Consciousness...

kelly1

Hello, long time no speak

Let me start by saying I'm not sure how exactly to formulate the question I'm trying to ask...

My question concerns how consciousness/sentience is a property of matter.

At what level is matter self-aware? Is it a proper of quarks, protons/neutrons and/or electrons?

A brain, in the materialistic view, is nothing more than a complex arrangement of molecules which in turn are composed of atoms, electrons, protons/neutrons etc. Is the brain essentially an organic computer? If so, who/what programs the computer?

How is choice possible? It's clear (to me) that we all have the ability to make choices. Computers can only act according to pre-programmed instructions. We humans are capable of making decisions in unforeseen situations. Why doesn't our brain "crash" in these situations?

Is it possible for matter to be self-aware?

Thoughts welcome.

Thanks,
Noel.

lostexpectation

function programs it,its construction programs it, reacting to its surroundings programs it and reprograms its, it doesn't start finished.

kelly1

lostexpectation wrote: »

function programs its,its construction programs it, reacting to its surroudnngs programs it and reprograms its, it doesn't start finished.

Can you please decipher that?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

At what level is matter self-aware? Is it a proper of quarks, protons/neutrons and/or electrons?

I don't believe that there are any neuroscientists who doubt that consciousness is an emergent property of billions of neurons reacting together simultaneously chemically and electrically. It's far too large to be related to quarkish things.

kelly1 wrote: »

Is the brain essentially an organic computer?

It appears so.

kelly1 wrote: »

If so, who/what programs the computer?

It's "programmed" by evolution, but the analogy is inappropriate, since there's no evidence that any external agency has had any input in its design. It appears to be an entirely natural phenomenon, cool and all as it is.

kelly1 wrote: »

Computers can only act according to pre-programmed instructions. We humans are capable of making decisions in unforeseen situations. Why doesn't our brain "crash" in these situations?

Because brains are computing devices which use massively parallel multilevel neural networks, not the (mostly) non-hierarchical sequential, procedural programming that you're thinking of, and that comprises what I suppose is 99.9% of the software development that one meets day to day. Neural networks don't "crash" in the sense that Windows crashes. They simply give the wrong answer, in the same way thta the brain comes up with bad answers quite often.

kelly1 wrote: »

Is it possible for matter to be self-aware?

We are made of matter, and we are self-aware, so your answer is a trivial "yes".

Bottle_of_Smoke

kelly1 wrote: »

How is choice possible? It's clear (to me) that we all have the ability to make choices. Computers can only act according to pre-programmed instructions. We humans are capable of making decisions in unforeseen situations. Why doesn't our brain "crash" in these situations?

Well there is catatonia, or post-traumatic stress. Not exactly the same thing but the human brain isn't a exactly the same thing as a Dell laptop.

Zillah

We don't know what the explanation for subjective conciousness is. Neither do you. "The soul" or "magic" is not an explanation.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

I don't believe that there are any neuroscientists who doubt that consciousness is an emergent property of billions of neurons reacting together simultaneously chemically and electrically. It's far too large to be related to quarkish things.

When it comes to science, belief doesn't mean a whole lot. How does complexity produce consciousness?

robindch wrote: »

We are made of matter, and we are self-aware, so your answer is a trivial "yes".

It doesn't follow that matter is self-aware just because we are self-aware. What property of matter makes it sentient? At what level of complexity does consciousness emerge? Isn't is reasonable to assume that all matter is either sentient or it isn't? Why does complexity matter?

AtomicHorror

The nature of the rational agent, the observer consciousness, that self aware watcher (that should not be needed for our survival), is an open question in science. There's a whole load of hypotheses, but no theories and no real answers.

If you feel like sticking God in this gap, I reckon it's a safe one for the foreseeable future.

kelly1

Zillah wrote: »

We don't know what the explanation for subjective conciousness is.

Do you think it's possible that matter could be self-aware or even aware of its self-awareness?

Zillah wrote: »

Neither do you.

True, I don't *know*. But it's a question well worth asking. I'm attempting to challenge the assumption that nothing exists except the material.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

True, I don't *know*. But it's a question well worth asking. I'm attempting to challenge the assumption that nothing exists except the material.

Until we can observe it, why assume it exists? That opens the door for assuming the truth of more or less anything. Come on, you know how we roll here.

kelly1

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Come on, you know how we roll here.

You mean with loaded dice (i.e. bias)?

Zillah

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you think it's possible that matter could be self-aware or even aware of its self-awareness?

