Can ghosts be proven to exist or not?

[spacetype]

How could one go about proving that ghosts do not exist?

Seems like we could make some basic assumptions about what ghosts are, and proceed to prove that that particular 'brand' of ghost cannot exist.

Any ideas?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We can't prove a general negative. We can only offer evidence of an explanation for specific claims, or for specific types of claims.

 

[Natr0n]

Furthermore, it's not really your job to prove that they don't exist. It's up to the person making the claim to provide evidence and construct a "proof" of the existence of ghosts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Furthermore, it's not really your job to prove that they don't exist. It's up to the person making the claim to provide evidence and construct a "proof" of the existence of ghosts.

Not really. In principle the person making the claim is merely providing a report. If I report a robbery, am I liable to explain who did it, or how? My wife and I had some unsual experiences, but that doesn't mean that I know what it was or how to explain it. There is a difference between reporting an observation and claiming to have an explanation for it. Likewise, a claim of an observation or experience only counts as anecdotal evidence for whatever is claimed.

 

[whybother]

Not really. In principle the person making the claim is merely providing a report. If I report a robbery, am I liable to explain who did it, or how? My wife and I had some unsual experiences, but that doesn't mean that I know what it was or how to explain it. There is a difference between reporting an observation and claiming to have an explanation for it. Likewise, a claim of an observation or experience only counts as anecdotal evidence for whatever is claimed.

But making a claim to 'have seen a ghost' isn't providing a report, it's trying to provide an explanation. If someone claims to have seen a ghost, they should give evidence to why it was "a ghost" and not just something that seemed mysterious.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The word "ghost" carries with it certain ideas about what we mean, but you are right in that the person making the claim should report exactly what was observed without adding any interpretations of what it might be. In fact that is part of what we like to do here: Make the distinction between evidence [be it anecdotal, scientific, or otherwise], and interpretations of that evidence.

 

[spacetype]

The word "ghost" carries with it certain ideas about what we mean...

Yes. I was thinking about something like the commonly thought 'characteristics' of ghosts and if it could be shown that such a thing cannot exist. Characteristics such as:
a. they can go through walls,
b. they possesses intelligence,
c. they can move things,
d. they appear as 'foggy-looking' see-through-type beings,
e. etc. (Not sure if I'm forgetting something...)

Could it be shown that a 'being' with these characteristics cannot exist?

 

[spacetype]

We can't prove a general negative. We can only offer evidence of an explanation for specific claims, or for specific types of claims.

Maybe 'proof' is a bit strong. I guess what I'm asking is if we can make a strong argument against the existence of ghosts, and how we might construct such an argument.

Sorry to double post.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes. I was thinking about something like the commonly thought 'characteristics' of ghosts and if it could be shown that such a thing cannot exist. Characteristics such as:
a. they can go through walls,
b. they possesses intelligence,
c. they can move things,
d. they appear as 'foggy-looking' see-through-type beings,
e. etc. (Not sure if I'm forgetting something...)

Could it be shown that a 'being' with these characteristics cannot exist?

I think it fair to say that there is no accepted scientific evidence that ghosts, as suggested, exist. Given that, we have no explanation for what "ghosts" may be if they do exist. So already we can say that there is no known explanation for what people report. We could assume some model for ghosts and show that such a model would violate the laws of physics, but we would be working on assumptions, so the respective conclusions wouldn't mean anything except within the context of the assumptions made for the "ghost" model.

We already agree that the popular view or "model" for ghosts seems to violate the laws of physics and the notion of consciousness as we understand it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is always possible that some claimed phenomenon, such as the claims of hauntings, will finally yield evidence that can be duplicated for proper study and peer review. In that event, it may be that physics will have to adapt to a "new" reality. But we have seen this before. Much of scientific knowledge was discovered, not predicted. For example, to this day we can't fully explain how lightning occurs. The issue of charge separation continues to haunt atmospheric scientists.

 

[Dadface]

Science can only explain so much and that probably is not very much at all.Personally I rather like the concept of all the ghosties and ghoulies and long leggedy beasties.The world would be a less fun place without Casper.

 

[Anticitizen]

Those who sell the idea of ghost haunts use terms like 'paranormal' and 'supernatural' that, by definition, exclude science from pouring cold water on their burning enthusiasm.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Those who sell the idea of ghost haunts use terms like 'paranormal' and 'supernatural' that, by definition, exclude science from pouring cold water on their burning enthusiasm.

Those are the words used because we don't have any others to offer.

How does a word carry any significance at all here? What matters are the claimed phenomena.

 

[Natr0n]

The problem here is that no one has defined what it is they mean by "ghost", so there's not really any discussion to be had. If you say they're supernatural or paranormal then, by the definitions of those words, you can't "prove" anything about them one way or another. If you claim they aren't supernatural then we should be able to find physical evidence to support the proposition that ghosts exist. So, where's the evidence?

 

[russ_watters]

Not really. In principle the person making the claim is merely providing a report. If I report a robbery, am I liable to explain who did it, or how?

No, but if you report a robbery and a robbery didn't happen, you go to jail for it. That's roughly the situation here. If someone reports seeing "something", that's fine. If someone reports seeing "a ghost", then they are responsible for proving that claim. "A ghost" isn't scientific data, Ivan, it is a claim and one that requires substantiation. Evidence that (for example), a cloud on a phot isn't just a cloud of dust but an actual ghost.

This is the problem with most of the typically accepted psuedoscientific pursuits: they skip half the steps of the scientific method and go about trying to gain evidence for something that hasn't been scientifically suggested, but is merelly assumed to exist. As a result, any evidence that isn't conclusively found to be something else is assumed to be that which they are looking for. It's using falsifiability to prove an hypothesis that isn't really falsifiable.

