On naturalism and consciousness

[The Grand Nudger]

So to answer the question: "What causes mind to exist rather than not," how can you separate any given complex physical system as a meaningful processor (and therefore having a mind)

I think a meaningful processor could occur at a much lower lvl than "mind" could occur. I'd call plants "meaningful processors" but not "mind".

and any other system as not?

Observation. A combination of effect and architecture.

It seems to me that all particles in the universe are necessarily brought into relation with each other, and that any randomly-selected set of particles, no matter where they are, could be seen as outputting "meaningful" results.

Not as gates, no. Nor as computation. Almost everything could be made into a gate, sure - that doesn't mean that almost everything -is- a gate. Computation is possible wherever logic is possible, that doesn't mean that computation is -occurring- wherever logic is possible.

[Surgenator]

Entropy destroys the detail intricacies. So on large scales like a galaxy, you only have to worry about gravity and not how many supernova's went off.

I think there's an exception-- mind.

There is no exception that i'm aware of; it's a second law of thermodynamics effect. There are systems where the dominate force is the flow of "signals", electronics is a great example.

Along Rhythm's lines, you could see a mind as a kind of transistor of unlimited power.

Let me stop you right there. The production of unlimited power (power=Energy/time) would mean unlimited energy source. Conservation of energy is a core law of science. You need some really impressive observations to say energy is no longer conserved.

A single mind could, based on just a little information, decide to push a big red button and destroy a planet. Or that same information could be that last drop in the bathtub that draws a "Eureka!" and changes the mental functioning of billions of beings through the spread of a new idea.

A system that changes drastically is either chaotic or metastable. If it's chaotic, it will not produce the similiar effects for similiar inputs. If it's metastable (as your big red button example), it is not robust by definition.

[bennyboy]

Along Rhythm's lines, you could see a mind as a kind of transistor of unlimited power.

Let me stop you right there. The production of unlimited power (power=Energy/time) would mean unlimited energy source. Conservation of energy is a core law of science. You need some really impressive observations to say energy is no longer conserved.

Okay fair enough.

When I say unlimited, I don't mean infinite. I mean that a small amount of data can serve as a trigger for all the technology at a mind's disposal, for example "A single mind could, based on just a little information, decide to push a big red button and destroy a planet. Or that same information could be that last drop in the bathtub that draws a 'Eureka!' and changes the mental functioning of billions of beings through the spread of a new idea."

That's a pretty major effect for a few photons, and at least figuratively I think you could see those photons as the input of a "transistor of destiny" (echoes ominously), or as a very very long-range gate.

[Surgenator]

When I say unlimited, I don't mean infinite. I mean that a small amount of data can serve as a trigger for all the technology at a mind's disposal, for example "A single mind could, based on just a little information, decide to push a big red button and destroy a planet. Or that same information could be that last drop in the bathtub that draws a 'Eureka!' and changes the mental functioning of billions of beings through the spread of a new idea."

That's a pretty major effect for a few photons, and at least figuratively I think you could see those photons as the input of a "transistor of destiny" (echoes ominously), or as a very very long-range gate.

Your not including all the work required to have such a scenario. You would need to build the bombs, place them all over the world, and connect them to a red button before anyone can press anything. The setup is the hard part, the button pressing is just the exciting bit. So you need a hell of a lot of photons, electrons, etc... just to get to your example.

[bennyboy]

When I say unlimited, I don't mean infinite. I mean that a small amount of data can serve as a trigger for all the technology at a mind's disposal, for example "A single mind could, based on just a little information, decide to push a big red button and destroy a planet. Or that same information could be that last drop in the bathtub that draws a 'Eureka!' and changes the mental functioning of billions of beings through the spread of a new idea."

That's a pretty major effect for a few photons, and at least figuratively I think you could see those photons as the input of a "transistor of destiny" (echoes ominously), or as a very very long-range gate.

Your not including all the work required to have such a scenario. You would need to build the bombs, place them all over the world, and connect them to a red button before anyone can press anything. The setup is the hard part, the button pressing is just the exciting bit. So you need a hell of a lot of photons, electrons, etc... just to get to your example.

Maybe. But it's still a big gate mechanism.

[Surgenator]

Maybe. But it's still a big gate mechanism.

And only a one time use.

[bennyboy]

Maybe. But it's still a big gate mechanism.

And only a one time use.

Yes, that's right. But I want to know if according to Rhythm, that one-time, action-at-lightyears gate mechanism can be said to be minimally conscious.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, I wouldn't say so. It's got to be capable of more than just one action one time. I'm looking for a computer, recall? Consciousness to me seems to be advanced computation, computation of the sort you're describing would be far to primitive. Like holding up a ruler next to a modern supercomputer and asking me if I thought they were similar. I'd be willing to say that such a system could provide minimal computation (but honestly, I have doubts as to whether or not it even crosses into -that- territory.

I don't think that minimal computation and consciousness are interchangeable. We see minimal computation all over the place - it doesn't seem to be associated with mind. I'm sure, btw, that I could find ways that they are - but I'd taking artistic liberties.

[bennyboy]

Here's a point to consider-- the brain never reaches the exact same state twice, either. It is in a case of constant flux-- the movement of blood, chemicals, neurotransmitters, etc, the cycle of a neuron firing and the time it takes to "recharge" before it can be stimulated again, etc. I have serious doubts that if you could feed the exact same input into a person (something that's impossible, but let's imagine), that the exact same neurons would fire.

This is an important way in which a brain is different than a computer. A computer, given the same inputs, CAN activate the exact same circuits, in the exact same way (on the macro level at least).

[pocaracas]

Here's a point to consider-- the brain never reaches the exact same state twice, either. It is in a case of constant flux-- the movement of blood, chemicals, neurotransmitters, etc, the cycle of a neuron firing and the time it takes to "recharge" before it can be stimulated again, etc. I have serious doubts that if you could feed the exact same input into a person (something that's impossible, but let's imagine), that the exact same neurons would fire.

This is an important way in which a brain is different than a computer. A computer, given the same inputs, CAN activate the exact same circuits, in the exact same way (on the macro level at least).

Yes, the brain is a system with a number of feedback mechanisms built in.
You can actually design an ANN with such a feedback mechanism, so that, if you leave it running and present the same problem on different cycles, it will yield different results. If you reset the ANN, you'll go back to square one and you'll get the same series of results.... but resetting a brain isn't really an option, is it?