Royce's Theorem: Intelligence Is Not Computational

[selfAdjoint]

I assumed readers would see my point. I could have said, ". . . if you were someone who never left your computer since birth, never met other humans had been fed by tubes, etc." to make the analogy fit better. My point was that there are reasons to not yet assume the brain is creating consciousness, and there's another explanation for how consciousness could be present in the brain.

The issue was, can consciousness be separated from the brain. You repeatedly respond with examples in which the two phenomena of the example can easily be separated, but you never respond with evidence that brain and consciuousness can be experienced apart from each other.

It's not a copout if it is true. Just because we want to scientifically figure out everything doesn't mean we can. It's horrible to contemplate, but there might just be truths beyond human experience and therefore which ultimately must remain a mystery. But so what? We still get to be consciousness; not knowing the source doesn't change that. In fact, maybe it would benefit us more if we made more effort to learn how to be consciousness than trying to figure out what causes it.

What might be is infinitely ambiguous; it has no bearing on a simple question of what is.

Phyiscalism is a metaphysical question. Metaphysics isn't synonomous with myth. It just the meta-systems behind the specifics of what we see going on around us. Is there a physical meta-system? There must be because we can't see all the causes of physical phenomena. Is everything we see the result of a physical meta-system? That's what we are arguing about.

This is more arm waving. Mighta been could have been.

Are science researchers experienced with all aspects of consciousness there is to know? If, for example, someone is adept with their intellect, does it mean they understand how to use their consciousness every way it has been demonstrated it can be used?

We don't have to be experts on everything to observe regularities of nature. One of these is that consciousness and brain are never experienced apart.

Here's what I don't understand. How do people justify remaining blissfully ignorant of the achievements of others (and I'm not specifically referring to you)? How do people develop their consciousness in one way, ignore everything which isn't their "way,", and then try to act like they know how to evaluate everything? When the only thing one studies is science and physicalness, for instance, that is all they are going to know about. It doesn't mean what science finds all there is to know, or that's the only way one can develop one's consciousness!

Every time scientists try to discuss consciousness with such people they get the type of argumentation you have been putting up. After a while it gets old. I am continually amazed by the patience of those who respond and try to educate posters with crazy attempts to replace relativity or quantum mechanics. I used to do that but it finally wore me out. They never stop coming. And neither do the psi crowd ever stop coming.

Consciousness has been studied deeply, and long, long before any brain researchers decided to take up the investigation. They were people who dedicated their entire lives to learning to directly experience that "subjective" aspect which mystifies everyone currently. As far as I can tell from looking at both sides, the neuroscience side understands the role of the brain best, and the direct experience side understands consciousness itself best. It is too bad the physicalists of the neuroscience side have already decided they know the metaphysical "truth," and so have closed off every bit of openness to any evidence except that which can be studied scientifically.

A couple of years back zoobyshoe, I think it was, provided a neurological explanation of satori. He noted that epileptics often experience an aura that is reportably indistinguishable from what mystics call enlightenment. In the case of epilepsy this is evidently of physical, neurological, origin, and he noted the use of breathing techniques among mystical meditators. By flushing your brain with too much or too little oxygen, or poisoning it with excess carbon dioxide, you can force it into a neurological spasm which mimics or reproduces the epileptic aura. Zooby had links to research, but I don't have them any more.

Rather than physicalists being required to explain what you claim, it is up to you to explain how this physical explanation is false.

Added in edit: Here is one of zoobie's posts. Also scroll down in that thread for more discussion.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=288466&postcount=7

 

[Royce]

selfAdjoint, the fact that a malfunctioning brain can give or have symptoms that resemble other known mental phenomena does not explain away or negate the validity of these experiences. It really only proves that the human mind/brain is capable of experiencing these aspects of mentality in more than one way, that the human brain is wired to experience these thing and will experience them whether symptomatic of illness or phenomena of alternate mental states. Again it is confusing a specific effect with a general cause.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It really only proves that the human mind/brain is capable of experiencing these aspects of mentality in more than one way

No it doesn't. It SHOWS there is one way to produce them. You CLAIM there is another way, but you haven't even described it, much less shown that it exists. Note that your own testimony is a report, and reports of epileptics sound the same. So listening to both reports, even studying them carefully, does not in itself demonstrate two ways. And even you cannot compare your own internal experience with the inner experience of an epileptic to see if they are the same or not.

 

[Royce]

I agree, but the fact that more than one person describes an experience from more than one cause supports the possibility that something is really happening and the report of a known malfunctioning brain does not negate or disprove the reports of many others who report similar experiences with no known malfunction.

Got to go now, more later.

 

[StatusX]

1. Artificial Intelligence, AI, can only be that, artificial, at best a simulation of genuine creative intelligence. Thus Mr. Data of Star Trek, The Next Generation could never be more than a data processor of great complexity and sophistication that simulated intelligence and consciousness. He could never be, in principle and fact an intelligent, conscious sentient entity or being in his own right. Sentient conscious robots or machine as we know them now are in principle impossible.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. What exactly is it that you are denying the machines? What is the difference between genuine intelligence and artificial intelligence? You have yet to lay this out. I think you see the distinction as obvious, but it is not. Are you saying they can't experience knowledge? Maybe, but we'll probably never know what they experience. You assume they don't experience at all, but can you prove it? Or even give compelling evidence for it?

But I'll even assume, for the moment, that they aren't conscious. Are you saying there are specific actions that humans can perform that computers never will, such as writing a sonnet that other humans judge beautiful? I disagree, although it could take hundreds of years to get there since the human brain is so complicated and, at present, poorly understood. A computer would have to be able to mimic human emotional responses and, probably, "live a life." That is, it will have to get out there and experience the things humans experience and relate to (note that I don't necesarily mean experience in the strictest sense, it might only mean "record the emotional responses to certain occurences and ideas"), But this is not impossible in principle.

 

[Rader]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. What exactly is it that you are denying the machines? What is the difference between genuine intelligence and artificial intelligence? You have yet to lay this out. I think you see the distinction as obvious, but it is not. Are you saying they can't experience knowledge? Maybe, but we'll probably never know what they experience. You assume they don't experience at all, but can you prove it? Or even give compelling evidence for it?

But I'll even assume, for the moment, that they aren't conscious. Are you saying there are specific actions that humans can perform that computers never will, such as writing a sonnet that other humans judge beautiful? I disagree, although it could take hundreds of years to get there since the human brain is so complicated and, at present, poorly understood. A computer would have to be able to mimic human emotional responses and, probably, "live a life." That is, it will have to get out there and experience the things humans experience and relate to (note that I don't necesarily mean experience in the strictest sense, it might only mean "record the emotional responses to certain occurences and ideas"), But this is not impossible in principle.

I think I can argue this, from a point of view of human experience. I am a human. I have intelligence. I am conscious. I also have subjective experiences. I am aware of all of these qualities of what it is to be a human.

Human intelligence is quantitively related to all the other qualities, as what it is to be like a human.

The difference between human intelligence and AI is the evidence on a past post of mine.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=34922&page=5&pp=15

The engineering program that eventually effectively produced biological organisms with asymmetrically optic molecules of a certain type, we can not reproduce. Since only I, as a human can have subjective experience, we can be most certain, that an AI that we could manufacture with my intelligence would know what I know but would not experience it. Notwithstanding if it could be manufactured with the same biological asymmetrical molecules a human is made from, it would have all the same qualities and I do.

The question is, does that let us assume that the arrangement of molecules of whatever type they may be, make us intelligent? The difference between a dead and a live human is most certainly intelligible.

 

[Royce]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. What exactly is it that you are denying the machines? What is the difference between genuine intelligence and artificial intelligence? You have yet to lay this out. I think you see the distinction as obvious, but it is not. Are you saying they can't experience knowledge? Maybe, but we'll probably never know what they experience. You assume they don't experience at all, but can you prove it? Or even give compelling evidence for it?

I am denying machines the ability to think, understand, to create, to make connections, to see beyond the initial thought and see implications, ramifications and consequences, to be aware that it is thinking as well as aware of what it is thinking and to evaluate the validity and value of what they are thinking. Machines are data processors period. Any intelligence involved is built into it by its designers and programmers. Machines follow step by step the instructions given it according to its design and wiring. If the programmer or designer make a mistake the machine will make the same mistake over and over again and never be aware that it is making a mistake.
It will continue on until the mistake is caught and repaired by an intelligent designer or programmer. That is why every program written and sold has patches, fixes and updates that have to be downloaded and installed.

But I'll even assume, for the moment, that they aren't conscious. Are you saying there are specific actions that humans can perform that computers never will, such as writing a sonnet that other humans judge beautiful? I disagree, although it could take hundreds of years to get there since the human brain is so complicated and, at present, poorly understood. A computer would have to be able to mimic human emotional responses and, probably, "live a life." That is, it will have to get out there and experience the things humans experience and relate to (note that I don't necesarily mean experience in the strictest sense, it might only mean "record the emotional responses to certain occurences and ideas"), But this is not impossible in principle.

Your example is a classical case that I considered. Such action could only be the random connecting and stringing together of random symbols. Evaluating the results according to the rules programmed into it by an intelligent programmer and proceeding on like the proverbial 1000 monkeys pounding on 1000 type writers typing out the complete works of Shakespeare. It is at best data processing following the steps and rules programed into it. It is not creativity nor intelligence and can never be aware or conscious of what it is doing as are most higher animals hopefully including humans.
The key word in your post is mimic. Machine can and will be able to better mimic or simulate human intelligence, emotional responses and consciousness but they will not be able to duplicate human awareness and consciousness and genuine creative intelligence because what a machine does is slavishly and dutifully follow precisely step by step instructions given to it or designed into it. This is data processing not thinking.
According to Roger Penrose there are aspects of consciousness that are not computational. If they can't be computed then they can't be programmed or designed into a machine as we know the term today. Neither he nor I are saying that it will never be possible to build a devise that is or becomes truly intelligent and or conscious. We are saying that it cannot be done today with the tools, science and mathematics that we have today as they are limited to computational studies only. Science, math and our concept of machines will have to change before we can even address intelligence, awareness and consciousness.
Machines are not intelligent nor conscious; nor, can they ever be even in principle as they are now because what they do has nothing to do with consciousness nor intelligence as we humans know it and think of it. If everything in the universe is conscious and interactive then that is whole different bag of worms and is not what I am addressing here; nor, do I mean it in that sense but only in our human sense..

 

[loseyourname]

I assumed readers would see my point. I could have said, ". . . if you were someone who never left your computer since birth, never met other humans had been fed by tubes, etc." to make the analogy fit better. My point was that there are reasons to not yet assume the brain is creating consciousness, and there's another explanation for how consciousness could be present in the brain.

You can make that argument for anything, though. We've always associated nuclear fission with the release of huge amounts of energy, but for all we know, fission just opens a rift to another dimension from which energy is channelled. There is always the possibility that effects we always experience in concert with certain assumed causes could actually be caused by something else that we cannot observe.

It's not a copout if it is true. Just because we want to scientifically figure out everything doesn't mean we can. It's horrible to contemplate, but there might just be truths beyond human experience and therefore which ultimately must remain a mystery.

I suppose it isn't a copout if it's true, but it is very unsatisfying. Given that you don't like physical explanations because you find them to be unsatisfying, why would you prefer a more mysterious, but equally unsatisfying, lack of physical explanation?

Phyiscalism is a metaphysical question.

Actually, it's a metaphysical answer, which is exactly the reason I am not a physicalist. I don't like metaphysical questions of any kind. I prefer questions that have answers, which I prefer to assume that phenomena we can directly experience have explanations that we can know, rather than giving up right off the bat.

Are science researchers experienced with all aspects of consciousness there is to know? If, for example, someone is adept with their intellect, does it mean they understand how to use their consciousness every way it has been demonstrated it can be used?

I don't know how to answer a question that general. I don't know all science researchers, nor do I even know very many. I'm sure some do, some don't.

As far as I can tell from looking at both sides, the neuroscience side understands the role of the brain best, and the direct experience side understands consciousness itself best. It is too bad the physicalists of the neuroscience side have already decided they know the metaphysical "truth," and so have closed off every bit of openness to any evidence except that which can be studied scientifically.

Can you not see that you've decided exactly the same thing, but in the opposite direction? You've already separated "consciousness itself" from "role of the brain." You are just as guilty, from what I can see.

 

[Fliption]

I agree with Chalmers that consciousness is fundamental, not a result of complexity.

Well I'm sure human conscisousness can be reduced

I'm sure it's just a difference in the way we use terminology but at the moment these two statements seem contradictory.

 

[StatusX]

The difference between human intelligence and AI is the evidence on a past post of mine.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=34922&page=5&pp=15

The engineering program that eventually effectively produced biological organisms with asymmetrically optic molecules of a certain type, we can not reproduce. Since only I, as a human can have subjective experience, we can be most certain, that an AI that we could manufacture with my intelligence would know what I know but would not experience it. Notwithstanding if it could be manufactured with the same biological asymmetrical molecules a human is made from, it would have all the same qualities and I do.

I have no idea what "assymetrically optic" could be, and a google search turns up nothing. Please be more clear. If this is a mainstream theory you are referring to by an alternate name, fine, but if it is your own, just be careful to follow the guidelines for this forum.

The question is, does that let us assume that the arrangement of molecules of whatever type they may be, make us intelligent? The difference between a dead and a live human is most certainly intelligible.

I never understood this objection to physicalism. Obviously, a dead person is very physically different than a living one. That is, the molecules are arranged in a radically different way.

 

[Fliption]

Fliption could be right, and the brain is only a radio-like conduit that allows us to channel consciousness from some other source, but it seems to me that explanations like that are a big time copout.

If this theory were being suggested because the complexity of consciousness is just too great than I would agree with you. The reason I do not believe this idea is a cop-out is because there are serious philosophical reasons to believe that the alternative ideas that Self Adjoint worships cannot be correct, in principle. On any other topic, I would agree with you completely.

I know from other posts that you do not see this "in principle" problem and I honestly cannot see why yet. I hope to understand it more very soon(Rosenburg discussion) because this problem seems so obvious to me. Even Dennett doesn't suggest this emergent approach. He realizes it cannot be done either so he just denies that there's a problem to solve at all by defining things a bit differently.

 

[Fliption]

The issue was, can consciousness be separated from the brain. You repeatedly respond with examples in which the two phenomena of the example can easily be separated, but you never respond with evidence that brain and consciuousness can be experienced apart from each other.

I responded to this point once and I'll do it again since it still lingers.

