What is the Hard Problem of Consciousness & Why is It Difficult?

[sage]

what exactly is the hard problem of consciousness? why is it hard?

 

[Les Sleeth]

what exactly is the hard problem of consciousness? why is it hard?

A little research http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/index.html will give you the answer.

 

[Math Is Hard]

ooh! he's cute! I knew there was a reason I went into Cog Sci!

 

[loseyourname]

ooh! he's cute! I knew there was a reason I went into Cog Sci!

Are you kidding me? He looks like Kate Winslet crossed with Jack Black.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

I doubt, no matter how sophisticated science becomes, we will never understand the true meaning of consciousness.

----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD

 

[the_truth]

Or rather we can't with our level of technology.

One step would be to map out the brain mathematically. This would be equivalent to the complexity a 19th century scientist would find attempting to decipher a cpu it were freshly plonked under his microscope multiplied by 100 or however much more computing power our brains have to a pentium 4. If we could, inside the neo-cortex we might find a complex set of brains which chooses what we think, weighs decisions etc. Or something else.

I think therefore I am?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Are you kidding me? He looks like Kate Winslet crossed with Jack Black.

LOL!

 

[FZ+]

Or rather we can't with our level of technology.

Nah. The hard problem, as to where the feeling of experience comes from, is constructed so that it is absolutely insoluble by any objective method. Because we don't even know what we mean by experience, nor can we assume we know everything there is to know about the nature of physical law. Technology, and our perceptions extend only to the effects of laws and rules, and going beyond leaves only speculation and belief.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

Nah. The hard problem, as to where the feeling of experience comes from, is constructed so that it is absolutely insoluble by any objective method. Because we don't even know what we mean by experience, nor can we assume we know everything there is to know about the nature of physical law. Technology, and our perceptions extend only to the effects of laws and rules, and going beyond leaves only speculation and belief.

Good point. Computers can't do any math without instructions, which comes from humans

----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD.

 

[jammieg]

Some interesting reading, but my headache got a lot worse.
I think we can get the basic idea if we want to, so I agree with TheTruth in that it's like a computer and we are machines of a biological sort but with so many cogs spinning around that to try and pin down how it all fits together to create what we call "consciousness" and can agree on would probably take awhile, I mean if you really want the detailed and scientifically tested and predictable version of this knowledge which is kind of a hard problem I suppose is what is meant by that.
For instance a child of a certain age will often recognize an ink dot put on it's forehead in a mirror and point to the dot showing that they are aware of their self and something has changed, a monkey sometimes does the same, but does this prove self-awareness or do they just not respond to the dot in the same way?

 

[sage]

sleeth, I've read his book. it was rather diffucult to follow what he was saying.i'm not convinced that the hard problem exists. seems like a red herring. what exactly do we mean by qualia or subjective experiance? the question where the vividness of colours come from seem absurd. red is different from green because of its different frequency and wavelength and that difference is detected by our eyes. hence the brain perceives them to be different, what is so 'hard' to explain about that?i just do not get it.

 

[FZ+]

Good point. Computers can't do any math without instructions, which comes from humans

Neither can humans without education, instincts encoded in our genetics, and the appearance of problems and stimuli from the natural world. Which are instructions, of a sort.

 

[hypnagogue]

sleeth, I've read his book. it was rather diffucult to follow what he was saying.i'm not convinced that the hard problem exists. seems like a red herring. what exactly do we mean by qualia or subjective experiance? the question where the vividness of colours come from seem absurd. red is different from green because of its different frequency and wavelength and that difference is detected by our eyes. hence the brain perceives them to be different, what is so 'hard' to explain about that?i just do not get it.

It's not hard to look at the optic nerve and deduce that we perceive light along three distinct channels. The hard part comes in when we try to figure out why information processed along those channels looks like anything at all. Why does the color we call red look like this[/color] instead of this[/color]? If the visual quality of redness and blueness were reversed, we would still meet the criterion of sets of information that are treated distinctly, so that alone is not sufficient to answer the question. The hard problem claims that no combination of relational properties of this sort, no matter how complex, will get us closer to an answer than our initial, humble observation of the three distinct processing channels in the optic nerve.

