Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 19, 2024, 1:17 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?
#21
Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intell...
(May 13, 2014 at 10:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:
(May 13, 2014 at 8:45 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Mind/consciousness/self-awareness (or whatever appropriate term you want to use here) is a product of brains...Everything else is baseless conjecture.
The idea that the brain produces the mind is baseless conjecture.

The idea that something beyond the brain produces the mind is baseless conjecture.

People have spent a long time denying "lower animals" experience and display consciousness, feel pleasure, pain, suffering, anxiety, and discomfort, and yet philosophical ideals of dominion have been sufficient to override such simple observational evidence, and edify the human mind to a "special" status, entertain ideas of the soul, and a consciousness far greater than the consciousness other animals express, but cannot fully convey due to translation issues.

There's absolutely no innate reason the family dog's obsession with tasty edibles should not be comparable with our own whims and desires.

And yet there is little to no effort to defend the soul of Dogs, or the non-biological origins of an Octopus' thoughts retrieving a tasty morsel from a mason jar.

Why?

There's nothing innately special about the human capacity for thought other than our ability to edify it in culture, and tell ourselves it is a unique ability, when it demonstrably is not.
Reply
#22
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 13, 2014 at 8:29 pm)Chas Wrote: No, that doesn't make sense. The evidence points to consciousness being an emergent property of a complex assemblage of matter, not the matter itself.

What evidence? How do you test your hypothesis that consciousness is an emergnet property?

The fact is that emergent materialism is piece of metaphysics, not science ... So, you seem to have a double standard.

In any case, you have the burden of proof to tell us how is emergent materialism testable? So go ahead, if you know something that I don't.

I do not claim that human consciousness is not the product of brain. Surely it seems to be. The question is: what is it in the brain that is responsible for this miracle? You claim it's some emergent information processing. Ok, that's a hypothesis, but how do you test it?

I claim that it's more plausible that consciousness is connected to some quantum phenomena in the brain, most likely in the microtubules.

Quote:Again, no - that does not follow. You assume far too much on no evidence.

Look, we cannot speak here of proofs and proper scientific evidenve, for the question is open; my only claim is this: that matter is consciouss all the way down MAKES SENSE, that is to say, it is perfectly reasonable as hypothesis, not something to be debunked as some pooh pooh or whatever "para" stuff.

And that soemthing makes sense does not make it true. In science people talk about hypotheses' that could be true, right? And with consciousness we are in ANY CASE in the situation that we are dealing with speculative metaphysics, not testable science. Testable yet.

Many worlds interpretation of QM makes perfect sense, so does bohmian dynamics. But both cannot be true. Lamarcism made perfect sense when Lamarc postulated the idea; when no evidence was found it was assumed that the hypothesis was false, and it began to make less sense, though never did it become non-sense; and now, with new evidence from epigenetics, things have again truned around: a sort of lamarcism seems to be part of evolutionary process just as Darwin himself assumed. And so on.


Quote:And if you believe matter is conscious, how can you disbelieve strong AI?

I do not actively disbelieve in strong AI, I only think that it is intellectually less seductive than the idea of "quantum mind". The idea of universe as computer seems implausible to me. And my intuition can be wrong.


Quote:No, that is not science as it is not testable.

Actually the hypothesis of Penrose and Hamerhoff is the first scientific theory of consciousness that so far has made some testable predictions and they have turned out to be true. The evidence is not conclusive, far from it, but in science things progress often slowly.
You can try to read their article:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...4513001188

Quote:Yes, you are making a claim for which you have no evidence.

I was not making any claim for which I have no evidence. Only you are, if you claim that emergent materialism is a fact, not just a hypothesis, which has other alternatives, such as the theory of quantum mind.
And the idea of some "supermind" does not follow from quantum mind. Quantum mind is scientific theory, theory of "supermind is" piece of speculative metaphysics. I only maintain that neither such notion of "cosmic intelligent" is no nonsense. Scientific idea -- that it ain't.

