Kevin's Watch

You think it's a feeling? I would think feeling is a bit too complex for the least possible irreducible activity. I would think there's a system or two between minimal irreducible and feeling. Is there any irreducible activity in a planaria? If so, what does the planaria feel?

Giving this a bit of thought lately and am coming round to an idea that evolution didn't produce consciousness at all. In fact I'm not sure that like energy, we have the slightest idea what consciousness is. We can define it in terms of what it does, it gives us self awareness etc, but in the final analysis those terms become increasingly circular, rolling back on themselves - just word describing words describing words, all nailed down by their own particular definitions. We are so tied into our own experience of the intelligence-consciousness-life connection that it becomes very difficult to think outside of the box that has them all tied up as an almost 'holy-trinity' of being - three sides of the same coin (yes, well ) as it were. We are slowing getting to the point of uncoupling intelligence-consciousness from life - our understanding of AI is helping with this - but are still only slowly grasping that there need similarly be no connection between intelligence and consciousness. There can be perfectly good intelligence with absolutely no consciousness and similarly consciousness without intelligence (I was going to say that our experience of some people shows this to be the case but that would be unkind! ). Lastly, I'm not sure that if you pick it apart the distinction we make between life and non-life even stacks up; there is nothing qualitatively different between myself sitting here and the pile of stuff that would result if I pulled myself apart atom by atom and placed each one in a barrel beside me: There would be no little spark of 'life' left behind. Life it seems to me is actually pretty illusory as a concept. Sure - it's a good working definition ....... but it's heuristic; it doesn't have to be right to be useful. So does life even - actually - exist?

Once you truly get about to uncoupling intelligence-consciousness-life in your head it seems to me that fruitful ideas can emerge. You can for example immediately discard any worries about death, for while you most certainly won't be coming back in any 'afterlife' (especially pertinent in the light that life as we define it probably doesn't even exist so in dying you have actually lost nothing) you may be equally sure that 'out there' exist a billion more equally unexpected and utterly amazing emergent expressions of 'being' in the life, intelligence, consciousness class that as yet you have no - could have no - concept of, but in time, you will.

What brilliantly intriguing points you have made in your post A rather interesting perspective

Glad you like it Sky. At least if nothing more, it's a starting point for considering that 'class of things' that seem to have no material presence, but nevertheless define the experience we take away from our three score and ten.

I believe it's overwhelmingly agreed upon that intelligence can exist without consciousness. Assuming AI computers and plants are not conscious. (Although that is not a certainty, and is discussed in the article I linked a few posts back.) It's also the subject of some pretty cool SciFi. Notably, imo, in Blindsight, by Peter Watts.

I don't know if there is a consensus on consciousness without intelligence, but I don't see how it's possible. I might suspect a minimum amount of intelligence is a requirement of consciousness, and, once there is consciousness, the two increase hand in hand.

peter wrote:Giving this a bit of thought lately and am coming round to an idea that evolution didn't produce consciousness at all. In fact I'm not sure that like energy, we have the slightest idea what consciousness is. We can define it in terms of what it does, it gives us self awareness etc, but in the final analysis those terms become increasingly circular, rolling back on themselves - just word describing words describing words, all nailed down by their own particular definitions. We are so tied into our own experience of the intelligence-consciousness-life connection that it becomes very difficult to think outside of the box that has them all tied up as an almost 'holy-trinity' of being - three sides of the same coin (yes, well ) as it were. We are slowing getting to the point of uncoupling intelligence-consciousness from life - our understanding of AI is helping with this - but are still only slowly grasping that there need similarly be no connection between intelligence and consciousness. There can be perfectly good intelligence with absolutely no consciousness and similarly consciousness without intelligence (I was going to say that our experience of some people shows this to be the case but that would be unkind! ). Lastly, I'm not sure that if you pick it apart the distinction we make between life and non-life even stacks up; there is nothing qualitatively different between myself sitting here and the pile of stuff that would result if I pulled myself apart atom by atom and placed each one in a barrel beside me: There would be no little spark of 'life' left behind. Life it seems to me is actually pretty illusory as a concept. Sure - it's a good working definition ....... but it's heuristic; it doesn't have to be right to be useful. So does life even - actually - exist?

