolving/operation.
Matter is fundamentally logically closed in the Set system, and is governed by a rather limited set of fundamental laws/links constants, and so material objects/structures are able to communicate only inside Matter,
- while any consciousness, including that govern practically material humans’ bodies, making so “we/us”, fundamentally is able to communicate, i.e. to interact, with arbitrary elements in the Set.
So Matter is extremely stable closed system – an “automaton”, and so consciousnesses on Earth use stable practically material organisms as a stable residences, while a consciousness interactions in the Set can be hazardous or even dangerous.
Just so for a “hardware +program shell” system “consciousness” to exist stably in the “program shell” fundamentally obligatorily the resident utilities “Self-awareness” and “Curiosity” principally constantly run, studying the environment, evaluating what is useful/dangerous, etc.
At that, since the abilities of a consciousness are limited, while information in every the Set’s element is fundamentally infinite, the results of the study is/are always at least partially transcendent/illusory.
Correspondingly to decrease this limitation effect for every consciousness it is necessary always to learn something; again – that is fundamentally necessary for safe existence, and that is at operation of every consciousness, despite that humans outside the SS&VT don’t understand for what sake and reason what they do, but do that - though really purely instinctively.
Cheers
I think you first have to make clear if you talk about "science" and what science stands for. But since you say "That is fundamentally impossible in framework of mainstream philosophy and sciences" then you must stop speaking as Wittgenstein once suggested. This goes for all of us unless someone cannot find a loophole that avoids mainstream philosophy and science.
This is the crisis of science - but since philosophers in general doesn't even read - we are likely lost.
Since in
“…I think you first have to make clear if you talk about "science" and what science stands for. But since you say "That is fundamentally impossible in framework of mainstream philosophy and sciences" then you must stop speaking as Wittgenstein once suggested….”
- some wording from the SS post above is quoted, it seems that is addressed to me, and so possibly should be commented.
First of all – the SS quote "That is fundamentally impossible in framework of mainstream philosophy and sciences" is really senselessly truncated, while would have a sense only if would be as
“…it is necessary before to understand what is “we”? for that is necessary before to understand what is “consciousness”?. That is fundamentally impossible in framework of mainstream philosophy and sciences, …”
- and that in the mainstream is indeed really impossible. Why? – that is also quite clearly explained in the SS post above – since in the mainstream really all fundamentally necessary in this case fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational;
- and so in every concrete case when somebody from the mainstream attempts to answer any concrete really fundamental question, including the thread question and the questions in the SS quote above, the result completely rigorously logically inevitably is only some transcendent, etc. mental construction. From any transcendence only any other transcendence can follow.
That happens so always, completely logically inevitably independently on what, and relating what, any mainstream philosopher, including Wittgenstein, suggested.
And so that
“…This goes for all of us unless someone cannot find a loophole that avoids mainstream philosophy and science. This is the crisis of science - but since philosophers in general doesn't even read - we are likely lost.…..”
- is well correct, if realties to the mainstream philosophy and sciences,
- but really isn’t correct, first of all in that there cannot be some mystic “a loophole that avoids mainstream philosophy and science”, really what is fundamentally necessary and sufficient is only rigorous scientific definitions of the fundamental phenomena/notions above, what is made already in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception,
- and so yet now a few dozens of really fundamental problems in philosophy and other sciences are either solved or essentially clarified in the conception itself and SS&VT scientific models, which are based in the conception.
Including the scientific answer to the thread question see in the SS post above, more about what is “consciousness on Earth” see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s first approximation the consciousness functional model in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
Words, words, words, .... in a domain of ideas.
Why do you contradict yourself?
“…our madness of trying to perceive that which is not perceiable is going on for dont know how many centuries.…..”
- really is, though looks as too impressive, correct.
From "The Crisis ... that has many flaws but the following section is correct because it underlines SOA and the practice of computer simulation - since I have used this tool since 1968 - and it has never let me down!
