Explain consciousness to the layman.

[dlorde]

"Self referential information processing" is intrinsic to consciousness, in the same way that "a magnet" is intrinsic to a compass. It may not define the entire process, but that doesn't mean it isn't practical.

Yes. It's practical in defining the basis of consciousness, but not practical for the discussing the kinds of, or levels of, consciousness we've been dealing with most of the thread.

 

[keyfeatures]

That's true, but that's not a thermodynamic consideration. Replication is obviously a key element of life. It's nothing to do with thermodynamics, though.

All data has mass. Mass is energy. In order to delete data, mass is given off as heat energy. In order to copy data, energy is required. Replication is the copying of data.

Weather systems don't copy themselves.

 

[westprog]

All data has mass. Mass is energy. In order to delete data, mass is given off as heat energy. In order to copy data, energy is required. Replication is the copying of data.

Weather systems don't copy themselves.

I think you'll find that they do. Weather systems repeat themselves, and they do so using the same sources of free energy as living things.

 

[westprog]

Well, we can define a compass as "a magnet", but that would not be a practical definition for someone who wanted to make a compass. It does have practical value though, because suspending "a magnet" in a particular way will make a compass. "A magnet" is an intrinsic part of a compass.

"Self referential information processing" is intrinsic to consciousness, in the same way that "a magnet" is intrinsic to a compass. It may not define the entire process, but that doesn't mean it isn't practical.

This is at the heart of the problem with this issue. We know, to a fair degree of exactitude, what a magnet is, or what a compass is. Defining one in terms of the other is a meaningful thing to do.

When somebody states "consciousness is self-referential information processing" without indicating what consciousness is, or what "self" means, or what "self-referential" or "information" or "information processing" - and no, none of these terms have been defined in a satisfactory objective way - clearly we aren't dealing with a similar kind of practical definition.

 

[keyfeatures]

I think you'll find that they do. Weather systems repeat themselves, and they do so using the same sources of free energy as living things.

No. Weather systems repeat. They don't repeat themselves.

 

[westprog]

No. Weather systems repeat. They don't repeat themselves.

The repetition is part of the system. The way that weather repeats is obviously different to the way that life repeats, but the repetition is there.

 

[rocketdodger]

This is at the heart of the problem with this issue. We know, to a fair degree of exactitude, what a magnet is, or what a compass is. Defining one in terms of the other is a meaningful thing to do.

When somebody states "consciousness is self-referential information processing" without indicating what consciousness is, or what "self" means, or what "self-referential" or "information" or "information processing" - and no, none of these terms have been defined in a satisfactory objective way - clearly we aren't dealing with a similar kind of practical definition.

That might be a valid argument, were it not for the fact that in reality all material exhibits some degree of magnetism and what we call "magnets" are merely those whose magnetism is above some agreed upon threshold that can produce an easily observable magnetic field.

"Self referential information processing" is a similarly agreed upon objective notion among those that know what they are talking about. Just like "magnets."

For you to say "no it isn't" is akin to a layperson arguing with a physicist regarding why a chuck of lodestone is considered a magnet when a piece of plastic is not.

 

[tsig]

The repetition is part of the system. The way that weather repeats is obviously different to the way that life repeats, but the repetition is there.

When you find yourself arguing that storms are alive you might want to reexamine your premises.

 

[rocketdodger]

When you find yourself arguing that storms are alive you might want to reexamine your premises.

Not if that argument fits the premises exactly !

Premise: God exists, and what makes life special is what God has put into it.

Remember, the strategy here is to convince people that there is no scientific way to distinguish life from storms, thus there must be a God.

 

[keyfeatures]

The repetition is part of the system. The way that weather repeats is obviously different to the way that life repeats, but the repetition is there.

So in what way do you think it's obviously different then?

 

[westprog]

So in what way do you think it's obviously different then?

Well, one is weather, and the other is life, and we have no difficulty telling one from the other. However, specifying precisely what the difference is might well be tricky. The difference might be associated with replication of patterns, but since weather tends to replicate patterns, it has to be a bit more than that. It certainly isn't a thermodynamic difference, since there are no thermodynamic processes in life that don't apply to many other physical systems as well.