Once you truly get about to uncoupling intelligence-consciousness-life in your head it seems to me that fruitful ideas can emerge. You can for example immediately discard any worries about death, for while you most certainly won't be coming back in any 'afterlife' (especially pertinent in the light that life as we define it probably doesn't even exist so in dying you have actually lost nothing) you may be equally sure that 'out there' exist a billion more equally unexpected and utterly amazing emergent expressions of 'being' in the life, intelligence, consciousness class that as yet you have no - could have no - concept of, but in time, you will.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. In dying, we've lost nothing? I can't agree with that. Seems that we've lost everything.

I do think that evolution produced consciousness, or at least developed a primordial proto-consciousness into something more. But I think that this evolution involved consciousness itself, shaping itself, looking forward. I don't think it happened randomly by processes entirely reducible to matter.

Fist, when I say "feeling" I mean what it's like to be conscious. It is a phenomenon. An experience. How could it not be? Even in its simplest form, it is both the experience of itself and its object.

If you want to look for things that are irreducible to matter and yet are not "feelings" or experiences, then look to the meaning inherent in matter. Logic, math, ideal relations, etc. . . . these are all real, objective things that aren't tied to matter.

Zarathustra wrote:I do think that evolution produced consciousness, or at least developed a primordial proto-consciousness into something more. But I think that this evolution involved consciousness itself, shaping itself, looking forward. I don't think it happened randomly by processes entirely reducible to matter.

And the processes need not be entirely reducible to matter. The irreducible consciousness now has at least a degree of control over the physical body, so we know such things are possible. But the specific nature of this consciousness you're suggesting, and how it directs the material in order to shape itself through evolution, are interesting topics.

Zarathustra wrote:If you want to look for things that are irreducible to matter and yet are not "feelings" or experiences, then look to the meaning inherent in matter. Logic, math, ideal relations, etc. . . . these are all real, objective things that aren't tied to matter.

But I'm looking for the point where matter becomes the vehicle, or whatever we should call it, for non-materially reducible activity. Something that develops/grows/expands, until we have human consciousness. Is the first instance of it actually a primitive form of consciousness? Is it something that does not resemble consciousness, but was "merely" irreducible?

I can't argue the truth or correctness of what I suggest above; I am suggesting however that in possessing and having a line on such extraordinary and excitingly unexpected phenomena ourselves, it is but a small step to postulating the 'existence' of a miriad of others beyond our ability to concieve (within the constraints imposed by the ones our experience are dependent on) and that as already part of 'Being', we might not be party to as well, either now or stretching into the infinite future.

I choose not to believe that the great adventure will come to an end; wishful thinking perhaps, but the ultimate expression of the optimism that we have, as a moral obligation imposed by the gift of our being, to hold onto.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Z wrote:If you want to look for things that are irreducible to matter and yet are not "feelings" or experiences, then look to the meaning inherent in matter. Logic, math, ideal relations, etc. . . . these are all real, objective things that aren't tied to matter.

But I'm looking for the point where matter becomes the vehicle, or whatever we should call it, for non-materially reducible activity. Something that develops/grows/expands, until we have human consciousness. Is the first instance of it actually a primitive form of consciousness? Is it something that does not resemble consciousness, but was "merely" irreducible?

I may be be obtuse, but not intentionally.

I'm not really sure how to answer--not surprisingly, because I'm not a scientist. But I think the answer might lie in the bare minimum amount of awareness of the world necessary to manifest in purposeful action. Nothing in the world of physics happens for a purpose (as we've discussed before), but life has purposes. It doesn't just react, it acts. And its acts are aimed at goals. I think in order for this bridge to be crossed, consciousness must make the difference. A goal isn't a goal until it is perceived as such.

I was watching Cosmos again (the new version), and Tyson was talking about the evolution of eyeballs. Apparently, it goes all the way back to single-celled organisms. They had a patch of light sensitive . . . um, "stuff" (lol) which allowed them to avoid the harsh ultraviolet light near the top of the ocean. But in order to do that, they had to swim down.

Nothing else in the universe acts like this. Not neutrinos nor photons nor any particle moves toward a goal or away from harm. They move strictly according to the laws of physics. There is no self-preservation inherent in their movements.

So clearly something different is happening here. Goals aren't reducible to matter. But are we really justified in saying that a bacteria (or whatever) is *conscious* of light just because they avoid it? Why isn't it like photosynthesis, which is also a reaction to light on the molecular level? Well, because an action isn't taken. Only a reaction, a chain reaction of molecular events. But why can't we say that those molecules are taking actions? They are moving, presumably. I think the difference lies in the fact that the molecules can't help but do what they are doing. But a single-celled organism is making a choice, of sorts. Prior to the light-sensitive patch, they swam randomly, both up and down. Nature could have favored the ones that always swam down, accidentally, so that this wouldn't really be a choice. But that apparently didn't come about until they could *sense* light. After that, there was a mechanism for natural selection to weed out the ones who didn't respond to that stimulus in a way that was self-preserving.

