Is Matter Conscious? - Can All Matter Be Conscious?

[Q_Goest]

I agree with Chalmers too (on this particular point) but my point is that we have no access to it (we can't test it) so we can't productively talk about it.

Please see Dennett, http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm" ", then figure out which aspect of qualia you side with.

 

[Pythagorean]

Please see Dennett, http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm" ", then figure out which aspect of qualia you side with.

I don't have a side, I try not to "put my party before my country" (i.e. I try not to pick sides and prefer to just look at each argument).

As I've stated before, I believe qualia do exist. I agree with Dennet that people have connotation attached to qualia, just like they do with consciousness, which makes discussion of the subject difficult. But they're not completely inaccessible:

For instance, my first sip of breakfast orange juice tastes much sweeter than my second sip if I interpose a bit of pancakes and maple syrup

This can be completely explained by desensitization of the dopamine response in a neuroscience context. Sensations are less intense the more you're exposed to them and there's physical actions in the neuron coupling that account for this.I disagree with this...

The mistake is not in supposing that we can in practice ever or always perform this act of purification with certainty, but the more fundamental mistake of supposing that there is such a residual property to take seriously, however uncertain our actual attempts at isolation of instances might be.

based on my comments in last paragraph.

If the use of "intensity" is not satisfactory, because it indicates quantitative instead of qualitative, I posted much evidence (published papers) of how neural transients represent different qualitative states in the other thread that you and I participated in recently.

(1) ineffable

(2) intrinsic

(3) private

(4) directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness

Once again, as in the orange juice example above, qualia aren't completely ineffable.

If we can do something like in Strange Days (transfer experiences via technology) through neural sitmulation, then they're not intrinsic either.

If you're hooked up to a sophisticated version of an fMRI, they aren't private.

I'm not sure what 4) means, but I wouldn't say immediately. We live in the future, integrating information from the past. Our qualia are a combination of the direct neural stimulus and our expectations (that come from a long history of neural stimuli).I don't really want to read the rest of this anymore; I think Dennet should study more neuroscience to ground his physicalist arguments. You and I have already had the discussion about "switching cables".

Is there any particular intuition pump you're interested in, because at this point I feel like I'm wading through a bunch of mental masturbation.

 

[Q_Goest]

From a scientific perspective (which is also a philosophical perspective) it's pointless to study things that you have no access too, so consciousness is defined behaviorally for the sake of progress. And there's generally no difference between consciousness and awareness behaviorally either.

I take this to mean that it’s pointless to study things (qualia or any phenomenal experience) that science does not have access to, so phenomenal consciousness should be defined (or studied) from the behavioral perspective “for the sake of progress”. Further, there no difference between phenomenal conscoiusness and behavior. If that’s not what you mean, please rephrase.

This can be completely explained by desensitization of the dopamine response in a neuroscience context. Sensations are less intense the more you're exposed to them and there's physical actions in the neuron coupling that account for this.

Dennett would agree that behavior, and thus "sensations" (ie: qualia), can be completely explained in physical terms just as you’ve suggested. Chalmers on the other hand, would point out that although you’ve provided a description of the physical interactions, and thus the behavior, you’ve not even begun to touch on an explanation of the experience. This is the whole "easy" versus "hard" part of consciousness that Chalmers talks about. You've explained the easy part by describing the physical interactions but you've not even touched on the hard part.

Once again, as in the orange juice example above, qualia aren't completely ineffable.

Ineffable: incapable of being expressed or described in words;inexpressible: ineffable joy.

I think you’ve misunderstood the point of qualia being ineffable. I can’t think of a single person or publication that would contest that qualia are effable, so either you’ve misunderstood what it means or your ideas regarding qualia being effable are well outside the mainstream.

Overall, your perspective is closer to that of Dennett’s than of Chalmers. In his paper “Quinning Qualia” Dennett argues that qualia, though they may seem to be something that needs an explanation, is suggesting that the physical interactions of neurons, and the subsequent behavior is all that needs to be explained, similar to what you’ve suggested here:

By the way, when I say behavior... the behavior of neurons counts too. You may be feeling something that you're not expressing. The assumption is that we can see what you're feeling on an fMRI (or something more sophisticated) if we've had 1000 people feel the same thing and measured the transients and they're comparable to your transients.