For that matter, why does information processing in the brain result in qualitative experience at all? Why isn't it that I do not merely detect two distinct light inputs and act upon them without experiencing anything (e.g., as if I were in a deep, dreamless sleep)? If we assume for a moment that computers are not conscious, why is it that I don't just process information like a computer? What accounts for the difference between what my brain does and what the computer does? Assuming we can isolate this causal mechanism, how is it that it somehow 'creates' subjective experience? Those are the types of questions posed by the hard problem. Chalmers argues that the types of causal mechanisms given to us by physics are not sufficient to do the job. I won't go into an extended discussion of the argument here, but you can find some discussion about it in the Metaphysics & Epistemology forum, for instance this thread.

 

[saltydog]

Marbles

I doubt, no matter how sophisticated science becomes, we will never understand the true meaning of consciousness.

----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD

Consciousness is in the dynamics. It's nothing more than neural dynamics. Get a bunch of marbles behaving in the same non-linear fashion as neural assemblies and marble mind will emerge.

SD

 

[Les Sleeth]

Consciousness is in the dynamics. It's nothing more than neural dynamics. Get a bunch of marbles behaving in the same non-linear fashion as neural assemblies and marble mind will emerge.

Really? Would you care to demonstrate mind emerging from any sort of assembly or dynamics you choose to set up?

 

[Math Is Hard]

I am reading a piece called "Quining Qualia" by Daniel Dennett at the moment. He seems intent on proving that there "simply are no qualia at all" at least none that fit the definition he has set up (ineffable, intrinsic, private, directly apprehensible properties of experience). If a materialist should somehow be able to prove that qualia do not exist, does that solve the "hard problem"? Or is there more to be challenged?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am reading a piece called "Quining Qualia" by Daniel Dennett at the moment. He seems intent on proving that there "simply are no qualia at all" at least none that fit the definition he has set up (ineffable, intrinsic, private, directly apprehensible properties of experience). If a materialist should somehow be able to prove that qualia do not exist, does that solve the "hard problem"? Or is there more to be challenged?

Absolutely! And guess what, that is exactly why Dennett wants to find a way to "dismiss" qualia . . . because he can't account for it with physical principles. It's in the way of his functionalist theory, so he'll just pretend it doesn't exist. Amazingly clever little bit of intellectual dishonesty there if you ask me.

That's same thing physicalists have done with life. They've "dismissed" any sort of vital force because they can explain most of the chemistry of life. Of course, they can't explain how all that chemistry got so effectively organized . . . but who cares. Find an excuse to "dismiss" and then you can get around those damn pesky facts which are making your theory come up short.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Thanks, Les. I might have to PM you some questions later. I am almost done with the Dennett reading, but I am moving on to Owen Flanagan now.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Thanks, Les. I might have to PM you some questions later. I am almost done with the Dennett reading, but I am moving on to Owen Flanagan now.

To give a nod to humility, I should add that the "dismissing conspiracy theory" is just my opinion. I have been willing, however, to debate anyone who claims to be able to make the case that dismissing vitalism is justified with the evidence we now have. As far as I can tell, physicalist arguments are as "holey" as the creationism story of Genesis. Same with functionalists.

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

Absolutely! And guess what, that is exactly why Dennett wants to find a way to "dismiss" qualia . . . because he can't account for it with physical principles. It's in the way of his functionalist theory, so he'll just pretend it doesn't exist. Amazingly clever little bit of intellectual dishonesty there if you ask me.

That's same thing physicalists have done with life. They've "dismissed" any sort of vital force because they can explain most of the chemistry of life. Of course, they can't explain how all that chemistry got so effectively organized . . . but who cares. Find an excuse to "dismiss" and then you can get around those damn pesky facts which are making your theory come up short.

Good point Sleeth... You go, put those theorist in their place...

----- nwO ruoY evaH ,deeN oN <----?eeS I tahW eeS uoY oD

 

[saltydog]

Really? Would you care to demonstrate mind emerging from any sort of assembly or dynamics you choose to set up?

Ok, the marbles was a stretch but in principle but I still hold to the concept.

Walter Freeman at Berkeley modeled the central olfactory system of cats with a beautiful set of coupled delayed ODEs. The output did share some characteristics with the . . . well how do I say this without bringing up unpleasant images . . . output of the cat. It's not mind I agree.

I must admit, his results were not extremely impressive but we are in a sort of second dark ages for this. Recall purkinje nerves. On average, they have 20,000 connections! Freeman (the reference I have) worked with 15 equations.