It is true that the examples used, like radios and songs, can be separated. But they were selected for this analogy exactly because they can be separated! You're missing the point not to see this. The analogy is trying to illustrate that there is nothing in the relationship of a radio and a song that precludes them from be separated. (If they couldn't be separated then the analogy would do a very poor job of illustrating this!) The exact same relationship can be argued to exists for brains and consciousness. Therefore, given what we know about this relationship, we have no evidence to suggest anything about what created what in this relationship. All we know is that there is a correlation.

We know no more than a person ignorant of radios would know about the relationship between the radio and the song. This is the crucial point.

We don't have to be experts on everything to observe regularities of nature. One of these is that consciousness and brain are never experienced apart.

So you're saying that since you don't experience what a rock experiences that a rock doesn't have experiences? Explain to me how you could ever experience anything outside of your own brain. Exactly how would you expect brainless consciousness to manifest itself to you?

 

[StatusX]

I am denying machines the ability to think, understand, to create, to make connections, to see beyond the initial thought and see implications, ramifications and consequences, to be aware that it is thinking as well as aware of what it is thinking and to evaluate the validity and value of what they are thinking. Machines are data processors period. Any intelligence involved is built into it by its designers and programmers. Machines follow step by step the instructions given it according to its design and wiring. If the programmer or designer make a mistake the machine will make the same mistake over and over again and never be aware that it is making a mistake.
It will continue on until the mistake is caught and repaired by an intelligent designer or programmer. That is why every program written and sold has patches, fixes and updates that have to be downloaded and installed.

Well, this is a much more useful formulation of your original theorem, and one I completely disagree with. I don't disagree that any intelligence would have to be built into it, but so what? A helicopter's ability to fly is built into it, but does that mean that it only "artificially flies" while a bird "genuinely flies"? They both fly, period.

But I think the deeper problem is that machines follow rules, and they cannot break these rules. In science fiction, when a robot encounters a logical paradox, its head explodes, whereas a human will just be temporarily confused or laugh. If we wanted to, we could trace their operation and predict all of their actions, so how could they be creative?

Here's how. A computer that could reasonably be considered creative would be so complex that it's behavior couldn't be predicted, even in principle. Like I said, it would have to go out into the world to get sensory experience, and this experience could not be exactly predicted or duplicated in another machine. It would almost certainly invole random number generators. It would not be anything like a conventional if...then...else based program.

Now you might argue that no matter how complex, the rules at the bottom are set in stone and it can never break them. This is, of course, completely true. But when was the last time you were able to will one of your own neurons to not fire even though it was above the threshold? Human brains, at the most basic level, follow strict rules. These can never be broken, but they don't stop you from making decisions and listening to paradoxes without self-destructing. The reason is that the rules aren't simple if-based rules most conventional programs use, but are based on weights and parrellel connections among billions of neurons. We don't yet completely understand how this hugely complex system of interconnected neurons is able to do what is does(at present, I doubt we even know how thousands of neurons interact), but they do, and there is no evidence that everything we do is a result of anything but billions of neurons obeying strict underlying rules.

As for a machine being aware of it's own thoughts, what would be so hard about that? An intelligent computer would have access to a database of information that it could constantly update (it's memory), and why couldn't it have a self-model in it? It's "thought" would be temporarily stored in this memory, and could be immediatly accessed and evaluated just as we do. I don't pretend to be a psychologist or AI scientist, so I can't get much more specific than this, but it's all possible in principle.

One last thing. Consciousness may or may not be necessary for intelligence. The evidence for this is that we can never be 100% sure that other people are conscious, and, at least for the most part, they behave intelligently. I say a computer could do everything a human does. This includes talking about such things as how colors seem to have intrinsic qualities. I don't know if such a contemplation means the computer is conscious, but in my opinion, it would be.

 

[StatusX]

I'm sure it's just a difference in the way we use terminology but at the moment these two statements seem contradictory.

Red, for example, is fundamental. But listening to a sypmphony or looking at a painting can be reduced to more basic constituents, the "fundamental particles" of experience, such as colors, sounds, the most basic emotions and feelings, etc.

 

[loseyourname]

If this theory were being suggested because the complexity of consciousness is just too great than I would agree with you. The reason I do not believe this idea is a cop-out is because there are serious philosophical reasons to believe that the alternative ideas that Self Adjoint worships cannot be correct, in principle. On any other topic, I would agree with you completely.

I know from other posts that you do not see this "in principle" problem and I honestly cannot see why yet. I hope to understand it more very soon(Rosenburg discussion) because this problem seems so obvious to me. Even Dennett doesn't suggest this emergent approach. He realizes it cannot be done either so he just denies that there's a problem to solve at all by defining things a bit differently.

I don't see this "in principle" thing because every argument claiming to prove that this is the case can be shown to be circular. I don't consider circular arguments to be serious philosophical objections. That is the only reason. I don't cling to the opposite view, but I do think it's the more fruitful view to be investigated simply because, from what I can tell, there is no way to investigate views like yours.

 

[hypnagogue]

Initially, this discussion was ostensibly about intelligence, but it seems most of the thread has been devoted to consciousness. This seems to have been a source of much confusion.

Intelligence is a functional concept. All it means to have intelligence is to exhibit the kind of behaviors that we agree to label 'intelligent.' Note that there is no 'Problem of Other Intelligences' analagous to the Problem of Other Minds; whereas we cannot assess the existence of subjective experience in any case but our own, we can assess intelligence in others just by observing behavior (e.g. engaging in conversation, reviewing one's life works, measuring the results of an IQ test, or perhaps someday by analyzing the inner workings of one's neural circuits.). We may disagree about whether the evidence suggests that someone is intelligent, but in the case of experience, there is not even any evidence to argue about in the first place.

This is not a coincidence. We cannot assess the existence of subjective experience in others because we can only investigate the external world via functional means, and there is more to subjective experience than just functional relationships; on the other hand, we can assess the existence of intelligence in others precisely because intelligence is nothing more than a particular class of functional relationships and propensities. As such, intelligence falls squarely among the 'easy' problems of consciousness, and there are no in principle concerns about our ability to account for intelligence in purely physical terms. (Of course, figuring out exactly how human intelligence works in practice-- let alone getting a solid idea of what we mean by 'intelligent' in the first place-- is no small matter.)

Certainly, none of the arguments Chalmers levels against physicalist explanations of consciousness apply to intelligence. Nor does Chalmers argue elsewhere that explaining intelligence is beyond the reach of physicalism. I'm not even sure if Chalmers uses the kind of argument against the idea that complexity causes consciousness that Royce credits him with. He does endorse thought experiments that involve gradually replacing neurons with silicon chips, but these thought experiments are designed to argue against the idea that consciousness is only a property of biological systems; they are not intended to have anything to do with complexity. I would appreciate if Royce could find an online reference to Chalmers' purported 'neural removal' argument against complexity-causing-consciousness, but even if it does exist, it will wind up being disanalogous with Royce's attempt to apply this argument to intelligence.

Of course, various subjective experiences accompany intelligent thought, such as the subjective feeling of understanding / knowing, or the raw feeling of what it is like to roll thoughts around in the mind while solving a problem. These experiential aspects fall under the category of the hard problem, but there is not any sense in which their allegiance with intelligent thought or action is relevant to the 'hardness' of the hard problem. The subjective feeling of trying to solve a math problem is not different in any important respect, as regards the hard problem, from the subjective experiencing of color or pain or hunger. In all these cases, what makes the phenomena fall under the umbrella of the hard problem is that they seem to have intrinsic properties above and beyond what can be accounted for by just structure and function, even in principle.