It seems traditional science fails – and fails on a fundamental level since so many branches of science has come to a point of severe crisis. In this situation, the all-pervading problem become how to tackle this important issue. Laudan (1977) launches three alternatives: Confronted by the acknowledged failure of the traditional analysis to shed much light on the rationality of knowledge, three alternatives seem to be open to us:
(1) We might continue to hope that some as yet undiscovered minor variation in the traditional analysis will eventually clarify and justify our intuitions about the cognitive well-foundedness of science and thus prove to be a worthy model of rationality.
(2) We might, alternatively, abandon the search for an adequate model of rationality as a lost cause, thereby accepting the thesis that science is, so far as we know, blatantly irrational.
(3) Finally, we might begin afresh to analyse the rationality of science, deliberately trying to avoid some of the key presuppositions which have produced the breakdown of the traditional analysis. Enormous efforts have been devoted, particularly in the last decade, to the pursuit of strategies (1) and (2).
Considering the enormous efforts spend on (1) and (2), i.e. attempts to rescue the prevailing Newtonian paradigm with such meagre results, one is apparently directed to pursue the remaining alternative (3) and “begin afresh to analyse the rationality of science” by avoiding “some key propositions ... of traditional analysis.”
We will do so by questioning the principles already mentioned but before doing so, we need a better understanding why philosophy of science need the hypothesis of a pre-given world of to erect the edifice of science in the lack of a useful model of human observation capacity. This problem is directly connected to the functioning of human consciousness by the following recognition. The perceptual path passes the human mind, and, therefore, man needs a model of its mind before he is even able to make a model of an eventual world. Here is the point where the edifice of classical science virtually falls down because the foundational bricks give away.
Your comment: First of all in that there cannot be some mystic “loophole that avoids mainstream philosophy and science” - here you also contradict yourself.
Why don't try to spot the loop-hole instead - that unveil that physics is just a misspelling of psychology ... by way of physio-logy ... and there is a loop-hole that Alan Turing once "found" but didn't understand because he too was fooled by mainstream philosophy.
The Church-Turing thesis is proven billions of times and is experimentally a very well certified rule.
Even Kurt Gödel made this very obvious ... but he found no way to prove it - because a tool cannot prove itself in its own framework.
No thin/kin/g can be proven in the quagmire of languaging ... because we have not yet a tool ... but the loop-hole is revealed and called the botstrap event.
It's the modern illiteracy - data-illiteracy!
Cheers
Arne Kjellman,
In your
“…Why do you contradict yourself?
“…our madness of trying to perceive that which is not perceiable is going on for dont know how many centuries.…..”
[SS quote] - really is, though looks as too impressive, correct.[end quote]….”
- you again too strangely truncated corresponding SS post on page 1 wording passage, which in this case should be at least as:
“…To answer scientifically the question “How do we know consciousness is intimately tied to learning?” it is necessary before to understand what is “we”? for that is necessary before to understand what is “consciousness”?.
That is fundamentally impossible in framework of mainstream philosophy and sciences, since in the mainstream all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational - while really all these phenomena/notions can be scientifically defined only together; and so, say, that
“…our madness of trying to perceive that which is not perceiable is going on for dont know how many centuries.…..”
- really is, though looks as too impressive, correct….”
- i.e. it is correct because of in your italic above “our madness” relates to real “madness” of mainstream philosophy and sciences, when they really senselessly are “trying to perceive that which is not perceivable”, and that indeed that “is going on for dont know how many centuries”.
Again see above – that is completely logically inevitable consequence from the fundamental transcendence, etc., of completely obligatorily necessary at any addressing to any really fundamental problem of the fundamental phenomena/notions above. From any transcendence completely logically inevitably only some transcendence can follow.
And further in the SS post on page 1 it is written that
“…The phenomena/notions above can be, and are, really rigorously scientifically defined/understandable only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
..”,
- and further the thread question is scientifically answered.
So for readers who really want to understand what is “consciousness” – and so only further what is scientific answer to a partial problem “How do we know consciousness is intimately tied to learning?” - more see the SS posts and links in the posts.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
Since you prefer advocate your own words rather than to listen/read, maybe inspired to look for loop-hole - there is not much I can do for you.
"The Information as Absolute" and the Absolute Informator sounds very familiar - and is for sure not communication.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers