Thread: How are we not a computer?

Originally Posted by spockman

I cannot destroy consciousness? By what standard? Wouldn't giving someone a lobotomy or making them into a vegetable be destroying consciousness?
This isn't thermodynamics.

That happens on another level, which is of slightly different meaning. When somebody is unconscious they are still alive, and most of the time can become conscious again. Because the capacity for consciousness is always there, unless they have otherwise died, in which case the capacity to be alive is foreshadowed by the local physical circumstances.

Did you know that primates, monkeys, chimps, humans etc. are the only animals on the planet, as far as we know, that are capable of abstract thought? They/we think in images and concepts. Other animals just kind of process information. Considering one's purpose and the meaning of life well, to me, that seems pretty abstract. I highly doubt a rabbit spends much time questioning it's place in the wheel of life. But then you are saying that all particles understand their purpose on some subtle, cosmic, deterministic scale, aren't you?

I'm not saying that all lifeforms are capable of conscious thought, much less abstract thought, but all things possess some degree of intelligence that enables them to grow and evolve into various forms. This includes dying off and becoming extinct. This is also very far from determinism, which basically says that it all happens by causality.

I understand being inable to believe this was just an accident. I agree with you, (not because of the complexity of the most advanced life forms, but of the simple ones.) However, going from- life is not an accident to obviously, this means all particles have what seems to be a lot like a soul is a pretty big logical jump. And the assertation that all particles have consciousness kind of destroy's the whole meaning of the word, anyway. Because whether or not an amino acid has a fundamental place in the order of the universe, an amino acid doesn't know that it is an amino acid. At least, there is no reason to believe so.

No not all things have a soul, but all manifestations arise out of a cosmic intelligence. Amino acid is far from even bacterium yet, but neither of these things are consciously aware. It is consciousness that enables them to participate in a significant growth, or even just some kind of smaller process, in their respective time-scales.

Originally Posted by Xei

This is a completely illogical argument. "Characteristic X arises due to characteristic A or B" is patently not equivalent to "characteristic X arises only due to characteristic A", and hence "if character X arises then character A must be present" is not in any way implied.

Our brains aren't made of silicon because they evolved from carbon based life. That's why. They can't be made of two different things at once!

That's just my point! Although, it isn't exactly supported by your first paragraph there. Consciousness isn't really characteristic unless you're only talking about living beings; if you're talking about conscious awareness, at any level. If you want to make a silicon conscious being, it is not ever going to be close to a carbon based life, for all that is entailed by it depends on that base. There will be major setbacks, but I'm saying it shouldn't be possible at all.

I suppose I agree with your initial statement, and as there is no reason why silicon could not manifest into a greater structure exactly the same in terms of function, there is no reason why a computer shouldn't be conscious. I refer you again to my response in my previous post to the first section of yours, because it's pretty much exactly the same point.

No, a 'conscious computer' is not formed out of evolution, it's formed out of a relatively human ideal. As Taosaur said, we may even just be infatuated with our development in technology, not to mention that we're probably overestimating our capabilities, whether it happens now or in the future.

That is patently not our position, our position is that life is a very specific set of chemical processes; furthermore, consciousness, which is not equivalent to life, is also something that emerges due to specific kinds of systems being embodied in the physical world; and as the only realistic way to do this in our universe is through chemistry (as nothing else allows the building of large, stable structures to emulate systems), this means consciousness emerges due to a specific series of chemical reactions.

The 'very specific series chemical reactions' seems very naive, because the only reason why it could ever be specific is according to a local point of view. That is why it is a misconception because it also implies that everything is determined or caused, and this simply ignores the bigger picture that has demonstrated the formation of life in a million other forms. You can't tell me there is no unchanging intelligence in the universe, and you are if you think consciousness is just an emergence due to some unguided, anarchic determination.

Kind of doesn't make sense but okay.

Again this is just a statement rather than an argument so at the moment I don't really have any reason to believe it. I can give various arguments for my position though.