Neural networks, which employ non-linear functions, have the ability to "learn". For example, the Post Office uses neural network software to interpret hand-written zip codes. The software "learns" the concept of "2-ness" from the dynamics of the network and can even pick out messy numbers.

Some brain scientists suspect memory recall is dependent on "attractors" in the non-linear sense. These and other works I've studied, pretty much convince me that non-linear dynamics is the best approach to successful AI. It's my extrapolation to suspect the mind is "all" dynamics.

SD

 

[selfAdjoint]

salty, have you any books journals or online papers to give us to let us research this? I certainly think your nonlinear dynamics idea is a good one (if not the final answer in itself). There's a lot of stuff in this general direction on the arxiv, but my experience with those papers has been, the bigger the claim, the smellier the derivation.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Ok, the marbles was a stretch but in principle but I still hold to the concept.

Thanks for the info, it is interesting work. Of course, I was simply challenging the way you made your original statement "Consciousness is . . . nothing more than neural dynamics . . . mind will emerge." You stated it as a fact, not as an unproven theory. I do not think mind will emerge from that complexity, but you do. So to see who is right, first it has to be done.

What I think you will get from complexity is nothing but complex programming, and never the independent "self." It will be a zombie, but by that time Dennett will be able to claim it is consciousness anyway because qualia will have been dismissed an illusion!

 

[saltydog]

salty, have you any books journals or online papers to give us to let us research this? I certainly think your nonlinear dynamics idea is a good one (if not the final answer in itself). There's a lot of stuff in this general direction on the arxiv, but my experience with those papers has been, the bigger the claim, the smellier the derivation.

Yea, I look to Semmelweiss for strengh. Know the story?

It's all embodied in Complexity Theory, Emergence, and Non-Linear Dynamics. My concept of mind in such regards is itself an "emergence" through synthesis of many threads. Here's some:

1. Rene Thom's Catastrophe Theory (it's a well-defined math concept and nothing to do with Noah and the Ark). The theory deals with non-linearity and "phase-transitions" (catastrophies). Abrubt changes are common in our world. Ever heard, "what made him crack"?

2. Non-linear dynamics: The concept of "attractors" just seems to fit with the brain. T. Sejnowski ("The Computational Brain") suggests attractors may well be involved in memory recall (not in the book, he just told me so).

3. Self-organization: Camazine and others wrote "Self-Orgainzation in Biological Systems" which begin to show how properties "emerge" from interactions between simple parts (like neurons?) such that the emergent property cannot be deduced from analysis of the simple parts. "Signs of Life" is another book which explores this thesis (not emergence of mind though).

4. I find it amazing how a neural network (just computer programs consisting of simple networks which resemble neural assemblies) can learn in a way that if you show it (a graphics image) many forms of "4", it can learn to pick out a messy-written "4" it has never seen before. Neural networks often, if not always, involve non-linear functions.

5. When I look out of my window I see very much a non-linear world. The brain evolved as a successful survival strategy in this non-linear world (when in New York, act like a New Yorker). The brain is non-linear and thus is accessible through non-linear dynamics.

SD

 

[selfAdjoint]

Okay, thanks. I think I'll look up Sejnowski's book, and I am about where you are on the other stuff. I do encourage you to look at the arxiv (http://arxiv.org), especially the computer science and nonlinear sciences sections. Lots of papers there are less into "higher math" than the pure physics ones. New ideas come along every week.

 

[saltydog]

Thanks for the info, it is interesting work. Of course, I was simply challenging the way you made your original statement "Consciousness is . . . nothing more than neural dynamics . . . mind will emerge." You stated it as a fact, not as an unproven theory. I do not think mind will emerge from that complexity, but you do. So to see who is right, first it has to be done.

What I think you will get from complexity is nothing but complex programming, and never the independent "self." It will be a zombie, but by that time Dennett will be able to claim it is consciousness anyway because qualia will have been dismissed an illusion!

Yes, I stand corrected. It's an unproven "idea". However, "Emergence" is a growing field with encouraging results. Many investigators have demonstrated the central concept: complex behavior emerges from interaction of simple parts. This complexity cannot be deduced from analysis of the parts. Surely a car is a simple example but the brain has 10-100 billion parts and many of them are richly-connected in non-linear ways. For example, the "firing" of a neuron is not a simple "some-input=some-output" response. I believe something "qualitatively different" emerges from some complexity other than just "complex programming" of the same "quality". May I suggest "Self-Organization in Biological Systems" by Camazine as defense of my view? It contains many examples of "emergence" from the Biological world, simple ones I admit.