In any case, you confuse notions of testability scientificity and reasonability.
Testability is the strongest notion: not all science can be testable, for science has to make some assumptions that are non-testable and at its limits it must include speculative elements. And not all non-science is unreasonable nor "pseudo- science" (unless it prtends to be science), for scope of current scientific knowledge never grasps everything, and one can make reasonabel non-scientific speculations about what is left6 outside (e.g. is universe infinite, are there alternative universes, etc). Such ideas can later insipire science, as it has frequently happened. The question of "supermind" belongs to this last subclass. It ain't science, I never said that.
Reply
#23
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 13, 2014 at 10:28 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Maybe it's unfair of me to say this since I don't know the full contextm but I don't think Hawking knows what he's talking about there. With the way he presents his argument in your quote, you might as well say that ideas and beliefs are life. After all, they cannot exist without a host, they (especially deeply held ones) get their hosts to spread them to others,

Are Viruses Alive?

Quote:"Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell".

"Viruses exist in two distinct states. When not in contact with a host cell, the virus remains entirely dormant. During this time there are no internal biological activities occurring within the virus, and in essence the virus is no more than a static organic particle. In this simple, clearly non-living state viruses are referred to as 'virions'. Virions can remain in this dormant state for extended periods of time, waiting patiently to come into contact with the appropriate host. When the virion comes into contact with the appropriate host, it becomes active and is then referred to as a virus. It now displays properties typified by living organisms, such as reacting to its environment and directing its efforts toward self-replication".

On to computer viruses.

Computer viruses 'could cross frontier into biological realm'

Quote:Computer hackers could create malicious software that crosses the line from technology to biology, crafting viruses that could spread dangerous epidemics, researchers said at Black Hat Europe.

"We are really on the border between the living and the not living," said Guillaume Lovet, senior manager of Fortinet's Threat Research and Response Center, during a keynote speech discussing the similarities between biological and computer viruses. Fortinet was the main sponsor of the Black Hat Europe security conference in Amsterdam last week.

The comparison between computer and human viruses was made to give security researchers a better understanding of why the human immune system is so much better in battling viruses then antivirus systems.

"We came to wonder if there can be some kind of convergence between human viruses and computer viruses," Lovet added. "It may sound like a scenario for a bad Hollywood movie, but it is not such a stupid question."

One of the main things that led Fortinet researchers to that conclusion is the similarity between computer and human viruses. In essence they behave the same way, including information coding for parasitic behavior inside a host system.

Pure speculation and maybe people working in this field get paranoid.

There are umpteen articles on the internet pointing out similarities between how computer viruses and biological viruses work. Maybe computer viruses are the nearest we've got to creating life so far.
Badger Badger Badger Badger Where are the snake and mushroom smilies?
Reply
#24
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 14, 2014 at 1:03 am)whateverist Wrote:
(May 13, 2014 at 10:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The idea that the brain produces the mind is baseless conjecture.

.. as compared with what alternative theory?

The question is here also this: what you mean by "mind"?

I think it's obvious that mind is everywhere, at least in biological world (probably also the physical), even if consciousness is not. Why? Mind IS information, or "active information", information processing.
So clearly brain does not produce the mind, but is only one instance of it, a very complex instance of mind.

And consciousness. One should not confuse correlation with causation. But let us assume brain produces the consciousness. Now, what is it in the brain that does this? That's the real question.

If the answer is (1) it takes quantum phenomena, then it seems plausible that consciousness could be everywhere.

If the answer is (2) it is the complex information processing, the idea of universal mind makes still sense (digital physics) but perhaps less so than in the case (1).

If the answer is (3) that consciousness is an emergent property of some sort or another, then the idea of universal mind obviously is false.