Claiming that life is acting with purpose and intent is not really helpful, because all this means is that certain outcomes happen when physical systems behave in certain ways. All systems tend towards stable patterns, because given a sufficiently chaotic system, a stable pattern will eventually arise, and then the system will stick with it. Clearly that applies to life, the weather, geography, human affairs, and so on.

 

[tsig]

Not if that argument fits the premises exactly !

Premise: God exists, and what makes life special is what God has put into it.

Remember, the strategy here is to convince people that there is no scientific way to distinguish life from storms, thus there must be a God.

Yes.

Human consciousness must forever remain a mystery so you have a gap for god to hide in.

 

[rocketdodger]

Well, one is weather, and the other is life, and we have no difficulty telling one from the other. However, specifying precisely what the difference is might well be tricky. The difference might be associated with replication of patterns, but since weather tends to replicate patterns, it has to be a bit more than that. It certainly isn't a thermodynamic difference, since there are no thermodynamic processes in life that don't apply to many other physical systems as well.

Then the only difference must be some spiritual non-scientific essence that life exhibits, and our ability to recognize it must stem from being creations of God and not robots ?

Makes sense to me !

 

[AlBell]

Yes.

Human consciousness must forever remain a mystery so you have a gap for god to hide in.

No.

I think the problem is that 'consciousness', 'intelligence', 'smartness' are too ill-defined; SRIP may be necessary, but is not obviously sufficient.

 

[westprog]

No.

I think the problem is that 'consciousness', 'intelligence', 'smartness' are too ill-defined; SRIP may be necessary, but is not obviously sufficient.

It may well be that some people have an agenda when discussing these matters. However, one way to betray your own agenda is to dismiss someone's arguments because they lead to an unpalatable conclusion - especially when they haven't drawn such a conclusion themselves.

I'm reasonably sure that Piggy and Leumas aren't trying to introduce God by the back door. Even if they were, though, that wouldn't make their arguments invalid. And even if it's possible to produce philosophical conclusions that somebody might not like from a given set of arguments, that doesn't render said arguments invalid either.

Sometimes this thread is like a tour through various types of reasoning errors.

 

[tsig]

It may well be that some people have an agenda when discussing these matters. However, one way to betray your own agenda is to dismiss someone's arguments because they lead to an unpalatable conclusion - especially when they haven't drawn such a conclusion themselves.

I'm reasonably sure that Piggy and Leumas aren't trying to introduce God by the back door. Even if they were, though, that wouldn't make their arguments invalid. And even if it's possible to produce philosophical conclusions that somebody might not like from a given set of arguments, that doesn't render said arguments invalid either.

Sometimes this thread is like a tour through various types of reasoning errors.

I dismiss arguments that start with the conclusion and form fit the facts to it.

 

[PixyMisa]

But yours are "monumentally simplistic" and have "no practical value" and that is according to people who bend over backwards to humor you.

The very people you are "quoting" appear to disagree.

 

[annnnoid]

I dismiss arguments that start with the conclusion and form fit the facts to it.

I typically dismiss arguments that don't make any sense what-so-ever.

So little knowledge, so many posts.

19,799….and counting

 

[keyfeatures]

Well, one is weather, and the other is life, and we have no difficulty telling one from the other. However, specifying precisely what the difference is might well be tricky. .

You say that, but weather was frequently assigned into the 'life' category by humans in the past. Many different cultures considered weather to have a 'mind' of its own that had to be appeased or humoured.

So how do we know that is not the case now? On what basis do you assert there is "obviously" a difference?

 

[Leumas]

You say that, but weather was frequently assigned into the 'life' category by humans in the past. Many different cultures considered weather to have a 'mind' of its own that had to be appeased or humoured.
So how do we know that is not the case now? On what basis do you assert there is "obviously" a difference?

Good point....much like the computationalists’ FAITH in the inevitability if not the actuality of the consciousness of their laptops and virtual reality characters inside their gaming consoles.

I guess there is nothing new under the sun or as Einstein said

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

So how do we know that is not the case now? On what basis do you assert there is "obviously" a difference?

Good question.... maybe we should remind the computationalists, who think that their iPhones are more intelligent than all humans, of this proclivity of humans to anthropomorphize everything and perhaps maybe they will start reflecting more about reality.

I used to wonder how can someone MAKE an idol out of wood or clay and then believe that it is more powerful than him….. after wading through this and another thread I am now quite amazed at how little things have changed when it comes to human absurdity.