Originally Posted by apsinvo
In science we can examine the brain. Neurones, electrical signals, brain chemistry and so on. We can perform experiments to show that when you dream, this part of the brain becomes active, when you prick your finger, that part of the brain becomes active. Science may then draw a conclusion - "When the participant feels pain, part X becomes active, therefore our study concludes that part X of the brain is responsible for pain." I believe that this is a logical fallacy. We can accurately conclude - a) The participant claims pain, b) At that time, part X of the brain became active. We can logically link the two together, but not in a cause/effect relationship - there is nothing to support that.
Isn't there? We have a good understanding of how pain works. The pain receptor in, say, our hand, is activated, which sends signals through neurons up your arm, your spine, and into your brain, where it activates the pain region in the brain corresponding to that part of the body. A short time afterwards, you feel pain. So, calling event A the pain signal entering our nervous system, and event B our feeling of pain; event A precedes event B; whenever event A occurs event B occurs; and if event A does not occur, event B does not occur. Isn't this exactly what we mean when we say A causes B?
There are other examples to demonstrate this relationship. A classic one is the effect of mind-altering drugs, such as LSD. It is a known fact that such chemicals have a potent effect, through chemistry, on the signals sent in our brains. We then experience a radical change in self. Isn't this good evidence that our neurons are responsible for our "selves"?
In your example of neurones and logic gates, logic gates OR, NOT, AND, XOR are binary states of on or off, yes or not. More complicated constructs just involve more inputs and more outputs - all being 1 or 0. Even if we just accept neurones as electrical transmitters and receivers (which I don't), they are infinitely fine analog sensors - I don't believe these can be sampled even at the highest frequencies and converted to digital.
Ah, but they are digital. Neurons either send a signal, or they do not. There are no "half" signals. The brain has gone to some lengths to evolve such a mechanism - read about "action potentials" if you would like more information.
Even if neurons did send analogue signals, it is not at all clear to me why this should make any difference to consciousness-causing capacities. Plus, computers can be made to simulate analogue signals themselves to an arbitrary degree of accuracy.
A related question which I am undecided on.. if you do just take molecules, perfectly clone them, will the result be "alive"? I'm inclined to think no.. I believe there is a "spark" that sets things in motion - I don't believe this is an electric type "spark".
Then we come to the age old question.. what is consciousness? We don't even know what it is, how can we even dream of capturing it? Has an inanimate object EVER spontaneously become "alive" in a lab? No - regardless of what it's constructed of. Can we take even the most basic life form, and inject it's "aliveness" into something else? Again, I am not sure that such a thing can ever be achieved by science.
For one thing, the phenomena of "life" and "consciousness" are quite different. It seems unlikely that living things without brains, such as trees, or something very simple like a bacteria or virus, have consciousness any more than a rock does; nevertheless they are alive.
As to "life", certainly prior to around 1850, it was an inexplicable mystery, completely separate from our understanding of the physical world. But no longer. With the discoveries of natural selection, genetics and biochemistry, there are now no real conceptual gaps in our understanding as to how inanimate matter can become animate. We can now see perfectly well how something as lively as a bacterium or indeed a person can "spontaneously" develop and function. No spark or special element is required in this understanding. The only thing inhibiting us from creating life from non-life is technology, and even on that score, much progress is being made. Only a couple of years ago, a team created a strand of DNA from scratch, inserted it into a dead bacterium cell, and watched as it came alive.
Once you understand what "life" is and that it is not strictly coupled with consciousness, it becomes easier to see that consciousness could arise without organic life.
|
|
Bookmarks