Explain consciousness to the layman.

[keyfeatures]

Then all you have to do is agree that yes, there's nothing thermodynamically different or unusual about life and you're in the clear. I have no wish to assign views to anyone that they don't hold, but the idea that life is in contradiction with the laws of thermodynamics is a popular fallacy and it needs to be made clear that nobody is suggesting it.

Life is not in contradiction to the law of thermodynamics. I never said it was.

It is unique in being able to regulate rather than be regulated by thermodynamics at a systems level. You can sit in a hot bath of water (within reason) without heating your insides. No other (non manmade) system does this afaik...unless you count the universe itself. But that's cheating a bit.

 

[keyfeatures]

An ice cube in a glass of water.

And then after the ice cube has melted and the room gets hotter, what does the system 'ice cube in a glass of water' use to maintain constant temperature?

 

[westprog]

And then after the ice cube has melted and the room gets hotter, what does the system 'ice cube in a glass of water' use to maintain constant temperature?

In common with all such systems, it operates within a certain range of conditions. Within those conditions, it will operate indefinitely.

 

[westprog]

Life is not in contradiction to the law of thermodynamics. I never said it was.

It is unique in being able to regulate rather than be regulated by thermodynamics at a systems level. You can sit in a hot bath of water (within reason) without heating your insides. No other (non manmade) system does this afaik...unless you count the universe itself. But that's cheating a bit.

I don't think it's that unique. A lot of systems regulate their temperature by various physical reactions. The difference is that life is apparently purposeful, that's all - unlike, say, the weather. How you can quantify the purposeful nature of life is another matter.

 

[rocketdodger]

The thermodynamic uniqueness of life is a popular argument used by creationists. It's a fallacy. No, there's no way to define "life" or "thermodynamics" to get around that one. Life operates under entirely normal thermodynamic processes that can be seen in many other physical processes.

If you want to argue this for argument's sake, feel free.

Nobody said it was unique. Try reading the thread now and then.

The claim is that it is the best at what it does.

If you want to argue against this for argument's sake, feel free.

( but we know you won't )

 

[rocketdodger]

I thought you were comparing the survival advantage of life to non-life?

I am.

My issue with your responses is that your responses deal with unrelated comparisions.

If I say life has lasted longer than any other comparable system, and you point out that a crystal floating in space might have lasted longer, then so what? Try comparing to crystals on the surface of the Earth.

If I say life has lasted longer than any comparable system, and you point out that an atom might have lasted longer, then so what? Try comparing to a system containing multiple atoms.

The fact is, life is the only system we know of that perpetually maintains itself outside a local energy minima I.E. maintains a given level of potential energy despite environmental pressures to the contrary.

You even said it yourself -- what other system exhibits anything remotely similar to homeostasis?

The survival advantage of life is they can avoid falling off ledges etc (unless they are yeast) and replicate (via dna).

And maintain an internal environment, and repair itself, and move to locate nutrients or fuel, and build computers to help figure out how itself works.

Among other things.

Any other systems do all that?

 

[rocketdodger]

btw there's a much better card to play regarding why life is different to non life. I'll give you a clue. Thermodynamics.

I thought that is what I was talking about...

When I say "maintains a state outside a local energy minima" that means "maintains a state away from thermodynamic equilibrium," or something like that.

 

[keyfeatures]

Try comparing to a system containing multiple atoms.

Like a planet or a solar system, for example?

I agree that life does things that non-life doesn't. Life also does a lot of the same things non-life does, and relies on non-life to exist. Where I disagree considerably is with your assumption that the difference confers a survival advantage. So far, (as far as we know) life is the newest addition in the scheme of things, and the most reliant on the balance of conditions available on a single planet in a lonely galaxy. That makes it actually very fragile and vulnerable. It may well be that life evolved elsewhere in the universe and wasn't able to survive as a result of such vulnerability.

Perhaps this fragile 'life' is able to evolve into a more sustainable, intergalactic, multidimensional thingumy that in no way mimics the condition-reliant cellular systems that it first found form in. Or perhaps it will prove able to manipulate matter to such an extent that it can create the environmental conditions to sustain it indefinitely. But that's highly speculative. In the meantime, life (afawk) is a fragile speck of cosmic dust.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm beginning to grow suspicious of people that refer to themselves as "layman" and demand things be brought down to their level. It's a concept with no real problems in theory, after all there's nothing wrong with admitting that some things out of our area of expertise, but seems to always carry ulterior motives in practice.