I'm not sure if you noticed but this is what I've been talking about; evolution is like an emergence of species, but notice that species are not the only things that emerge. Emergence is just a description of phenomena manifesting over a certain time period, and you seem to apply that idea to consciousness itself. But what I'm saying is that emergence is actually happening within consciousness.

Same point really; consciousness causes first cause causes universe just muddies the original problem of first cause causes universe.

Consciousness obviously doesn't function like that, as I've already been over. It in fact solves the problem of first cause. What is outside time and space is a source, not a cause.

My views, which can be argued for, are that physical embodiments of certain systems cause consciousness. A basic understanding of this view tells you that there is no contradiction in consciousness ending (...and as you don't have evidence it doesn't I don't even see where the implication is supposed to lie here), because all that needs to happen is for the physical substrate to cease to embody that system; for example, if your heart stopped working causing respiration to cease and neurons to stop firing signals to one another; or if you dived head first off a building bringing a cessation even to the coherence of the matter that constituted said system.

Physical death is very guessable in this sense, but the consciousness that once had brought life into the body will move on, unchanging, because there are no longer favorable conditions for that particular being to be alive. If this were not true, will you say that you could revive anybody that is dead? After all, you only need a special set of chemical reaction for somebody to be alive. That would lead to me ask just what Bonsay asked you; where do you draw the line.

Originally Posted by Mario92

I claim that life IS nothing but chemical reactions. Do you have anything to show that it is anything else? A series of self-sustaining chemical reactions. Interactions between particles at the quantum level. Nothing more. We have found no chi, no life force, nothing of particular interest except...chemical reactions and processes.

My claim is that life isn't subject to any thing. Where you're looking at, you will not find anything but chemical reactions! That's really the point. It's superficial and still leaves you wondering. Hope you get my point; it doesn't look like you really read the top half of my previous post.

Originally Posted by really

That happens on another level, which is of slightly different meaning. When somebody is unconscious they are still alive, and most of the time can become conscious again. Because the capacity for consciousness is always there, unless they have otherwise died, in which case the capacity to be alive is foreshadowed by the local physical circumstances.*

I'm not saying that all lifeforms are capable of conscious thought, much less abstract thought, but all things possess some degree of intelligence that enables them to grow and evolve into various forms. This includes dying off and becoming extinct. This is also very far from determinism, which basically says that it all happens by causality. **

No not all things have a soul, but all manifestations arise out of a cosmic intelligence. Amino acid is far from even bacterium yet, but neither of these things are consciously aware. It is consciousness that enables them to participate in a significant growth, or even just some kind of smaller process, in their respective time-scales. ***



That's just my point! Although, it isn't exactly supported by your first paragraph there. Consciousness isn't really characteristic unless you're only talking about living beings; if you're talking about conscious awareness, at any level. If you want to make a silicon conscious being, it is not ever going to be close to a carbon based life, for all that is entailed by it depends on that base. There will be major setbacks, but I'm saying it shouldn't be possible at all.****

No, a 'conscious computer' is not formed out of evolution, it's formed out of a relatively human ideal. As Taosaur said, we may even just be infatuated with our development in technology, not to mention that we're probably overestimating our capabilities, whether it happens now or in the future.*****


The 'very specific series chemical reactions' seems very naive, because the only reason why it could ever be specific is according to a local point of view. That is why it is a misconception because it also implies that everything is determined or caused, and this simply ignores the bigger picture that has demonstrated the formation of life in a million other forms. You can't tell me there is no unchanging intelligence in the universe, and you are if you think consciousness is just an emergence due to some unguided, anarchic determination.

I'm not sure if you noticed but this is what I've been talking about; evolution is like an emergence of species, but notice that species are not the only things that emerge. Emergence is just a description of phenomena manifesting over a certain time period, and you seem to apply that idea to consciousness itself. But what I'm saying is that emergence is actually happening within consciousness.

Consciousness obviously doesn't function like that, as I've already been over. It in fact solves the problem of first cause. What is outside time and space is a source, not a cause.