If I’ve misunderstood your opinions, feel free to clarify. However, the reason I’m sticking my $.02 in here is more to help shed some light on what the literature has to offer as it seems most people aren’t aware of what’s being said and the various philosophical arguments that have been made.

 

[ThomasT]

I use a theoretically neutral definition of consciousness:

Consciousness = having experiences

Examples of experiences are those that all of us are familiar with: seeing, hearing, smelling, etc.

This is an adequate enough definition for all of us to understand what we are talking about.

Insofar as the word consciousness doesn't refer to objects in the world at large and their behavior, then it doesn't refer to anything that can be scientifically studied. Come to think of it, that makes for a certain job security for the philosophers who talk about consciousness as something that things have or experience rather than something that things do.

We must be very careful in defining consciousness in terms of what it looks like, since this is essentially the same as assuming a conclusion, by deciding up front which things are and are not conscious.

That's the point of defining terms. Reasoning isn't necessarily involved. We're just saying what a certain term refers to. You're defining it as "looking like" your subjective experience. I'm defining it as "looking like" certain behaviors.

If we agree that it looks like human brain activity, then of course things without it won't be conscious. If we agree that it looks like electrons, then of course everything with electrons is conscious.

That's right.

But earlier you said you didn't find evidence of consciousness in hubcaps, so this means you know what consciousness looks like. So I asked you what it looks like, what you accept as evidence of consciousness.

I think i know the answer to that however ("consciousness looks like humanlike behaviour"), and if I am right, then it was a case of circular reasoning:

- first assume that consciousness looks like humanlike behaviour
- then conclude we don't find consciousness in non-humanlike behaviour

Or in short: we don't find humanlike behaviour in non-humanlike behaviour.

Defining a term isn't making an argument. It's simply saying what that term will refer to when you use it. When you use the word consciousness it refers to your subjective experience. I'm fine with that. I'm using it to refer to behavior that's unique to living organisms. So we can refer to all nonliving things as nonconscious. We can extend the set of referents for the term consciousness to include any and all living organisms. Within that set we can differentiate human, fish, worm, protazoan, etc. conscious behavior, developing a hierarchy of conscious behavior.

I can answer, and my previous post is related to this. One problem i have with defining consciousness in terms of behaviour, is that this is simply begging the question when the question concerns the origin of consciousness.

Yes of course. And we're essentially asking what's the origin of life. By definition, it emerges at a certain level of complex wave interaction in particulate media. Exactly what that is and how it happens are open questions.

If we define it as the behaviour of electrons, then we will find consciousness wherever we find electrons.

Yes, if we defined it that way. But we don't.

If we define it as humanlike behaviour, then we will find it wherever we find humanlike behaviour.

Yes of course. That's why we define terms. So we know what they refer to. Some terms just refer to other terms or operations thereon. Some terms refer to objects available for public scrutiny and behaviors thereof. Consciousness, in your lexicon, refers to subjective experience. And I agree with you that using that definition we have no way of ascertaining whether anything is conscious or not, except ourselves.

But my main issue is that we simply cannot observe consciousness in others.

Not if we define it as you suggest. But the de facto meaning of the term is behavioral. Any scientific definition of it has to be also.

This is simply a fact, whether we like it or not. It may be very useful to define C in terms of behaviour in some clinical settings or in everyday life, but ultimately this is not rooted in observation.

I disagree. Ultimately everything is "rooted in observation".

So we cannot use observation to determine which behaviour is and isn't conscious.

Not if we define it nonbehaviorally, no.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I got cut shaving with a fresh steel blade. I told that shaver, in no uncertain terms, that if it cut me again, it was done for. I finished shaving and it did not cut me again. It must have understood me and changed its behavior; evidence that the shaver must be conscious?

It's just a cheap Bic however, so it's too stupid to realize that it's done for anyway, after a few shaves.

 

[Pythagorean]

I take this to mean that it’s pointless to study things (qualia or any phenomenal experience) that science does not have access to, so phenomenal consciousness should be defined (or studied) from the behavioral perspective “for the sake of progress”. Further, there no difference between phenomenal conscoiusness and behavior. If that’s not what you mean, please rephrase.


