What is it that gives people a consciousness?

Post Reply New Topic

I think you underestimate our creativity, good sir.

Last edited by lau on 02 Oct 2008, 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Is it a matter of mere creativity?

You ask a lot of questions that you know the answer to.

Not necessarily.

I don't know.... I think that there's some things that human brain-power alone isn't capable of achieving. I'm sure that there's is a lot of undiscovered technology out there, technology that would make our jaws drop, but we shouldn't get too excited and only assume that this stuff will be invented. Back in the earlier part of the last century, people thought that in the future we'd be able to warp from place to place, that there'd be flying cars, etc. Has any of that happened though? Nope. A lot of people in the world of science have great imaginations, but a lot of their imaginations are unfortunately a little bit unrealistic. I think that their postulations about future technology and discoveries are mainly unrealistic because scientists like to impress people.

If we were to be able to build man-made machines which had superior intellect to their 'creators', this probably wouldn't be for hundreds of years.

Humans are curious.... They want to discover and new things. Some astronomers think that we'll eventually travel to other solar systems, and some think that we'll discover life on other planets, but will we really? I hate to say it, but I highly doubt it. It's kind of depressing, but you just have to live with it.

That's an invalid comparison though, because, generally speaking, experts did not hold these opinions.

Conversely, no one saw manned space flight coming so quickly, or, to stay at least tangent to the subject, the consistent exponential increase in power of computing technology over the past several decades.



Um ... LOL?



Now, as much as I disagree with other posters in this thread about the nature of consciousness, I harbor very little doubt that computers will functionally exceed our own abilities, at least in terms of problem solving, proof writing, hypothesis testing, strictly formal verbal expression, etc. (anything that is not art), within this century. And there are plenty of experts who would agree. Every decade that claim becomes more plausible. It would have been ridiculed ten years ago.

maybe we have strayed off the topic...

maybe some things cannot be computed or understood and that conciousness could be more than the sum of its parts.

this reductionist approach, explainign everything from an understanding of its component parts just wont work.

so we have reached and agreed on emergence. so perfect knowledge of physics , maths , science and engineering at one level is insufficient for understanding or ( as we are trying to do ) explain emergence.

you can have sufficiently complex systems that have inexplicable reactions, despite observing them with unlimited computing power and these systems can be described, in part anyway as formally undecidable.

so the models we use to stimulate...say physical systems may have properties that cannnot be linked to the behaviour of their parts.

so we have a debate here amongst mathematicians, engineers, students and worst of all....AS "geeks" ( yes me too)
and the argument deviates, and dips into light personal attacks and onto the tpoic.

the description of consciosness and emergence may just operate at many levels, some we can describe and understand but others we cannot, so the nature of emergence and consciousness may operate at many levels and we are able to describe the lower levels and it may just be necesaary to accept that there are other levels we cant understand.....yet.

some resu;ts may not be derived from first principles.

then the astute will bring in a new concept and word : faith.
and a whole other debate will emerge.

some quotes from new scientist p. 12 4 oct 2008.

Agreed - they will likely achieve all these things within this century with the input of man's intelligence. No argument. Computers are intellligent machines.

But ... I don't believe they will achieve independent conscious thought.

I think you haven't properly understood "emergence". Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon - it IS the sum of its parts - it is just not a word that applies directly to the individual parts, which is what everyone tries to argue it has to be.

I'm not sure which way you mean this. I'll take it that you agree with what I said above. Searching for understanding of "consciousness" by looking only at the individual components is trying to understand "forest" by looking at one "plant cell".

Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You juxtapose "perfect knowledge" with the phrase "at one level". Is that not just a contradiction? We seem to be quite capable of understanding emergence as a principle in many fields. I see no reason why we should not achieve understanding of consciousness.

Why "inexplicable"? Toss a coin, and it happens to come down heads - this can certainly be argued to be "explicable" as "undecidable" with current physics.

I think I disagree with this. I'd rephrase it as ".. that are inconvenient to link to ...".

I agree with the "yet".

All results are derived from first principles - unless you with to discard mathematics in its entirety.

I suppose I equate the word "faith" with concepts of "self-delusion" and "laziness". I don't associate it with "astute".

Ah. Maybe that explains some of your contradictions. (And I so like it, when you can quote from one day into the future. )

[my emphasis] - why not?

I can only assume that people feel somehow threatened by the idea that we are not the pinnacle of evolution. Closing one's mind to a possibility does not necessarily make it go away.

Once I achieve consciousness, I am more than the sum of my parts.

this reductionist approach, explainign everything from an understanding of its component parts just wont work.

