hey science

[moonbogg]

I agree, I was just throwing that out there because sometimes the entire world is wrong about something really important, and we end up having to completely overhaul our ideas of how things work. To continue with my example, light didn't stop existing and neither did space. We found that they just don't work the way we thought they had to, and we came up with new theories to explain how they could work. It's entirely possible that current research into cognition will also hit dead ends before setting off in an entirely different but more correct direction. In the mean time it looks like we'll just have to content ourselves with saying that, by virtue of being able to argue about cognition at all, it is proven that we do think... somehow.

The hard question is, why is our thinking accompanied by experience? We are biological machines, so where do we get this odd property of experience? We should be able to process information and hold this conversation without any awareness at all, like a complex biological computer program. That seems to be what we are actually, but for some reason the lights are on inside and we have experience.

 

[disappoint]

The hard question is, why is our thinking accompanied by experience? We are biological machines, so where do we get this odd property of experience? We should be able to process information and hold this conversation without any awareness at all, like a complex biological computer program. That seems to be what we are actually, but for some reason the lights are on inside and we have experience.

It emerges from 100 billion neurons working together. We've evolved to have the consciousness we have.

What's interesting is we are in a bit of a transitional period now. At first glance you might say that we've evolved to have the kind of consciousness we have because it is advantageous for survival. To an extent it is. But the transitional period I'm talking about has to do with the other side of that coin. Having the conscious ability we have can be both advantageous to survival or quite the opposite.

A bear has no hope of finding a cure or preventive vaccine for polio. Nor be able to deviate an incoming cataclismic asteroid. A bear also has no hope of creating weapons of mass destruction that could wipe out most or all of life on Earth.

So our consciousness is a double edged sword. Will it be advantageous or not? That depends on a number of factors which I won't list right now. The fact is that if it is not advantageous for survival, that is if humans succeed in destroying themselves for whatever reason, then this particular type of consciousness, at least on this planet, will cease to exist. Perhaps another will form much as ours formed after the dinosaurs ceased to exist.

 

[disappoint]

So you see then how important it is for humans to overcome the shortcomings of the human mind before those shortcomings cause them to destroy each other. If you care about survival of the human race that is.

 

[moonbogg]

It emerges from 100 billion neurons working together. We've evolved to have the consciousness we have.

What's interesting is we are in a bit of a transitional period now. At first glance you might say that we've evolved to have the kind of consciousness we have because it is advantageous for survival. To an extent it is. But the transitional period I'm talking about has to do with the other side of that coin. Having the conscious ability we have can be both advantageous to survival or quite the opposite.

A bear has no hope of finding a cure or preventive vaccine for polio. Nor be able to deviate an incoming cataclismic asteroid. A bear also has no hope of creating weapons of mass destruction that could wipe out most or all of life on Earth.

So our consciousness is a double edged sword. Will it be advantageous or not? That depends on a number of factors which I won't list right now. The fact is that if it is not advantageous for survival, that is if humans succeed in destroying themselves for whatever reason, then this particular type of consciousness, at least on this planet, will cease to exist. Perhaps another will form much as ours formed after the dinosaurs ceased to exist.

Good post, and this is a reflection of the prevailing wisdom. The hard part is explaining how matter, which has no awareness and by studying every aspect of it gives no indication of the possibility of awareness, can end up having even the slightest sensation of any kind at all.
Matter, as understood, should not be capable of feeling anything ever. How could it? Matter just does stuff. It obeys the laws of physics. Where is there room for matter feeling like anything, ever?

EDIT: Just watch some of Chalmers talks on it and other intellectuals explain the "hard problem of consciousness". I find it fascinating personally.

 

[master_shake_]

Science can't explain consciousness because it falls under the realm of religion. I point to exhibit A.

That's why they say God is in all of us.

thats why i can't find any bitches

god has em all.

also i call em bitches

 

[disappoint]

Matter, as understood, should not be capable of feeling anything ever. How could it? Matter just does stuff. It obeys the laws of physics. Where is there room for matter feeling like anything, ever?

Matter doesn't feel anything. Your mind does. 100s of billions of neurons together, do. Those neurons are made of matter but have no consciousness individually.

A transistor doesn't compute. It either acts like a switch of sorts, or an amplifier. It can't run a word processing program. It can't store a jpg. It can't access the internet. Billions of them have to work together to do those things. It isn't magical. It is an emergent property borne from the physical laws by which this universe operates.

I do however share your fascination with the topic.

 

[moonbogg]

Matter doesn't feel anything. Your mind does. 100s of billions of neurons together, do. Those neurons are made of matter but have no consciousness individually.