Once we conceptually isolate these experiential phenomena from their functional correlates, all that remains to be explained is structure and function. Once we are down to explaining structure and function, the concerns of the hard problem no longer apply. So there is no in principle reason for supposing that the functional phenomenon we call intelligence cannot be explained by functional explanations.

 

[honestrosewater]

Can any of you perform an intelligent function that does not involve p-consciousness, as in talking to yourself, forming some visual image, etc.?

 

[Royce]

Well, this is a much more useful formulation of your original theorem, and one I completely disagree with. I don't disagree that any intelligence would have to be built into it, but so what? A helicopter's ability to fly is built into it, but does that mean that it only "artificially flies" while a bird "genuinely flies"? They both fly, period.

No helicopters don't fly of and by themselves as birds do. A helicopter is a machine incapable of doing anything much less flying by its own volition unlike a bird. This is a better example for my argument than for yours. It points out the difference between a machine and a bird with some degree of intelligence.

But I think the deeper problem is that machines follow rules, and they cannot break these rules. In science fiction, when a robot encounters a logical paradox, its head explodes, whereas a human will just be temporarily confused or laugh. If we wanted to, we could trace their operation and predict all of their actions, so how could they be creative?

Here's how. A computer that could reasonably be considered creative would be so complex that it's behavior couldn't be predicted, even in principle. Like I said, it would have to go out into the world to get sensory experience, and this experience could not be exactly predicted or duplicated in another machine. It would almost certainly invole random number generators. It would not be anything like a conventional if...then...else based program.

Again you make my point a machine cannot and does not experience anything and why would anybody build a machine that 'behaves' unpredictably. And admittedly a minor point but we cannot build a truly random number generator or machine.

Now you might argue that no matter how complex, the rules at the bottom are set in stone and it can never break them. This is, of course, completely true. But when was the last time you were able to will one of your own neurons to not fire even though it was above the threshold? Human brains, at the most basic level, follow strict rules. These can never be broken, but they don't stop you from making decisions and listening to paradoxes without self-destructing. The reason is that the rules aren't simple if-based rules most conventional programs use, but are based on weights and parrellel connections among billions of neurons. We don't yet completely understand how this hugely complex system of interconnected neurons is able to do what is does(at present, I doubt we even know how thousands of neurons interact), but they do, and there is no evidence that everything we do is a result of anything but billions of neurons obeying strict underlying rules.

Here again you are making invalid assumptions. It has been documented that such people as Yogas can and do consciously will there body functions to change to the point of virtual hybernation. Normal people can change some of their normally automatic body function like heart rate blood pressure and temperature simply by using biofeedback.

By simply using my imagination I can willfully bring my body to a state of a high degree of excitement whether fight or flight or sexual; or the reverse will myself to relax to the point of going to sleep. We all can and do do these things.

As for a machine being aware of it's own thoughts, what would be so hard about that? An intelligent computer would have access to a database of information that it could constantly update (it's memory), and why couldn't it have a self-model in it? It's "thought" would be temporarily stored in this memory, and could be immediatly accessed and evaluated just as we do. I don't pretend to be a psychologist or AI scientist, so I can't get much more specific than this, but it's all possible in principle.

That is my point. The operation you describe is again data processing according to a predetermined design. This does not constitute intelligence, awareness and consciousness.

One last thing. Consciousness may or may not be necessary for intelligence. The evidence for this is that we can never be 100% sure that other people are conscious, and, at least for the most part, they behave intelligently. I say a computer could do everything a human does. This includes talking about such things as how colors seem to have intrinsic qualities. I don't know if such a contemplation means the computer is conscious, but in my opinion, it would be.

But this is merely mimicing or simulating intelligence. It is not genuine, creative, will driven intelligence. Machine have no volition of their own they simply do exactly what they are designed to do in the exact method they or their program are designed to do.

Again an automatic assembly line can't suddenly become bored and stop making cars and decide to make washing machines instead. If it could and if it did then it would no longer be a machine as we use the term today. It would be and entity with volition, intelligence and consciousness and probably have to be granted rights and benefits, joint the union and go on vacation just like everybody else,

 

[Royce]

hypnagogue, I have been trying to remember where I picked up Chalmer's argument that I have been using. I thought at first the I read it on a link supplied in one of the many threads on consciousness here and then I thought it might have been a referense by Penrosee in The Emeror's New Mind or even possibly both. Either way I or Penrose may have taken it out of context and use it for our own puposes and (mis)application. I have not read any of Chalmer's books or articles myself and am only referencing a reference. I still think the idea is valid even if Chalmers did not mean to use it the way I have. Again if I have misused it, I apologize. It was not intentional.

This thread was started intentionally about intelligence because I felt it was much easier to prove or at least support my position that machines, as we know the term, do not and can not be intelligence or have intelligence and that by merely increasing complexity and size will not change that proposition. It will still be nothing more than blind data processing. And by extention merely the evolution of the organic brain to increasing size complexity and sophistication is not enought to explain the coming about of intelligence and thusly consciousness. Which is what my understanding of the term emergence is stipulating.

 

[Rader]

I have no idea what "assymetrically optic" could be, and a google search turns up nothing. Please be more clear. If this is a mainstream theory you are referring to by an alternate name, fine, but if it is your own, just be careful to follow the guidelines for this forum.

Its spelled "asymmetrically optic"
Here is a link below to the information, with all its detail.
http://www.fact-index.com/o/op/optical_isomerism.html

This is no theory it is a biological fact discovered by Luis Pasteur, it is the very essence that distinguishes biological organisms from innate material. Did you read the link to my post, it explains what I am talking about.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=34922&page=5&pp=15

My argument here is based on physical known properties. What we do not know is if all physical known properties produce all that we observe in humans, in this instance human intelligence. My second argument below suggests just that. Humans posses several qualities that when you eliminate one the others disappear also. Based on these facts there is no reason to believe that you could build an AI without asymmetrically optic molecules that, when you were finished, it would poses all the qualities of a human.

I never understood this objection to physicalism. Obviously, a dead person is very physically different than a living one. That is, the molecules are arranged in a radically different way.

No, that is not the only difference, at least until rigor mortis, would set in. The arrangement of molecules is the same, what is different is we observe the body is dead has no consciousness and in this case no intelligence can be observed in it either. Something left the body that was in there when it had all these qualities, that’s very easy to understand.

 

[StatusX]

First of all, here's how it is. There are people who believe that man, or maybe life in general, is spiritual in some way, and transcends the explanatory power of science. Then there are those who believe that humans are systems of atoms following strict physical laws, and the only reason their behavior is so complex and, as of yet, unexplained is because the arrangement is unimaginably complicated. You belong to the former group, I belong to the latter. You believe in such things as free will, and probably a soul, and I don't. You believe there is something about humans that is intangible, that science will never fully grasp. Once again, I disagree, and I believe that, in due time, the human body will be as well-modelled as a pendulum. These are our beliefs, and it can almost be taken for granted that nothing either of us say can change each other's core beliefs.

That being said, there will either be intelligent machines or there won't be. If you see intelligent machines in your lifetime, you won't necessarily have to abandon your world view, you just need to distinguish between true intelligence and artificial intelligence, saying the latter is not genuine in some intangible way. This is fine, if meaningless to me, and so the only question we can reasonably argue is if their are specific things humans do that can't be "mimicked", if you insist on using that word, by a machine.