I'm not sure which way you mean this. I'll take it that you agree with what I said above. Searching for understanding of "consciousness" by looking only at the individual components is trying to understand "forest" by looking at one "plant cell".


yes this analogy is excellent.

Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You juxtapose "perfect knowledge" with the phrase "at one level". Is that not just a contradiction? We seem to be quite capable of understanding emergence as a principle in many fields. I see no reason why we should not achieve understanding of consciousness.

ok, to use the analogy that you introduced......perfect knowledge of plant cell biology, cannot explain the complexities of a forest. im sorry if it looks like a contradiction.


donkey wrote:
you can have sufficiently complex systems that have inexplicable reactions, despite observing them with unlimited computing power and these systems can be described, in part anyway as formally undecidable..
Why "inexplicable"? Toss a coin, and it happens to come down heads - this can certainly be argued to be "explicable" as "undecidable" with current physics.


ok to stick to plant cell analogy. you can know everything we know about a plant cell. and you can use a computer to
explain what will happens when this plant cell interacts with another and the computer model will predict accurately all the interactions between 2 plant cells.....and 3 and 4 and so on.
eventually you will have the plant cells turning into a tree. and eventually that tree is going to reproduce and the computer predicts all of this, based on what we know about plant cell biology. and in time the tree becomes a forest and the computer program becomes unable to explain the emergence of animals and new plants, birds, fires flood and shade. erosion, earthquake. the plant cells were their own little system have coalesced into a tree and become sufficiently comlex within themselves and other systems that an inexplicable phenomenon has occured that cannot be described by knowledge of plant cells only.


donkey wrote:
so the models we use to stimulate...say physical systems may have properties that cannnot be linked to the behaviour of their parts.
I think I disagree with this. I'd rephrase it as ".. that are inconvenient to link to

yes this is a good point.


donkey wrote:
some resu;ts may not be derived from first principles.
All results are derived from first principles - unless you with to discard mathematics in its entirety.


i dont want to disregard mathematics and i dont want to debate the importance of mathematics with a mathematician.

but to use the plant/forest analogy........1st principles or reliance on the reductionist approach ( explainign that everythuing can be derived from 1st principles) just cannot explain the "emergence" of a forest from kniwledge of plant cells.

most mathematical models apply to infinite systems. where a forest or a human is a large but finite system.

donkey wrote:
then the astute will bring in a new concept and word : faith.
and a whole other debate will emerge.
I suppose I equate the word "faith" with concepts of "self-delusion" and "laziness". I don't associate it with "astute".

ok that is another debate for other people who care more than i, or you do.


donkey wrote:
some quotes from new scientist p. 12 4 oct 2008.
Ah. Maybe that explains some of your contradictions. (And I so like it, when you can quote from one day into the future. )

while i live in your time zone, i am australian and it was the 4th of october in Australia when i wrote it.

perhaps i should just say ..yeah you picked up that one. quite astute.....quite astute....

Ah... but that, I maintain, is exactly what it does explain. The point I make is that discussions about the emergent behaviour need to stay at that level. There is no useful way to apply them at the cellular level.

It's the same as the emergence behaviours of water. Why would you want to discuss the concept of "wetness" directly in terms of the inherent properties of electrons, protons and neutrons? It's not that it's impossible - it's just incredibly cumbersome, and not particularly useful - other than as an exercise.

(And no... even if you are in Australia, your post was no later than 6:30pm, I suspect, and it was still in the 3rd.! )

ok so your a reductionist.....everything can be explained by 1st principles.

keep discussions and observations at a level that we can understand and quantify.

this is a safe root grounded in scientific and mathermatical appreciation.

but reductionists, while acknowledging the existence of emergence, cannot explain it through a reductionist approach.

reducstionists can probably explain where emergence will occur and when and at what level of complexity in any system it does occur.

the emergent hypothesis can be applied to any system, as you have pointed out, a forest, a consciousness, at a sufficnet level of complexity.

but why?

Sorry? I don't see the question you are asking?

Why...
• ... should we explain the concept of emergence as something that can happen? Answer: because it is helpful to see the way it arises.
• ... does emergence happen? No answer. No need for an answer.
• ... should we recognise emergent properties as things to discuss. Answer: because it is useful.
• ... should we recognise consciousness as an emergent property. Answer: because it gets away from the obfuscated way it has been discussed in the past.

im sorry for the confusion the why question referef to why does it, emergence, happen?

no answer...no need for an answer?

while i embrace reductionism......it isnt enough.

i need an answer.

your happy to sit and explain yourself as a complex machine you acknowledge you have a consciousness and accept this.

but dont you want to know why?

i guess th thread was "what is it that gives people a consciousness" and i think you have successfully established that. thank you for this.