Dennett would agree that behavior, and thus "sensations" (ie: qualia), can be completely explained in physical terms just as you’ve suggested. Chalmers on the other hand, would point out that although you’ve provided a description of the physical interactions, and thus the behavior, you’ve not even begun to touch on an explanation of the experience. This is the whole "easy" versus "hard" part of consciousness that Chalmers talks about. You've explained the easy part by describing the physical interactions but you've not even touched on the hard part.


Ineffable: incapable of being expressed or described in words;inexpressible: ineffable joy.

I think you’ve misunderstood the point of qualia being ineffable. I can’t think of a single person or publication that would contest that qualia are effable, so either you’ve misunderstood what it means or your ideas regarding qualia being effable are well outside the mainstream.

Overall, your perspective is closer to that of Dennett’s than of Chalmers. In his paper “Quinning Qualia” Dennett argues that qualia, though they may seem to be something that needs an explanation, is suggesting that the physical interactions of neurons, and the subsequent behavior is all that needs to be explained, similar to what you’ve suggested here:


If I’ve misunderstood your opinions, feel free to clarify. However, the reason I’m sticking my $.02 in here is more to help shed some light on what the literature has to offer as it seems most people aren’t aware of what’s being said and the various philosophical arguments that have been made.

Q_Goest, I typed up a large response and it got wiped out in the log-in process... I don't know how many times that's happened to me. I will make another attempt it at it later, that was rather discouraging.

 

[DaveC426913]

Q_Goest, I typed up a large response and it got wiped out in the log-in process... I don't know how many times that's happened to me. I will make another attempt it at it later, that was rather discouraging.

Gawd I hate that. Regularly Ctrl-C'ing has become as automatic as blinking for me.

 

[Maui]

I prefer we focus on a single simple example of emergence.

Reduce consciousness to its constituents. What is it made of?

The emergence of space and time (if they emerged) arent good examples since they would not counter the idea that consciousness traces back to at least the big bang (a muddy and poorly understood phenomenon), and that no emergence has been happening in nature ever since. So let's focus on non-linear behaviour. Id like to understand what it is that emerges there.

A universe.

The "particle" picture of atoms is only a very crude(classical) approximation, well okay i'll say it - it is wrong, but for some reason(why?) it works up to a point and allows for a visialization that is only half-true.


The unification of physics is headed towards a supersymmetric unified field picture and the so called "particles"(particles don't exist) are excitations of the field. In this picture, you are an excitation of the field, everything is. The math says so, experiments confirm it, so in short, the coffin is ready for your pre-conceived notions of the world.

As for the illusory appearance of particles, that is not to do with any physical kind of emergence, since it is merely about how they appear to a conscious observer.

But they appear "physical" and we label them so, but "physical", if we get to he bottom of it, is an ambiguous term.
"Physical" is that which is observed. What's really there is a totally separate issue.

You said that there is no evidence for consciousness in rocks. That means you are looking for a particular type of evidence and you did not find it. Thats why i asked what it is that you accept as evidence of consciousness?

The scientific rigor calls for observational and empirical evidence. Since for 200 000 years we've not been able to find any, we can dismiss this proposition as very highly unlikely. Philosophically though, without applying the scientific rigor, anything could be conscious.

 

[Maui]

Because hope springs eternal.

I got the solid impression that Jimmy Snyder was saying that we were jumping to conclusions?

And critically speaking, when was the last time that we didn't, even if you were to consider all of science? When was the last time that our theories were based on COMPLETE information? Whose thoughts and decisions were ever based on complete information in our history? We always make progress by making conclusions based on INcomplete information, then we test them and we keep the conclusions for as long as they hold. Rocks are not conscious(conscious in the same way as we are) is a conclusion that has held for tens of thousands of years.

 

[brainstorm]

What we can do... is infer that (using you and Dave's discussion) a worm recoiling must be having a similar experience to us when we feel pain. We also infer that two people with fully functioning retina and visual processing experience a very similar quality from red. More similar than one person's difference between red and blue.

A worm recoiling could be experiencing the same thing as a boxer who gets punched in the heat of a fight or the same thing as a child confronted by a hissing crocodile. It could also just experience impulses the way a muscle in your body does, by reacting with contraction.

My interest is in whether brain/nerve tissue could act as a transmitter/receiver of informational signals and thereby transmit/receive thoughts and consciousness to and from other bodies and/or media. My basic assumption is that esp and consciousness transfer is impossible, but it would really depend on exactly what causes consciousness, wouldn't it?