(there are also other options and one can accept 3 with both 1 or 2)


Now, from scientific point of view this is the only real fact: we have no conclusive evidence to either direction to settle the issue. And thus the only genuinely scientific attitude is to be agnostic over it. But still, you can have your preference. There are good philosophical arguments against (3), but not against (1) or (2), but I guess these arguments do not account as scientific evidence. So, from scientific viewpoint all alternatives are rather baseless. But I think there are purely speculative reasons to think that (1) is the most appealing alternative of the three.
Reply
#25
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?
You people and your quantum phenomena in the brain... -.-'
Neurons work based on ion exchanges...
It takes lots of ion exchanges just to get one nervous impulse from one edge of a neuron to the other. And when we need to take into account "lots" of particles, suddenly, quantum phenomena approximate to classical phenomena and you loose all that quantum mumbo jumbo randomness.

I think consciousness (or mentality) should be an emergent property of the brain's neurons working together. Surely not all on the same task. But a bunch of them are dedicated to our own identity and its separation from the rest of the world.

How to test this scientifically?
Build a model... our current best bet would be Artificial Intelligence... let it run and see if it behaves a bit like us.
Thus far, the model is far from containing all the neurons we do have, so it's far from perfect... but it's getting there.
If the model presents an accurate picture of reality, it is assumed that reality works sort of like the model. Science works like that.
Reply
#26
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 14, 2014 at 8:39 am)pocaracas Wrote: You people and your quantum phenomena in the brain... -.-'
Neurons work based on ion exchanges...

Everyone knows that . ^_^
The idea in "quantum-brain" phenomena is based on very intricate knowledge of neuro-anatomy ... its a scientific theory, not some "it seems to me"-type speculation.

The idea is that consciousness is not just neuronal, but that in order for the brain to be conscious, sub-neuronal quantum-processes on the cytoskeletal level have to take place in the microtubulars of the neurons. Until very recently it was refuted and for this reason the theory was not accepted as valid hypothesis by most scientists, that quantum-superpositions should not appear at such level, except in at 0 K. But this has has now been shown to be not the case.
Reply
#27
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 13, 2014 at 10:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The idea that the brain produces the mind is baseless conjecture.

Quote:The idea that MY brain produces MY mind is baseless conjecture.

There you go, fixed that for ya Devil
Why Won't God Heal Amputees ? 

Oči moje na ormaru stoje i gledaju kako sarma kipi  Tongue
Reply
#28
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 14, 2014 at 9:14 am)Hegel Wrote:
(May 14, 2014 at 8:39 am)pocaracas Wrote: You people and your quantum phenomena in the brain... -.-'
Neurons work based on ion exchanges...

Everyone knows that . ^_^
The idea in "quantum-brain" phenomena is based on very intricate knowledge of neuro-anatomy ... its a scientific theory, not some "it seems to me"-type speculation.

The idea is that consciousness is not just neuronal, but that in order for the brain to be conscious, sub-neuronal quantum-processes on the cytoskeletal level have to take place in the microtubulars of the neurons. Until very recently it was refuted and for this reason the theory was not accepted as valid hypothesis by most scientists, that quantum-superpositions should not appear at such level, except in at 0 K. But this has has now been shown to be not the case.

So the first layer of complexity brought forth by the sheer number of neurons is added upon by another layer of complexity with "quantum-processes on the cytoskeletal level have to take place in the microtubulars of the neurons."
Why the added baggage? Shouldn't the first layer be enough to bring about consciousness?
Aren't current developments in AI showing just how this is so?
Reply
#29
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 14, 2014 at 10:08 am)pocaracas Wrote: Why the added baggage? Shouldn't the first layer be enough to bring about consciousness?

Consciousness, yes, human mind, nope. Consciousness as simple awareness is not quite enough to make human system function. As I understand the idea, you can compare neuronal level to the computer you use, as "extended mind". you know the idea: when we get more and more used to computers and other technoogical products, they become extensions of our brain; you don't use your memory, you google, etc.
But why assume this more fundamental level? Penrose thinks computation is not enough to account for human intelligence. But there are also other reasons that, I think, have more to do with the problems of interpreting QM in general.

