<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="https://networks.tir.tw"  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>cjj&#039;s blog</title>
 <link>https://networks.tir.tw/blog/1</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Consciousness, a subject for scientific study?</title>
 <link>https://networks.tir.tw/node/17</link>
 <description>&lt;div class=&quot;field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-items&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;field-item even&quot; property=&quot;content:encoded&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;tex2jax&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7089&quot;&gt;recent preprint&lt;/a&gt; on the arXiv about defining consciousness with a so called Integrated Information Theory. Will this be relevant to the study of neuronal networks &lt;em&gt;in vitro&lt;/em&gt;? It was not straightforward from the manuscript how we can quantify the postulated requirements in our systems. For example, how can we calculate $\Phi^\rm{max}$ for a cultured network with limited number of neurons? Or, what about a simulated network &lt;em&gt;in silico&lt;/em&gt;?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The arguments presented in the manuscript seem moving. This can even be a close approximation to the real thing if there is indeed. However, the hit is not strong that will make one feel right on. All the elaboration also creates distance from acceptance. But, can there be anything better?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 13:27:55 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>cjj</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">17 at https://networks.tir.tw</guid>
 <comments>https://networks.tir.tw/node/17#comments</comments>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