 

[zetafunction]

a claim about non existence , could be done by statistical proof or analysis

ghost , elves do Not exists because using statistic yo do not see them every day

for example i know electrons exists because i can go to a lab and measure them if i want, but i can not see or measure a ghost

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, but if you report a robbery and a robbery didn't happen, you go to jail for it. That's roughly the situation here.

That is an assumption that can't be substantiated.

If someone reports seeing "something", that's fine.

Okay.

If someone reports seeing "a ghost", then they are responsible for proving that claim.

An if they report seeing a floating head passing through the livingroom?

"A ghost" isn't scientific data, Ivan,

REALLY? I was sure there is a section in my physics books somewhere.

it is a claim and one that requires substantiation.

No it is a word. Would you be happy is they said floating head, instead?

Evidence that (for example), a cloud on a phot isn't just a cloud of dust but an actual ghost.

Tell me precisely what a ghost is so that we know what proof to require.

People make interpretations based on popular notions. I have already addressed that as a legitimate issue. Please read before posting.

This is the problem with most of the typically accepted psuedoscientific pursuits: they skip half the steps of the scientific method

Who is they?

and go about trying to gain evidence for something that hasn't been scientifically suggested, but is merelly assumed to exist.

You mean based on a claim.

As a result, any evidence that isn't conclusively found to be something else is assumed to be that which they are looking for. It's using falsifiability to prove an hypothesis that isn't really falsifiable.

The problem with reports like hauntings is that they can't be produced on demand and repeated in a laboratory. As I have asked before: Precisely what evidence would be sufficient; Casper in a bottle? Unless you can provide a list of required evidence, you can hardly complain about not having it.

Assuming that some people are indeed reporting genuine unexplained phenomena, the problem is the nature of the phenomenon, not the observers. We have the same problem with any phenomenon that can't be produced on demand, like ball lightning.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, all that you are really objecting to here are stories that you can't explain. If you can explain them, then you don't object.

Sounds like anti-science to me - it only exists if I understand it.

 

[Count Iblis]

About 1 percent of the population is schizophrenic. Some schizophrenics believe that the voices they hear or the things they see are real. Some will atribute what they see to ghosts.

I think that John Nash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash

believed he had some family members or friends who in reality do not exist.

 

[Natr0n]

No one is saying that there is no such thing as unexplained phenomena, in fact saying something as general and vague as that is almost entirely pointless. If everything was explained already, then this whole "science thing" would be irrelevant.

Of course, saying that you saw a ghost (by the way Ivan, definitions ARE important contrary to what you seem to believe) is providing an interpretation of an event that requires evidence. I would very much prefer that an observer simply describe what they saw rather than attempt to provide their own interpretation. I realize getting someone to provide a description that doesn't presuppose some interpretation is probably impossible, but they should try.

 

[junglebeast]

Yes. I was thinking about something like the commonly thought 'characteristics' of ghosts and if it could be shown that such a thing cannot exist. Characteristics such as:
a. they can go through walls,
b. they possesses intelligence,
c. they can move things,
d. they appear as 'foggy-looking' see-through-type beings,
e. etc. (Not sure if I'm forgetting something...)

Could it be shown that a 'being' with these characteristics cannot exist?

Walls only appear to be solid structures. They are mostly just empty space and lots of things can go through them, such as waves, or high energy particles.

We could infer that a brain is required for intelligence because all intelligent organisms we know of have one, but we don't have the slightest clue what causes self awareness. Without knowing the source of that, you can't rule out the possibility that something like a "soul" exists which is separate from the body. For example, one might argue that the brain is only necessary to bind the soul to the physical world. I personally do not believe in ghosts, but I find the mere existence of self awareness in humans to be equally spooky.

The bottom line is that self awareness cannot be explained by any model of physics that we know of, and until we know more about it, it's not possible to make assumptions or proofs relating to it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

We could infer that a brain is required for intelligence because all intelligent organisms we know of have one, but we don't have the slightest clue what causes self awareness. Without knowing the source of that, you can't rule out the possibility that something like a "soul" exists which is separate from the body. For example, one might argue that the brain is only necessary to bind the soul to the physical world. I personally do not believe in ghosts, but I find the mere existence of self awareness in humans to be equally spooky.

The bottom line is that self awareness cannot be explained by any model of physics that we know of, and until we know more about it, it's not possible to make assumptions or proofs relating to it.

Do you really think it's even remotely possible that there's a "soul" that can exist apart from the body?

 

[junglebeast]

Do you really think it's even remotely possible that there's a "soul" that can exist apart from the body?

Modern science has shown us that the brain is responsible for sustaining consciousness, that our memories are stored non-volatilely in the neural and glial connections, that our emotions are regulated by chemical reactions. The brain is a turing complete machine and evolution provided a mechanism for optimizing that machine to maximize reproductibility of the human race. Ok, so this can explain the arbitrarily powerful computing machine we lug around on our shoulders that's apparently capable of surprisingly general computations involving pattern recognition and planning problems.

Going back to the OP for a moment, I guess I do need to revise my original statement a bit: I think that from this, we could conclude that in order for a consciousness to have memories or feelings, it must be linked to a functioning brain. Therefore, if it was possible for the consciousness / spirit / self-awareness-unit to be separated from the physical brain, it would not have the memories or emotions that are so commonly attributed to ghosts (and of course, it would not be visible as an ethereal visage).

Going back to your question, zooby -- do I believe that it is actually possible for this "soul" (which I equate to the self-awareness component of the brain) to be separated from the brain? Well, it depends on what you mean by that. I certainly do not think that "we go on thinking after our body dies." I take as empirical proof of this the fact that a person can be knocked unconscious. I personally have gone unconscious on several occassions due to lack of oxygenated blood flow to my brain and during that period my self awareness was most definitely offline, so it only stands to reason that it would continue to stay offline.

