Thread: How are we not a computer?

Originally Posted by hgld1234

Viruses need to hijack a cell to reproduce. Thus, they are not doing it without the help of another species. Scientists are unsure about wether hijacking a cell to reproduce is actually reproducing.



Alright, I admit it's pretty general. But my point was that a conscious computer isn't necessarily alive. They don't reproduce, don't grow, don't respire etc etc. But it can still be conscious.

So, what, parasites aren't alive? And many forms of bacteria, because they are anaerobic? Are some species of tube worms and sea sponges not alive since they cannot move on their own? Most of the neccessary qualifications for life have at least a few counter examples, which is why it is bullocks. A virus has found a unique way to reproduce that doesn't meet OUR definition of reproduction. But it evolves, and thus obviously meets nature's definition. Evolution isn't nearly so caught up in semantics. Everything needs energy to live/reproduce, that is a given. Computers need energy.

I agree that until the computer could reproduce/evolve, it wouldn't be alive. But in a large system, like the internet or a super computer, where multiple operating systems capable of consciousness are able to exist in the same network, wouldn't the ability to create more conscious systems of the computers design, (within the same network and ahrdware,) be reproduction and wouldn't the ability to make programs different from themselves be evolution? Really, they wouldn't even have to be self-aware to be life. Not if they could still do those two things.

Originally Posted by really

Synthesizing life, playing with cells, cloning and such things are not to do with sentience. Can you explain how somebody can create sentience? Because nothing suggests it is possible, whether technology is more advanced or not. I wonder if this answers my questions to do with reviving a dead corpse, if that's what you might say it does? Sentience, as it exists, is essential to life and is thusly cannot be created nor destroyed. It is intangible and not subject to time and space. If it cannot be proven as it is, how are you going to prove that it can be man-made?

We create a human sperm and egg from scratch. It grows into a human. Guess who just made a conscious being? But more to the point, as I stated, humans do the "impossible" all the time. I see no barriers beyond current technological limits that inhibit us from creating a fully-functional AI unit.

Your claims about consciousness being essential to life, exempt from the laws of time and space, blah blah blah, are nothing but assertions. They are fantastical, unfalsifiable claims. I can claim that there is a teakettle in the asteroid belt, but that claim cannot be proved or disproved. I can tell you that there is a flying spaghetti monster, and that claim cannot be proved or disproved. But, without the proper evidence, why the hell should you believe me? My claims are assertions...statements made without evidence. So, my question is this: why should I believe that YOU have it all figured out? That you know where consciousness comes from, what it is, and why humans can't create it? Why is sentience essential to life, when it isn't? Unless you're suggesting that the pepper plants on my front porch are aware of their existence, as is every last plant, animal, and unicellular organism in the universe?

Now, for the corpse. If you can reanimate a brain to think, feel, and resume conscious thought, then yeah, it's alive. Even better if you can get it to continue cell division, and better still if the entire corpse can be controlled by the brain. Congrats! You've just made a zombie, also known as the living dead. If it thinks, if it moves about on its own, if it replicates or reproduces on some level, I'd call it alive. If you had a purely electronic brain, it may not be alive in the "conventional" sense, but I'd consider it living nonetheless. By definition, it is something that evolves, adapts, does its own thing. That's good enough for me.

Are you also the one to suggest that a Tamagotchi is alive? Then what do we have to discuss? You must already be assuming that computers are conscious.

You are not reading my posts. Tamagotchi is a program, carrying out a predefined set of instructions. Artificial intelligence would be able to totally rearrange itself, invent completely new ways of thinking and behaving, and would be able to go above and beyond any sort of conventional programming. Computers run programs...the programs don't have a choice. If something goes wrong, it's because a file was missing or corrupt, or there was a hardware failure, but not because the computer just "didn't feel like it." Computers don't exhibit intelligence or any quality of life. They are basically sophisticated hammers; tools that humans use.

I don't know how serious you are with this whole analogy here. The main reason why this does not concern evidence, is because evidence is something that stems from the things that are seen and tangible. Consciousness is verifiable but not provable. Be careful, because the paradigm in which you're looking may never come across a chance to be proven otherwise. It is like looking in the wrong place to start. Consciousness, as it is (not 'could be'), is verifiable as beyond causes and conditions. It is a matter of understanding what it is, and science truly will not show you.

I'm dead serious. I can observe my life, the world, and the universe, but I can't prove that it exists. I could be hallucinating vividly. I could be dreaming. I could be a delusional glazed confection in a frozen wasteland for all I know. I could be debating my own mind, rather than another human being. Or, you could be a three-tentacled alien. BUT, without evidence to support any of these claims, why the hell should I accept any of them? I can observe consciousness, the planet, the universe. I can experience them. Evidence already exists that shows consciousness seems to be wholly derived from the brain itself, though much research has yet to be done. Evidence that consciousness is anything other than the product of the human mind does not exist. It contains far too many variables, is an assertion in its finest form, and there is no reason whatsoever to hold that particular belief to be true. You can go ahead and believe it if you like. Science has shown us more about consciousness and how it works than your pseudo-philosophical assertions. Now, could you be right? Certainly. But, without a single shred of evidence to back up your claims, why should I believe for one second that you are? I have seen similar arguments from creationists: "Well, I can't possibly even imagine how all of this may have come to be...it's just too complicated/unbelievable for me. So, I'm gonna come up with something else with no evidence to take the strain off my brain." Science has the ability to reveal to us what the source of consciousness is...your claims get us absolutely nowhere.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Ok putting aside this cheekiness: just because you acknowledge your existence doesn't mean you should let it bleed into other areas of perceived reality as the absolute state everything comes back to. I think therefore I am may be a powerful revelation, but by taking it in fully, you might inadvertently close yourself to the possibility that I, itself, can be an illusion.

I understand what you're saying. You're concerned of mixing purposes, mixing contexts and thus missing opportunities. Sure; when considering the pure nature of consciousness is of no use in some avenues. But in the case of learning about consciousness directly - there is no better way. Investigating consciousness where it truly resides will not help you create synthetic consciousness and pioneer scientific activity in the world, it will help you discover exactly what you are attempting to create.

...Finding consciousness. How do you find it? As I said in another post. Consciousness is what we define a set of mental activities perceived introspectively and inferred objectively onto other creatures due to our similarities, essentially based on scientific fact and/or some evolved instincts.

Putting that beside, I have no idea, no reason to acknowledge your consciousness. There is only one consciousness that exists, which is mine. I can't place it in space or time, because both are qualia that ultimately help to form this "entity" in the first place.

If you acknowledge your own consciousness, it is correct that there is no reason to give specific acknowledge mine, but no reason to ignore it either, because they are essentially the same. Of course, behaviors, concepts, emotional patterns and such are sometimes unique to the individual, but they are the contents of consciousness and not what it is. I'm not defining it as mental activity, unless you think all experience, sentience and awareness is due to a mere mental activity, but I think that is very shallow.

So finding consciousness, or creating consciousness, just means that we will replicate the biological activity we see as a precursor to these immaterial states of being we all separately experience. Scientifically, that will constitute creating the same consciousness everything else experiences. Will this mean that the robot experiences himself subjectively? I refer to my previous paragraph. If we do our best to imitate biological brains, down to the nanometre, what exactly is it stopping it from being like us on all levels? Yes the subject of subjective existence is deep, the deepest IMO... so can we really ever decode its limits? If, for now, some sort of computation is the limit, then synthetic computers should be able of consciousness.

This is all fine and well if you believe in determinism, but that is not my worldview. Replicating things does not make them as authentic as the original; the material world exists within consciousness, not the other way around. Otherwise we could say evolution occurs without purpose, making consciousness itself is some strange, superfluous byproduct that serves no purpose either, meaning that it was just created first by chance and then diminished later. This is apparent only to the views of survival and death, but not in truth. Because if consciousness is beyond time and space, the world as we know it never actually had any such effect.

Don't you wonder what makes something living or dead? Would you not be essentially creating a "dead" being? This is one of my points I keep bringing up, but I don't think it has been properly addressed yet, by anyone here who thinks consciousness can be created.

Purposes of the world... Well we come back to the question on whether we're going to be solipsists or have faith in external reality. In the first case, it really doesn't matter. According to the second stance, as I see it of course, purpose is a by-product of evolution, which likely emerged by the inclination of our primate ancestors to use their brains to survive. If a concept of purpose enables humans to tie a stone and stick together to make a spear, then it will stick (lol pun?). It may just be a curse that our intellectual evolution has grown to a point at which "it" can consider its own existence. Because of our nature, the first question is of course that of purpose: "Why are we here?". It may be a good question, but I have my doubts of it's actual essence, if purpose is just an intellectual appendage which evolved like the sharp teeth of a shark... do we really want to let "stupid evolution" continue it's hold on our intellect, or better yet, do we even have a choice?

There are many things that are inherited with evolution; collective unconscious beliefs and attitudes. On the other hand, I wouldn't consider asking the question of "why are we here" or "what am I" very ordinary or inherent, because they are often dismissed or left to be explained later. I guess it is part of evolution, but it is a very small fraction of human species that are attracted to it. I think one of the main reasons why we need to ask it is to finally realize that we cannot answer it in the way we so consistently are familiar.

Ok sorry about that... on what basis would a consciousness of an electronic device, built with a purpose to imitate consciousness, be any less philosophically significant than a consciousness which is a result of more directly "natural" (biological) evolutionary design? Other than your inclination to stand by your own consciousness to describe everything?

Consciousness can only be supposed of these things, but they cannot really show is anything of the real nature of consciousness, but only through what we can perceive. The alternative shows us what does not concern science or technological sophistication, but what really concerns very different paradigms.

Also, "creating a conscious being" skips the entire evolutionary scale in which consciousness has used to develop and enhance lifeforms, in all their variety. Making a "conscious being" may spring forth from an idea into manifestation, but doesn't take into account the overall purpose that ebbs and flows birth and death. I really see no reason for consciousness to suddenly become present in something that was man made, similar to how man does not "create" electricity from making circuits, especially when the switch of that circuit may, in this case, be intangible.

Originally Posted by Mario92

We create a human sperm and egg from scratch. It grows into a human. Guess who just made a conscious being? But more to the point, as I stated, humans do the "impossible" all the time. I see no barriers beyond current technological limits that inhibit us from creating a fully-functional AI unit.

If you think creating a sperm cell is creating sentience or life, then you are not understanding sentience. Neither does creating or manipulating conscious beings have anything to do with creating consciousness.

In regard to your argument about my "assertions": I have already told you it cannot be proven or disproven, so you do not need to tell me! However, I will repeat that consciousness as such is indeed verifiable. You have actually agreed with consciousness yourself, in concept:

I can observe my life, the world, and the universe, but I can't prove that it exists.

^ This is consciousness - the capacity to be aware and have subjective experience. Innate to this capacity is life itself; the momentum to learn and have views of the world in all its forms. This substrate for human experience is the same in every human, and essentially every living being. No, you cannot prove or disprove that it exists, but there is beyond any need to.

Now, for the corpse. If you can reanimate a brain to think, feel, and resume conscious thought, then yeah, it's alive. Even better if you can get it to continue cell division, and better still if the entire corpse can be controlled by the brain. Congrats! You've just made a zombie, also known as the living dead. If it thinks, if it moves about on its own, if it replicates or reproduces on some level, I'd call it alive. If you had a purely electronic brain, it may not be alive in the "conventional" sense, but I'd consider it living nonetheless. By definition, it is something that evolves, adapts, does its own thing. That's good enough for me.

Of course, IF we could do that. But has any of this actually occurred? Or is all of it so far just hypothetical?

You are not reading my posts. Tamagotchi is a program, carrying out a predefined set of instructions. Artificial intelligence would be able to totally rearrange itself, invent completely new ways of thinking and behaving, and would be able to go above and beyond any sort of conventional programming. Computers run programs...the programs don't have a choice. If something goes wrong, it's because a file was missing or corrupt, or there was a hardware failure, but not because the computer just "didn't feel like it." Computers don't exhibit intelligence or any quality of life. They are basically sophisticated hammers; tools that humans use.

Thank you for clarifying, I missed a slight distinction there. But I still have to ask you, if humans are not computers, then how are you defining Artificial Intelligence? Because I see it as a unit of complex systems intermingling with each other, but in the end they're still fundamentally computer programs, aren't they?

I think this thread started by Deathcell, is somehow relevant to how consciousness is beyond time and space, alluding to philosophies to do with quantum realities and basically how it is not confined to local physical phenomena.

Originally Posted by really

But in the case of learning about consciousness directly - there is no better way. Investigating consciousness where it truly resides will not help you create synthetic consciousness and pioneer scientific activity in the world, it will help you discover exactly what you are attempting to create.

Well that's your view. I still don't see what would stop it from being a genuine consciousness like yours or mine.

Originally Posted by really

If you acknowledge your own consciousness, it is correct that there is no reason to give specific acknowledge mine, but no reason to ignore it either, because they are essentially the same. Of course, behaviors, concepts, emotional patterns and such are sometimes unique to the individual, but they are the contents of consciousness and not what it is. I'm not defining it as mental activity, unless you think all experience, sentience and awareness is due to a mere mental activity, but I think that is very shallow.

Ah.. but what is "essentially the same"? The material brain. I merely deduce your consciousness. And due to the fact I experience it under similar conditions I assume you do too.

Mental activity... What else could it be? If I take the experience of reality as factual, then that's what science tells us. I think that people have some sort of aversion to cold hard material reality because they instinctively separate themselves from nature. In my eyes reality isn't "Just some depressing random atoms and stuff" - as some religious people like to characterise the rest of the universe. It is the totality of existence, which includes me by the way, and I see no reason to lower it or heighten it's relevance relative to me. So to me there is nothing shallow about being an emergent property of this mysterious universe.

Originally Posted by really

This is all fine and well if you believe in determinism, but that is not my worldview. Replicating things does not make them as authentic as the original; the material world exists within consciousness, not the other way around. Otherwise we could say evolution occurs without purpose, making consciousness itself is some strange, superfluous byproduct that serves no purpose either, meaning that it was just created first by chance and then diminished later. This is apparent only to the views of survival and death, but not in truth. Because if consciousness is beyond time and space, the world as we know it never actually had any such effect.

It's your decision if you want to see existence as centred around your experience. But then we can't really discuss matters of science. Here the philosophical views clash. You say that the material exists inside consciousness. For me it's the other way, so you can see how other things in the material reality can become as conscious as me. About evolution... that is how I see it.

What I don't understand is your statement on how this view isn't "apparent in truth". And the following sentence.

Originally Posted by really

Don't you wonder what makes something living or dead? Would you not be essentially creating a "dead" being? This is one of my points I keep bringing up, but I don't think it has been properly addressed yet, by anyone here who thinks consciousness can be created.

"Living" is a bunch of chemical chain reactions. There is no other definition of living I know that would make your question more meaningful to me. If "artificial living" defines something that simulates reactions of the biologically living, then I don't see how this intelligence could be seen as dead (aside from looking at it from a biological standpoint - which is a trivial problem IMO). If you're talking about the AI being a "philosophical zombie", well then, how do I know you're not one?

Originally Posted by really

I wouldn't consider asking the question of "why are we here" or "what am I" very ordinary or inherent, because they are often dismissed or left to be explained later.

I would, because everybody asks them. They are usually answered for the sake of mental balance via myths and religions. The main point of that dissection of purpose is to question its value. People put too much faith in purpose, and I ask if it's a tool brought forth by evol., can we trust it? For example it often seems like the #1 reason put forward by people for the existence of god ("banana fit's in hand; Earth fits in orbit; electron fits in orbital; Humans fit in universe" etc.). But this might not be essential right now, I was going off on a tangent.

Originally Posted by really

Consciousness can only be supposed of these things, but they cannot really show is anything of the real nature of consciousness, but only through what we can perceive. The alternative shows us what does not concern science or technological sophistication, but what really concerns very different paradigms.

Also, "creating a conscious being" skips the entire evolutionary scale in which consciousness has used to develop and enhance lifeforms, in all their variety. Making a "conscious being" may spring forth from an idea into manifestation, but doesn't take into account the overall purpose that ebbs and flows birth and death. I really see no reason for consciousness to suddenly become present in something that was man made, similar to how man does not "create" electricity from making circuits, especially when the switch of that circuit may, in this case, be intangible.

But what is evolution? It's a growth in complexity due to an emergent purpose like natural selection. How is a complex technological "organism" cut short, if it too is created by a purpose - which could really be anything the designer decides, even human-like. Again, you disregard the main assumption here... that if needed we can recreate the human brain completely in the search for artificial consciousness. And if we do, the biological evolutionary history is still there, which I don't think is needed for consciousness anyway.

Something for you to chew on:

Simulating Space and Time
Brian Whitwort

Abstract
"This paper asks if a virtual space-time could appear to those within it as our space-time does to us.
A processing grid network is proposed to underlie not just matter and energy, but also space and
time. The suggested "screen" for our familiar three dimensional world is the inner surface of a fourdimensional
hyper-sphere bubble. Light waves and matter travel on this surface in directions
defined by its architecture. Time derives from its processing sequences, as movies run static states
together to emulate events. Yet what is proposed to exist is not the static states but the dynamic
processing between them, with quantum collapse the irreversible event giving time its direction. In
this virtual reality, empty space is null processing, directions are node connections, time is
processing cycles, light is an information wave, objects are information tangles and energy is
information in transfer. This strange interpretation suits a world where empty space is not empty,
directions warp, time dilates, light never tires, existence smears and energy is the common currency
of all interactions."

http://prespacetime.com/index.php/ps...viewFile/18/16

Originally Posted by really

If you think creating a sperm cell is creating sentience or life, then you are not understanding sentience. Neither does creating or manipulating conscious beings have anything to do with creating consciousness.

You line up a genetic code from scratch. Within that code is a complex series of instructions that tell the brain what to do and how to operate. You are, for all intents and purposes, creating a conscious mind capable of conscious thought. How is this not creating consciousness? You create it...within that being. Granted, the being has to incubate for nine months and do a bit of growing up first, but in the end, you have essentially created that being from scratch, putting in place all the required instructions necessary for conscious thought.

^ This is consciousness - the capacity to be aware and have subjective experience. Innate to this capacity is life itself; the momentum to learn and have views of the world in all its forms. This substrate for human experience is the same in every human, and essentially every living being. No, you cannot prove or disprove that it exists, but there is beyond any need to.

I'm not asking you to prove whether or not consciousness exists...I'm asking you to prove that it is some sort of intangible universal quality that is not the sole product of the human mind.

Of course, IF we could do that. But has any of this actually occurred? Or is all of it so far just hypothetical?

Naturally, hypothetical. BUT, that is because the technology does not yet exist. Asking a person in this day and age to bring a corpse to life is like trying to ask a Roman soldier to build a computer from scratch using only materials and resources found in the times of ancient Rome. It's just not going to happen. If we can show that consciousness is 100% biological in origin, then we can do it. We may not understand it at present or have the ability to make it a reality, but we could develop the technology to accurately mimic natural biological processes in an electronic environment.

Thank you for clarifying, I missed a slight distinction there. But I still have to ask you, if humans are not computers, then how are you defining Artificial Intelligence? Because I see it as a unit of complex systems intermingling with each other, but in the end they're still fundamentally computer programs, aren't they?

Artificial intelligence would be unlike any computer system ever built. It would have to be something more than just logic gates and interacting programs. To be genuinely intelligent, it would have to be able to learn, reorganize itself, and actually feel. It would need awareness of the outside world. I can't imagine a chain of C++ programs working together to accomplish such a feat, and even if they did, it is again electrons moving along predetermined paths. This happens to be related to one of the core ideas of determinism: do humans have free will? According to a determinist, human thoughts and actions are the products of ions jumping the synapse. Well, why did the ions jump the synapse? Because of a long line of perfectly predictable chemical reactions and physical interactions that placed the ions in that exact location at that exact moment in time. Going by this, then any AI unit based solely on rigidly-defined programs interacting together would be considered essentially the same thing as the human mind. Food for thought. More on-topic, though, an electronic mind may require something basic along the lines of programming that would govern the rules of intelligence...comparable to the systems of humans, where ions jumping the synapse tell the neuron to pass on the signal properly to form thoughts. The human mind, in a way, is bound by the "program" of DNA. It can think, rearrange itself, make new connections, cut old ones, contemplate the meaning of life, but it cannot function without chemical signals.

And as for humans being comparable to computers in this day and age, there are aspects of computers that function very similar to that of the human mind. Logic gates (if-then scenarios, basically) take after pure human logic. IF there is a bear chasing me, THEN I will run. Humans, though, can be a tad unpredictable at times, which is a behavior computers don't replicate as well (e.g. IF a bear is chasing me, THEN I will climb a tree instead and swing on that nearby vine like Tarzan to escape.) Humans aren't always logical beings. The way in which computers transmit information, too, is rather similar to the human brain. Whereas we use electrochemical signals, computers direct electricity through various components (think neurons) to send the message. Computers ARE similar to humans, not in that they can think and make choices (though that may very well change one day), but in how they operate.

There's no point arguing about what constitutes 'life'. It's a discussion founded entirely on semantics. If you want to use the scientific meaning, then computers will probably never count as life. If you want to use the more useful, idiomatic meaning, then conscious computers probably could count as life. End of.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Something for you to chew on:

Simulating Space and Time
Brian Whitwort

Abstract
"This paper asks if a virtual space-time could appear to those within it as our space-time does to us.
A processing grid network is proposed to underlie not just matter and energy, but also space and
time. The suggested "screen" for our familiar three dimensional world is the inner surface of a fourdimensional
hyper-sphere bubble. Light waves and matter travel on this surface in directions
defined by its architecture. Time derives from its processing sequences, as movies run static states
together to emulate events. Yet what is proposed to exist is not the static states but the dynamic
processing between them, with quantum collapse the irreversible event giving time its direction. In
this virtual reality, empty space is null processing, directions are node connections, time is
processing cycles, light is an information wave, objects are information tangles and energy is
information in transfer. This strange interpretation suits a world where empty space is not empty,
directions warp, time dilates, light never tires, existence smears and energy is the common currency
of all interactions."

http://prespacetime.com/index.php/ps...viewFile/18/16

I remember this being posted before I think, in which case it's a very interesting read.