SD

 

[arildno]

"Emergence" is a growing field with encouraging results. Many investigators have demonstrated the central concept: complex behavior emerges from interaction of simple parts.

No one has ever said that the "Laws of large numbers" are easy to deduce from the basic principles.
What I'm slightly iffy about, is the "emergence" word, since that has some unfortunate connotations of new behaviour inexplicable or inconsistent with the basic mechanisms.

 

[saltydog]

No one has ever said that the "Laws of large numbers" are easy to deduce from the basic principles.
What I'm slightly iffy about, is the "emergence" word, since that has some unfortunate connotations of new behaviour inexplicable or inconsistent with the basic mechanisms.

Emergence is qualitatively different from the "Laws of Large Numbers" if I'm interpreting that to mean Probability Theory. And you are correct in implying new behavior arises from the basic mechanism. The canonical example is the simple interactions between termite, mud, and pheromone. The clay cathedral in all its complexity "emerges" from simple interactions between the three. The mound cannot be deduced from an analysis of termite, mud or pheromone unless the dynamics between them are assessed. In this regards, "moundness" exists independently of the substrate mound. It is from this perspective that I extrapolate to the independent existence of "mind" and thus to the marble analogy.

SD

 

[Les Sleeth]

"Emergence" is a growing field with encouraging results. Many investigators have demonstrated the central concept: complex behavior emerges from interaction of simple parts. This complexity cannot be deduced from analysis of the parts.

That's true, but the subjectivity of consciousness is not complex, it is singular and seems indivisible into something more basic. So what you have to show is something exceedingly simple (in terms of structure) emerging from complexity, and yet which also has characteristics unlike any physical phenomena known in this universe.

I believe something "qualitatively different" emerges from some complexity other than just "complex programming" of the same "quality".

Right, I understand the hope there. It should be interesting to see if it can be done. I remain a skeptic since I don't think the brain is where consciousness originates.

May I suggest "Self-Organization in Biological Systems" by Camazine as defense of my view? It contains many examples of "emergence" from the Biological world, simple ones I admit.

Taken from a book review of Camazine's book "The synchronized flashing of fireflies at night. The spiraling patterns of an aggregating slime mold. The anastomosing network of army-ant trails. The coordinated movements of a school of fish. Researchers are finding in such patterns--phenomena that have fascinated naturalists for centuries--a fertile new approach to understanding biological systems: the study of self-organization. This book, a primer on self-organization in biological systems for students and other enthusiasts, introduces readers to the basic concepts and tools for studying self-organization and then examines numerous examples of self-organization in the natural world. Self-organization refers to diverse pattern formation processes in the physical and biological world, from sand grains assembling into rippled dunes to cells combining to create highly structured tissues to individual insects working to create sophisticated societies. What these diverse systems hold in common is the proximate means by which they acquire order and structure. In self-organizing systems, pattern at the global level emerges solely from interactions among lower-level components."

As you see, the quality of self organization between living and nonliving examples is not differentiated. Yet there is a huge difference between how far matter self organizes toward a system, and the organizational quality we see in life that leads to virtually perpetual system building. Physicalist researchers assume a priori that the piddling bit of self organization you can get matter to do is the basis of the organization in life. Yet they cannot demonstrate matter can rise above a few steps of self organization when left to its own devices.

Since it cannot be shown matter has the potential to self-organize itself into life, then the issue remains open as to whether there is yet some unrecognized organizational principle associated with life which is not associated with ordinary matter. And if it is, the lack of that same organizational principle may be what defeats AI researchers from ever getting consciousness to "emerge" from a computer.

 

[saltydog]

Since it cannot be shown matter has the potential to self-organize itself into life, then the issue remains open as to whether there is yet some unrecognized organizational principle associated with life which is not associated with ordinary matter. And if it is, the lack of that same organizational principle may be what defeats AI researchers from ever getting consciousness to "emerge" from a computer.

Well, you could have mentioned the termites as that's the finest example in the book and a little more impressive than fire-flies.