What modern science doesn't explain, not even remotely, is how this machine could possibly be aware of it's own existence...and how that awareness could be physically linked to the brain so that chemical levels could be registered as feelings. Also, I think we can all agree that self awareness is not required for reproduction...nor is it required for evolution...nor is it required for a general purpose computer that interprets sensory inputs and controls an organism throughout it's lifetime in the search of self preservation and reproduction. This begs the question: why are we self-aware at all?

Judging from the beautiful efficiency, diversity, and capabilities of organisms on this planet it seems to me that evolution is quite a powerful force for constructing an organism that is as efficient as possible. This suggests to me that, while self-awareness is clearly not necessary, it must somehow simplify the structure of the brain to have it there.

Now what could simplify the structure of the brain? Well, reusing an existing component. In other words, if there were some form of external "spiritual power", to which an input/output connection could be established via a physical brain, and the brain could then offload complex decisions to it. For example, this would be akin to building a quantum computer and then exploiting quantum mechanics to solve NP-hard problems that our conventional binary computer's cannot solve efficiently. Perhaps there's something like this...on another level...that our brains are outsourcing to for thought.

I don't know. I'm just rambling here, musing...but given the fact that self-awareness can't be explained by the standard model, general relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, or anything else...I don't see that we can really rule much out.

 

[Count Iblis]

The bottom line is that self awareness cannot be explained by any model of physics that we know of

No experiments involving (self aware) persons have ever demonstrated a violation of the known laws of physics. Therefore one cannot make the case that the known laws of physics are incompatible with self aware beings.

 

[Count Iblis]

Quantum mechanics is incompatible with the existence of ghosts. A ghost could e.g. observe which path an electron takes in a two slit experiment.

 

[junglebeast]

No experiments involving (self aware) persons have ever demonstrated a violation of the known laws of physics. Therefore one cannot make the case that the known laws of physics are incompatible with self aware beings.

Actually, the very existence of self-awareness is not a representable state under any modern physics model. Self-awareness is therefore one of the few loose ends that shows us our current physics model is incomplete.

Quantum mechanics is incompatible with the existence of ghosts. A ghost could e.g. observe which path an electron takes in a two slit experiment.

That's an odd assumption, why would a ghost be able to observe that?

 

[zoobyshoe]

What modern science doesn't explain, not even remotely, is how this machine could possibly be aware of it's own existence...and how that awareness could be physically linked to the brain so that chemical levels could be registered as feelings. Also, I think we can all agree that self awareness is not required for reproduction...nor is it required for evolution...nor is it required for a general purpose computer that interprets sensory inputs and controls an organism throughout it's lifetime in the search of self preservation and reproduction. This begs the question: why are we self-aware at all?

Neuroscience does explain consciousness remotely. Every day we get a better and better grasp on what elements are necessary for consciousness, and, at some point someone is going to have a breakthrough insight that puts it all together.

Incidentally, "chemical levels" are not the generators of emotion. Emotions, like everything else the brain does, are the direct result of patterns of neuronal firing. The role neurotransmitters play in mood is no more important than the role they play in any neuronal firing, be that activity abstract cogitation or motor responses.

Self awareness is an obvious evolutionary advantage in that it prompts us to think about ourselves, ruminate on our experiences, and plan ahead.

The average brain, a book I have asserts, has 14 billion neurons. It says also that each neuron may form from five to fifty thousand connections with other neurons. The number of possible connections is massive, and there is no telling what the "vocabulary" of an individual neuron might be: it might be as articulate as Morse Code, or an order of magnitude more articulate. Do individual neurons sing extravagant, complex songs to each other like birds and whales? No one knows. In any event, no one I have read has ever suggested there's any mystery in where the brain's potential for computing power might lie. There is no need to propose some external, non-corporeal source for this.

 

[DaveC426913]

... and there is no telling what the "vocabulary" of an individual neuron might be: it might be as articulate as Morse Code, or an order of magnitude more articulate. Do individual neurons sing extravagant, complex songs to each other like birds and whales? No one knows.

I've always assumed it was merely binary - or nearso. It never occurred to me that is had any complexity.

Can you or anyone else chime in with comments on this?

 

[junglebeast]

Neuroscience does explain consciousness remotely. Every day we get a better and better grasp on what elements are necessary for consciousness, and, at some point someone is going to have a breakthrough insight that puts it all together.

Self awareness is an obvious evolutionary advantage in that it prompts us to think about ourselves, ruminate on our experiences, and plan ahead.

That's not self awareness. "Thinking" is just performing computations to enumerate possible actions, assess possible reactions to those actions, and make decisions. All of that can be done by any conventional computer. "Ruminating on our experiences" is vague -- rumination in and of itself is worthless if it does not have an influence on decisions. Planning ahead does not in any way require awareness. A chess program can plan ahead within the confines of the game. Creating a machine that could plan ahead in arbitrary situations is more complicated but still do-able. Look at Bayesian nets for example. Really all that is needed is the ability to make pertinent observations (eg, sensory input device and interpretation) and memory; the ability to recognize patterns and integrate probabilities; then it's possible to make predictions of reactions to self-induced actions; then the ability to enumerate all self-induced actions; then a heuristic evaluator of a set of reactions as they pertain to a hierarchy of goals. So it's entirely possible to make an arbitrarily complex computer that could control an organism and give it the ability to plan ahead and interact in the world in a functional way.

One could make a machine that is not self aware but is in all measurable ways behaviorally identical to a human being. It could be programmed to have the appearance of emotions such as love, anger, etc as well. The question is, since we know it's possible to build a machine that behaves exactly like a human which is NOT self aware, why are humans self aware?