No helicopters don't fly of and by themselves as birds do. A helicopter is a machine incapable of doing anything much less flying by its own volition unlike a bird. This is a better example for my argument than for yours. It points out the difference between a machine and a bird with some degree of intelligence.

You are missing the point. This was supposed to be an anaolgy between "flying" and "acting intelligently," nothing more. I wasn't talking about the decision to fly, I was merely referring to the behavior of "being in flight." This behavior is exhibited equally well by helicopters and birds, regardless of how it was intitiated. The point was behavior is behavior, there is nothing intrinsic about it at all.

Again you make my point a machine cannot and does not experience anything and why would anybody build a machine that 'behaves' unpredictably. And admittedly a minor point but we cannot build a truly random number generator or machine.

Of course it isn't a minor point. A machine which interacts with the environment does behave randomly. You can't predict what the envrioment will do. So the behavior would be just as unpredictable as yours or mine. Presumably, with extremely advanced knowledge of the human brain, we could supply all the senses with simple stimuli and predict exactly how the brain will respond. You might say, maybe in theory, but the brain is so complicated, ... etc. But the program would be too! However, it will always be impossible, even in principle, to predict the behavior of humans and machines which sense and interact with the real world because we can never predict exactly what they will experience.

Here again you are making invalid assumptions. It has been documented that such people as Yogas can and do consciously will there body functions to change to the point of virtual hybernation. Normal people can change some of their normally automatic body function like heart rate blood pressure and temperature simply by using biofeedback.

By simply using my imagination I can willfully bring my body to a state of a high degree of excitement whether fight or flight or sexual; or the reverse will myself to relax to the point of going to sleep. We all can and do do these things.

Your brain is equipped to physiologically arouse the rest of your body. So what? This system follows rules just as strictly as the rest of your brain. If you don't want to use the laws neurons follows, then what about the laws of physics? Do you claim you can willfully violate these? If so, I don't think we have enough common ground to even continue this argument.

That is my point. The operation you describe is again data processing according to a predetermined design. This does not constitute intelligence, awareness and consciousness.

If you can present evidence that we do something besides "data processing" in an abstract sense, then I might be inclined to agree with you. Think long and hard about what exactly it is that constitutes "data processing" and you'll see we are just as guilty of it as machines. We don't use 1s and 0s, we use abstract thought (which itself is probably made up of simpler elements) but the principle is the same.

But this is merely mimicing or simulating intelligence. It is not genuine, creative, will driven intelligence. Machine have no volition of their own they simply do exactly what they are designed to do in the exact method they or their program are designed to do.

Again an automatic assembly line can't suddenly become bored and stop making cars and decide to make washing machines instead. If it could and if it did then it would no longer be a machine as we use the term today. It would be and entity with volition, intelligence and consciousness and probably have to be granted rights and benefits, joint the union and go on vacation just like everybody else,

Back to free will, which we disagree on. Even if it doesn't have will in some mystical sense, it's behavior can't be predicted so we'll never know that. As for an assembly line, no one is claiming that is intelligent. Obviously, none of the present-day machines can be considered intellgient or else we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

[StatusX]

Its spelled "asymmetrically optic"
Here is a link below to the information, with all its detail.
http://www.fact-index.com/o/op/optical_isomerism.html

This is no theory it is a biological fact discovered by Luis Pasteur, it is the very essence that distinguishes biological organisms from innate material. Did you read the link to my post, it explains what I am talking about.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=34922&page=5&pp=15

My argument here is based on physical known properties. What we do not know is if all physical known properties produce all that we observe in humans, in this instance human intelligence. My second argument below suggests just that. Humans posses several qualities that when you eliminate one the others disappear also. Based on these facts there is no reason to believe th at you could build an AI without asymmetrically optic molecules that, when you were finished, it would poses all the qualities of a human.

I don't see how this is relevant. Obviously these molecules obey physical laws just as strictly as every other molecule. And in any case, I doubt it is necessary that any intelligent machine model the human brain even down to the molecular level. As long as the information processing aspects are the same it will behave the same way.

No, that is not the only difference, at least until rigor mortis, would set in. The arrangement of molecules is the same, what is different is we observe the body is dead has no consciousness and in this case no intelligence can be observed in it either. Something left the body that was in there when it had all these qualities, that’s very easy to understand.

I hope you're not serious. When you're legally dead, your heart stops beating. Your neurons slowly starve and stop firing. Probably, during this gradual slowdown the person is still experiencing something even though they are legally dead. But they are very physically different once the neurons have stopped firing. And something doesn't have to "leave" a body just because it is still made of the same materials but is behaving differently. What is different between a computer that is on and one that is off?

 

[selfAdjoint]

About aymmetrical optical activity, the point is that non-biological molecules rotate polarized light in either direction, showing that they consist of both left and right handed shapes (called enatiomorphs), while boilogical molecules rotate light only in one direction showing that they consist entirely just of left handed shapes. Various attempts to create biological molecules out of natural processes have failed to effect this left handedness.

 

[Fliption]

Red, for example, is fundamental. But listening to a sypmphony or looking at a painting can be reduced to more basic constituents, the "fundamental particles" of experience, such as colors, sounds, the most basic emotions and feelings, etc.

OK then it is as I said... a terminology issue. I have interchanged the concepts of philosophical issues of "consciousness" with qualia. It seems you are using the word consciousness a bit differently but I understand now I think.

 

[Fliption]

I don't see this "in principle" thing because every argument claiming to prove that this is the case can be shown to be circular. I don't consider circular arguments to be serious philosophical objections. That is the only reason. I don't cling to the opposite view, but I do think it's the more fruitful view to be investigated simply because, from what I can tell, there is no way to investigate views like yours.

You say it can be shown to be circular but it hasn't been shown to me. It's odd but I find the exact same problem from the opposite end. In almost every discussion I've seen, the traditional approach simply assumes it's conclusion. But I will say that I'm not so sold on any view that I can't be convinced. If it can be shown to me to be circular then I'll be a good boy from now on . I'm the last person on Earth who wants to be arguing from a circular position so this is why I'm really curious to eventually understand your pov. But I've thought about this quite a bit and I think it will be a difficult task to show it to be circular.

 

[Fliption]

Initially, this discussion was ostensibly about intelligence, but it seems most of the thread has been devoted to consciousness. This seems to have been a source of much confusion.

Then you and I have the same understanding of these terms. That's why I posted earlier about the word "Intelligence" causing confusion. I have always considered intelligence to be functional with no "in principle" issues but just assumed that Royce was defining it differently.

 

[Fliption]

Once again, I disagree, and I believe that, in due time, the human body will be as well-modelled as a pendulum.

Can you expound a little on how you see this view that science can understand everything and your other view that the contents of consciousness are fundamental? I'm not saying they are inconsistent because it seems many people agree with this. I'm just not sure how such a theory works and would like to understand more.

 

[StatusX]

Can you expound a little on how you see this view that science can understand everything and your other view that the contents of consciousness are fundamental? I'm not saying they are inconsistent because it seems many people agree with this. I'm just not sure how such a theory works and would like to understand more.

I don't see a problem. Quarks and photons, for example, are currently fundamental. All we can hope to do is describe the mathematical relationships between all of these fundamental particles, be them strings, qualia, or whatever. This is all I mean by "model" or "understand." Qualia are more difficult because they don't seem to affect the physical world, but are only affected by it. Still, I believe this effect (physical on mental) can be mathematically modeled. (I'm using the more traditional definitions of physical and mental to be clear. I believe it's all physical.) Whether or not this is true, an explanation of intelligent behavior has nothing to do with subjective experience.