A transistor doesn't compute. It either acts like a switch of sorts, or an amplifier. It can't run a word processing program. It can't store a jpg. It can't access the internet. Billions of them have to work together to do those things. It isn't magical. It is an emergent property borne from the physical laws by which this universe operates.

I do however share your fascination with the topic.

I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense to assume that consciousness itself is emergent, but there is reason to doubt. Personally, I think when Chalmers says that many neurons working together will produce more complex and emergent objective behaviors of the subject is a good place to start. There is no reason to assume that subjectivity would arise from such a complex system since the nature of subjectivity is such a polar opposite to the objective world.

Taken from TED's website. Chalmers was quoted speaking on emergence.

"Many say that in a few years it will turn out that consciousness is just another emergent phenomenon, “like traffic jams or hurricanes or life, and we’ll figure it out.” But Chalmers believes there are limitations to this picture. Classic cases of emergence are all about behavior, about objective functioning. “You can apply that to the brain — how we walk, how we talk, how we play chess. But why is it that all this behavior is accompanied by subjective experience?”

Complex behaviors are reducible, where so far there has been a chasm separating consciousness from any kind of objective description, with regard to emergence or otherwise.

 

[disappoint]

I think the mistake (from my point of view) that you're making is that you have a feeling that subjectivity should not arise from just the physical properties of the mind, if I understand you correctly.

I don't see why it shouldn't. I wonder if you showed someone thousands of years ago some of the technology we have today and a transistor, and if you could get them to understand a transistor in terms of being a switch, if they would have trouble believing that the technology emerges from many of those switches working together.

For example if you showed them a decision branching ability of an if-then-else statement in software, then told them that is possible with many switches working in unison, I wonder if they would have trouble believing that.

If you do ever happen upon a time machine, I must warn you not to "try that at home". They might crucify you. When someone says if they had a time machine they would go back in time to see Jesus, I think they are nuts. The likelihood of your demise at the hands of people (especially those in power) that had such little regard for human life would be fairly high. I've heard the Roman Empire crucified so many they ran out of wood to make crosses. Then there is the famous quote: Madness in individuals is rare, but in groups the norm. Or some such, I'm paraphrasing. Yet another form of emergent properties.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't see why it shouldn't.

That isn't a good reason to believe that it does, however.

The problem lies in the logical coherence of a world filled with human zombies (anatomically correct bags of flesh that lack subjective experience) and the fact that such a world is empirically indistinguishable from one where they have subjective experience.

You're defining consciousness a priori in terms of the behavior of beings presumed to be conscious, and then declaring that the problems of consciousness have been solved when the behavior of those allegedly conscious beings (surprise of all surprises!) correspond to your definition.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It emerges from 100 billion neurons working together.

What about 99,999,999,999 neurons? Is it the 100 billionth one that finally makes consciousness?

We've evolved to have the consciousness we have.

What about the consciousness we used to have?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Matter doesn't feel anything. Your mind does.

What's the mind made of?

100s of billions of neurons together, do. Those neurons are made of matter but have no consciousness individually.

How do you know? Could your read neuron minds if they had them?

A transistor doesn't compute. It either acts like a switch of sorts, or an amplifier. It can't run a word processing program. It can't store a jpg. It can't access the internet. Billions of them have to work together to do those things. It isn't magical. It is an emergent property borne from the physical laws by which this universe operates.

So an operating system has subjective experience?

 

[IronWing]

What's the mind made of?

Ooh, ooh, I know! I know! Pick me!!

It is made of up!

 

[Ruptga]

What's the mind made of?


How do you know? Could your read neuron minds if they had them?


So an operating system has subjective experience?

Dog cognition : Slug cognition :: OS : Transistor

See, that works because dogs are made of slugs. Or, maybe what I mean is that there are arbitrarily many different permutations of degrees of consciousness, and at some arbitrary point (roughly corresponding to a human toddler) we have collectively decided to say that anything at or above that degree of consciousness is sentient.

At what point is a glass of water a full glass of water? If I use a dropper to remove three drops from that full glass is it no longer full? Of course it's still full, because three drops are insignificant for my practical purpose of getting a drink.

 

[moonbogg]

Dog cognition : Slug cognition :: OS : Transistor

See, that works because dogs are made of slugs. Or, maybe what I mean is that there are arbitrarily many different permutations of degrees of consciousness, and at some arbitrary point (roughly corresponding to a human toddler) we have collectively decided to say that anything at or above that degree of consciousness is sentient.

At what point is a glass of water a full glass of water? If I use a dropper to remove three drops from that full glass is it no longer full? Of course it's still full, because three drops are insignificant for my practical purpose of getting a drink.