 

[rocketdodger]

Where I disagree considerably is with your assumption that the difference confers a survival advantage.

That's because you are categorically ignoring what I mean by "survival" and just interpreting my statements in terms of your own meaning of "survival."

I have said it dozens of times in this thread, what I mean by survival is the ability to remain in a configuration that satisfies a number of constraints, the most important of which is exhibiting a behavior that increases the likelihood of a similar configuration existing in the future.

Case in point -- a cell remains a living cell. That means it keeps a cell membrane intact, it keeps a certain pH and chemical makeup in its interior, etc, and it does all of this by metabolizing chemicals that come from either external sources or its own conversion of solar energy into chemical energy.

If at any point any of those complex chains of events breaks down, the cell ceases to be a living cell, and there is no return to that configuration. The system is now in a totally different configuration for the rest of time.

The reason a living cell is unique is because the "living" configuration increases the likelihood that the future configuration will also be the "living" configuration. It is a little system bootstrapping its own statistical chance of continuing on like it is. And the behavior exhibited by the cell, and groups of cells, is based on that concept. Cells react to changes by trying to stay the same.

A rock sitting there doing nothing admittedly can last a very long time in the same shape and form and composition. However, on the surface of the Earth, that doesn't happen. Wind and water erode rocks. Atmospheric chemicals react with rocks. Lava buries them and ice cracks them. The result is that rocks on the surface of the Earth do not last very long in any similar configuration. They turn to dirt, or become rocks with a totally different composition, or break apart into smaller rocks, or whatever. Rocks do NOT react to changes by trying to stay the same.

That is what I mean by "survivability." If you want "survivability" to mean something else then we can come up with a different word here, or you can just accept the meaning I am using when you evaluate my arguments. I prefer the latter since it seems the most obviously cordial and fair.

So far, (as far as we know) life is the newest addition in the scheme of things, and the most reliant on the balance of conditions available on a single planet in a lonely galaxy. That makes it actually very fragile and vulnerable. It may well be that life evolved elsewhere in the universe and wasn't able to survive as a result of such vulnerability.

But this is irrelevant -- on the surface of the Earth, life lasts longer than anything else. It doesn't matter that life doesn't last long in the vacuum of space or on the surface of the sun, in particular because life isn't located there.

 

[rocketdodger]

Or perhaps it will prove able to manipulate matter to such an extent that it can create the environmental conditions to sustain it indefinitely. But that's highly speculative.

Err, it might have been highly speculative 200 years ago. It hasn't been since we learned to build submarines that can stay submerged for months on end. It hasn't been since we learned to build space stations that can keep us alive in orbit for over a year at a time. It hasn't been since we actually traveled to the Moon and stayed there for a couple of days.

Lets be clear about this -- the only reason we don't currently have settlements on the Moon, Mars, and other places incredibly hostile to "life" is simply a matter of priorities. Our species would rather put resources into fighting each other and/or developing more advanced smartphones.

If there is any "speculation" about life's ability to spread across the entire universe, it is really speculation about the ability of the intelligent species to decide that such an undertaking is important. That is "part" of the evolution of life, I admit, but it is different than a question of whether such an undertaking is "possible" to begin with.

It isn't hard for a rational person to imagine the survival capabilities of a species that can develop something like the latest iPhone. I don't think it is very "speculative" to say that life can be expected to outlast everything, including the stars and planets.

 

[Belz...]

That's because you are categorically ignoring what I mean by "survival" and just interpreting my statements in terms of your own meaning of "survival."

I have said it dozens of times in this thread, what I mean by survival is the ability to remain in a configuration that satisfies a number of constraints, the most important of which is exhibiting a behavior that increases the likelihood of a similar configuration existing in the future.

Case in point -- a cell remains a living cell. That means it keeps a cell membrane intact, it keeps a certain pH and chemical makeup in its interior, etc, and it does all of this by metabolizing chemicals that come from either external sources or its own conversion of solar energy into chemical energy.

If at any point any of those complex chains of events breaks down, the cell ceases to be a living cell, and there is no return to that configuration. The system is now in a totally different configuration for the rest of time.

The reason a living cell is unique is because the "living" configuration increases the likelihood that the future configuration will also be the "living" configuration. It is a little system bootstrapping its own statistical chance of continuing on like it is. And the behavior exhibited by the cell, and groups of cells, is based on that concept. Cells react to changes by trying to stay the same.