 

[hypnagogue]

But this is merely mimicing or simulating intelligence. It is not genuine, creative, will driven intelligence. Machine have no volition of their own they simply do exactly what they are designed to do in the exact method they or their program are designed to do.

Arguably, so do you and I. We do exactly what we are designed to do, as dictated by our bodies' physical structure, which arises from the mixture of our genes and our environment. This is StatusX's point. A machine cannot 'disobey' a flip of one of its logic gates as mandated by physical law, but nor can you or I 'disobey' a flip of one our neurons, as mandated by physical law. Sure, we can override a neural impetus, but this can be achieved by the action of competing neural systems. At the moment, there is no in principle reason to suspect that human behavior cannot be accounted for entirely by a physical description of neural structures.

Again an automatic assembly line can't suddenly become bored and stop making cars and decide to make washing machines instead. If it could and if it did then it would no longer be a machine as we use the term today. It would be and entity with volition, intelligence and consciousness and probably have to be granted rights and benefits, joint the union and go on vacation just like everybody else,

Here you are saying that if a system achieves intelligence, it cannot be called a machine. This just amounts to a trivial definition, though. If you define things such that intelligent systems are not machines, then of course machines cannot be intelligent, and there is nothing to talk about. The issue should be about whether humans can create physical systems from the ground up that are intelligent, whether you want to call these systems machines or not.

 

[Rader]

I don't see how this is relevant. Obviously these molecules obey physical laws just as strictly as every other molecule. And in any case, I doubt it is necessary that any intelligent machine model the human brain even down to the molecular level. As long as the information processing aspects are the same it will behave the same way.

Yes all molecules obey physical laws and they do it by a exchange of information. Asymmetrically optic molecules seem to have a priori information, if they did not we could never hope of building a human Pinocchio as you suggest. It is relevant in the way, that only biological systems posses these types of asymmetrically optic molecules. Observation of any biological system, seems to indicate a type of organizational intelligence. We can not observe this in any type of innate matter. There is something quite different at this point in nature, that distinguishes one from the other.

I think you are quite right that we will produce an AI someday superior to human intelligence but based on the facts of knowing I am alive, conscious and intelligent and my molecules are quite different from what you propose, this machine will know how it is doing but not what it is doing. By that I mean it will have no subjective experience, therefore it is not human intelligence but artificial.

This might be very dangerous for humans, it might disconnect you before you disconnected it, since it would not have any idea of why the value of a human might be superior to a hunk of metal wiring.

I hope you're not serious. When you're legally dead, your heart stops beating. Your neurons slowly starve and stop firing. Probably, during this gradual slowdown the person is still experiencing something even though they are legally dead. But they are very physically different once the neurons have stopped firing. And something doesn't have to "leave" a body just because it is still made of the same materials but is behaving differently. What is different between a computer that is on and one that is off?

I am serious, you should be arguing my side, my reasoning is the best physical fact for the explanation of these things, yet I am not even using it for that and you could be, I am only saying that it is a necessary physical contributing factor that is linked to something else. Are you suggesting that electricity is what makes humans alive, conscious and intelligent? I think it has to do more with a total stoppage of information exchange. I think there is some type of information exchange that starts a biological system to function and when it malfunctions, it leaves the system.

 

[loseyourname]

You say it can be shown to be circular but it hasn't been shown to me. It's odd but I find the exact same problem from the opposite end. In almost every discussion I've seen, the traditional approach simply assumes it's conclusion. But I will say that I'm not so sold on any view that I can't be convinced. If it can be shown to me to be circular then I'll be a good boy from now on . I'm the last person on Earth who wants to be arguing from a circular position so this is why I'm really curious to eventually understand your pov. But I've thought about this quite a bit and I think it will be a difficult task to show it to be circular.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think any argument claiming to prove either side, that I've seen at least, is circular. I don't really think it's a matter to be decided by argumentation, personally. I think it should be investigated empirically. If the logical impossibility of anyone hypothesis can legitimately be shown before investigation, that would be one thing, but I certainly haven't seen it. From what I can tell, both the physicalist and anti-physicalist hypotheses (the good ones, anyway) seem about equally probable. I haven't performed a Bayesian analysis or anything, but this is the prima facie impression I get from reading the literature and case studies that I have.

If you want to see specific instances of my attempts to show anti-physicalist arguments to be circular, start with these:

1 and 2. You might have already seen these, but nobody responded to either.

Note that the arguments I have seen generally attempt to demonstrate the likelihood of the logical impossibility of a given hypothesis by proving the logical possibility of a competing hypothesis. Simply put, that is not a proper method of argumentation. Many competing hypotheses can all be logically possible, but this fact alone does not limit or diminish the probability of anyone hypothesis.

 

[selfAdjoint]

lose, I revisited both of those nicely argued posts, and I don't see that they showed physicalists' arguments to be circular, but rather Chalmersists' arguments. I do suppose that physicalist arguments could be reduced that way too, I just don't see that those two posts do that. Am I just being stupid (possible, always)?

 

[loseyourname]

lose, I revisited both of those nicely argued posts, and I don't see that they showed physicalists' arguments to be circular, but rather Chalmersists' arguments. I do suppose that physicalist arguments could be reduced that way too, I just don't see that those two posts do that. Am I just being stupid (possible, always)?

No. I wasn't evaluating any physicalist arguments in those posts. As far as I know, no physicalist has ever claimed that anti-physicalism is impossible in principle, but if he did, I suspect he would fall prey to the same bad arguments.

 

[Fliption]

I don't see a problem. Quarks and photons, for example, are currently fundamental. All we can hope to do is describe the mathematical relationships between all of these fundamental particles, be them strings, qualia, or whatever. This is all I mean by "model" or "understand."

Ahh ok. I understand this. I was more looking at how you thought science would actually test some of these models but I agree that setting the models up shouldn't be a problem. When you say science can "understand" everything I was going a bit farther than just modeling it. I was actually thinking the model should be tested. This is the part I'm not sure about.

Qualia are more difficult because they don't seem to affect the physical world, but are only affected by it. Still, I believe this effect (physical on mental) can be mathematically modeled.

Right. This is why I was asking the question. I thought you had this solved!

(I'm using the more traditional definitions of physical and mental to be clear. I believe it's all physical.)

I believe it is all physical or it is all mental or it is all Pink. I don't care what we call it, it all co-exists in the same reality. These labels don't mean much to me. I just want to understand the nature of things and how they relate.

 

[StatusX]

lose, I revisited both of those nicely argued posts, and I don't see that they showed physicalists' arguments to be circular, but rather Chalmersists' arguments.

Maybe this should be another thread, but I always considered myself a physicalist, and I agree with Chalmers. Am I a walking contradiction? Or is it just a difference in terms? Specifically, by physicalist I mean I believe everything can be mathematically modeled by a single all-encompassing theory.

 

[Fliption]

I don't really think it's a matter to be decided by argumentation, personally. I think it should be investigated empirically.

I understand, but this issue seems especially tricky since the issue is about our inability to "investigate emperically" consciousness the way you do for everything else. If you could do this sort of investigation then you wouldn't need to because the problem you're investigating would go away! But I don't really think you're talking about anything revolutionary. Your probably just arguing that we should just wait and see if physicalists theory can come up with something. I see no end to that though even if the position is wrong.

I'll check those two posts out.