I think that your answer, that "self awareness prompts us to think...X" is flawed because it's possible for an organism/machine to think without being aware of the fact that it's thinking.

Clearly, we would not have evolved self awareness if it didn't have a functional purpose -- it seems that in humans self awareness is somehow linked to thinking, but my point is that we could have evolved differently. We could have evolved to be, essentially, zombies, that walk around and perform all the same functions that we do but without being aware of it. A plant performs functions without being aware of it. Some plants are capable of motor control.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I've always assumed it was merely binary - or nearso. It never occurred to me that is had any complexity.

Can you or anyone else chime in with comments on this?

It is binary, but so is something like morse code: you have two choices, long or short. However, those can be used to represent all the letters of the alphabet and the numerals, and from there words and sentences.

The notion of something more complex than mere binary encoding of numbers, of the importance of rhythm, comes into play with regard to the thalamus whose neurons can fire one of two ways: once they reach the firing threshold they can release their energy in one shot, or they can release it in a series of smaller bursts. No one is sure why it might chose one or the other, what "message" either might be sending to the cortex. But it is evident the thalamus is "conducting" how the different areas of the cortex are interacting with each other.

Other neurons either fire or don't. There are also "inhibitory" neurons which, when they fire, instruct other neurons not to fire, even when they are ready to do so. The possibility of complex rhythms is endless and there has been a lot of focus on the role those rhythms play:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/electric2.html

 

[junglebeast]

Dave, I don't think that the brain uses any kind of a uniform encoding system. Everything about the brain is completely plastic and dynamically evolving in function through Hebbian learning. That kind of system doesn't give rise to a regular encoding scheme like binary. Instead it's more of a "whatever works" encoding scheme. If you've ever programmed a neural network and then analyzed the network connections you'll know what I mean...even to solve simple tasks it often doesn't organize in a way that is intuitive, but the entirety of it "just works." However, the specific encoding (or lack thereof) does not affect computability. Certain encodings may be more or less efficient than others, but any encoding is equally capable of any calculation (aka, turing complete).

 

[zoobyshoe]

One could make a machine that is not self aware but is in all measurable ways behaviorally identical to a human being. It could be programmed to have the appearance of emotions such as love, anger, etc as well. The question is, since we know it's possible to build a machine that behaves exactly like a human which is NOT self aware, why are humans self aware?

Self awareness happened. Millions of years of constant "experimentation" with uncountable variations of cell structure lead to the superior mutation of a cell that polarizes and depolarizes many times a second. The extremely complex but unaware alternative you propose did not happen, and I can only suppose it's because the computational abilities of large populations of those kinds of cells is inextricably linked to the phenomenon of "awareness" that comes with. The zombie mimic, if it ever arose in Nature, would have to be based on some completely different organic process, and if such a thing ever got started here on Earth there doesn't seem to have been any niche for it, unless it turns out that this describes insect colonies or weird purple jellyfish.

 

[Count Iblis]

...since we know it's possible to build a machine that behaves exactly like a human which is NOT self aware, why are humans self aware?

We don't know that at all! It may be that consciousness is linked to the running of an algorithm regardless of how you dedcide to implement that algorithm. So, if I consider your head to a black box that somehow computes some output, then any other black box that will behave in a similar way must necessarily run the same type of algorithm (regardless of how that is implemented).

 

[junglebeast]

Self awareness happened. Millions of years of constant "experimentation" with uncountable variations of cell structure lead to the superior mutation of a cell that polarizes and depolarizes many times a second. The extremely complex but unaware alternative you propose did not happen, and I can only suppose it's because the computational abilities of large populations of those kinds of cells is inextricably linked to the phenomenon of "awareness" that comes with.

Yes, we evolved self awareness. You seem to be suggesting that the possible alternative course of evolution I suggested, an organism identical in function but lacking in self awareness, would require a more complicated brain structure.

However, there is no evidence to support the assumption that self-awareness allows for a more simple structure of the brain. The simple state of being "aware" does not imply an ability to think or make decisions...a state of being does not have functional value to the organism. This means that awareness evolved as a side effect of something else that evolved.

But the really interesting question is not so much why are we self aware, but how is it physically created and represented? You see, being "aware" is a state, but we do not know what the physical representation of that state is. As far as I can tell, it is the only (or one of the very few) states in the known universe that we don't have a clue of how to represent, in terms of fundamental particles.

I mean, solid/liquid/gas/plasma can all be explained in terms of configurations of particles. Cells can be represented as particles...action potentials can be represented in terms of particles...but tell me what is the representation of "awareness" in terms of particles?

Until we can say something along the lines of, "awareness is a state of matter that is defined by quantum entanglement of 2 opposite spin particles...etc", then it is not representable by physics. Clearly it is representable by the universe, but physics isn't there yet.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, we evolved self awareness. You seem to be suggesting that the possible alternative course of evolution I suggested, an organism identical in function but lacking in self awareness, would require a more complicated brain structure.

No, a more convoluted, complicated evolutionary path. Envision non-artificial, natural, rock formations in the shape of humans, like Michelangelo sculptures: you'd have to have some pretty fancy, specific weather and erosion dynamics for that to occur. Zombie-like human mimics would have to be subjected to some incredibly weird environmental pressures to start writing books, inventing television, smoking pot, building pyramids, and forming organized religions. Where would the templates or instructions for all those behaviors come from? Where would the instruction to behave as if they were self aware come from? Where would the parameters of "self aware" come from? We act the way we do as a result of being self aware. What on Earth would induce a being which was not self aware to adopt a slew of extraneous behaviors specific to self awareness, of all things?

But the really interesting question is not so much why are we self aware, but how is it physically created and represented? You see, being "aware" is a state, but we do not know what the physical representation of that state is. As far as I can tell, it is the only (or one of the very few) states in the known universe that we don't have a clue of how to represent, in terms of fundamental particles.