A rock sitting there doing nothing admittedly can last a very long time in the same shape and form and composition. However, on the surface of the Earth, that doesn't happen. Wind and water erode rocks. Atmospheric chemicals react with rocks. Lava buries them and ice cracks them. The result is that rocks on the surface of the Earth do not last very long in any similar configuration. They turn to dirt, or become rocks with a totally different composition, or break apart into smaller rocks, or whatever. Rocks do NOT react to changes by trying to stay the same.

That is what I mean by "survivability." If you want "survivability" to mean something else then we can come up with a different word here, or you can just accept the meaning I am using when you evaluate my arguments. I prefer the latter since it seems the most obviously cordial and fair.




But this is irrelevant -- on the surface of the Earth, life lasts longer than anything else. It doesn't matter that life doesn't last long in the vacuum of space or on the surface of the sun, in particular because life isn't located there.

In short, life fights entropy.

 

[westprog]

In short, life fights entropy.

If you like, but life - like everything else - increases entropy. Local decreasing of entropy is achieved by an increase elsewhere. This is certainly a characteristic of life, but it's not a unique characteristic. Other systems behave in the same way.

 

[rocketdodger]

If you like, but life - like everything else - increases entropy. Local decreasing of entropy is achieved by an increase elsewhere. This is certainly a characteristic of life, but it's not a unique characteristic. Other systems behave in the same way.

Talk about a shady, misleading post.

The claim isn't that life is unique because it decreases local entropy. That is your own strawman.

The claim is that life is unique because it consistently reacts to increases in entropy with decreases in local entropy.

Any other systems behave like that, westprog?

 

[Leumas]

Talk about a shady, misleading post.

The claim isn't that life is unique because it decreases local entropy. That is your own strawman.

The claim is that life is unique because it consistently reacts to increases in entropy with decreases in local entropy.

Any other systems behave like that, westprog?

Yes.... my airconditioner comes to mind.

 

[Leumas]

Hey Mr. Layman,

If you’ve had enough nonsensical armchair speculations from other laymen along with vitriolic hubristic defense of these conjectures by citing scifi fanfic... if you're fed up with laughing at adamantly unwavering “monumentally simplistic” “operational definitions” that are “of no practical value”... if you are aghast by assertions that tornados can be created by connecting big fans to a computer and that the characters in the Sims video game are conscious entities if only you could redefine reality to suit.... if you are perplexed by all the wishful thinking and aspirations of some laymen for becoming Deos Ex Machinas.... then I suggest you watch this video to see the facts of where we stand in regards to the possibility of Pinocchio becoming a reality.

 

[Belz...]

If you like, but life - like everything else - increases entropy.

Irrelevant.

 

[rocketdodger]

Yes.... my airconditioner comes to mind.

Lol, that made me laugh.

I guess you missed the part where I said "natural," eh?

Because air conditioners are made by a certain living species ...

 

[rocketdodger]

While reading through http://www.aisb.org.uk/publications/proceedings/aisb05/7_MachConsc_Final.pdf it occurs to me that the presentations at this conference mirror the personality types on this thread ( and consciousness threads in general ).

There are some presentations with concrete logic being used, where they actually took the trouble to write software and hook it up to some robot, and demonstrate some aspect of their argument or theory.

There are other presentations made by people with less of a background in computing, that rely on more abstract logic, but nevertheless because they took the time to formally present an argument it comes off as still having some value to the reader.

And finally there is a single presentation that is written by some philosophy professor that essentially repeats the same old tired "Hard Problem of Consciousness" objections to machine consciousness, despite the fact that other presenters in the very same conference do a good job explaining exactly how the HPC isn't an obstacle to machine consciousness. Needless to say, this presentation was utter garbage compared to all the rest. Any formal logical arguments? Nope. Any hard data? Nope. Any references to relevant research less than 10 years old ? Nope. Anything that a person could actually learn something from? Nope.

 

[westprog]

Yes.... my airconditioner comes to mind.

The use of negative entropy, or "free energy" is a characteristic of life, but it's not a unique characteristic. Other systems do the same thing - both artificial systems like the air conditioner (or indeed, any "energy-using" device), and naturally occurring systems. The unique characteristics of life are more subtle that the way life uses negative entropy.