I don't know, maybe? All we can observe is matter and energy, and we are self-aware, hence it would appear that matter and energy can be self aware.

True, I don't *know*. But it's a question well worth asking. I'm attempting to challenge the assumption that nothing exists except the material.

How can immaterial things be self-aware?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Also, can't imagine we're the only animals who aren't self aware.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

You mean with loaded dice (i.e. bias)?

Yes. Failing to assume that something exists on the basis of non-testable authority (ie because you say so) is biased. If I didn't hate the eye-rollie emote so much I'd stick one here.

AtomicHorror

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Also, can't imagine we're the only animals who aren't self aware.

But ultimately we are unable to test whether other humans, let alone animals, are self-aware in the "observer" sense that we (or is it just I) are. For survival purposes, they technically need only appear to be so.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

How can immaterial things be self-aware?

My imaginary friend Bobo finds your comments hurtful.

dioltas

Typed a reply, and it got deleted, so annoying. Anyway...

I saw a documentary once that went through how life *may* have begun millions of years ago, and how intelligence could have evolves, can't remember what it was called though.

In my opinion the human brain is very like a computer, a very complex one though. It makes decisions, has storage, input / output etc.

kelly1 wrote: »

How is choice possible? It's clear (to me) that we all have the ability to make choices. Computers can only act according to pre-programmed instructions. We humans are capable of making decisions in unforeseen situations. Why doesn't our brain "crash" in these situations?

The human brain makes decisions based mainly on some basic pre-programmed instructions and past events (learning). You are unlikely to put your hand into a flame as you probably did so before and your brain learned that it hurt. Or maybe somebody told you it would hurt. In other words your brain makes a decision based on a past event.

Even a basic computer program can make decisions in this way. For example if you had a computer program that had to find a way out of a maze, if it took a wrong path it would turn around and try another path. It would continue this until it found an exit.
The pre-programmed instructions could be to:

1) go forward until you find a split in the path, Try one path
2) If path is a dead end, turn around and try another path
3) Don't try any paths twice
etc

The past event would be finding a dead end and knowing not to check that path again. The programmer would not have any knowledge of the maze. Therefore the program is making it's own decisions, though very basic ones.


The human brain is extremely complex, much more complex than a computer. But imho the way it works is comparable. If we were intelligent enough to make computers "intelligent" enough, then their decision making could be as good as ours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
Sci-Fi stuff you know!

And the human brain does crash sometimes. When people freeze with fear, fail to react under pressure etc. I don't think you can just look at the human brain either. You have to look at the whole system. I think we're just freaks of nature, and a result of evolution. Not much stranger than anything else in this universe if you ask me. Anyway, I'm off to bed. Sorry for the length of my waffle...

--amadeus--

Humans aren't the only animals who are self aware - using mirrors they have proved that chimps are also aware of a "self".

Bit of a subterfuge going on here - asking if matter is self aware is another straw man. It's a bit like saying Notre Dame cathedral cannot exist because pebbles don't have turrets. Matter is a building block and in that same way that a collection of shaped stones properly assembled becomes a cathedral so a collection of matter evolved over millennia assumes properties that the component parts alone couldn't have.

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

Computers can only act according to pre-programmed instructions. We humans are capable of making decisions in unforeseen situations. Why doesn't our brain "crash" in these situations?

Brains have been known to crash into skyscrapers as a result of faulty programming.

aidan24326

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Humans aren't the only animals who are self aware - using mirrors they have proved that chimps are also aware of a "self"

As are dolphins apparently.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

True, I don't *know*. But it's a question well worth asking. I'm attempting to challenge the assumption that nothing exists except the material.

No you aren't, you are trying to find a "gap" that your god can live in.

Because biologists don't understand how consciousness arises in the brain has got nothing to do with God, because God doesn't explain how consciousness arises in the brain either. Again, like so many of these god of the gaps discussions, it is just an excuse to stop asking the question.

If we are going to just start guessing as to how consciousness arises I've got quite a few guesses that don't involve the supernatural

pclancy

I don't think matter is self aware regardless of whether its in the format of a brain or a plank of timber. As said above its just building blocks to bigger things.

I'm slightly confused as I thought the origonal question was about consciousness. Us, chimps, dolphins and however many other lifeforms appear to be self aware, is that how you define consciousness?

I fear the need to find a creator for this organic computer is what this is about. I think we've just managed to get lucky and expand our conciousness above just exisiting like other animals.

F.A.

aidan24326 wrote: »

As are dolphins apparently.

Even magpies recognise themselves in a mirror as new studies have found.

seamus

This is more of a philosophical question than anything.