We know humans arise throughout evolution, and yes we have biological parents. You can't say computers therefore can have similar parents, especially if they are, by comparison, non-computers (human beings).

You're still not justifying your argument. You're making a very unusual claim and not explaining the logic behind it. Please also consider my arguments for my position and against yours.

Functioning brains patently give rise to consciousness. It is also obvious that the material which constitutes said brain is irrelevant, as the contrary position is equivalent to the position that carbon can be conscious whereas silicon cannot, or indeed that the number 6 (protons) can be conscious whereas the number 14 (protons) cannot.

Hence there is no reason to suspect that if we created a brain it would not lead to consciousness. It would certainly act exactly like a human brain. One could converse with it about Mozart or Shakespeare. It may even have a strong sense of spirituality if that were its personality. I find it implausible that consciousness would not reside behind such a being.

Like I say, the argument that consciousness can only come from other biological/conscious beings is not explained. Also, if the argument is for the biological aspect, then we are back with the absurd position above. If the argument is for the consciousness aspect, then it's easy to see that such a claim cannot possibly be true when one considers where consciousness came from in the first place if it can only come from other consciousness.

The fact that evolution is the way consciousness has helped a species grow is to suggest that it only exists in the living, because it is essential to life itself. The real gap is in the argument that a human being can create another conscious being that is still a computer. What is the purpose and why do you think there is inconsistency? I have yet to see a computer that can impose its own ideas, meaning and awareness upon things, instead of simply directing and sorting incoming data like a brain, however complex and advanced it does so.

We have been over this. Nobody is suggesting that computers can do this now. But there is no reason at all that we could not emulate all of the brain's functions by the brute force method of simply emulating an entire brain on a computer (the only barriers being that we do not yet have all of the necessary data and that we're a few years from having a computer powerful enough to do it in real time). Brains are macroscopic objects which can be understood using the complete and deterministic theories of electromagnetism, chemistry, and classical physics so there is no reason why this would not work.

You cannot "make" a non-physical realm of consciousness by mirroring what the brain does.

Why not? I agree that consciousness is in a sense non-physical, in the way that any causal system (for example a bureaucracy or a calculation performed on a pocket calculator or on paper) is not 'solid', but, given those examples, it is patently possible to create such a non-physical entity.

I am sorry if this seems way off topic. I'm afraid there is a persistent problem if this topic is restricted to science, however I no longer see why I should keep posting more after this anyway. I think there is more weight on this toward Philosophy.

Fundamentally, you three are simply arguing that you see no reason why consciousness is not a product, or not an emergent property of the brain. Also, this leads to the optimism in that there's no reason why it cannot be produced in the future. It's surprising that people don't fully consider a radical paradigm difference, which I have surely explained already. But let me point some more things out.

First of all, essentially: What do we mean by 'consciousness'?

1. To know of existence; to have the subjective capacity for awareness.
2. To think or to perceive.

Please note I am using definition 1 and not 2. What some of you seem to be saying is 2, but 2 is contextualized by 1. Thus, while you can point to 2, you cannot prove 1, but 1 exists by authority in order for 2 to exist or not.

It follows from definition 1 that consciousness is intrinsic to life and sentience, because it is inseparable from being alive. For what is 'being alive' without knowing existence, or even being aware of that knowledge? We say it is inert and lifeless. Simple enough. Therefore, consciousness is one and the same with the nature of life; subjective and intangible. There is no denying the innate authority of subjectivity. Any objective reality falls within it, but none exist without it.

The implications of this are very radical. Consciousness becomes subject to no limitation. It is not subject to time or space. I don't want people to pretend I said nothing about consciousness being a different paradigm, because that is a key point that needs attention.

With consciousness there is the capacity for meaning, integrity, love and several other phenomena that are intangible; that cannot be proven, yet without them not even science is important. That is why science can't really do much with consciousness in itself. Science might even say that meaning is an emergent property of art. Is that not ridiculous? Art is created from the capacity for meaning and expression. Science may also infer that the capacity for awareness arises from material. That is also ridiculous! What we're dealing with here is of a completely different paradigm and the naive person mixes categories. Consciousness is not gas, liquid or solid and neither is it detectable, because it is within everything.

Life and consciousness as the same substrate cannot be created or destroyed. You can neither create nor destroy consciousness, or create it from what you could call inert dust. If anything you could say it happens in reverse. Consciousness is a prevailing, indestructible source of intelligence that has manifested the whole universe, alive or not. You can destroy lifeforms, yet even what is not living arguably has 'life' in varying degrees.

Look in your backyard or on television and you can witness evolution. Things are always changing form, but the aesthetics of all life forms doesn't occur by causality, but by the prevailing potentiality of consciousness that accounts for everything in the universe. Certain manifestations or likelihood's are emphasized by what are known as attractor fields, which are invisible patterns. Unless you are sensitive to aesthetics and the intelligence that is innate to all living and non-living forms around you, in all their varying degrees and expressions, you might just speculate that this was all some huge 'accident.' A little ludicrous might I add.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Mental activity... What else could it be? If I take the experience of reality as factual, then that's what science tells us. I think that people have some sort of aversion to cold hard material reality because they instinctively separate themselves from nature. In my eyes reality isn't "Just some depressing random atoms and stuff" - as some religious people like to characterise the rest of the universe. It is the totality of existence, which includes me by the way, and I see no reason to lower it or heighten it's relevance relative to me. So to me there is nothing shallow about being an emergent property of this mysterious universe.