I mean, solid/liquid/gas/plasma can all be explained in terms of configurations of particles. Cells can be represented as particles...action potentials can be represented in terms of particles...but tell me what is the representation of "awareness" in terms of particles?

Until we can say something along the lines of, "awareness is a state of matter that is defined by quantum entanglement of 2 opposite spin particles...etc", then it is not representable by physics. Clearly it is representable by the universe, but physics isn't there yet.

This is all true, and is the big current Holy Grail of Neuroscience. A former PF mentor, Hypnagogue has gone off to join those searching for The Neural Correlates of Consciousness. There are many, many different teams of researchers on this problem. I am not aware there are too many who think the answer will be found on a quantum level. Most people are searching on the cellular level.

In any event, just because we do not know how the activity of neurons leads to consciousness, it is beyond dispute that their activity is necessary for it. That being the case there is no need to postulate external non-corporeal computing sources, or to propose that there is some entity, "consciousness," that can exist apart from the physical body.

Apropos: There are some people involved with the paranormal who think magnetic fields, for instance, are self-contained entities that happen to reside in magnets, as well as in people, and can leave those "containers" to take up residence elsewhere, or just float freely around. They also think that the "electrical activity" of the brain and nerves is much the same as you find in electrical and electronic devices, whereas the basic mechanism of an action potential is very different: whole cations are moved in a slow and cumbersome manner from the exterior to the interior of the cell and the "signal" propagates quite slowly compared to the vastly faster EMF based on pressurizing free electrons by moving a magnetic field at right angles to a conductor. While a current carrying conductor has a demonstrable magnetic field the field around a firing neuron is probably more like an alternately contracting and expanding electric field as the cations are let in and then pumped back out.

The notion that a magnetic field can just exist by itself unconnected to any current flow is, I think, the basis for a lot of "ghost" explanations. I have often heard claims that the "energy" that arises from the "electrical activity of the brain and nerves" "can neither be created nor destroyed" (according to Einstein, no less) and this is the basis for their belief that physics supports the possibility of ghosts and life after death.

 

[junglebeast]

No, a more convoluted, complicated evolutionary path. Envision non-artificial, natural, rock formations in the shape of humans, like Michelangelo sculptures: you'd have to have some pretty fancy, specific weather and erosion dynamics for that to occur. Zombie-like human mimics would have to be subjected to some incredibly weird environmental pressures to start writing books, inventing television, smoking pot, building pyramids, and forming organized religions.

Rock formations lack selective pressure and a means for reproduction and mutation. However, if we were to provide an artificial selective pressure (eg, a person living on Mars who goes around blasting every rock formation that doesn't look like Michelangelo), and introduce a means for reproduction and evolution (eg, a crazed artist with a sand blaster who randomly chooses 2 rock formations and then sculpts a third to resemble both of the originals), then given enough time, we would end up seeing sculptures that look like Michelangelo...even though the sculptor has no idea what Michelangelo looks like.

As for all the things we do...for entertainment, religion, etc...all of these behaviors can be explained as the result of behaviors that would have been promoted by natural selection among unconscious organisms in the same situation as the human race...I believe most of these explanations are standard fair anthropology. For example, early man probably evolved to walk on 2 feet to be able to see long distances over the plains. He then started to use his hands for things other than walking, such as using tools. This required him to evolve a larger and smarter brain so that he could use those tools in new ways for acquiring food. It then makes sense to form large packs where each person can collectively increase the well being of everyone else, by sharing tools, hunting together, etc. Reinforcement learning is already a basic instinct, so if one of the primitive humans was stealing food from everyone else, the other members of the pack would kick him out for their own mutual benefit. This provides a selective pressure for sharing. It's easy to see how these kinds of influences cause evolution to favor more advanced social interactions. As another example, consider the act of crying -- a primitive form of communication that indicates the need for help. A woman who needs help may cry, and there is a selective pressure for men to help a crying woman, because this will increase the man's favor with that woman, which will increase his chances of reproducing with her. Now consider religion. After the brain has evolved to the point where it is extremely good at recognizing patterns and making predictions, the primitive human would have a selective pressure for curiosity -- because curiosity leads to discoveries which can be beneficial to survival. Once the organism has evolved curiosity, he is likely to become curious as to the origin of the Earth and life itself...and the first most logical assumption he will come to is that, like everything else non-random (eg, man made) the only way for complex things to be created is for them to have a creator. This leads him to suppose there exists some form of "greater man" that made man to begin with (even though this is circular reasoning). There begins the concept of God. Why does man dream? A simple explanation is that it's an easy way to practice and get better at dealing with nerve racking situations in a safe environment before the individual is confronted with them in real life. Perhaps that's why we have so many "chase" dreams. Social interactions, although not life-threatening, can threaten an individual's ability to impress a potential mate -- and therefore they are equally important from an evolutionary standpoint, so we should have dreams involving social interactions, too.

I could go on...but the point is that none of these evolutionary pressures in any way necessitated self awareness. I would argue that there is not a single behavior characteristic of humans that cannot be explained as something that does not have a natural explanation through evolution of non-self aware organisms.

In any event, just because we do not know how the activity of neurons leads to consciousness, it is beyond dispute that their activity is necessary for it. That being the case there is no need to postulate external non-corporeal computing sources, or to propose that there is some entity, "consciousness," that can exist apart from the physical body.

Neurons are certainly necessary for maintaining an individual's consciousness, but one might argue that the conscious entity is a separate spiritual force, and then the physical neurons are simply creating a channel that allows communication with that "spiritual" force. I only use the word spiritual for lack of a better word. Discovery of this could someday be just as revolutionary as when we discovered the other spooky things such as electricity or electromagnetic waves or quantum entanglement.