If consciousness was simply an electronic pattern that could transfer between various media, would it have compatibility issues like software and operating systems on various kinds of computer hardware? Could it just be something as general as electromagnetism is conscious of whatever kinds of signals reach it from elsewhere and depending on the system in which the electromagnetism is present, it experiences different signals and has different avenues of expression open to it?

How would you measure consciousness in some medium that cannot express thought or action? If you operationalize "conscious" by comparing various signals to those measured in living humans that aren't brain-dead, then wouldn't you consistently mistake dead things as being unconscious even if they were somehow conscious? Isn't consciousness just a completely subjective research object?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Philosophically though, without applying the scientific rigor, anything could be conscious.

So, philosophically speaking, my previous post, quoted below and intended to be absurd, is not absurd (philosophically speaking of course). The honored tradition of philosophy must be rolling in its grave.

I got cut shaving with a fresh steel blade. I told that shaver, in no uncertain terms, that if it cut me again, it was done for. I finished shaving and it did not cut me again. It must have understood me and changed its behavior; evidence that the shaver must be conscious?

 

[Maui]

So, philosophically speaking, my previous post, quoted below and intended to be absurd, is not absurd (philosophically speaking of course). The honored tradition of philosophy must be rolling in its grave.

That philosophy is not part of my philosophy in any way. As with everything else, there's good and bad philosophy. There is good and bad science and it's Nature that decides where your science and philosophy stand. Science is evolving(it's in an evolution phase all the time), so at least theoretically, our knowledge might change at any time. IMO, there is at least 0.0000139% chance that rocks might be conscious (and this idea fairs better than the notion that the Sun is God, for which we also have no experimental evidence). I'd say that "the Sun is God" sounds like a stupid idea when compared with "rocks might be conscious".

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Science is evolving(it's in an evolution phase all the time), so at least theoretically, our knowledge might change at any time. IMO, there is at least 0.0000139% chance that rocks might be conscious (and fairs better than the notion that the Sun is God)

1.39*10^-5 probability? Where did you get that? I suppose that one might run a randomized trial where subjects shaved their faces daily with a standardized type shaver and fresh steel blades. One group would threaten their shavers with extinction the first time they got cut, and the comparison group would not. Suppose this trial showed that the group that threatened their shavers had significantly reduced frequency of additional cuts compared to those that did not threaten their shavers.

Would you conclude that the shavers must be conscious? If not, could you reach any other conclusion other than that results were spurious or that the trial was flawed in some way?

 

[Maui]

1.39*10^-5 probability? Where did you get that? I suppose that one might run a randomized trial where subjects shaved their faces daily with a standardized type shaver and fresh steel blades. One group would threaten their shavers with extinction the first time they got cut, and the comparison group would not. Suppose this trial showed that the group that threatened their shavers had significantly reduced frequency of additional cuts compared to those that did not threaten their shavers.

Would you conclude that the shavers must be conscious? If not, could you reach any other conclusion other than that results were spurious or that the trial was flawed in some way?

That's my secret why i never get cut - i shave under constant threats and curses on my part. It works.

But come on, "steel blades might be conscious" is better than "the Earth is flat" and somewhat more plausible(IMO). "The Earth is flat" is now too old and not even funny any more.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

But come on, "steel blades might be conscious" is better than "the Earth is flat" and somewhat more plausible(IMO). "The Earth is flat" is now too old and not even funny any more.

You didn't answer my question. If confronted with the results of my hypothetical trial and not allowed to conclude that the trial was flawed or that the result was spurious (a statistical anomaly), how would you explain the result?

 

[Maui]

You didn't answer my question. If confronted with the results of my hypothetical trial and not allowed to conclude that the trial was flawed or that the result was spurious (a statistical anomaly), how would you explain the result?

Instead of assuming that the blades were conscious, i would probably assume that God is making fun of me. Or that a demon has obssessed the blades. Why would I assume the blades are conscious?

In what way is the proposition "blades are conscious" better than "Batman has obssessed my blades"?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Instead of assuming that the blades were conscious, i would probably assume that God is making fun of me. Or that a demon has obssessed the blades. Why would I assume the blades are conscious?