As others have said - how do you define "consciousness"? I would consider a vast array of other animals to be "self-aware", to be capable of making choices and decision based on past experiences and to be capable of using current events to predict future ones. I've witness animals, "discover" things, just like when a cat figures out that it can open a door by turning the handle. The cat doesn't know "why" it works, but that's no indicator of consciousness either - for thousands of years man didn't know "why" rubbing one stick against another produced heat, they just knew that it did.

So I don't think that we can marvel at ourselves and go, "why are we unique"? We are, but then every other animal has its uniqueness too. Other animals have superior hearing, or superior strength, or superior stamina to humans. Humans just happen to have superior intellect to other animals. It's just how we differ, it's not an indicator of us having been "chosen".

But as I say, it's a philosphical question. The zombie theory says that we can only prove to ourselves that we are conscious. I can't prove to you that I'm conscious and you can't prove to me that you're conscious. In other words, I could be the only conscious person the planet and everyone else is just a mindless zombie, acting in a defined way so as to give the illusion of the consciousness.

Other philosophies propose that we don't have any choice - that every single action by everyone has been predetermined since the big bang, that every single interaction between every single atom is inevitable. We have the illusion of making choices, but in reality we make choices based on the configuration of the chemicals in our brain and the configuration of the world in front of us, both of which were predetermined to happen for the last 11 (?) billion years.
Quantum theory somewhat destablises that philosophy, but it's still an interesting one.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

I don't believe that there are any neuroscientists who doubt that consciousness is an emergent property of billions of neurons reacting together simultaneously chemically and electrically.

When it comes to science, belief doesn't mean a whole lot.

Well, let me rephrase: "I know of no neuroscientists who doubt that consciousness is an emergent property of billions of neurons reacting together simultaneously chemically and electrically."

kelly1 wrote: »

How does complexity produce consciousness?

I didn't say that "complexity" (however you define that) produces consciousness. I said that consciousness is something that seems to happen when you connect billions of neurons together and let them communicate electrically and chemically. As AtomicHorror points out, nobody currently knows how this happens, but we do know that it happens, and a lot of people are doing a lot of work attempting to understand how it happens.

If you want to claim that our consciousness is animated by a Platonic "soul" or by "puppet strings" controlled by one deity or another then that's fine, but it's a claim that doesn't advance the argument, and doesn't increase our understanding of what's actually going on.

kelly1 wrote: »

What property of matter makes it sentient?

What does "sentient" mean? This isn't hair-splitting, but as with the last time that this topic came up, I don't believe that you have a clear and concise idea of the question you're asking.

.

Zombrex

It is the major problem with this type of discussion, it isn't a question of science not being able to explain how consciousness arises, it is a question of humans not being able to explain what consciousness actually is in the first place, let alone where it comes from.

And again "God did it" provides no increase in understanding what so ever. It is simply an excuse to stop.

Dave!

Wicknight wrote: »

No you aren't, you are trying to find a "gap" that your god can live in.

Because biologists don't understand how consciousness arises in the brain has got nothing to do with God, because God doesn't explain how consciousness arises in the brain either. Again, like so many of these god of the gaps discussions, it is just an excuse to stop asking the question.

If we are going to just start guessing as to how consciousness arises I've got quite a few guesses that don't involve the supernatural

I agree

I think it's a good discussion to have in general, but I find kelly1's OP so laden with disingenuity that I'm not arsed entering into a debate where there is someone positively salivating at the opportunity to shout "SO GOD DID IT THEN!" whenever we inevitably reach the point where we concede -- none of being neuroscientists (and also because neuroscience hasn't explained it yet anyway) -- that we don't have the answer.

At least Gareth was up front with his contempt for science

Zillah

Galvasean wrote: »

My imaginary friend Bobo finds your comments hurtful.

I'm sorry

Would you like us to reference Bobo in the Constitution? We could let you and your Bobo friends run most of our schools if you like?

Sounds crazy doesn't it?

lostexpectation

dolphins vs robots, vs monkeys fight

AtomicHorror

lostexpectation wrote: »

dolphins vs robots, vs monkeys fight

Put them up against the swarms of self aware magpies and crows. I know who I'm putting my money on in that fight.

leaba

Jeff Hawkins wrote a brilliant book entitled "On intelligence" where he discusses and theorises on how the brain works.

IF you are really interested in this area, I really recommend this book. He even discusses why human brains seem "better" than other animals. He theorises that more neo-cortex equals better pattern recognition.