Physical death is very guessable in this sense, but the consciousness that once had brought life into the body will move on, unchanging, because there are no longer favorable conditions for that particular being to be alive. If this were not true, will you say that you could revive anybody that is dead? After all, you only need a special set of chemical reaction for somebody to be alive. That would lead to me ask just what Bonsay asked you; where do you draw the line.



My claim is that life isn't subject to any thing. Where you're looking at, you will not find anything but chemical reactions! That's really the point. It's superficial and still leaves you wondering. Hope you get my point; it doesn't look like you really read the top half of my previous post.

*I think that is a different kind of consciousness then what we are talking about.

**Is a virus intelligent? A single celled organism? A sperm? Or do they just react the way they've been programmed- almost mechanically so. I do think that this is actually a very debatable point depending on your definition of intelligence.

***Why is some level of awareness neccessary for amino acids to be assembled into a life form? Any number of things could cause that to happen. I suppose some cosmic awareness could be one, random chance could be another, God a third...

****What is keeping us from, one day, creating a perfect synthetic replica of carbon based life?

*****Does something have to have the capacity for evolution to be alive, or does it have to have come about through evolution? I should think how something came to be doesn't change what something just is. Was the first single celled organism life, then? Because it couldn't have evolved from other life.

Originally Posted by really

My claim is that life isn't subject to any thing. Where you're looking at, you will not find anything but chemical reactions! That's really the point. It's superficial and still leaves you wondering. Hope you get my point; it doesn't look like you really read the top half of my previous post.

No, I don't really get it. It doesn't leave me wondering. A bit amazed by its complexity, but not wondering how it works. You're searching for a deeper meaning that isn't there. I see no reason why some universal cosmic intelligence has to exist and has to be guiding the actions of the universe. None whatsoever.

Originally Posted by spockman

*I think that is a different kind of consciousness then what we are talking about.

Yes, I have defined it in my posts.

**Is a virus intelligent? A single celled organism? A sperm? Or do they just react the way they've been programmed- almost mechanically so. I do think that this is actually a very debatable point depending on your definition of intelligence.

Yes, my view of intelligence is that it is intrinsic to all life and forms, even programs. Of course, that intelligence evolves but essentially it is all the same. Nothing is an accident or a random possibility.

***Why is some level of awareness neccessary for amino acids to be assembled into a life form? Any number of things could cause that to happen. I suppose some cosmic awareness could be one, random chance could be another, God a third...

It's not necessary, only when the form becomes more evolved as requires more responsibility, like mammals, humans, marine life, etc.

****What is keeping us from, one day, creating a perfect synthetic replica of carbon based life?

I don't see why we couldn't do that, but that doesn't mean we (would) have the power to create consciousness.

*****Does something have to have the capacity for evolution to be alive, or does it have to have come about through evolution? I should think how something came to be doesn't change what something just is. Was the first single celled organism life, then? Because it couldn't have evolved from other life.

Like I said before, evolution is an emergence - an emergence of life. Surely life hasn't always existed on the planet. The planet has had to cool down for the conditions to be more appropriate.

Originally Posted by Xei

What, your point was 'our brains can only be made out of one material'?? Which would make your argument, 'as our brains are made of carbon, and our brains are conscious, silicon can't be conscious'. Again this isn't a logical argument Really. One thing being able to do something clearly does not imply nothing else can do something.

What it does imply is the importance of the nature of lifeforms and their convergence and restructuring of chemicals. There is endless complexity in human species; carbon based life forms, marine life, etc. In addition, this complexity changes over time. You're not going to get much from a silicon being, much less consciousness. My lego-man probably has more life than that.

Originally Posted by Xei

You keep ignoring or forgetting the whole point of what I'm saying. I'll say it again:

The algorithm enacted by our brains is a special type of 'conscious algorithm'. As it is an algorithm (this is not a false claim; our brains work on deterministic scale physics which can always be emulated by an algorithm), it can be simulated by any kind of computer.