Hmmm. Interesting answer. I would assume that threatening your shaver with extinction is a way to release nervous energy which might help in reducing the probability of additional cuts. (But funds for more study would be required from the funding agencies.)

 

[Maui]

Hmmm. Interesting answer. I would assume that threatening your shaver with extinction is a way to release nervous energy which might help in reducing the probability of additional cuts. (But funds for more study would be required from the funding agencies.)

I was assuming none of the subjects expressed behavioral differences before/after the threats(mild form of threatening), hence my answer.

 

[ThomasT]

Would you conclude that the shavers must be conscious?

No.

If not, could you reach any other conclusion other than that results were spurious or that the trial was flawed in some way?

Yes. And of course that was your point.

 

[Pythagorean]

I take this to mean that it’s pointless to study things (qualia or any phenomenal experience) that science does not have access to, so phenomenal consciousness should be defined (or studied) from the behavioral perspective “for the sake of progress”. Further, there no difference between phenomenal conscoiusness and behavior. If that’s not what you mean, please rephrase.

There is definitely a difference in phenomenological models vs. mechanistic models. Nuclear physics still uses phenomenological models "the liquid drop model". Light had a lot of phenomenological identities which lead to particle/wave duality (a false duality that comes out of human thinking, and is often a result of phenomenological models). Bohr had the "orbital model" of atoms (comparing them to planets). Thompson's "plum pudding" model of the atom.

The common theme in phenomenological models that you may notice is that new, strange phenomena are described in terms of familiar concepts. Such models are accepted as framework models and are productive at describing things with testable accuracy, but always carry an intrinsic disclaimer with them.

But if you are pedantic enough about it, you could even argue that mechanistic models are phenomenological themselves. We use plots in science to transcribe information about variables (like energy, frequency, current) directly into space (a plot with axes).

So to me, there is no dichotomy, here. Thing that are understood phenomenologically can become understood mechanistically (and vice versa).

Dennett would agree that behavior, and thus "sensations" (ie: qualia), can be completely explained in physical terms just as you’ve suggested. Chalmers on the other hand, would point out that although you’ve provided a description of the physical interactions, and thus the behavior, you’ve not even begun to touch on an explanation of the experience. This is the whole "easy" versus "hard" part of consciousness that Chalmers talks about. You've explained the easy part by describing the physical interactions but you've not even touched on the hard part.

Completely explained. Yes. But Chalmers seems to be asking for more than just explained. He wants to be able to... what... feel somebody's emotions based on a description of what their neurons are doing to be satisfied?

I'm not claiming that I can make you experience the qualia by just talking about neurons... that seems to be the implication. That would be strange for me to claim.

As I've said repeatedly, what I believe is that I can make you feel my qualia by making your neurons behave in a particular way.

Ineffable: incapable of being expressed or described in words;inexpressible: ineffable joy.

I think you’ve misunderstood the point of qualia being ineffable. I can’t think of a single person or publication that would contest that qualia are effable, so either you’ve misunderstood what it means or your ideas regarding qualia being effable are well outside the mainstream.

I don't think they're ineffable. I think they're difficult to describe in words, but they're obviously not ineffable because we can talk about them, we can assign neural behaviors to them and differentiate between different kinds of qualia.

But what I mean is that they're not intrinsically ineffable. Any ineffability comes from a lack of understanding on our part. Understanding will come (is coming...) and (for instance) we will find the fundamental unit of qualia and decompose particular qualia into such fundamental units, which we can mix and match to produce other qualia... or such.

Overall, your perspective is closer to that of Dennett’s than of Chalmers. In his paper “Quinning Qualia” Dennett argues that qualia, though they may seem to be something that needs an explanation, is suggesting that the physical interactions of neurons, and the subsequent behavior is all that needs to be explained, similar to what you’ve suggested here:

I don't know what that means. "all that needs to be explained". Nothing needs to be explained. People want things explained. Different people are going to have different approaches to understanding subject matter. Some like more holistic/phenomenological models, some like only reduced models, some (like me) like to look for links between the two types of model.

If I’ve misunderstood your opinions, feel free to clarify. However, the reason I’m sticking my $.02 in here is more to help shed some light on what the literature has to offer as it seems most people aren’t aware of what’s being said and the various philosophical arguments that have been made.