I believe we have "examples" of the "capability" of matter organizing into precursors of life: Miller was the first to show that amino acids could be created from pre-biotic chemicals (water, ammonia, methane, few more). At high temperature, amino acids spontaneously assemble into polymers called thermal-proteins which upon cooling, produce cell-like structures called microspheres. Pre-cursors of nucleic acids (purines and pyrimidines) have been synthesized from hydrogen cyanide and other chemicals under suspected pre-biotic conditions.

No, it's not life and a human is helping but it does look encouraging.

Computers today are "linear" in my view, mostly "look-up" tables made up of transistors operating in their linear ranges (pretty sure about the transistors anyway). Someone someday is going to come up with "non-linear" devices which exhibit all the properties of non-linear dynamics: ergodic behavior, catastrophe, sensitive dependence, attractors, bifurcation, chaos, and fractal geometry. You'd think that would be a mess at first and I suspect the first workings would exhibit peculiar forms of "cognition" that we're not acustomed to. It's there I think we'll start to formulate better ideas of what mind is.

Also, I'm finding out you guys have been discussing this subject at length in the Epistemology section which I've just begun to look at. Anyway, it's just my view and like the banner in the dojo said, "a journey begins with a first step".

SD

 

[Bartholomew]

"non-linear" devices which exhibit all the properties of non-linear dynamics: ergodic behavior, catastrophe, sensitive dependence, attractors, bifurcation, chaos, and fractal geometry

All of those things you describe can be done, have been done, and are being done on computers.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, you could have mentioned the termites as that's the finest example in the book and a little more impressive than fire-flies.

No slight intended, I am very impressed with the organizational abilities of certain life forms and agree with you fully there. I simply quoted what the book reviewer chose to talk about.

I believe we have "examples" of the "capability" of matter organizing into precursors of life: Miller was the first to show that amino acids could be created from pre-biotic chemicals (water, ammonia, methane, few more). At high temperature, amino acids spontaneously assemble into polymers called thermal-proteins which upon cooling, produce cell-like structures called microspheres. Pre-cursors of nucleic acids (purines and pyrimidines) have been synthesized from hydrogen cyanide and other chemicals under suspected pre-biotic conditions. . . . Also, I'm finding out you guys have been discussing this subject at length in the Epistemology section which I've just begun to look at.

In the 2 1/2 years I've been debating this issue here at PF, the Miller-Urey experiment was cited every time by opponents, and the other organic potentials much of the time (sometimes they list synthesized phages as examples, though they tend to leave out that DNA was tossed into the kettle). That's how little progress has been made toward demonstrating matter can self organize itself into life since the 1950s.

The thing is, if there is an unrecognized organizational principle that worked with Earth's chemistry to produce life, the raw materials need to be somewhat predisposed to being organized. So it would not be unusual for some degree of spontaneous "mechanomorphic" organization to happen. But those few steps chemistry is capable of doesn't represent what happened, and happens, with life. There organization kept going, and going, and going . . . it is still going. Further, it wasn't just order that the organization produced, it was functioning systems which could operate in support of new systems that would be built on top. Matter alone has never been shown it can act that way spontaneously or even be kicked into "self-organizing gear" with lots of help from scientists.

So I feel my skepticism is justified, and not due to a priori convictions such as those by physicalists who insist matter is alone is the creator of life without enough evidence to make their case.

Computers today are "linear" in my view, mostly "look-up" tables made up of transistors operating in their linear ranges (pretty sure about the transistors anyway). Someone someday is going to come up with "non-linear" devices which exhibit all the properties of non-linear dynamics: ergodic behavior, catastrophe, sensitive dependence, attractors, bifurcation, chaos, and fractal geometry. You'd think that would be a mess at first and I suspect the first workings would exhibit peculiar forms of "cognition" that we're not acustomed to. It's there I think we'll start to formulate better ideas of what mind is.

I agree the research is exciting. Even though I don't believe independent and conscious subjectivity will emerge from it, what AI could produce should be impressive.

 

[saltydog]

All of those things you describe can be done, have been done, and are being done on computers.

But I think they're only being simulated on a computer screen. It's like watching a TV program. The images look like people but really aren't.

SD

 

[saltydog]

The thing is, if there is an unrecognized organizational principle that worked with Earth's chemistry to produce life, the raw materials need to be somewhat predisposed to being organized. So it would not be unusual for some degree of spontaneous "mechanomorphic" organization to happen. But those few steps chemistry is capable of doesn't represent what happened, and happens, with life. There organization kept going, and going, and going . . . it is still going. Further, it wasn't just order that the organization produced, it was functioning systems which could operate in support of new systems that would be built on top. Matter alone has never been shown it can act that way spontaneously or even be kicked into "self-organizing gear" with lots of help from scientists.