It is shallow because it can be seen as a rather quick and pedestrian conclusion. Our brains can be looked at to be what we have in common, but there are also endless specifics that are unique to our inheritance and conditioning. You might say that even our bodies are essentially the same, however neither of these are causing consciousness; consciousness exists first. A person can even have part of their brain removed and still have the same underlying consciousness as everybody else, because it what is beneath the mental activity; what is beyond the brain, that makes us all essentially the same. It is the capacity to experience. The brain is the central mechanism for the senses and the body, but this is concerning what is beyond them.

Originally Posted by Xei

Functioning brains patently give rise to consciousness. It is also obvious that the material which constitutes said brain is irrelevant, as the contrary position is equivalent to the position that carbon can be conscious whereas silicon cannot, or indeed that the number 6 (protons) can be conscious whereas the number 14 (protons) cannot.

Why do you think brains aren't made out of silicon then? If you ask me, consciousness provides gradations within all particles, whatever size they are. The only difference is the degree to which the said particles have the potential to manifest into greater structures, in this case what we'd refer to as a human being. As you can see the process of evolution happened on its own, it didn't need somebody there to build it.

You guys also need to expand on why 'creating a conscious being' doesn't present the problem of it being dead. Saying life is just 'chemical reactions' is like a sophomoric description and if anything, actually indicates that consciousness isn't an emergent property at all, since 'chemical reactions' provides no distinctions anywhere in space or time.

So here's my conclusions. If consciousness was an emergent property:

• "Emerging" cannot occur. Emerging is consequent to the field of consciousness, which is perpetually interacting with matter and energy.
• The universe would not have come into manifestation. I.e. not even evolution can occur. Because all processes do not happen by magic or by accident. They are bound in the field of consciousness.
• Supposing the above were not true; let's say life can be created. This is contradictory, because if consciousness is an emergent property then there's no reason in ordinary life why it should be destroyed. On the contrary, it is because life cannot be created that it cannot be destroyed. Besides, none of us have actually experienced physical death this lifetime, so all conclusions in regard to life being forced to a permanent end is speculation. This is essentially no different than speculating that consciousness can be created.

I think my overall conclusion is already obvious enough. Most of what I've said is not provable, however it is indeed verifiable. It only takes a paradigm shift from Science & Mathematics to more abstract, philosophical and spiritual views.

Originally Posted by really

I am sorry if this seems way off topic. I'm afraid there is a persistent problem if this topic is restricted to science, however I no longer see why I should keep posting more after this anyway. I think there is more weight on this toward Philosophy.

Fundamentally, you three are simply arguing that you see no reason why consciousness is not a product, or not an emergent property of the brain. Also, this leads to the optimism in that there's no reason why it cannot be produced in the future. It's surprising that people don't fully consider a radical paradigm difference, which I have surely explained already. But let me point some more things out.

First of all, essentially: What do we mean by 'consciousness'?

1. To know of existence; to have the subjective capacity for awareness.
2. To think or to perceive.

Please note I am using definition 1 and not 2. What some of you seem to be saying is 2, but 2 is contextualized by 1. Thus, while you can point to 2, you cannot prove 1, but 1 exists by authority in order for 2 to exist or not.

It follows from definition 1 that consciousness is intrinsic to life and sentience, because it is inseparable from being alive. For what is 'being alive' without knowing existence, or even being aware of that knowledge? We say it is inert and lifeless. Simple enough. Therefore, consciousness is one and the same with the nature of life; subjective and intangible. There is no denying the innate authority of subjectivity. Any objective reality falls within it, but none exist without it.

The implications of this are very radical. Consciousness becomes subject to no limitation. It is not subject to time or space. I don't want people to pretend I said nothing about consciousness being a different paradigm, because that is a key point that needs attention.

With consciousness there is the capacity for meaning, integrity, love and several other phenomena that are intangible; that cannot be proven, yet without them not even science is important. That is why science can't really do much with consciousness in itself. Science might even say that meaning is an emergent property of art. Is that not ridiculous? Art is created from the capacity for meaning and expression. Science may also infer that the capacity for awareness arises from material. That is also ridiculous! What we're dealing with here is of a completely different paradigm and the naive person mixes categories. Consciousness is not gas, liquid or solid and neither is it detectable, because it is within everything.

Life and consciousness as the same substrate cannot be created or destroyed. You can neither create nor destroy consciousness, or create it from what you could call inert dust. If anything you could say it happens in reverse. Consciousness is a prevailing, indestructible source of intelligence that has manifested the whole universe, alive or not. You can destroy lifeforms, yet even what is not living arguably has 'life' in varying degrees.

Look in your backyard or on television and you can witness evolution. Things are always changing form, but the aesthetics of all life forms doesn't occur by causality, but by the prevailing potentiality of consciousness that accounts for everything in the universe. Certain manifestations or likelihood's are emphasized by what are known as attractor fields, which are invisible patterns. Unless you are sensitive to aesthetics and the intelligence that is innate to all living and non-living forms around you, in all their varying degrees and expressions, you might just speculate that this was all some huge 'accident.' A little ludicrous might I add.



It is shallow because it can be seen as a rather quick and pedestrian conclusion. Our brains can be looked at to be what we have in common, but there are also endless specifics that are unique to our inheritance and conditioning. You might say that even our bodies are essentially the same, however neither of these are causing consciousness; consciousness exists first. A person can even have part of their brain removed and still have the same underlying consciousness as everybody else, because it what is beneath the mental activity; what is beyond the brain, that makes us all essentially the same. It is the capacity to experience. The brain is the central mechanism for the senses and the body, but this is concerning what is beyond them.



Why do you think brains aren't made out of silicon then? If you ask me, consciousness provides gradations within all particles, whatever size they are. The only difference is the degree to which the said particles have the potential to manifest into greater structures, in this case what we'd refer to as a human being. As you can see the process of evolution happened on its own, it didn't need somebody there to build it.