This is understandable. I feel the same way about the last 20 years of brain research.

 

[Pythagorean]

A worm recoiling could be experiencing the same thing as a boxer who gets punched in the heat of a fight or the same thing as a child confronted by a hissing crocodile. It could also just experience impulses the way a muscle in your body does, by reacting with contraction.

They're not mutually exclusive. You recoil impulsively and mechanically before the signal of pain reaches your consciousness. But yes, it could be that the worm doesn't have any experience associated with hi behavior. To me, that's rather highly unlikely, though.

My interest is in whether brain/nerve tissue could act as a transmitter/receiver of informational signals and thereby transmit/receive thoughts and consciousness to and from other bodies and/or media. My basic assumption is that esp and consciousness transfer is impossible, but it would really depend on exactly what causes consciousness, wouldn't it?

We do transmit signals brain-to-brain... but we have to use physical components like vocal chords and ear drums, eyes and body language. If there wasn't a need for any of that stuff, it's weird that it evolved. It makes more sense that those are how we transmit/receive thoughts because it's the only way we can.

If consciousness was simply an electronic pattern that could transfer between various media, would it have compatibility issues like software and operating systems on various kinds of computer hardware? Could it just be something as general as electromagnetism is conscious of whatever kinds of signals reach it from elsewhere and depending on the system in which the electromagnetism is present, it experiences different signals and has different avenues of expression open to it?

I think it's about the dynamics, the energy flow. Not just how much energy is flow, but the structure of the energy flow: the information flow. Maybe, for instance, there's a rule about complex informations structure density and any time you have a high density of transient information structure, you have consciousness (this would exclude computers, which are based completely on fixed point dynamics).

How would you measure consciousness in some medium that cannot express thought or action? If you operationalize "conscious" by comparing various signals to those measured in living humans that aren't brain-dead, then wouldn't you consistently mistake dead things as being unconscious even if they were somehow conscious? Isn't consciousness just a completely subjective research object?

Of course not. There's lots of objective research going on about consciousness. But yes, there are subjective components to it. That doesn't matter. Think about it this way.

You are an employer and you get three resumes who are all effectively equal, but in your interviews, you get a chance to subjectively choose your favorite potential employee.

But that doesn't mean your subjective decisions can't be studied objectively. Perhaps you picked a particular employee subjectively because they reminded you of your mother, or they were just the most attractive.

We can objectively categorize what social and biological pressures lead to the subjective decisions people make.

Neuroscientists like Christoph Koch believe that same thing is true for qualia.

 

[pftest]

That's the point of defining terms. Reasoning isn't necessarily involved. We're just saying what a certain term refers to. You're defining it as "looking like" your subjective experience. I'm defining it as "looking like" certain behaviors.

Yes, so because we use 2 different definitions, we are both talking about different things. In philosophy (phenomenal)consciousness generally refers to the subjective experience. So whatever word you want to give that, this is what I am talking about and i suspect the opening poster as well.

The OP asks all matter could be conscious. The answer that keeps popping up in here is basically "no because we assume it isn't conscious".

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes, so because we use 2 different definitions, we are both talking about different things. In philosophy (phenomenal)consciousness generally refers to the subjective experience. So whatever word you want to give that, this is what I am talking about and i suspect the opening poster as well.

The OP asks all matter could be conscious. The answer that keeps popping up in here is basically "no because we assume it isn't conscious".

Assuming your conclusion, isn't a proof, I agree. But assuming your conclusion, testing the consequences of your conclusion, and finding your conclusion to hold is evidence enough to continue making the assumption (until it reaches a contradiction, which it hasn't, only a lack of information).

So yeah, we have to start with an assumption (as most proofs do):

If brain matter is responsible for consciousness, maybe we can alter somebody's consciousness by injecting chemicals into their brain that will altar the electrochemical interactions. Yup, it works. If we lacerate this part of the brain, certain functions will be lost. Yup, it works. If we lacerate this other part of the brain, different functions will be lost. Yup, it works.

The evidence has shown that the assumption is sound. It would require an additional and ultimately meaningless explanation to show how iron atoms are consciousness since they don't have brains, or even an equivalent system of information processing.

 

[pftest]

Reduce consciousness to its constituents. What is it made of?