 

[StatusX]

Yes all molecules obey physical laws and they do it by a exchange of information. Asymmetrically optic molecules seem to have a priori information, if they did not we could never hope of building a human Pinocchio as you suggest.

What "a priori" information? How an Earth does this affect making a simulation of a living thing?

I think you are quite right that we will produce an AI someday superior to human intelligence but based on the facts of knowing I am alive, conscious and intelligent and my molecules are quite different from what you propose, this machine will know how it is doing but not what it is doing. By that I mean it will have no subjective experience, therefore it is not human intelligence but artificial.

Because your molecules polarize light a certain way? That's ridiculous to say the least.

I am serious, you should be arguing my side, my reasoning is the best physical fact for the explanation of these things, yet I am not even using it for that and you could be, I am only saying that it is a necessary physical contributing factor that is linked to something else. Are you suggesting that electricity is what makes humans alive, conscious and intelligent? I think it has to do more with a total stoppage of information exchange. I think there is some type of information exchange that starts a biological system to function and when it malfunctions, it leaves the system.

The difference between a living thing and a dead thing is not clear cut, and can currently only reliably be determined by behavior, not physical structure. Nevertheless, it is the physical structure that provides an organism with its behavior, and so it could, in theory, be used to determine if it's living or dead. There is no need for a mystical substance to be present in living things to distinguish them from dead things. Even if there was doubt in the physical explanability of life, proposing a mystical life force just raises further questions, it doesn't solve anything.

 

[Rader]

What "a priori" information? How an Earth does this affect making a simulation of a living thing?

Information before experience is the context I am using it in.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/apriori.ht

It means if you could build a AI with organic matter, then it would posses the same qualities of human intelligence, if you used anything else it would not. Why do you believe you could do it any other way? You just say you can and do not say how. Everything biological we observe, behaves in the same way.

Because your molecules polarize light a certain way? That's ridiculous to say the least.

Its not known yet how but what is known is photons act as messenger virtual particles and its logical to assume that asymmetrically optic molecules that only biological systems have, have something very specific to say, as to why biological systems seem to behave, to be live, conscious and intelligent.

The difference between a living thing and a dead thing is not clear cut, and can currently only reliably be determined by behavior, not physical structure. Nevertheless, it is the physical structure that provides an organism with its behavior, and so it could, in theory, be used to determine if it's living or dead. There is no need for a mystical substance to be present in living things to distinguish them from dead things. Even if there was doubt in the physical explicability of life, proposing a mystical life force just raises further questions, it doesn't solve anything.

You can determine by behavior if something is living or dead only if it is a biological structure. All biological structures have the same type of molecules, innate matter does not and there is a physical difference. Why do you deny the difference?

Many mystical substances that have been explained are now physical substances, I am not sure this one can be. This mystical substance is the only thing we know we really have. A theory on this substance could explain a number of things but first you have to recognize you have it.

 

[loseyourname]

Its not known yet how but what is known is photons act as messenger virtual particles and its logical to assume that asymmetrically optic molecules that only biological systems have, have something very specific to say, as to why biological systems seem to behave, to be live, conscious and intelligent.

Just to put it in this thread, I've heard of very few biologists that consider this to be of any significance, and those that do only do in an intuitive sense, not because there is some empirically difference in the interactions of left-handed molecules as opposed to right-handed. The fact that organic molecules are all left-handed enantiomers doesn't really seem to be anything other than happenstance. There is no reason to think that life could not be constructed from right-handed molecules. What you're saying is a little like saying that living things are alive because carbon makes them so, simply because all organic molecules are constructed from hydrocarbon backbones. But it isn't carbon that's significant, it's the fact that carbon can form 4 covalent bonds. Silicon can do the same, and as such, there is no reason to think that life could not be constructed from a silicon-based organic chemistry. In fact, many molecules that behave like organic molecules have been created by chemical engineers using silicon. In the same way, right-handed enantiomers of carbon-based organic molecules have also been engineered.

 

[Rader]

Just to put it in this thread, I've heard of very few biologists that consider this to be of any significance, and those that do only do in an intuitive sense, not because there is some empirically difference in the interactions of left-handed molecules as opposed to right-handed. The fact that organic molecules are all left-handed enantiomers doesn't really seem to be anything other than happenstance.
There is no reason to think that life could not be constructed from right-handed molecules. What you're saying is a little like saying that living things are alive because carbon makes them so, simply because all organic molecules are constructed from hydrocarbon backbones. But it isn't carbon that's significant, it's the fact that carbon can form 4 covalent bonds.
Silicon can do the same, and as such, there is no reason to think that life could not be constructed from a silicon-based organic chemistry.
In fact, many molecules that behave like organic molecules have been created by chemical engineers using silicon. In the same way, right-handed enantiomers of carbon-based organic molecules have also been engineered.

Your answer would degrade cells, spinal cords and cognitive brains to happenstance, that’s not an adequate reason for the emergence of intelligence.

There is a sequence from which biological organisms form, carbon bonding is fundamental but only if the molecules are left-handed, why they could not be right handed, we do not know but what we know, is it works when there left handed. From this point, intelligent life begins and all biological systems have these things in common.

We are getting pretty far off the original question here, discussing biology. I brought my point up only to ascertain, that at this point in nature, the trail is lost. Something abruptly different changes innate matter to what we call living things that show an organizational intelligence.

This whole philosophical debate is about duplicating human intelligence. I argue that even without knowing all the reasons in a chain of sequences whether they be physical or not, there is no reason to believe that with a different chain of sequences, that were not the human sequence, that we could duplicate human intelligence because we do not know what the missing facts are.

 

[StatusX]

Your answer would degrade cells, spinal cords and cognitive brains to happenstance, that’s not an adequate reason for the emergence of intelligence.

From this point, intelligent life begins and all biological systems have these things in common.

Something abruptly different changes innate matter to what we call living things that show an organizational intelligence.

Two things. First, and most important to your specific point, the way molecules polarize light has nothing to do with information or intelligence. It has to do with polarizing light. Using your own example, a dead body has the same type of molecules, and it certainly isn't a living thing. So this can't be the only difference, and it is extremely doubtful that it makes any difference at all. If you think it can, it is on you to provide evidence, or at least a coherent theory of how it could even be possible. Second, there is no need for some non-physical difference between living things and non-living things. From simple, naturally occurring molecules capable of self-replication, survival of the fittest over billions of years has allowed the (relatively) simple laws of physics to shape systems of amazing complexity. Perhaps there is an explanatory gap in this process, but it is not one that cannot be closed in principle by current methods like the gap with consciosness. An "elan vital" does not solve anything whatsoever. It is analagous to saying that the sun has an inherent, unexplainable "bright substance" flowing throughout it, and stopping right there.

 

[loseyourname]

Your answer would degrade cells, spinal cords and cognitive brains to happenstance, that’s not an adequate reason for the emergence of intelligence.

No. It just reduces the specific structure of constituent molecules to happenstance. Although I will say that all biological structures, including those you listed above, are also generally considered to be the results of happenstance.

There is a sequence from which biological organisms form, carbon bonding is fundamental but only if the molecules are left-handed, why they could not be right handed, we do not know but what we know, is it works when there left handed. From this point, intelligent life begins and all biological systems have these things in common.

But they can be right-handed - that's the thing! Right-handed enantiomers of organic molecules are not found in nature, but right-handed enantiomers can be engineered and they follow all of the same behavioral characteristics that left-handed enantiomers do. They could not be integrated into biological systems because all of the receptors only receive left-handed molecules, but this is again just evolutionary happenstance. Had the molecules been right-handed, then the receptors would have received right-handed molecules.