The only indicator that anything is conscious other than yourself, is the behavior of other creatures, and that is an assumption that you must make, a position of faith or belief, if you do not wish to live alone in the universe.
If we assume that a creature is conscious when it behaves in a conscious way, then even primitive creatures are conscious. Humans have no monopoly. If any creature is able to feel even the slightest sense of pain, pleasure or to have any activity of any of it's senses, then it is conscious. Any sensation of even the dullest kind should be outright impossible based on current knowledge, the whole of humanity's collective acts of empiricism.

 

[Ruptga]

I don't see how sensation ought to be impossible. Sensation is just information passed from the environment through a sensor to whatever processing equipment is involved. In my car, that's gas in the tank, a fuel level sensor, and my "distance to empty" meter, respectively. In me, that's my stomach, nerves that detect stretching of the stomach, and my brain. Sensation is easy. Cognition is harder. Awareness is much harder still.

Still a lot of things do think, and some things are even aware. It's safe to say that smarter animals like dogs, squid, cats, a lot of apes, etc, are all aware to at least some degree. They solve problems, recognize themselves in mirrors, and can learn words; the smarter ones are a lot like a human toddler actually. I don't feel threatened by that, and frankly I tend to think anyone that does is a bit of an idiot. Humanity has known it's not the center of existence since at least Copernicus, get with the program.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Prove it to who?

OK Capt. Circular Logic...

 

[moonbogg]

I don't see how sensation ought to be impossible. Sensation is just information passed from the environment through a sensor to whatever processing equipment is involved. In my car, that's gas in the tank, a fuel level sensor, and my "distance to empty" meter, respectively. In me, that's my stomach, nerves that detect stretching of the stomach, and my brain. Sensation is easy. Cognition is harder. Awareness is much harder still.

Still a lot of things do think, and some things are even aware. It's safe to say that smarter animals like dogs, squid, cats, a lot of apes, etc, are all aware to at least some degree. They solve problems, recognize themselves in mirrors, and can learn words; the smarter ones are a lot like a human toddler actually. I don't feel threatened by that, and frankly I tend to think anyone that does is a bit of an idiot. Humanity has known it's not the center of existence since at least Copernicus, get with the program.

So it actually feels like something to be your fuel sensor? It has experience? You see the problem here? The human brain is made of matter just like a mechanical sensor. They both have input from the environment and process it in some way. So, if consciousness is information processing, then it should feel like something to be your fuel sensor.

 

[Ruptga]

You're conflating sensation and awareness. Consciousness is sensation, and processing, and the awareness to realize what all that means. A fuel gauge senses; a calculator senses and processes; and a smart mammal senses, processes, and is aware. I'm not sure where having feelings falls in all that, party because that depends on your definition of feelings, but I'd put it somewhere between processing and awareness. Getting a bad vibe or running away from a scary noise doesn't require awareness per se; it's an instinctual response.

 

[moonbogg]

You're conflating sensation and awareness. Consciousness is sensation, and processing, and the awareness to realize what all that means. A fuel gauge senses; a calculator senses and processes; and a smart mammal senses, processes, and is aware. I'm not sure where having feelings falls in all that, party because that depends on your definition of feelings, but I'd put it somewhere between processing and awareness. Getting a bad vibe or running away from a scary noise doesn't require awareness per se; it's an instinctual response.

I'm talking about any internal feeling, sensation or anything else that is felt which is private to the subject. It doesn't have to be thinking. Any degree of internal, private experience is ridiculous and absurd to explain under the umbrella of current knowledge.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

OK Capt. Circular Logic...

What circular logic? I asked a question that you failed to answer. Your failure is your failure, not mine.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Dog cognition : Slug cognition :: OS : Transistor

See, that works because dogs are made of slugs. Or, maybe what I mean is that there are arbitrarily many different permutations of degrees of consciousness, and at some arbitrary point (roughly corresponding to a human toddler) we have collectively decided to say that anything at or above that degree of consciousness is sentient.

Wtf are "degrees of consciousness"? Against what scale would such a thing be measured?

At what point is a glass of water a full glass of water? If I use a dropper to remove three drops from that full glass is it no longer full? Of course it's still full, because three drops are insignificant for my practical purpose of getting a drink.

My next door neighbor had three rabbits.

 

[ZaneNBK]

As if science not being able to explain something (yet) actually means anything beyond "we haven't figured it out yet".

 

[SphinxnihpS]

What circular logic? I asked a question that you failed to answer. Your failure is your failure, not mine.

If your questions was in earnest my only question is, can a finite universe contain so much fail?

 

[massmedia]

i thought this thread was titled "hey science" not "hey philosophy"

 

[IronWing]

i thought this thread was titled "hey science" not "hey philosophy"

Philosophy naturally takes over when the question is poorly framed.