You guys also need to expand on why 'creating a conscious being' doesn't present the problem of it being dead. Saying life is just 'chemical reactions' is like a sophomoric description and if anything, actually indicates that consciousness isn't an emergent property at all, since 'chemical reactions' provides no distinctions anywhere in space or time.

So here's my conclusions. If consciousness was an emergent property:

• "Emerging" cannot occur. Emerging is consequent to the field of consciousness, which is perpetually interacting with matter and energy.
• The universe would not have come into manifestation. I.e. not even evolution can occur. Because all processes do not happen by magic or by accident. They are bound in the field of consciousness.
• Supposing the above were not true; let's say life can be created. This is contradictory, because if consciousness is an emergent property then there's no reason in ordinary life why it should be destroyed. On the contrary, it is because life cannot be created that it cannot be destroyed. Besides, none of us have actually experienced physical death this lifetime, so all conclusions in regard to life being forced to a permanent end is speculation. This is essentially no different than speculating that consciousness can be created.

I think my overall conclusion is already obvious enough. Most of what I've said is not provable, however it is indeed verifiable. It only takes a paradigm shift from Science & Mathematics to more abstract, philosophical and spiritual views.

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.
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 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.

Why do you think brains aren't made out of silicon then?

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!

The only difference is the degree to which the said particles have the potential to manifest into greater structures, in this case what we'd refer to as a human being. As you can see the process of evolution happened on its own, it didn't need somebody there to build it.

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.

You guys also need to expand on why 'creating a conscious being' doesn't present the problem of it being dead. Saying life is just 'chemical reactions' is like a sophomoric description and if anything, actually indicates that consciousness isn't an emergent property at all, since 'chemical reactions' provides no distinctions anywhere in space or time.

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.

If consciousness was an emergent property:
"Emerging" cannot occur.

Kind of doesn't make sense but okay.

Emerging is consequent to the field of consciousness, which is perpetually interacting with matter and energy.

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.

he universe would not have come into manifestation. I.e. not even evolution can occur. Because all processes do not happen by magic or by accident. They are bound in the field of consciousness.

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

Supposing the above were not true; let's say life can be created. This is contradictory, because if consciousness is an emergent property then there's no reason in ordinary life why it should be destroyed.

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.

Originally Posted by really

You guys also need to expand on why 'creating a conscious being' doesn't present the problem of it being dead. Saying life is just 'chemical reactions' is like a sophomoric description and if anything, actually indicates that consciousness isn't an emergent property at all, since 'chemical reactions' provides no distinctions anywhere in space or time.

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.

Although it's a small point, I'd point out I do think there is an important and clear difference between consciousness and life. Also, I don't think chemistry, that is to say the behaviours of nucleons and electrons, is necessary for / synonymous with consciousness; all that is required is an embodiment of a 'conscious algorithm'. For example, it could be embodied in a complex system of photons and mirrors, which isn't really chemistry (or Chinese people with mobile phones, using the famous philosophy of mind thought experiment); or, taking a more fanciful example, any other kind of universe in the hypothetical multiverse where such a system can emerge from any kind of process, which may bear very little resemblance to chemistry. Or indeed, if such a thing can exist, a universe which simply consists of the algorithm.

Originally Posted by Xei

Although it's a small point, I'd point out I do think there is an important and clear difference between consciousness and life. Also, I don't think chemistry, that is to say the behaviours of nucleons and electrons, is necessary for / synonymous with consciousness; all that is required is an embodiment of a 'conscious algorithm'. For example, it could be embodied in a complex system of photons and mirrors, which isn't really chemistry (or Chinese people with mobile phones, using the famous philosophy of mind thought experiment); or, taking a more fanciful example, any other kind of universe in the hypothetical multiverse where such a system can emerge from any kind of process, which may bear very little resemblance to chemistry. Or indeed, if such a thing can exist, a universe which simply consists of the algorithm.

Expanding on this by asking... what exactly is stopping a bunch of water molecules, for example, from interacting in a way that could be "seen" as creating a temporary instantaneous consciousness? Where can we set the limit (philosophically speaking)? What's so inherent in the brain, if it's all about algorithms, that makes this consciousness possible... and if there is nothing, as we are arguing here with the synthetic consciousness problem, wouldn't it be safe-ish to conclude that there is a multitude of consciousness's existing at every moment due to an infinite amount of permutations where the transfer of information occurs?

I'm glad somebody's asking tough questions...

Expanding on this by asking... what exactly is stopping a bunch of water molecules, for example, from interacting in a way that could be "seen" as creating a temporary instantaneous consciousness? Where can we set the limit (philosophically speaking)?

The bizarre thing about consciousness is that either viewpoint seems to have paradoxes. However I've always thought that the paradoxes in anti-functionalism are completely insurmountable, whilst those of functionalism are both lesser in number and also seem less powerful.

I'd hazard a guess that the system has to actually function according to causality, in kind of the same way that a picture of an object is not actually the real object. In other words, a pattern of molecules moving by chance in a brain-like way for a fraction of a second would not cause consciousness; however if the system was causal, in other words, if it was truly running the algorithm (one neuron analogue causing another neuron analogue to fire, etcetera), then I suppose if it existed for a fraction of a second then there would be consciousness for a fraction of a second. It is, though perhaps not very, consoling to remember that such circumstances would seem extremely exotic, as it would involve the creation and then destruction of an entire brain somehow.

What's so inherent in the brain, if it's all about algorithms, that makes this consciousness possible...

Good question; I don't know. I think an important thing is that the brain evolved to conceptualise. For example, when we see red, although the brain receives data in the form of 'nerve 1 sees red, nerve 2 sees red, ...' and so on, what actually goes through our minds is 'red'. We form concepts and act on them. This is why machine vision is so hard to program. All they receive is the data points in the image. You can program with a lot of work to recognise lines etcetera and then act according to that, but it still has no conception of what a line is.

