Can consciousness/perception being created from the non-conscious?

Another thought...

An atom is not conscious, neither is light, water, electrons, or any of the molecules that make up our brain--at least according to most scientists.
Scientists tend to describe consciousness as an emergent process of a special organization of atoms and energy (our physical make-up). But I have been thinking about this for a long time, and I just don't see how something that's non-conscious can ever create something that is conscious. We are just lots of atoms in a intricate shape. If an atom is not conscious, when will multiple atoms be conscious? I just don't see how matter can ever be the perciever under our current understanding of consciouss? How does matter percieve?

It's called an 'emergent property'. This should really be my catch phrase from now on.

One gate is not a computer program, and yet multiple gates interacting can create a computer program. In the same way, one rubber molecule is not 'bouncy', but when you put them together their interactions create the bouncyness. These are emergent properties which are analogous to consciousness.

I see consciousness as continuous with the tendencies of stuff (even 'matter' seems too specific a term) to organize in arrangements of ever greater complexity, even in the presence of entropy. I don't see it as qualitatively different from the processes by which matter accretes into heavier and heavier elements from which are fashioned ever more complex molecules which come to an ever more intricate homeostasis that crosses the line at some point into life. I would call matter a derivative of consciousness (not a consciousness, but the property: consciousness) to at least the same extent our consciousness is emergent of matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I see consciousness as continuous with the tendencies of stuff (even 'matter' seems too specific a term) to organize in arrangements of ever greater complexity, even in the presence of entropy. I don't see it as qualitatively different from the processes by which matter accretes into heavier and heavier elements from which are fashioned ever more complex molecules which come to an ever more intricate homeostasis that crosses the line at some point into life. I would call matter a derivative of consciousness (not a consciousness, but the property: consciousness) to at least the same extent our consciousness is emergent of matter.

---

This seems like an overcomplicated explanation of what Gnome said.

Evidently Gnome's explanation makes good sense, I completely agree. :)

Strong emergence doesn't explain anything, but I already went over this in another thread.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swank

This seems like an overcomplicated explanation of what Gnome said.

Evidently Gnome's explanation makes good sense, I completely agree. :)

---

lol, while I would say my view proceeds logically from Gnome's, I'm not sure he would agree. I'm addressing the qualitative difference Seph sees between consciousness and the rest of the universe--I'm saying consciousness and matter are both expressions of the same principle, and in fact they're ultimately interpenetrating and indistinguishable.

Needless to say, I agree with you Tao... We aren't just a cosmic accident. How one could jump to that conclusion after experiencing all the wondrous mystery of all that is, is simply beyond baffling to me. Not to mention, selling yourself short on so many levels...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

But I have been thinking about this for a long time, and I just don't see how something that's non-conscious can ever create something that is conscious.

---

"I just don't see how" is not a strong argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Needless to say, I agree with you Tao... We aren't just a cosmic accident. How one could jump to that conclusion after experiencing all the wondrous mystery of all that is, is simply beyond baffling to me.

---

There is no reason that being a cosmic accident would preclude having wondrous mysteries in the world. Quite the contrary, I'd think. Isn't a cosmic accident that results in life the most wondrous mystery of them all?

Typically, an accident implies an error. Something unfortunate that usually results in damage or injury.

I don't know about you, but I don't look at all there is and think, "woops..."

There simply isn't a fair label to give the ongoing epiphenomenon of all that is, justice. An accident, clearly sells it short. Anyone brazen enough to jump to that conclusion needs a lesson in humility in the face of all that is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Typically, an accident implies an error. Something unfortunate that usually results in damage or injury.

---

This is your own subjectivity being projected onto the word. Haven't you ever heard of the term "A Happy Accident?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

This is your own subjectivity being projected onto the word. Haven't you ever heard of the term "A Happy Accident?"

---

As is yours.

I don't normally refer to things I think of in a positive light as accidents. I can't think of any times where I've honestly heard someone refer to something they respect and are grateful for in that way, either.

Perhaps you mean, by dumb luck or chance? Those words actually show respect for the end result... but accident? *shrugs*

Accident
1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury : he had an accident at the factory | if you are unable to work owing to accident or sickness | [as adj. ] an accident investigator.
• a crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury : four people were killed in a car accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Accident
1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury : he had an accident at the factory | if you are unable to work owing to accident or sickness | [as adj. ] an accident investigator.
• a crash involving road or other vehicles, typically one that causes serious damage or injury : four people were killed in a car accident.

---

It's time to invest in a more comprehensive dictionary:

ac·ci·dent /ˈæksɪdənt/ [ak-si-duhnt] Pronunciation Key
–noun 1. an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.
2. Law. such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought.
3. any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
4. chance; fortune; luck: I was there by accident.
5. a fortuitous circumstance, quality, or characteristic: an accident of birth.
6. Philosophy. any entity or event contingent upon the existence of something else.
7. Geology. a surface irregularity, usually on a small scale, the reason for which is not apparent.

We could argue the semantics of words until we reach the realization of their obvious imperfection in reaching an objective meaning.