Im trying to find examples of emergence in nature, so that it becomes clear that emergence is a natural phenomenon, which in turn supports the idea that consciousness could have emerged. So you understand that bringing up consciousness itself is not a valid example of emergence. It would be like saying that jesus' resurrection is a natural phenomenon, because there is a known historical example of someones resurrection: jesus.

The big bang or the origin of the universe are also not valid examples of emergence, because the process is poorly understood and comparing the arisal of consciousness with the big bang offers no support for the idea that consciousness is a late arrival in the universe. If emergence is a natural phenomenon and happens all around us, then surely there must be many examples to be found. The idea of emergence of consciousness in brains would be much supported by an example of emergence taking place in some other organism somewhere on the evolutionary timeline. If on the other hand, evolution never caused anything to emerge in any organism, then this means that consciousness emerging from brains is an exception in evolution, making the idea less credible.

The unification of physics is headed towards a supersymmetric unified field picture and the so called "particles"(particles don't exist) are excitations of the field. In this picture, you are an excitation of the field, everything is. The math says so, experiments confirm it, so in short, the coffin is ready for your pre-conceived notions of the world.

But they appear "physical" and we label them so, but "physical", if we get to he bottom of it, is an ambiguous term.
"Physical" is that which is observed. What's really there is a totally separate issue.

Well physicalists do actually believe there is some physical substrate out there that is ultimately not illusory and dependant on mind. They believe this is what consciousness arises from in the brain. You are right that there are many possibilities for physical reality to be completely different than what we observe. There are ideas out there about all matter consisting of little loops of spacetime, or that everything is information on a 2D surface, etc. In that sense, the common idea that a non-emerging consciousness must imply that individual atoms are also conscious, is not valid (since "invididual" particles do not even exist in such scenarios).

But anyway, examples of illusions cannot be valid examples of emergence. It may be better to think of an illusion as a misconception. It is a wrong idea that exists in a persons mind. If i squeeze my eyes almost shut and look at a stain on a wall, i might think its a persons face. Then when i open my eyes and recognise its a stain on a wall, the illusion is gone. This doesn't mean that something actually physically emerged on the wall. It just means that the misconception in my mind is changed by my improving vision.

 

[pftest]

So yeah, we have to start with an assumption (as most proofs do):

If brain matter is responsible for consciousness, maybe we can alter somebody's consciousness by injecting chemicals into their brain that will altar the electrochemical interactions. Yup, it works. If we lacerate this part of the brain, certain functions will be lost. Yup, it works. If we lacerate this other part of the brain, different functions will be lost. Yup, it works.

The evidence you mention here is evidence of interaction.

So if we replace the assumption "brain creates consciousness" with "complex physical structures have complex consciousness" (and thus, simple structures have simple C), the evidence fits both. From here on, in order to find the best assumption, i suggest we look at how the rest of nature operates. Do phenomena "emerge"? Someone else here, brainstorm, said that he is interested in the idea that the brain is a "transmitter". The way he put this was as if this is some new, perhaps exotic view on how consciousness works. This is because of the associations we have with the word "transmitter". It reminds us of TVs, radios, telephones, the internet, and other hightech, recently invented, humanmade equipment. All correct of course, but each of those are all perfectly natural, and the electricity or airwaves or light that is transmitted in those systems are examples of how nature works. The particles of those systems are equally well transmitted (originating in space dust and eventually some quark gluon plasma), and so are the ingredients of every other physical thing. Transmitting is basically nothing more than some thing moving to a different location.

So i think this is the natural way to look at consciousness. Its not that the brain creates something new, its that it makes use of something already there and puts it in a particular configuration.

 

[apeiron]

Im trying to find examples of emergence in nature, so that it becomes clear that emergence is a natural phenomenon,

Unfortunately most people's idea of emergence is the cartoon version. You get a bunch of stuff together. It interacts. Then some new global property pops out.

So the belief is that separated stuff (ie: substance) has a set of inherent properties (like position, charge, malleability, etc) and then collections of stuff can combine to create a super-stuff, some compound or merely mixed state, which then inherently posesses some super-property.

This is just standard reductionism extended. It is how water molecules are said to come to posess the property of liquidity. H2O has van der waals forces and these organise collections of molecules so that they show some collective emergent property.