Yes, I think conception could actually turn out to be the crucial element of what is in our brains.

and if there is nothing, as we are arguing here with the synthetic consciousness problem, wouldn't it be safe-ish to conclude that there is a multitude of consciousness's existing at every moment due to an infinite amount of permutations where the transfer of information occurs?

Just to clarify; I am saying that there is indeed something special in our brains, which is a physical embodiment of a hypothetical class of special systems which produce consciousness when run. What I am also saying though is that it needn't be a brain; any physical manifestation of the special system will do.

Your last point sounds interesting but currently its meaning escapes me, could you elucidate it a little for me?

Originally Posted by Xei

It is, though perhaps not very, consoling to remember that such circumstances would seem extremely exotic, as it would involve the creation and then destruction of an entire brain somehow.

Yes, but seeing that consciousness is just a type of computation, I'm not really specifically interested in whether the random mix of atoms would create a brain analogue. The mere fact that from a specific point of view, the atoms in a water cup might be solving a sudoku, even for a millisecond, is quite fascinating. The question really is whether the observer aspect of consciousness is just an illusion, only important to discuss when the system can compute itself (like in the example of self-aware humans), or is this some underlying aspect that is always there (being present in an ant, plant, calculator, water cup) just not perceived by the system itself. So in a less drastic sense: are dogs "observers"; or in a more drastic sense: are calculators observers... and what does that mean for the nature of the "soul". Does computation have to be perceived autonomously or externally to be, or does it exist in and of itself. Ungrammatical, I know, but I can't help myself.

Originally Posted by Xei

Good question; I don't know. I think an important thing is that the brain evolved to conceptualise. For example, when we see red, although the brain receives data in the form of 'nerve 1 sees red, nerve 2 sees red, ...' and so on, what actually goes through our minds is 'red'. We form concepts and act on them. This is why machine vision is so hard to program. All they receive is the data points in the image. You can program with a lot of work to recognise lines etcetera and then act according to that, but it still has no conception of what a line is.

Yes, that does make sense. It's sort of an answer to my talk in the previous paragraph. Concepts do give us a certain stability, something to build our world with, on the perceptual and cognitive level. So that could be the answer. The funny thing is though, that such a view doesn't stop the possibility of randomly formed algorithms from becoming conscious, it just raises the bar on what types of computations are needed for consciousness to emerge.

It's really interesting that from some objective point of view. Seeing the universe as this void of everything, without leaning onto any instinctual stance, we humans, for example, are "just molecules in a cup". It's just that the cup happens to be a giant sphere of particles in various states, and the emergent consciousness perceives its existence to last for years due to the particles' semi-permanent structure - brain.

I think I should note that, in the first paragraph, I may be going a bit into the metaphysical. Since I am trying to find consciousness where it is not defined. I mean if a water molecule based, human brain algorithm analogue is formed for a second in my water cup, then we can talk about the aspect of consciousness as we know it. But what I'm brainstorming about is whether there is "consciousness" (the observer) in every type of computation, like in the last sentence in the first paragraph. This might tie in with the question you ask at the end.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes, I think conception could actually turn out to be the crucial element of what is in our brains.

Just to clarify; I am saying that there is indeed something special in our brains, which is a physical embodiment of a hypothetical class of special systems which produce consciousness when run. What I am also saying though is that it needn't be a brain; any physical manifestation of the special system will do.

Your last point sounds interesting but currently its meaning escapes me, could you elucidate it a little for me?

Ok, I guess I understand and share your view on this.

The last point basically refers to the same thing, just expanded on in all dimensions. I'll use the water cup example, because otherwise I'd just complicate it to the point of incomprehension. So lets say that in a moment we concentrate on 5 groups of these H20 based systems - which analogue to various parts of the brain. These 5 groups together in a cup create a consciousness. Now... at the same time we have another bunch of of groups to the left of this brain analogue. Lets say that 4 of these external groups share one group with the original 5. Now basically I'm saying that the union of these 9 groups would (assuming that it takes 5 to create the whole brain consciousness) create two different consciousnesses, each oblivious to the other one. If we are very liberal with what constitutes a consciousness, all the different combinations of interactions that happen in a moment in the universe would then basically create an infinite amount of them, some familiar, some possibly incomprehensible.

I hope this is not too much BS for you guys to deal with. Anyway...thoughts?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

If, for example, that my response to Bonsay is somewhat correct, then we can say that consciousness arose out of these chance processes because it was biologically advantageous to be able to form concepts and act on them. It is very clear that being able to conceptualise has led to the human race becoming the most successful mammal on the planet. Without it, we would not have the spear, the farm, the city; anything.

emergence is actually happening within consciousness.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

So in other words, everyone else has pronounced me unconscious. But, by definition of being conscious, I would know of my own existence and that I am conscious. If I don't have these thoughts, then I'm not conscious. Reason and logic. Turns out everyone else is wrong. But, surely they have a valid reason for being wrong. Perhaps I'm comatose. A brain scan indicates little mental activity. They have no reason to believe I'm still conscious, or even thinking at all for that matter.

Now, I could pick up a rock and look at it, and conclude within a very reasonable degree of certainty that it is not conscious. Consciousness and abstract thought are generally testable behaviors. It is not something found in so-called lesser life forms. A rock is not alive to begin with. Why should I believe it to be conscious? Now, I could be wrong. I could also be dreaming all this up, and wake up in the next five minutes. Welcome back to the pastry in Antarctica scenario. I admit I could be wrong. I don't think so, but I could be.