Even if this is purely "instinct," or even the molecular version of it, I think it is distinct from photosynthesis. The latter isn't sensing sunlight. The former is. The latter isn't an action by the organism as a whole, but more like digestion or some internal function on a chemical level.

I think you are being decieved here Z - the 'sensetivity' you describe is in effect no more so than that of photosynthesis; it's just simply molecules doing molecular stuff in the same way - except here being rendered in a way that fits into our 'box' that we label sensitive. The movement away or toward the light is just as much a reaction, albeit a visible one, as the knocking up of a molecule of glucose out of water and CO2 is. In fact in our deterministic world there can only ever be one pure action: that of the Prime Cause - from then on its turtles all the way down. Even 'thought inspired action' is really reaction at a distance.

I understand what you're saying, Z. And it seems it must be a step along the path to consciousness. But where does reducible activity that is sensing give way to irreducible?

I have/had a lot of shit to say on recent things...


But THIS, which isn't me, is dead on target/relevant/cool:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/neurosci ... -20190306/

That really is exciting!

I like this:

"Digital computers can simulate consciousness, but the simulation has no causal power and is not actually conscious," Koch said. It's like simulating gravity in a video game: You don't actually produce gravity that way.

This is puzzling:

During periods of unconsciousness, brain activity persisted only among regions with direct anatomical connections, whereas during conscious activity, complex long-distance interactions did not seem constrained by the brain's "wiring."

Who thought complex long-distance interactions in the brain were constrained?

Here's a bit of fun:

To him, Lau says, IIT and GWT are "so different that I don't know how to begin to compare them." In contrast, Tagliazucchi thinks it possible that the two are essentially the same theory, but "developed from third- and first-person viewpoints."

That's what I'm always saying about this whole topic. So little known. So little agreed upon. Some "experts" can't even agree if two leading theories are different beyond the ability to compare them, or really the same theory!

My favorite part:

Potgieter hopes that the adversarial approach will allow progress on other big questions - like understanding how consciousness arose in the first place, or how life itself did.

That's what I'm looking for! How did it begin? What is the least irreducible activity in any material entity?!

Yes this is exciting .. I read it in the Loreseraat and quoted the same first quote you did here. Quite a brilliant analogy to distinguish ... the replication of consciousness in AI.

I thought it fascinating that consciousness to develop much be attached to organic structure .. also identified in the Cambridge University... successful development of cerebral organoids.

And that makes dooo much sense given that organic structures possess sensors and relay sensory information or data back to the brain.

With sadness;
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/is-matter-conscious

Wow this is brilliant

Philosophers and neuroscientists often assume that consciousness is like software, whereas the brain is like hardware.

To my mind the above remains sound.

This problem is distinctively hard because its solution cannot be determined by means of experiment and observation alone. Through increasingly sophisticated experiments and advanced neuroimaging technology, neuroscience is giving us better and better maps of what kinds of conscious experiences depend on what kinds of physical brain states.

Neuroscience might also eventually be able to tell us what all of our conscious brain states have in common: for example, that they have high levels of integrated information (per Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory), that they broadcast a message in the brain (per Bernard Baars' Global Workspace Theory), or that they generate 40-hertz oscillations (per an early proposal by Francis Crick and Christof Koch).

But in all these theories, the hard problem remains. How and why does a system that integrates information, broadcasts a message, or oscillates at 40 hertz feel pain or delight? The appearance of consciousness from mere physical complexity seems equally mysterious no matter what precise form the complexity takes.

If consciousness arises from the right connections of physical matter, brain, nervous system etc .. then that is the answer to WHAT consciousness is and HOW in part, it comes about.

If consciousness is part of a genetically coded outcome, then all the matter, brain, physical body, nervous system, vital organs are intact .. sensory data receivers, skin, digestive system, eyes, olefactory sensors etc are all intact .. consciousness remains the genetic central data processing component.

Not just a receiver like skin sensors. And that data processor ... consciousness ... is a subjective necessity equivalent of any of our critical for survival organs.

No matter how precisely we could specify the mechanisms underlying, for example, the perception and recognition of tomatoes, we could still ask: Why is this process accompanied by the subjective experience of red, or any experience at all? Why couldn't we have just the physical process, but no consciousness?