Quote:Aren't current developments in AI showing just how this is so?

I don't think AI is really showing anything here. Simple question: at what level of complexity should the consciousness appear in AI? There are no reasonable answers to this. And the idea that a Chess playing program (which is practically just like packman, just with more computations) would be consciouis is much more crazy than the idea that some rudimentary awareness is present ate quantum level. Quantum mind theories usually assume that all matter has "proto-consciouss" aspect, some rudimentary awareness that cannot be reduced to computation. Thus, it is a hypothesis that really answers to the question of "level" which AI does not answer: it goes all the way down.

I know the idea is kind of counter intuitive and of course there is no proof for it, but, I mean, think how crazy idea heliocentrism, relativity and evolution were at first.
Reply
#30
RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
(May 14, 2014 at 10:55 am)Hegel Wrote:
(May 14, 2014 at 10:08 am)pocaracas Wrote: Why the added baggage? Shouldn't the first layer be enough to bring about consciousness?

Consciousness, yes, human mind, nope. Consciousness as simple awareness is not quite enough to make human system function. As I understand the idea, you can compare neuronal level to the computer you use, as "extended mind". you know the idea: when we get more and more used to computers and other technoogical products, they become extensions of our brain; you don't use your memory, you google, etc.
But why assume this more fundamental level? Penrose thinks computation is not enough to account for human intelligence. But there are also other reasons that, I think, have more to do with the problems of interpreting QM in general.

Well, I think the neural level is enough. Each time I think that I once created an Artificial Neural Network (fully software based) that, with only some 50 neurons, could perform tomography, I wonder what could be achieved with millions of neurons that are always tweaking their own pathways.


(May 14, 2014 at 10:55 am)Hegel Wrote:
Quote:Aren't current developments in AI showing just how this is so?

I don't think AI is really showing anything here. Simple question: at what level of complexity should the consciousness appear in AI? There are no reasonable answers to this. And the idea that a Chess playing program (which is practically just like packman, just with more computations) would be consciouis is much more crazy than the idea that some rudimentary awareness is present ate quantum level. Quantum mind theories usually assume that all matter has "proto-consciouss" aspect, some rudimentary awareness that cannot be reduced to computation. Thus, it is a hypothesis that really answers to the question of "level" which AI does not answer: it goes all the way down.

I know the idea is kind of counter intuitive and of course there is no proof for it, but, I mean, think how crazy idea heliocentrism, relativity and evolution were at first.

To me, it seems unnecessary, and the testing of that hypothesis will be far more difficult than the "simple" neural activity.
"proto-consciousness" on all matter? really? I can't wait to see this published!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Good read on consciousness Apollo 41 2395 January 12, 2021 at 4:04 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Machine Intelligence and Human Ethics BrianSoddingBoru4 24 1802 May 28, 2019 at 1:23 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  are aesthetics universal? zainab 15 1216 March 2, 2019 at 7:24 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  How could we trust our consciousness ?! zainab 45 4452 December 30, 2018 at 9:08 am
Last Post: polymath257
  dynamic morality vs static morality or universal morality Mystic 18 3474 May 3, 2018 at 10:28 am
Last Post: LastPoet
  The Universal Moral Code BlindedWantsToSee 57 7190 November 2, 2017 at 6:29 pm
Last Post: BlindedWantsToSee
  Consciousness Trilemma Neo-Scholastic 208 54010 June 7, 2017 at 5:28 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Trying to simplify my Consciousness hypothesis Won2blv 83 13307 February 21, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  My thoughts on the Hard problem of consciousness Won2blv 36 5438 February 15, 2017 at 7:27 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  A hypothesis about consciousness Won2blv 12 3884 February 12, 2017 at 9:31 pm
Last Post: Won2blv



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)