In defense of Chemistry, even one reaction can be difficult to study.

Has Stuart Kaufmann been mentioned in these discussions? He proposes a revolutionary idea: catalytic closure. In essence, primitive RNA arose which had catalytic ability to assist with protein formation. Through selection, some protein chains arose which had catalytic ability to assist in RNA synthesis. At this point the RNA-protein system becomes synergistic and in some ways self-organizing. I realize it's a theory but it's based on reasonable chemical principles.

An Idea:

With regards to increasing complexity: As the diversity of form (molecules, life-forms, habitats, etc.) increases, the number of degrees of freedom increases. This necessarily increases the dimension of the system's state space (space of all possibilities). Enlarging the state-space this way allows access to a greater variety of high-dimension "attractors" (islands of stability). I propose that what we see as increasing complexity is actually a trajectory from low dimension attractors to high dimension attractors (attractors within attractors) made possible by an influx of energy (sun, chemical bonds) and increasing diversity. Thus, similar to the marble-analogy, if a system is designed in which it's degrees of freedom increases (greatly), a suitable dynamics (with influx of energy) can be defined within the system which will have similar characteristics to the evolution of complexity on earth. At present, we're just too limited in our sophistication to model this. I mean, math is really at it's infancy now-days (no offense, I have a passion for math).

SD

 

[Les Sleeth]

Has Stuart Kaufmann been mentioned in these discussions? He proposes a revolutionary idea: catalytic closure. In essence, primitive RNA arose which had catalytic ability to assist with protein formation. Through selection, some protein chains arose which had catalytic ability to assist in RNA synthesis. At this point the RNA-protein system becomes synergistic and in some ways self-organizing. I realize it's a theory but it's based on reasonable chemical principles.

Yep, just theory. And you really don't know if that combination of principles is "reasonable." If someone can make it work, then it was reasonable; if not, then it wasn't. Demonstrate it, and then we have something to talk about.

With regards to increasing complexity: As the diversity of form (molecules, life-forms, habitats, etc.) increases, the number of degrees of freedom increases. This necessarily increases the dimension of the system's state space (space of all possibilities). Enlarging the state-space this way allows access to a greater variety of high-dimension "attractors" (islands of stability). I propose that what we see as increasing complexity is actually a trajectory from low dimension attractors to high dimension attractors (attractors within attractors) made possible by an influx of energy (sun, chemical bonds) and increasing diversity. Thus, similar to the marble-analogy, if a system is designed in which it's degrees of freedom increases (greatly), a suitable dynamics (with influx of energy) can be defined within the system which will have similar characteristics to the evolution of complexity on earth.

Interesting theory. You'll have to demonstrate it if you want to talk about it as fact.

At present, we're just too limited in our sophistication to model this. I mean, math is really at it's infancy now-days (no offense, I have a passion for math).

Everybody says they need more time to prove their theory is true. Creationists need more time to find the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark.

It is possible that the reason you cannot make your case now is because you will never be able to make your case. Physicalists can't insist we accept they will eventually discover the truth based on their faith in empiricism to reveal all revealable truths! I don't share that faith, and lots of other thinking people also do not. I am open to a physicalist proof, but I ain't budging from my skepticism until I see progress in the areas of abiogenesis and physically-derived consciousness.

 

[saltydog]

It is possible that the reason you cannot make your case now is because you will never be able to make your case. Physicalists can't insist we accept they will eventually discover the truth based on their faith in empiricism to reveal all revealable truths! I don't share that faith, and lots of other thinking people also do not. I am open to a physicalist proof, but I ain't budging from my skepticism until I see progress in the areas of abiogenesis and physically-derived consciousness.

Ok. I've exhausted my comments about the matter and besides, I think I've gotten off the subject of the initial posting. Suppose I'll go back to differential equations. I think I can be of practical help to the group there.

Well . . . a question: I made the following statement elsewhere here attempting to define existence in relation to Decartes' comment:

<br /> Existence \notin \varnothing<br />

Yes, no, off-the subject? Anyone?