However, in this case, I'm not the one jumping out on a limb. There's a reason dictionaries number the possible meanings, in order of common usage...

Also, all this does is further drive home my point-- Any label or conclusion given to the ongoing epiphenomenon is just someone's subjectively twisted interpretation for something that could be interpreted any and every way...

Subjectively giving the objective perspective a name, is just a reductionist's way of attempting to go where no one can go with words, and being too proud to admit it.

I admit that we don't and won't know... and that's the beauty of it. Everyone must humble themselves to it in the end... For it is themselves they seek to define...and why settle for something finite and dry in the face of all the potentiality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

We could argue the semantics of words until we reach the realization of their obvious imperfection in reaching an objective meaning.

---

Words are pretty important to conveying an idea. If you want to give up on them, you're pretty much giving up on having anyone understand what you are talking about.

If you mean specifically the meanings you posted, then please explain this sentence:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

We aren't just a cosmic accident.

---

Are you saying you don't think we are "something unfortunate that usually results in damage or injury?"

Ok, then I agree with you, although this observation is nearly worthless. What precisely are you saying we aren't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Words are pretty important to conveying an idea. If you want to give up on them, you're pretty much giving up on having anyone understand what you are talking about.

---

I highly doubt you'd use that argument of yours as an excuse to call your child 'an accident' to their face... "B-B-But you were a happy accident!"

Anyway, I'm not giving up. Giving up would imply there is a befitting objective term for this epiphenomenon that I'm unaware of. I'm merely expressing the futility of attempting to settle on anything.

I am thankful for any discourse we do have, though. It is all part of the objective perspective manifest. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

If you mean specifically the meanings you posted, then please explain this sentence:

Are you saying you don't think we are "something unfortunate that usually results in damage or injury?"

Ok, then I agree with you, although this observation is nearly worthless. What precisely are you saying we aren't?

---

In that sentence I'm saying we aren't what some proud scientists claim...

Their brazen reductionist stance as opposed to humbling themselves into admitting they don't know, is where I disagree...

As I've said before in other threads, just because they may understand a few 'How's' regarding the universe, doesn't give authority to claim a 'Why' or lack thereof... And considering 'Why's' precede 'How's', essentially they are stabbing in the dark without admitting it...

Quote:

---

We could argue the semantics of words until we reach the realization of their obvious imperfection in reaching an objective meaning.

---

Well you're the one who just posted the 'definition' of accident but then deleted the definitions which conflicted with your opinion. Talk about hypocrisy. :|

Anyway, what's your evidence that we're not just a cosmic accident?

As far as I can see it, if there are many multiple universes, which is what many physicists are speculating about nowadays, and if each universe had different constants, then there would be many universes, the vast majority just meaningless mushes of particles, but some, like ours, capable of supporting life.

Sepiroth, I don't really understand your argument. That's like saying, 'I don't understand how lots of cells can make an organism', or, 'I don't understand how lots of bricks can make a wall, or, 'I don't understand how lots of 1s can make 10'...

Consciousness is mysterious indeed but I don't understand why you think so from your angle. In my opinion consciousness results from an advanced logical algorithm, and you can only have an algorithm if you have multiple units, so there's really no paradox there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I'm addressing the qualitative difference Seph sees between consciousness and the rest of the universe--I'm saying consciousness and matter are both expressions of the same principle, and in fact they're ultimately interpenetrating and indistinguishable.

---

Doesn't this mean that bouncyness and matter, or computational ability and matter, are indistinguishable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Needless to say, I agree with you Tao... We aren't just a cosmic accident. How one could jump to that conclusion after experiencing all the wondrous mystery of all that is, is simply beyond baffling to me. Not to mention, selling yourself short on so many levels...

---

No one is jumping to conclusions but you. The official scientific stance on this is "We don't know, BUT... so far there is no evidence in support of a 'purpose' to this world, other than that which we impose upon it."

Clearly the null hypothesis here is "no purpose", and not "purpose". Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Typically, an accident implies an error. Something unfortunate that usually results in damage or injury.

---

You're absolutely right. An 'accident' implies error, and ERROR IMPLIES PURPOSE.

We don't believe there is a purpose, given the evidence. Therefore it is improper to call the universe an 'accident'. It just "is". And no one knows why - we can only try to figure it out as best we can using the methods of science which have served us so well so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

It's called an 'emergent property'. This should really be my catch phrase from now on.

One gate is not a computer program, and yet multiple gates interacting can create a computer program. In the same way, one rubber molecule is not 'bouncy', but when you put them together their interactions create the bouncyness. These are emergent properties which are analogous to consciousness.

---

The problem with the 'emergent property' trump card that you like to play, is that it doesn't stand up to inquiry, scientifically speaking. As of now, there is no one who is capable of actually pointing to an emergent property called consciousness, or postulate the system from which it emerges. Whats more, human beings have been shown to be ill equipped to recognize the emergent property of consciousness in other things besides human beings. The more that many animals are studied, the more it seems their consciousness is closer to our own than anyone imagined in the previous thousands of years living amongst each other. How are we to say that 'consciousness' is an emergent property of a much more basic system than we think? As of now it is believed to be a direct property of the brain, but it could just as easily be a direct property of any nerve cell for all we know, or perhaps any cell at all.