The notion that a magnetic field can just exist by itself unconnected to any current flow is, I think, the basis for a lot of "ghost" explanations. I have often heard claims that the "energy" that arises from the "electrical activity of the brain and nerves" "can neither be created nor destroyed" (according to Einstein, no less) and this is the basis for their belief that physics supports the possibility of ghosts and life after death.

I think the concept that there is another form of energy associated with our brains, with its own conservation law, is a possibility.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Rock formations lack selective pressure and a means for reproduction and mutation. However, if we were to provide an artificial selective pressure (eg, a person living on Mars who goes around blasting every rock formation that doesn't look like Michelangelo)...

No, you miss the point of my saying "non-artificial". As with rocks, which are never in 10 billion years going to end up accidently carved into something resembling a human as specifically as a Michelangelo sculpture, zombie people are going to find no template in their genes for any behaviors so specific and peculiar as the ones we've seen arising from self-aware behavior, nothing from which to derive the instruction to ponder where they came from, etc. All the "natural" behaviors you list arise from self awareness + environment, not from mere existence in the environment alone. People who are not self-aware do not behave as if they were self aware. People having absence seizures stop what they're doing and stand unmoving staring at nothing. For two or three seconds, they simply stop being aware of anything, including themselves.

A machine constructed to mimic self-aware behavior requires a self-aware designer. Humans might make one, but it would never arise by itself in Nature.

One thing you're doing is saying "We evolved this (trait) in order to..." It absolutely does not happen like that. We can't will traits into being to serve a purpose. There is no drive behind evolution: things mutate randomly. Sometimes the mutations are better, sometimes not. If we're lucky, as a species, at any time the environment suddenly shifts on us there are enough people who have the traits to survive that shift who are "selected" by default, to keep humanity going.

Neurons are certainly necessary for maintaining an individual's consciousness, but one might argue that the conscious entity is a separate spiritual force...

One might argue this, but it's a violation of Occam's Razor. One might argue that all our behaviors are dictated by an invisible, unsensable weird, purple jellyfish we all have sitting on our heads. Another might argue elves inhabiting the sulci of the brain are the root cause of consciousness. One might argue that consciousness rains from the heavens in the form of hitherto undiscovered subatomic particles called "consciousons". I could spend the rest of my life inventing a list of the things one might argue.

I think the concept that there is another form of energy associated with our brains, with its own conservation law, is a possibility.

The concept is a possibility, it's possible to construct any outlandish concept, but let us first exhaust known quantities before proposing and speculating about things we haven't detected by any means whatever.

 

[atyy]

I could go on...but the point is that none of these evolutionary pressures in any way necessitated self awareness. I would argue that there is not a single behavior characteristic of humans that cannot be explained as something that does not have a natural explanation through evolution of non-self aware organisms.

How about efference copy? Isn't that a form of self awareness?

 

[zoobyshoe]

How about efference copy? Isn't that a form of self awareness?

What is "efference copy"?

 

[atyy]

The brain sends itself a copy of what it tells the muscles to do. This copy may be used to by the animal to model the muscles (ie. a part of the itself) to predict what will happen as a result of what the brain is telling the muscles to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efference_copy

 

[zoobyshoe]

The brain sends itself a copy of what it tells the muscles to do. This copy may be used to by the animal to model the muscles (ie. a part of the itself) to predict what will happen as a result of what the brain is telling the muscles to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efference_copy

Well, something like sending itself a copy must, of course be happening, but I find that to be a funny way of expressing it. I would have said the brain remembers what instructions it sends.

 

[junglebeast]

All the "natural" behaviors you list arise from self awareness + environment, not from mere existence in the environment alone.

Self awareness is completely unnecessary for the behaviors I listed to evolve..I'll respond more to that in detail lower down.

People who are not self-aware do not behave as if they were self aware. People having absence seizures stop what they're doing and stand unmoving staring at nothing. For two or three seconds, they simply stop being aware of anything, including themselves.

There are two possible explanations for that: (1) due to the way we have evolved, self-awareness is necessary for normal function (I think this is likely); (2) we simply do not know a means to shut off the self-awareness component without also shutting off components necessary for normal function. Either way, that does not prove that self-awareness is necessary to have a person walking around and acting self-aware. Clearly, it is possible to have a non-self aware organism that does more than simply stand unmoving. Even a mechanical robot is proof of that.

A machine constructed to mimic self-aware behavior requires a self-aware designer. Humans might make one, but it would never arise by itself in Nature.

That sounds like something a proponent of Intelligent Design would say. I never suggested that evolution would favor organisms that mimic self-awareness. I merely pointed out that, the behaviors we associate with self-awareness increase the likelihood of reproduction, and therefore would have been selected for through the natural process of evolution.

One thing you're doing is saying "We evolved this (trait) in order to..." It absolutely does not happen like that. We can't will traits into being to serve a purpose. There is no drive behind evolution: things mutate randomly. Sometimes the mutations are better, sometimes not.

That was merely a figure of speech I was using to shorten the explanation, because I assumed that you know how evolution works. I know how evolution works, and I assume you do too, so I won't waste either of our time by going into detail there. Suffice it to say that, if you know how evolution works, you should be able to accept the fact that through the random process of evolution, any trait that increases the likelihood of the organism reproducing will be selected for.

For each trait that I listed, I specifically pointed out a way in which that trait increases the likelihood of reproduction. Therefore, these traits could have just as easily evolved if the human race did not have self awareness.

The concept is a possibility, it's possible to construct any outlandish concept, but let us first exhaust known quantities before proposing and speculating about things we haven't detected by any means whatever.