Therefore if we simulated a brain on a computer, it would in my view be exactly the same in the crucial essentials, so your claim means nothing to me.

I'm not ignoring it, I just think it's all in the way you're explaining it and I obviously don't agree. Maybe explain what is the 'algorithm' of our brain? Are you saying have proof for determinism?

Originally Posted by Xei

There was a reason I referred you to a previous post: because I have already posted counterarguments to these exact arguments. What you're supposed to do now is respond to my counterarguments, not continue posting the same original argument.

In brief,

1. The evolution claim is not explained, and also seems to create a paradox.
2. We're not talking about whether it's practically possible with our engineering skills or our financial restraints or whatever to actually create such a computer program; we're saying that there is no reason that it shouldn't be possible (and the argument for that is in this very post, as well as a few others).

1. What is not explained and what is the paradox?
2. I know that. That is true, but there's barely any reason why it can be done, as far as I'm concerned.

It has been proved that causality is irrespective of location (or velocity, or anything else).

Causality is very specific, and besides, what does this imply of your 'very specific set of chemical reactions'? Can you point them out or just assuming they exist? That is my point, because if you're going to say it is specific, then it is not a generalized claim, which is the nature of my own claims. Is what you're mentioning irrespective of location, then?

All the evidence points towards consciousness arising out of various kinds of evolution over time; physical evolution, followed by stellar evolution, followed by chemical and then biological evolution.

All of these processes are formulated without [i]any kind[i] of 'driving force'; rather, they are formulated based on probability, and chance: and they work perfectly.

Saying that natural selection represents some kind of conscious effort represents a total misunderstanding of that theory. Natural selection is akin to a blind man stumbling around in the dark.

Natural selection does not negate conscious effort, or visa versa. The 'conscious effort' is represented in evolution. And yes all evidence points to what you said. However, chance and probability don't have much reality here, as they are better as pragmatic, arbitrary concepts rather than actual existences. I'm not going to debate whether probability has any use, but using it as an explanation for for phenomena, again, ignores the bigger picture.

There's no so called 'evidence' for what I'm saying, yet it is confirmable. That is why I mentioned a difference in paradigm, how many times I don't know. Evidence reaches it's threshold of importance when it is starts dealing with consciousness. That should be obvious by reading back through this thread, but it is easily obvious through the trouble people find when they restrict their understanding of the universe to Science and nothing else.

I find your language hard to follow but I suppose this means that the real world is an illusion which emerges from a pre-existing consciousness. Again, I refer you to the 'lack of any argument' statement. Such an idea would beg the question why our consciousness would be so determined to create a world in which the exact opposite seems true.

The first part of that might be true, but you have to elaborate on the next part. What do you mean "beg the question?"

'Sources', 'causes', this doesn't change the argument. The problem of first cause is a misnomer; everybody has already realised that 'cause' is a word that applies to time and that there was no time before the universe. The problem is actually one of 'first reason'. Reasons are things which exist outside of time. Thus your solution is actually subject to exactly the same problems.

It is only a problem if you calling it a 'cause' or 'reason', but it is neither. Causes and reasons are linear terms restricted to certain objects or frameworks, but consciousness as a totality is non-linear and influences everything that exists, because it is independent of time and space. All reasons of laws are part of itself. Saying this, therefore, does not mean it started the universe, but that there was no start within consciousness, and no end either. This is in no way comparable to 'first cause'; neither term is applicable.

I don't claim to have a solution to this problem either. All I'm saying is that you can't use this as part of a logical argument against what we're talking about, because it isn't a logical argument itself.

I'm not saying it is logical anyway, hence a shift of paradigm is necessary. I vote this thread be moved to Philosophy.

A good question this time. This is where the trickier areas of my position lie. I would say that if you did revive that person by recreating their conscious algorithm in any form, chemical or not, I don't think there'd be a good reason to think that it was a 'continuation' of the same consciousness. This comes from considering what would happen if you created the algorithm when the original person was still alive. Clearly the consciousnesses wouldn't be the same.