That assumes that for autonomous survival there is no need for a driver. As a species we have evolved akin to all others. As individual beings. We have a brain, millions or billions of sensors collecting data and relaying it back to the brain. Our consciousness interprets that data .. or rather we interpret that data .. subjectively.. as is individual experience. Our brain, our physicality, our nervous system enables the receipt of data and its process comprises the physical infrastructure or architecture.. if you prefer ... but the consciousness reconciles it. The consciousness is I .. and I am in the driving seat.

I couldnt survive life if I had no way to navigate the physicality if existence. In order TO survive myself and my environment.. consciousness out of necessity has evolved.

Consciousness is no less a genetic imperative for survival than skin or eyes or lungs.

One might wonder how physical particles are, independently of what they do or how they relate to other things. What are physical things like in themselves, or intrinsically? Some have argued that there is nothing more to particles than their relations, but intuition rebels at this claim.

What is intuition as used in this assertion? And is this really an example comparable to the problem of hard matter?

I dont think so.

Might the hard problem of consciousness and the hard problem of matter be connected

Possibly

Id argue that this is a very interesting proposition that entirely flips the way we have traditionally though if the relationship between the brain and consciousness.

This suggests that consciousness-of some primitive and rudimentary form-is the hardware that the software described by physics runs on. The physical world can be conceived of as a structure of conscious experiences. Our own richly textured experiences implement the physical relations that make up our brains. Some simple, elementary forms of experiences implement the relations that make up fundamental particles.

How cool is it to think of CONSCIOUSNESS as the hardware and the brain et al as the software.

And a radical change it truly is. Philosophers and neuroscientists often assume that consciousness is like software, whereas the brain is like hardware. This suggestion turns this completely around. When we look at what physics tells us about the brain, we actually just find software-purely a set of relations-all the way down. And consciousness is in fact more like hardware, because of its distinctly qualitative, non-structural properties. For this reason, conscious experiences are just the kind of things that physical structure could be the structure of.

This approach is an fascinating answer to this issue

Given this solution to the hard problem of matter, the hard problem of consciousness all but dissolves.

There is no longer a question of how consciousness depends on matter, because it is matter that depends on consciousness-as relations depend on relata, structure depends on realizer, or software on hardware.

Intriguing

According to dual-aspect monism, the external world exists entirely independently of human consciousness. But it would not exist independently of any kind of consciousness, because all physical things are associated with some form of consciousness of their own, as their own intrinsic realizer, or hardware.

I have never considered this .. that consciousness is cumulative

In some ways, it is easier to see how to get one form of conscious matter (such as a conscious brain) from another form of conscious matter (such as a set of conscious particles) than how to get conscious matter from non-conscious matter.

The possibility that consciousness is the real concrete stuff of reality, the fundamental hardware that implements the software of our physical theories, is a radical idea. It completely inverts our ordinary picture of reality in a way that can be difficult to fully grasp. But it may solve two of the hardest problems in science and philosophy at once.

It does indeed but I find it an absolutely fascinating and compelling perspective AND proposal.

I dont see the reason for sadness or tears. This is brilliant imo.

Skyweir wrote:

Might the hard problem of consciousness and the hard problem of matter be connected

I have been saying this, in numerous places for numerous reason for fucking EVER.

But "connected" and "same" are different.

Most of the rest of it is interesting, but what they conclude neither explains nor is necessarily so.

Cuz in a twisted way, the reasons I don't like vodka and don't speak Russian are "connected," but they aren't the "same."

Consciousness is just like every other physical thing, only more so...
If ya got one grain of sand and you keep adding grains...for a long time your pile is just a difference in degree...but eventually, it becomes a difference in KIND, and that continues as you continue adding....degree for a million stacks, then a new KIND of thing...them more degrees, then a different KIND.

No pile of sand, no matter what size, no matter what KIND, will do anything that is not the indisputable result of the ways the particles interact. We may not be able to look at every grain in a mountain of sand, and calculate what and where every grain will be the next moment. But we can look at a small local group and predict what and where every grain will be the next moment, our accuracy increasing as the size of the group decreases. And we can compare any local group from one moment to the next, and see how one caused the other. All this, because the material interacts in consistent ways that can be studied and understood.

Consciousness, at least the examples we are aware of, is not reducible to those interactions. It would seem to be the material acting in ways other than those that we have been able to study and understand. Or identify, isolate, or even catch a glimpse of.

I like the proposition that consciousness is the hardware and our physicality the software.

Also find panpsychism very interesting especially in line with dual aspect monoism, but not monoism alone.