This whole philosophical debate is about duplicating human intelligence. I argue that even without knowing all the reasons in a chain of sequences whether they be physical or not, there is no reason to believe that with a different chain of sequences, that were not the human sequence, that we could duplicate human intelligence because we do not know what the missing facts are.

Okay, but that isn't a philosophical impediment, it's a practical impediment. It's just a knowledge gap.

 

[selfAdjoint]

It would be interesting to see if viruses, which can now be built out of off-the-shelf chemicals, can be made to work using right handed enantiomers.

 

[loseyourname]

It would be interesting to see if viruses, which can now be built out of off-the-shelf chemicals, can be made to work using right handed enantiomers.

I doubt it, honestly. We could build the virus, but it wouldn't function as it wouldn't be able to infiltrate its host cells, which all have left-handed receptors. It could do everything but multiply, which is about the only function that a virus serves.

 

[Rader]

Two things. First, and most important to your specific point, the way molecules polarize light has nothing to do with information or intelligence. It has to do with polarizing light. Using your own example, a dead body has the same type of molecules, and it certainly isn't a living thing. So this can't be the only difference, and it is extremely doubtful that it makes any difference at all. If you think it can, it is on you to provide evidence, or at least a coherent theory of how it could even be possible.

Specific functions are carried out on all levels of nature, when you impede one of the functions, the next level is not reached. Left handed molecules are not all the evidence, they are only a part in the chain, that if all the parts were not there, we would not be here discussing this. If a living thing did not have them, it would not be classified living. Nothing living is known not to have them, this goes beyond theory. Dead things still have them but then that could only be because something additional is also missing, for they were once living with them.

Second, there is no need for some non-physical difference between living things and non-living things. From simple, naturally occurring molecules capable of self-replication, survival of the fittest over billions of years has allowed the (relatively) simple laws of physics to shape systems of amazing complexity.

Your very statement implies that physics has something built into it that we do not understand yet or something interacting with it for simple laws to organize simple systems into complex systems, I tend to agree with you.

Perhaps there is an explanatory gap in this process, but it is not one that cannot be closed in principle by current methods like the gap with consciousness.

It depends what your answer is. What method is that?

An "elan vital" does not solve anything whatsoever. It is analogous to saying that the sun has an inherent, unexplainable "bright substance" flowing throughout it, and stopping right there.

It was not I, who suggested you could duplicate human intelligence by any other process than how it was done originally.

 

[Rader]

But they can be right-handed - that's the thing! Right-handed enantiomers of organic molecules are not found in nature, but right-handed enantiomers can be engineered and they follow all of the same behavioral characteristics that left-handed enantiomers do. They could not be integrated into biological systems because all of the receptors only receive left-handed molecules, but this is again just evolutionary happenstance. Had the molecules been right-handed, then the receptors would have received right-handed molecules.

You are adding fuel to my fire, the very fact that right-handed enantiomers, can not interact with left-handed enantiomers, says something about duplicating human intelligence. Non integration of your right-handed enantiomers into biological systems only shows that you can not duplicate human intelligence that way. Why are we sidetracking the issue?

 

[StatusX]

Specific functions are carried out on all levels of nature, when you impede one of the functions, the next level is not reached. Left handed molecules are not all the evidence, they are only a part in the chain, that if all the parts were not there, we would not be here discussing this. If a living thing did not have them, it would not be classified living.

Your last sentence is wrong. Left-handed molecules appear nowhere in any definition I've ever read of life. If you met your clone, but he had right-handed molecules or mixed molecules, would you not consider him alive? Again, you need to at least try to explain how there could conceivably be a theoretical link between left-handed molecules and life. As of now, it's just a coincidence, no more significant than the fact that most life as we know it is based on carbon and has DNA. These are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for life in general.

Your very statement implies that physics has something built into it that we do not understand yet or something interacting with it for simple laws to organize simple systems into complex systems, I tend to agree with you.

Simple rules can give rise to complex behavior. Read a paragraph or two about Chaos theory, or for a concrete example, look at the simple computer game "Life". With rules like those in Life, you can get patterns that grow forever without any discernable pattern.

 

[Rader]

Your last sentence is wrong. Left-handed molecules appear nowhere in any definition I've ever read of life.

In organic chemistry, subtle differences in spatial arrangements can give rise to prominent effects.
E.g. the isomers of butenoic acid:
The cis isomer (maleic acid) is toxic, whereas the trans isomer (fumaric acid) is an essential metabolite for plants and animals.

Certain optical arrangements in molecular formation make the difference.
http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~alroche/Ch05.doc

If you met your clone, but he had right-handed molecules or mixed molecules, would you not consider him alive?

Clones have the same molecules as its counterpart, you could not make one any other way. The cells are already organic material. Why do you make up the strangest impossible questions?

Again, you need to at least try to explain how there could conceivably be a theoretical link between left-handed molecules and life. As of now, it's just a coincidence, no more significant than the fact that most life as we know it is based on carbon and has DNA. These are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for life in general.

I would hope to eventually, now is not the right moment, I am like you and everyone else, do not have all the facts just links to some good places to investigate. Notwithstanding I do not think that all the facts entail only physical facts as I have suggested, its just part of the whole picture. Up until now nothing that ever has been investigated and understood, has been contradictory to known laws and classified as chance or coincidence, that said, I am sure there could be laws not yet known that could entail facts about things we still do not understand.

 

[loseyourname]

You are adding fuel to my fire, the very fact that right-handed enantiomers, can not interact with left-handed enantiomers, says something about duplicating human intelligence. Non integration of your right-handed enantiomers into biological systems only shows that you can not duplicate human intelligence that way. Why are we sidetracking the issue?

Don't you get the point here, Rader? If organic enantiomers were all right-handed (some are, by the way - it's amino acids that never are), no functionality would be lost. The system would operate in exactly the same manner. There is nothing special about the handedness of organic molecules. They just happen to be one way. We could build a brain that performed exactly the same as the human brain with right-handed molecules, in principle anyway. Obviously, we don't currently have the means to build a human brain using anything.

 

[Rader]

Don't you get the point here, Rader? If organic enantiomers were all right-handed (some are, by the way - it's amino acids that never are), no functionality would be lost. The system would operate in exactly the same manner. There is nothing special about the handedness of organic molecules. They just happen to be one way.

Your correct left-handed or right-handed are exactly the same from the point of view chemically but optical activity and biological properties are not. All proteins that form living things are practically left-handed, there are exceptions. I do not have the specific information maybe someone else knows this and can confirm that it is correct. I realize it is no easy task to classify when something is living, so for the sake of discussion we will say that proteins and cells co-exist in a life process we observe and left-handed molecules are part of the task.

If what you think I do not get is that this can not be carried out by the opposite glove, you are wrong, it could. Nowhere is nature is it observed this way and for that reason, I think that there may be a set of laws that govern why it is this way and not that way.

Two lines of thought have made me think about why things are one way and not the other way or for that matter any which way.

The human eye can distinguish one single photon and convert it into information exchange in the brain, which results in a physical process through experience. Experimental results are not always the same. Also receptor sites for sense of smell can distinguish between enantiomers. Why would nature evolve links between experience and physical properties if both were not of some use to each other?

I really have more questions than answers at this point what do you think, happenstance?