This approach to emergence is far too simple to explain a complex system like a conscious brain. It is perhaps an analogy that is 20% useful to get you started, a scaffolding to start lifting you out of reductionism, but quite quickly you have to leave it behind.

 

[Maui]

Im trying to find examples of emergence in nature, so that it becomes clear that emergence is a natural phenomenon, which in turn supports the idea that consciousness could have emerged.

You are either not trying or you are simply deluding yourself. Let's move down the importance ladder from the universe and consciousness to Life. Life is an emergent phenomenon and there is nothing in the laws of physics that requires life to form or self-sustain itself. Let's discuss this, then we'll move on to lesser popular nonlinear phenomena like superconductivity, magnetism, spontaneous symmetry-breakings and such.

So you understand that bringing up consciousness itself is not a valid example of emergence. It would be like saying that jesus' resurrection is a natural phenomenon, because there is a known historical example of someones resurrection: jesus.
The big bang or the origin of the universe are also not valid examples of emergence, because the process is poorly understood and comparing the arisal of consciousness with the big bang offers no support for the idea that consciousness is a late arrival in the universe.

I didn't mention the BB but whatever. I have expressed no opinion what consciousness is or where it comes from, so far. This particular thread doesn't require that i do.

If emergence is a natural phenomenon and happens all around us, then surely there must be many examples to be found. The idea of emergence of consciousness in brains would be much supported by an example of emergence taking place in some other organism somewhere on the evolutionary timeline. If on the other hand, evolution never caused anything to emerge in any organism, then this means that consciousness emerging from brains is an exception in evolution, making the idea less credible.

Well physicalists do actually believe there is some physical substrate out there that is ultimately not illusory and dependant on mind. They believe this is what consciousness arises from in the brain. You are right that there are many possibilities for physical reality to be completely different than what we observe. There are ideas out there about all matter consisting of little loops of spacetime, or that everything is information on a 2D surface, etc. In that sense, the common idea that a non-emerging consciousness must imply that individual atoms are also conscious, is not valid (since "invididual" particles do not even exist in such scenarios).

Okay I see what your point is. So you have 2 options:

1. Claim consciousness isn't real(isn't there)

2. Consciousness belongs to the properties of the constituents of matter(everything is conscious)


Or you have to accept emergence. Well anyway, could we EVER do without a form of magic(emergence, symmetry breaking, hidden variables, etc.) in explaining EVERYTHING we see?

 

[apeiron]

Life is an emergent phenomenon and there is nothing in the laws of physics that requires life to form or self-sustain itself.

On the contrary, current theoretical biology says that life and mind (bios) are clearly serving the second law of thermodynamics. People even want to frame this as a fourth law of thermodynamics.

The argument is that anything which can accelerate the entropification of the universe must be. And bios is such an accelerant. So is written into "the laws of physics" now.

 

[Maui]

On the contrary, current theoretical biology says that life and mind (bios) are clearly serving the second law of thermodynamics. People even want to frame this as a fourth law of thermodynamics.

The argument is that anything which can accelerate the entropification of the universe must be. And bios is such an accelerant. So is written into "the laws of physics" now.

The 2nd LOT doesn't in any physical way force particles of matter to combine in ways to form living organisms. If a resurrected Jesus was feeding on entropy, would that mean that Jesus was a phenomenon described by reductinistic physics?

The argument is that anything which can accelerate the entropification of the universe must be. And bios is such an accelerant. So is written into "the laws of physics" now.

This argument is a description and the conclusions are biased. The emergence of life cannot be predicted from the 2nd LOT and the laws of physics. You can only tie it in a loose way after-the-fact.

 

[apeiron]

The 2nd LOT doesn't in any physical way force particles of matter to combine in ways to form living organisms. If a resurrected Jesus was feeding on entropy, would that mean that Jesus was a phenomenon described by reductinistic physics?

If you have a rational basis for saying the second law does not have this necessary corollary, then please let's hear it.

If paths that accelerate entropification are available to the second law, then reality must take them. This is a physical fact.

Resurrected jesus is a strawman argument that is not worth a response.

This argument is a description and the conclusions are biased. The emergence of life cannot be predicted from the 2nd LOT and the laws of physics. You can only tie it in a loose way after-the-fact.

Thermodynamics is a package of laws in its current formulation. So you have the first three, and now widespread recognition of self-organising dissipative structure as a fourth.