SD

 

[cen2y]

Existence \notin \varnothing

Whether your notion is wrong or not depends on what logical system you use to declare that. According to my ontology
Existing\ objects \notin \varnothing
i.e.
Things\ which\ possess\ the\ property\ of\ existence \notin \varnothing
\forall(x)(Existing(x) &lt;=&gt; x \notin \varnothing)
Which is quite obivious since writting out 'existance' is inessential.

 

[Photongod]

boot strapping of the mind

Sage asked:
what exactly is the hard problem of consciousness? why is it hard?

Perhaps the difficulty lies with a problem of self reference. In order to study ones consciousness, one must use his/her consciousness to do so . This leads to a set of obvious problems of interference and gridlock.

Photongod

 

[Problem+Solve=Reason]

This leads to a set of obvious problems of interference and gridlock.

Not exactly. We (our consciousness let's say) study our (itself) consciousness by things that have been affected by our consciousness, not the actual entity itself.

____________________________________
In seeking wisdom thou art wise; in imagining that thou hast attained it - thou art a fool.
Lord Chesterfield

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yep, just theory. And you really don't know if that combination of principles is "reasonable." If someone can make it work, then it was reasonable; if not, then it wasn't. Demonstrate it, and then we have something to talk about.

Type catalytic+closure+experiment but not cognitive into google scholar and get over 2100 responses, most of them reports of experiments that found, studied or confirmed it. Les you get away with murder here with your handwaving dismissals of things you evidently know only slightly.

 

[philocrazy]

loseyourname


Do you believe that absolutely everything can be expressed scientifically?
-Hedwig Born to Albert Einstein

Yes, it would be possible, but it would make no sense. It would be description without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.
-Einstein's reply
====================================
would + would = 2 woulds + would =3 woulds (sounds like science to me)
what does it say?=nothing (description without meaning)
sound is a variation of wave presure and beethoven symphony when
heard is also a variation of wave presure
everything can be expressed philosophically and with meaning

The myth

 

[Les Sleeth]

Type catalytic+closure+experiment but not cognitive into google scholar and get over 2100 responses, most of them reports of experiments that found, studied or confirmed it. Les you get away with murder here with your handwaving dismissals of things you evidently know only slightly.

I regretted being so negative after seeing Saltydog say "Suppose I'll go back to differential equations." I was in the warpath over theories stated like facts. In his case it stemmed from his opening statement "Consciousness is in the dynamics. It's nothing more than neural dynamics. Get a bunch of marbles behaving in the same non-linear fashion as neural assemblies and marble mind will emerge." However, he'd backed off from that, and was discussing things fairly yet I kept pushing the point. I am sorry for that.

However, while I don't think my attitude was called for, my response to his statement was factually correct. I know of Kauffman's work and have his book "The Origins of Order." I can't say I understood every bit of his book (it's been a few years since I read it), but I do know his perpetual autocatalytic hypothesis is another abiogenesis theory no one can prove will lead to "livingness."

So when Saltydog posted, "In essence, primitive RNA arose which had catalytic ability to assist with protein formation. Through selection, some protein chains arose which had catalytic ability to assist in RNA synthesis. At this point the RNA-protein system becomes synergistic and in some ways self-organizing," I was stating that is abiogenesis theory, not fact. I stand on that.

 

[saltydog]

I regretted being so negative after seeing Saltydog say "Suppose I'll go back to differential equations." I was in the warpath over theories stated like facts. In his case it stemmed from his opening statement "Consciousness is in the dynamics. It's nothing more than neural dynamics. Get a bunch of marbles behaving in the same non-linear fashion as neural assemblies and marble mind will emerge." However, he'd backed off from that, and was discussing things fairly yet I kept pushing the point. I am sorry for that.

Well, that was hard Les. I admire your wisdom sir. I'd like to think I didn't back-off the marbles, just can't prove something I believe in (I'm thinking 300 years for the boot). And I really love differential equations but find myself here more often than not. Thanks.

Salty

 

[selfAdjoint]

So when Saltydog posted, "In essence, primitive RNA arose which had catalytic ability to assist with protein formation. Through selection, some protein chains arose which had catalytic ability to assist in RNA synthesis. At this point the RNA-protein system becomes synergistic At this point the RNA-protein system becomes synergistic and in some ways self-organizing," I was stating that is abiogenesis theory, not fact. I stand on that.