Any purpose for the initial death, then? Any reason why consciousness should suddenly disappear, much less emerge out of nothing?

Originally Posted by Mario92

No, I don't really get it. It doesn't leave me wondering. A bit amazed by its complexity, but not wondering how it works. You're searching for a deeper meaning that isn't there. I see no reason why some universal cosmic intelligence has to exist and has to be guiding the actions of the universe. None whatsoever.

Excellent. You must know what you're talking about then, because I know that is a fact. The only issue is, not realizing that I agree with you on that there is not a shred of evidence/reason. I want to ask: How far can you go with reason and proof? E.g. let's say nobody knew that you were conscious. How can you know that it's true?

Originally Posted by really

Yes, I have defined it in my posts.*

I don't see why we couldn't do that, but that doesn't mean we (would) have the power to create consciousness. **

Like I said before, evolution is an emergence - an emergence of life. Surely life hasn't always existed on the planet. The planet has had to cool down for the conditions to be more appropriate.***

I'm not ignoring it, I just think it's all in the way you're explaining it and I obviously don't agree. Maybe explain what is the 'algorithm' of our brain? Are you saying have proof for determinism?****

*No, I mean being awake or asleep, (in a literal sense.) That isn't what we are talking about. It is like substituting right (the state of correctness) for right (the direction.)

**If a synthetic being is physically identical to the natural version of that being, how would everything- including mental things- not be identical?

***Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life.

****All determinism says is that everything that has ever occurred has had a cause. And that cause had something that caused it which had something that caused it etc. etc. etc. This doesn't necessarily take away the arguments of spiritualism and free will. One can interpret determinism that way, but you don't have to. Determinism means that if you replicated an event over and over again, with the exact same variables each time, the result will be exactly the same each time. Determinism means that nothing has happened randomly, or independent of variables. After considering what determinism is, how can anyone disagree with it?

Originally Posted by spockman

*No, I mean being awake or asleep, (in a literal sense.) That isn't what we are talking about. It is like substituting right (the state of correctness) for right (the direction.)

Consciousness isn't an emergent property of this either. I don't really see your point because I see that they're both relevant.

**If a synthetic being is physically identical to the natural version of that being, how would everything- including mental things- not be identical?

[...]

****All determinism says is that everything that has ever occurred has had a cause. And that cause had something that caused it which had something that caused it etc. etc. etc. This doesn't necessarily take away the arguments of spiritualism and free will. One can interpret determinism that way, but you don't have to. Determinism means that if you replicated an event over and over again, with the exact same variables each time, the result will be exactly the same each time. Determinism means that nothing has happened randomly, or independent of variables. After considering what determinism is, how can anyone disagree with it?

If you re-created an ocean wave according to the image you have of it, would it be identical to the actual ocean wave when you were finished? The problem is that the object is separated from the the total whole. This is done for completely different purposes and under unique, yet flawed human conditions: Demonstrating very difference between synthetic and natural. This is particularly obvious in quantum physics, where I doubt determinism has any bearing.

What makes a human being living or dead?!

***Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life.

It plays a very important part if you can see how it is not restricted to lifeforms, but pertaining even to the simple chemical reactions that preceded them. What are you saying?

Originally Posted by really

Consciousness isn't an emergent property of this either. I don't really see your point because I see that they're both relevant.



If you re-created an ocean wave according to the image you have of it, would it be identical to the actual ocean wave when you were finished? The problem is that the object is separated from the the total whole. This is done for completely different purposes and under unique, yet flawed human conditions: Demonstrating very difference between synthetic and natural. This is particularly obvious in quantum physics, where I doubt determinism has any bearing.

What makes a human being living or dead?!

It plays a very important part if you can see how it is not restricted to lifeforms, but simple chemical reactions that preceded them. What are you saying?

So you are saying Quantum Physics is independent of cause and effect? I highly doubt it.

As far as evolution, I am saying that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It has to do with the adaptation of life. Something doesn't have to be part of the initial life cycle to evolve. Why would it?