Yes, of course...the simplest plausible explanation has the highest probability of being correct. But the fact that current understanding of physics does not predict an awareness state means that the model is incomplete, and there aren't any theories which have been proposed that I've ever heard of which could predict an awareness state (except for crackpot theories). If someone does present a simple and elegant generative model for awareness, I'd be all for it...

 

[Count Iblis]

I have posted all the answers on my blog:

http://countiblis.blogspot.com

 

[atyy]

Well, something like sending itself a copy must, of course be happening, but I find that to be a funny way of expressing it. I would have said the brain remembers what instructions it sends.

Well, the way I'm using "efference copy" is not just that it remembers, but also uses that as input to a model of itself. Self awareness means I have a model of "myself", so efference copy is a form of self-awareness.

 

[junglebeast]

Well, the way I'm using "efference copy" is not just that it remembers, but also uses that as input to a model of itself. Self awareness means I have a model of "myself", so efference copy is a form of self-awareness.

An entity that is self aware (A) implies that it has a model of itself (B) (eg, A implies B), but an entity that has a model of itself is not necessarily self aware (B does not imply A). Therefore it is illogical to conclude that the efference copy is a form of self awareness.

As a prime example of this, it's common for roboticists to program the robot to use a model of itself, which is useful because it can be used to predict it's own dynamics. This has been used in feedback learning so that the robot can adapt and re-learn how to walk if one of it's legs is removed, for example, by hopping around...but the robot is not self aware just because it has a model of itself.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Self awareness is completely unnecessary for the behaviors I listed to evolve..I'll respond more to that in detail lower down.

For each trait that I listed, I specifically pointed out a way in which that trait increases the likelihood of reproduction. Therefore, these traits could have just as easily evolved if the human race did not have self awareness.

Without self awareness there is no spontaneous thinking, questioning, exploration of alternative models. There's no crying: one must have an image of oneself, and the emotional reaction of self pity, to cry. There are no "sympathizers" either: no self image with an emotional reaction, no sympathetic response to others in distress. If a neural network can 'learn" it is because it was programmed to mimic the act of learning by self aware beings.

There are two possible explanations for that: (1) due to the way we have evolved, self-awareness is necessary for normal function (I think this is likely); (2) we simply do not know a means to shut off the self-awareness component without also shutting off components necessary for normal function. Either way, that does not prove that self-awareness is necessary to have a person walking around and acting self-aware. Clearly, it is possible to have a non-self aware organism that does more than simply stand unmoving. Even a mechanical robot is proof of that.

Famous case in Epilepsy Literature: Doctor X. During Complex-Partial seizures he was able to diagnose and accurately treat patients on occasion though he appeared, at these times, to be somewhat spaced out. After the fact he had complete amnesia for the events. His apparently deliberate behavior, despite the gross defect of consciousness, was possible due to his having so solidly established his medical knowledge in his procedural memory. Though he was not, himself, conscious of what he was doing, running on "auto-pilot" so to speak, the procedures were so familiar to him he could perform them, just about literally, in his sleep.

However, the learning of those procedures had to take place previously during self-aware periods of consciousness. Had Doctor X been in such a state all his life from birth he would have had to be institutionalized and would never have learned how to feed himself, dress, or walk.

That sounds like something a proponent of Intelligent Design would say.

Then you probably misread it.

I never suggested that evolution would favor organisms that mimic self-awareness. I merely pointed out that, the behaviors we associate with self-awareness increase the likelihood of reproduction, and therefore would have been selected for through the natural process of evolution.

But your original bewilderment seemed to be about the perceived (by you) non-necessity for self-awareness, which implies you think it hard to explain why we didn't evolve without it. Which implies you suppose Natural Selection would favor non-self-awareness.

That was merely a figure of speech I was using to shorten the explanation, because I assumed that you know how evolution works. I know how evolution works, and I assume you do too, so I won't waste either of our time by going into detail there. Suffice it to say that, if you know how evolution works, you should be able to accept the fact that through the random process of evolution, any trait that increases the likelihood of the organism reproducing will be selected for.

OK

Yes, of course...the simplest plausible explanation has the highest probability of being correct.

This is not the understanding of Occam's Razor I like, that the simplest explanation is probably the right one. Merriam-Webster's defines it with a broader range:

"a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities"

It's not that simplicity = higher probability, because some things end up being vastly more complex than ever was suspected. The point of Occam's Razor is that entities should not be unnecessarily multiplied.

But the fact that current understanding of physics does not predict an awareness state means that the model is incomplete, and there aren't any theories which have been proposed that I've ever heard of which could predict an awareness state (except for crackpot theories). If someone does present a simple and elegant generative model for awareness, I'd be all for it...

Given the acknowledgment that our current understanding is quite limited it is unnecessary to multiply the possibilities to include yet more even less comprehensible mechanisms for consciousness, such as external, non-corporeal computing power, or undetected energies with their own conservation laws.

If we simply proceed from the assumption that awareness arises from the activity of brain cells we can then start describing that activity, and the elements that comprise it, and start asking what is salient and what isn't. What's the importance of cations? Why positive charge? Why soft metals? Is that pertinent. Won't this work with electrons? Are neurons "aware" or is it the nearby glial cells that actually experience the "awareness"? As far as we know consciousness does not exist anywhere in nature except in a very specific configuration of organic matter, and that is what we have to study to learn what might be causing consciousness. There's no reason to expect that quanta, per se, would reveal anything about it.

In all, it has to be remembered that experimentation is highly limited in human subjects, restricted to non-invasive, non-destructive experiments. Huge amounts of information have been collected from people with pre-existing pathologies (Neurologist Wilder Penfield called Epilepsy "the great teacher") but we aren't allowed, and rightly so, to do any harm. We'll have to be patient with a much slower, more round about exploration.

