CHANCE (実験者が被験者の意識内容を完全に知るための科学的方法)についての質疑応答

bioRxiv Neuroscience @biorxiv_neursci

CHANCE: a method that enables a researcher to fully know the content of consciousness of a subject in scientific experiments biorxiv.org/cgi/content/sh… #biorxiv_neursci

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

今回bioRxivに投稿した論文では、研究者が被験者の意識内容を完全に知るための科学的な方法を提案しています。少なくとも哲学的には不可能ではないと考えている奴がいる、と記憶しておいて頂けたら十分です。実現できるかは技術の進展次第です。biorxiv.org/content/early/…

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

ちなみに今回のbioRxivの論文は、半年前に告知した論文を他の方からのアドバイスを反映させて改良した版になります。核になってるアイデアは前と同じなので、もし半年前に読んで下さってる方はもう一度読んで頂く必要はないかと思います。ややこしくてすみません。

Serdar Akkol, MD, PhD @sakkol_

@Neuro_Skeptic What are the CHANCEs to publish my content of consciousness? biorxiv.org/content/early/…

Serdar Akkol, MD, PhD @sakkol_

@dhtanaka @Neuro_Skeptic Yes that's for sure. Subjective reports are main barriers for understanding subjective experience. Could you please comment on illusions? Also what does your method add more to making experiments many times on same subject? Thanks.

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

Illusion is produced by a msckNCC. By sharing the msckNCC, identical ilusion can be shared between @serdarakkolmd and me. @Neuro_Skeptic

Serdar Akkol, MD, PhD @sakkol_

@dhtanaka @Neuro_Skeptic That seems fun. But still I can't identify why a shared illusion increases that illusions reproducibility above one time. Conjurers have been doing this for centuries. They trick individuals or masses which means reproducible. So yours is like illusion?

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

Thx, @serdarakkolmd. CHANCE makes completely identical cC, or illusion in your sense, among multiple individuals. @Neuro_Skeptic

Serdar Akkol, MD, PhD @sakkol_

@dhtanaka @Neuro_Skeptic So how are you going to compare knowledge of content of consciousness while creating subject-specific msckNCC?

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

Researchers do not need to compare knowledge of cC, as illustrated in Fig.2d&3b biorxiv.org/content/early/… @serdarakkolmd @Neuro_Skeptic

Serdar Akkol, MD, PhD @sakkol_

@dhtanaka @Neuro_Skeptic Thanks for explanation. As I understand, CHANCE creates identical NCCs across individuals. Do you assume that there are same neuronal groups which are shared across subjects? (after overcoming technical challenges)

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

I don't assume the identical neuronal groups in naive brains but belive we can create them in the brains. @serdarakkolmd @Neuro_Skeptic

Serdar Akkol, MD, PhD @sakkol_

@dhtanaka @Neuro_Skeptic Could you please give an example? Thanks.

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

@serdarakkolmd @Neuro_Skeptic I'm sorry my English was not good enough. I believe we can create them after overcoming technical challenges.

Serdar Akkol, MD, PhD @sakkol_

@dhtanaka @Neuro_Skeptic No, it is perfect. I wonder what kind of msckNCC we can expect once we overcome the challenges.

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

@serdarakkolmd @Neuro_Skeptic It will become clear in the "first step" of CHANCE. It might be just integrated information as IIT predicts.

Serdar Akkol, MD, PhD @sakkol_

@dhtanaka @Neuro_Skeptic All right. Thanks.

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

The msckNCC is reproducible and be able to be activated many times on same subject. Thanks, @serdarakkolmd @Neuro_Skeptic

Serdar Akkol, MD, PhD @sakkol_

@dhtanaka @Neuro_Skeptic I meant why we should do same thing on different subjects rather than many times on same subject.

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

A cC produced in one subject is not epistemically objective, even if it is repeated in the same subject. @serdarakkolmd @Neuro_Skeptic

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

In order to objectify (epistemically) the cC, identical cC need to be reprodued among multiple individuals. @serdarakkolmd @Neuro_Skeptic

Serdar Akkol, MD, PhD @sakkol_

@dhtanaka @Neuro_Skeptic As you say, to be able to study sth scientifically, making same experiment by&on same person is a way science goes frequently to overcome subjectivity.We're repeating experiments in labs several times before coming up with statistically significant results. So still it's science.

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

@serdarakkolmd @Neuro_Skeptic I believe researchers should not repeat experiments in that way. I'm deeply concerned about your p-hacking.

Serdar Akkol, MD, PhD @sakkol_

@dhtanaka @Neuro_Skeptic Repeating is not p-hacking, it is eliminating the factors that you don't know and control. There's no experiment done once and considered science. That's why we debate if history is science.

田中大介 Daisuke H. Tanaka @dhtanaka

Thx, @serdarakkolmd. Even if a specific cC was produced repeatedly in one subject, the cC is not objective (epistemically). @Neuro_Skeptic