Mathematical modeling of the brain - a warning.

It’s actually quite interesting that Google doesn’t find it. There must be a political filter applied.

It actually does work if you put the whole title in quotes, I just realized this after posting the link heh...

Now I've had the chance to read the paper. It's well-written, though it leans more towards political commentary than philosophical insight. It's apparent that the author has limited mathematical training, which isn't surprising given her background in biology.

She seems to overlook the potential impact of modern advanced statistical models, especially those with trillions of parameters, on the modeling of biological systems. The advancements in solving complex problems like protein folding are just a hint of the transformative changes these models can bring.

Overall I think the author is pretty aligned with the overall thinking on these forums. Try to read the last paragraph in this earlier work: https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/psych/...t_2012.pdf

From the end of the 2012 paper:

"Basically, the present hypothesis predicts that nervous systems (or parts of nervous systems) that do not exhibit 6-layered cytoarchitectonics will not be capable of generating consciousness.
.........................................
...it would remain logically possible that the EM field is only a correlate of something else, something completely unknown —perhaps a dualist phenomenon, inaccessible to science and ultimately unknowable. But science basically works by means of Occam’s razor— the simplest explanation is generally accepted, at least for the time
being, as the right one."

I would give points to this researcher for at least being open minded enough to admit that dualism is a logical explanation (even if very unlikely in their opinion). It should be noted that Occam's Razor or the principle of parsimony is a relatively weak argument. But as is usual for most scientists, this researcher assumes materialism as being the only possible metaphysic, without examining all the compelling reasons why that is untenable, reasons that trump the Razor argument.

The dualist might even accept part of this theory, that only a brain and nervous system structure having a "6-layered cytoarchitectonics" can exhibit consciousness. Maybe. But the big problem with the theory is its contention that this specialized structure actually generates consciousness. The dualist can't accept that edict from materialism, and would contend that this specific neural architecture may be necessary for spirit consciousness to manifest in the physical by interpenetrating and interacting with the brain's neurological structure in the intricate and specialized way made possible by this architecture.

However, I think the lack of much of any evidence for large scale effects of strong EM fields on consciousness (like from radio/TV and radar transmitters, and MRI and PET scan machines) still mitigates against the theory.

And the author typically again ignores the large body of actual veridical evidence for dualism or some other theory of spirit, from phenomena like NDEs.

 it would remain logically possible that the EM field is only a correlate of something else, something completely unknown —perhaps a dualist phenomenon, inaccessible to science and ultimately unknowable.

I suspect this is what she actually believes and that’s why she can’t resist mention the possibility. In the “political” paper she also makes similar suggestions about the brain.

This seems a rather convoluted thread, and I'd like to focus for a moment on Sue Pocket's second paper. She writes

I  conclude  that  mathematical  models  in  general  should  be  regarded with the deepest suspicion.  They are hypotheses at best –and before a hypothesis graduates to the status of scientific finding, it has to be rigorously tested.  None of the models described in this paper has even remotely  survived  such  a  test. Therefore,mathematical  models  are NOT,  as  politicians  tend  to  represent  them, “the  science”.  On  the contrary,  they  are  very  likely  to  be  outright  scams,  designed  and constructed  solely  to  demonstrate  whatever  their  makers  want  the public to believe.In short, we should all stop trusting mathematical models

I think the term "mathematical model" is probably too vague, we really need to think about models that incorporate many distinct phenomena - none of which can be modelled with any precision. In particular models with lots of parameters that are then 'tuned' to fit the available data.

I haven't read the paper properly yet, but at a glance that would cover most if not all of the examples she quotes.

David

I suspect this is what she actually believes and that’s why she can’t resist mention the possibility. In the “political” paper she also makes similar suggestions about the brain.

It's hard to say what her exact beliefs are. It depends on what she believes about the nature of EM fields - are fields what are measured by physics or are they a piece of the Materialist-Physicalist belief system in that they cannot have any mental aspects that are intrinsic and irreducible.

I do think EM theories of consciousness have some value, in that they at least move the conversation in a direction that can give an acceptable [to STEM academia] mechanism for Psi, but like Quantum Mind theories I think they are ultimately inadequate if they claim consciousness is magically created from the movements of that which has no consciousness.

It's hard to say what her exact beliefs are. It depends on what she believes about the nature of EM fields - are fields what are measured by physics or are they a piece of the Materialist-Physicalist belief system in that they cannot have any mental aspects that are intrinsic and irreducible.

I do think EM theories of consciousness have some value, in that they at least move the conversation in a direction that can give an acceptable [to STEM academia] mechanism for Psi, but like Quantum Mind theories I think they are ultimately inadequate if they claim consciousness is magically created from the movements of that which has no consciousness.

I am skeptical that these EM fields can significantly explain Psi (or consciousness). They are inherently weak and necessitate signal amplification for detection outside the skull.

I am skeptical that these EM fields can significantly explain Psi (or consciousness). They are inherently weak and necessitate signal amplification for detection outside the skull.

Yeah I mean I don't really think you can explain telepathy using EM fields, or at least not based on our current knowledge.

But if we were to find that field effects have some significant connection to consciousness, even if it's just a shielded endogenous field in the skull (McFadden's theory IIRC*) there is some advancement in the conversation.

*Admittedly McFadden doesn't think his theory would allow for telepathy, though he has said it could theoretically provide an avenue for some kind of Survival.

OK having read through Sue Pocket's paper I'd make the following, hopefully politically neutral observations:

1)    I liked Sue pockets' observations, but you couldn't really call them an academic paper in the conventional sense.

2)    Computer models absolutely must be published in a runnable form, together with their data and referees of any papers should at the absolute minimum run these models and explore how they behave using a range of inputs. It must be the job of referees to break the model as far as possible. If the program(s) use a random number generator, it is vital to explore whether equivalent results emerge (within statistical error) when different random numbers are used.

3)    The models must be based on realistic assumptions if policies are to be implemented based on their results. Otherwise their results should be classified as suggestive only - requiring further work. For example, a model of fair trade of physical goods cannot be based on an assumption of zero transportation costs.

4)    If a model is used to justify some particular course of action, it is reasonable to demand the the authors defend their work in detail in retrospect.

David

Good post David.