 

[atyy]

An entity that is self aware (A) implies that it has a model of itself (B) (eg, A implies B), but an entity that has a model of itself is not necessarily self aware (B does not imply A). Therefore it is illogical to conclude that the efference copy is a form of self awareness.

As a prime example of this, it's common for roboticists to program the robot to use a model of itself, which is useful because it can be used to predict it's own dynamics. This has been used in feedback learning so that the robot can adapt and re-learn how to walk if one of it's legs is removed, for example, by hopping around...but the robot is not self aware just because it has a model of itself.

So what are the additional requirements?

 

[atyy]

Maybe that it has a model of a model of itself?

Infinite regression - needed or not?

 

[junglebeast]

Without self awareness there is no spontaneous thinking, questioning, exploration of alternative models. There's no crying: one must have an image of oneself, and the emotional reaction of self pity, to cry. There are no "sympathizers" either: no self image with an emotional reaction, no sympathetic response to others in distress.

Just because humans only do these things while we are conscious doesn't mean that these things couldn't have evolved without consciousness. It's very possible that the component of our brain which is responsible for consciousness is inextricably connected to the components which control logical thought, simply meaning that when we lose consciousness, the component that handles logical thought can no longer function. But that does not mean that consciousness is fundamentally necessary for logical thought. That would be like asserting that brake lights are necessary for starting a car just because whenever you cut a wire under the dashboard that turned off the brake lights, the car refused to start.

"Thinking" can be a few different things; it can be actively considering the aspects of a problem and how they can be rearranged in order to achieve a certain goal, it can be analyzing a sequence of events in order to determine causality and make future predictions, etc. But all of these components of thinking can be broken down into mathematical / statistical problems that could be solved by an unconscious machine.

If I am hungry and decide to go to the fridge to get some food, that decision doesn't require me to be aware of myself. All it required was for my stomach nerves to send an electrochemical signal to my brain saying that food is needed, then for my brain to enumerate known locations of food. The closest known location of food being the refrigerator. Then some motor controls are issued to cause me to walk over and get the food out of the fridge. I think you'll agree with me on this one, but perhaps only because people are known to get food while sleep walking.

However, this non-conscious analysis can be applied to any problem. For example, let's say that I am reading a research paper. Reading the text could be accomplished without consciousness -- as evidenced by the field of Computational Linguistics. This allows the words on the page to be translated into an abstract series of relationships that encode virtual world events. Knowing that the paper is describing a method for achieving a certain goal, the brain can then simulate the action of following the sequence of instructions described in the paper, and flag any potential problems that were encountered in the simulation. Perhaps one of those problems was previously encountered before and a solution had been saved. This solution can then be applied to the problem at hand, voila, original research can be done by an unthinking machine.

Plants are unthinking organism and they have evolved some complex mechanisms for "communication". This is not conscious communication, it's just a series of hormonal effects that evolution has devised that cause them to work together for mutually increased chances of reproduction --and that's all crying really is.

If each organism is programmed to secrete moisture from the eyes when their individual frustration becomes high, and each organism is likewise programmed to want to help another organism that emits the tears, then there is mutual benefit for the species because frustration is an internal indicator of personal goals not being met...and all personal goals are hierarchically related to the main goal of reproduction. Thus, if frustrations can be reduced through this behavior, then reproduction can be increased.

Why should the response be a secretion of liquid from around the eyes?
1) People look at the eyes, so it is a noticeable location
2) The eyes need moisture already, so it doesn't take much to put a tear duct there
3) The secretion can only be controlled involuntarily based on the individuals emotional levels. It's necessary that the indicator be controlled by involuntary means only because if it could be voluntarily made (eg, if it was a hand signal), then organisms would learn to just make the hand signal to get what they wanted, and this would abuse the system so that it was no longer beneficial to the whole.

If a neural network can 'learn" it is because it was programmed to mimic the act of learning by self aware beings.

Contradiction: the brain is a neural network which can learn, but it was not programmed by human beings.

However, the learning of those procedures had to take place previously during self-aware periods of consciousness. Had Doctor X been in such a state all his life from birth he would have had to be institutionalized and would never have learned how to feed himself, dress, or walk.

That's an interesting story, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make

But your original bewilderment seemed to be about the perceived (by you) non-necessity for self-awareness, which implies you think it hard to explain why we didn't evolve without it. Which implies you suppose Natural Selection would favor non-self-awareness.

I think that the fact that we did evolve self awareness, which I see as neither a benefit nor a burden, indicates that it was a side effect that came along with something that was beneficial. Specifically, I think that somehow the structure that was evolved to give us such good cognitive abilities incidentally also gave us self awareness.

Given the acknowledgment that our current understanding is quite limited it is unnecessary to multiply the possibilities to include yet more even less comprehensible mechanisms for consciousness, such as external, non-corporeal computing power, or undetected energies with their own conservation laws.

If we simply proceed from the assumption that awareness arises from the activity of brain cells we can then start describing that activity, and the elements that comprise it, and start asking what is salient and what isn't.

An atom is not aware of itself. A photon is not aware of itself. Why would a collection of atoms be aware of itself? The question is completely baffling because we can't even represent the question properly -- I mean, what is awareness? We can't even define it. If the question could be defined, then I might accept that our current theories were only wrong in a small way...but the fact that we can't even define it causes me to think that our model is just massively off-base.

So what are the additional requirements?

That's like asking, how do you mix the color white out of black paint? There's no way to define it, imo, given our current misunderstanding of the universe.

 

[atyy]

That's like asking, how do you mix the color white out of black paint? There's no way to define it, imo, given our current misunderstanding of the universe.

But if you don't know the additional requirements, then how do you know the definition I gave isn't sufficient? ie. maybe some robots and insects also have self-awareness?