Agreed that's just a hypothesis ("just a theory" is technically wrong and sounds too much like the creationists). You are absolutely right there and as far as you limit yourself to that issue I have no argument.

But lots of things the consciousness dualists assert are just hypotheses too. Sauce for the goose? Example, the claim in that book they're studying, that science is "just differences" that you can add up and totalize is contradicted by catalytic closure in chemistry, populations, and cellular dynamics.

 

[Canute]

But lots of things the consciousness dualists assert are just hypotheses too. Sauce for the goose? Example, the claim in that book they're studying, that science is "just differences" that you can add up and totalize is contradicted by catalytic closure in chemistry, populations, and cellular dynamics.

The claim that science is the study of bare differences has nothing to do with dualism as far as I can tell. It's just a fact, or put forward as one. What makes you say that chemistry, cellular dynamics and so on contradict that claim? I can't see the connection.

 

[selfAdjoint]

In the 2 1/2 years I've been debating this issue here at PF, the Miller-Urey experiment was cited every time by opponents, and the other organic potentials much of the time (sometimes they list synthesized phages as examples, though they tend to leave out that DNA was tossed into the kettle). That's how little progress has been made toward demonstrating matter can self organize itself into life since the 1950s.

Following quote is from a semitechnical account of Venters artificial virus creation, in November 2003.

To create the virus, the researchers first assembled single nucleotide bases into DNA based on the virus' known genetic sequence. An enzyme then transcribed the DNA into the single-stranded RNA genome. The virus could then replicate itself naturally.

The DNA that was "thrown into the kettle" was created by hand from single bases.

The claim that science is the study of bare differences has nothing to do with dualism as far as I can tell. It's just a fact, or put forward as one. What makes you say that chemistry, cellular dynamics and so on contradict that claim? I can't see the connection.

Catalytic Closure is an emergent property that cannot be reached by adding up the elementary processes that comprise it. There is a random component. Catalytic closure has been SHOWN to occur in chemical and other contexts, as the google search I suggested above will show you. This contradicts the assertion that physical nature is just bare differences and falsifies the "fact" that you assert.

 

[Photongod]

said:

Not exactly. We (our consciousness let's say) study our (itself) consciousness by things that have been affected by our consciousness, not the actual entity itself.

Could you give me an example?

It still sounds like a nose trying to smell itself to me. Photongod

 

[Les Sleeth]

The DNA that was "thrown into the kettle" was created by hand from single bases.

Keep in mind I was responding to claims of chemistry's self-organizing ability. In this case, I was referring to the argument that all you have to do to produce a phage is throw a bunch of chemicals in a vat and you get one (I think it was Psychodelerium who first put it that way to me), and therefore it is an example of extended self organization by chemistry. But as you know, there is significant assembling done ahead of time (plus, included in the materials needed for PCR is typically genomic DNA), and so it doesn't demonstrate the ability of chemistry to self organize itself from scratch into bacteriophages.

The consciously unassisted self-organizing ability of chemistry was my point, not that scientists aren't doing clever things with biochemistry. I am claiming that chemistry's demonstrated self-organizating potential falls significantly short of what it would take for abiogenesis (or for viruses to self organize from raw materials).

 

[selfAdjoint]

I am claiming that chemistry's demonstrated self-organizating potential falls significantly short of what it would take for abiogenesis (or for viruses to self organize from raw materials).

Some spontaneous chemical self-organizations in 1994:
http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/1994/pdf/6610x1961.pdf

 

[Les Sleeth]

Some spontaneous chemical self-organizations in 1994:
http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/1994/pdf/6610x1961.pdf

I haven't denied what self-organizing potential has been demonstrated, and certainly polymers and amino acids are examples. But as I pointed out earlier to Saltydog:

". . . those few steps chemistry is capable of doesn't represent what happened, and happens, with life. There organization kept going, and going, and going . . . it is still going. Further, it wasn't just order that the organization produced, it was functioning systems which could operate in support of new systems that would be built on top. Matter alone has never been shown it can act that way spontaneously or even be kicked into [that sort of] "self-organizing gear" without lots of help from scientists."

So it is a specific quality of self organization that cannot be demonstrated, not that self organization cannot happen at all.

BTW, what's wrong with the idea there might be an undiscovered organizing principle? Nobody minds considering the possibility of the theoretical Higgs particle, or dark matter, or any other thing that helps explain things.