There is also the possibility that any reasonably complex system will develop a consciousness, but communication between different systems is directly dependent on their similarity to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

As far as I can see it, if there are many multiple universes, which is what many physicists are speculating about nowadays, and if each universe had different constants, then there would be many universes, the vast majority just meaningless mushes of particles, but some, like ours, capable of supporting life.

---

Be careful using this as an argument. Scientific speculation is comparable to an average person saying "I don't know," something that scientists are incapable of saying. When one reaches a point in which they are incapable of empirically illustrating how something works, they will speculate, "maybe this is how it works" and then wait for the evidence.

In other words, there is absolutely no evidence for multiple universes whatsoever, and it is purely speculation and nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The problem with the 'emergent property' trump card that you like to play, is that it doesn't stand up to inquiry, scientifically speaking. As of now, there is no one who is capable of actually pointing to an emergent property called consciousness, or postulate the system from which it emerges.

---

Huh? We know that the system is probably somewhere in the brain, and we know that most 'advanced' processes (like self-awareness and rational thought) are somehow connected to the neocortex. I don't see how us not knowing everything about consciousness is a 'problem' for the emergent property theory. I mean, if you cut someone into little pieces, they stop being conscious. Therefore, it IS an emergent property by definition. How is this a trump card?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Whats more, human beings have been shown to be ill equipped to recognize the emergent property of consciousness in other things besides human beings. The more that many animals are studied, the more it seems their consciousness is closer to our own than anyone imagined in the previous thousands of years living amongst each other. How are we to say that 'consciousness' is an emergent property of a much more basic system than we think? As of now it is believed to be a direct property of the brain, but it could just as easily be a direct property of any nerve cell for all we know, or perhaps any cell at all.

There is also the possibility that any reasonably complex system will develop a consciousness, but communication between different systems is directly dependent on their similarity to each other.

---

I don't understand why any of that is a problem, either. None of it threatens the 'emergent property' concept. Just because bouncy things can't recognize other bouncy things, and we don't know what the lower limit of molecules needed to constitute a 'bouncy' cluster of molecules, doesn't mean that bouncyness is not an emergent property.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Scientific speculation is comparable to an average person saying "I don't know," something that scientists are incapable of saying.

---

What? That's like the scientist's catch phrase!

All models are wrong, but some are useful. We don't know shit about objective reality, we only know how to model its behavior to some extent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

The official scientific stance on this is "We don't know, BUT... so far there is no evidence in support of a 'purpose' to this world, other than that which we impose upon it."

---

There was some evidence from theoretical physicists, that it wasn't an accident, but then it was countered by the theory that there are multiple parallel universes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Huh? We know that the system is probably somewhere in the brain, and we know that most 'advanced' processes (like self-awareness and rational thought) are somehow connected to the neocortex. I don't see how us not knowing everything about consciousness is a 'problem' for the emergent property theory. I mean, if you cut someone into little pieces, they stop being conscious. Therefore, it IS an emergent property by definition. How is this a trump card?



I don't understand why any of that is a problem, either. None of it threatens the 'emergent property' concept. Just because bouncy things can't recognize other bouncy things, and we don't know what the lower limit of molecules needed to constitute a 'bouncy' cluster of molecules, doesn't mean that bouncyness is not an emergent property.

---

My point is not that it isn't an 'emergent property,' it is that saying so amounts to almost nothing in any actual discussion. Everything is a property of something else. Everything owes its characteristics to the behavior of some system. When studying gravity, we don't say, 'it is an emergent property of matter' and leave it at that, because that is a useless statement when it comes down to actually figuring out how things work. Saying that consciousness is an emergent property of some system is absolutely useless for the pursuit of a greater understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

What? That's like the scientist's catch phrase!

All models are wrong, but some are useful. We don't know shit about objective reality, we only know how to model its behavior to some extent.

---

If you had included the rest of the quote, I wouldn't have to belabor the point. In science, whenever one reaches a point in which they don't know why something happens, they speculate; this is why they became scientists in the first place. They like to come up with speculations and then test them. To say 'scientists speculate that..." is to say that scientists don't know and have no evidence but are making some unsubstantiated guesses and this is their most appealing one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Doesn't this mean that bouncyness and matter, or computational ability and matter, are indistinguishable?

---

Well, we're not matching scale here: bounciness and certain arrangements of hydrocarbon molecules are indistinguishable; human consciousness and the human body are indistinguishable. Talking about emergence only comes at it from one side. To the same degree consciousness is emergent of certain arrangements of neurons, certain arrangements of neurons are symptomatic of consciousness. One does not come from the other; they depend on each other. Just as consciousness cannot manifest without a certain range of neuronal or analogous structures, those structures cannot persist and propagate without the activity of consciousness. It's all one thing.

This medium in which we're embedded manifests itself in novel structural relationships within our perception of time. Atomic structure, molecules, stars, galaxies, living cells and conscious beings are all simultaneous, interdependent expressions of this basic activity.