Explain consciousness to the layman.

[westprog]

Systems we usually define as "living", however, seem to have ways of replicating those self-sustaining systemic conditions.

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.

 

[westprog]

Well now I'm convinced you don't read. I didn't say you DON'T, I said you DID. Right HERE:



And then in your next post here you say this:



Boggles the mind.

I'm prepared to be persuaded. I'm not prepared to be accused of lying because somebody can't be bothered to read to the end of a post. There are reasonable limits.

 

[rocketdodger]

The difference between the self-sustaining weather system and the self-sustaining living creature is not obvious. It certainly doesn't seem to be a thermodynamic difference.

Only if one is blind.

If one simply opens their eyes, it becomes quite apparent, for example, that a self-sustaining weather system doesn't avoid going over land that would starve it of energy.

It's extremely common for systems to settle into thermodynamic stability of some kind. The way that life does it is extremely similar to the way other systems do it.

No, it isn't. And no, it isn't.

I know you want to try really hard to convince people that the only way life is special is because of God, but it isn't working. There are unique scientific characteristics of life, and sticking your head in the sand doesn't change that.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

I am not sure many physicists would agree with any statement that has the phrase "it's nothing to do with thermodynamics, though" in it.

In particular, because I doubt that there is anything that has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

 

[keyfeatures]

There are unique scientific characteristics of life, and sticking your head in the sand doesn't change that.

With taxonomies and divisions however it's always worth considering who observed the divide in the first place.

 

[Leumas]

But your views are incoherent. They have no merits.

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

 

[tsig]

Sorry, no. I reached the point of no return a while back, and I have no intention of changing my mind.

I prefer to put forward my own views and let them stand or fall on their own merits.

You want to preach to us then?

 

[tsig]

Sorry, no. I reached the point of no return a while back, and I have no intention of changing my mind.

I prefer to put forward my own views and let them stand or fall on their own merits.

Of course I don't admit it. Nor do you, or Tsig, or Leumas, or Piggy, or anybody else on this thread. Some of those people might be incredibly open-minded, and some not, but everybody's open-minded in his own head. There's very little point in proclaiming it, and opportunities for demonstrating it are limited.

Well not everyone.

 

[tsig]

The arrow of time and the glass jar are relative phenomena in the system of this universe. Unfortunately we know little beyond it and the way it appears to operate.

Or the existence of life in it, or if for life to exist in it something else is required.

So little knowledge, so many posts.

 

[annnnoid]

Tsig
a carbon based life form
join date: Nov. 2005
Posts: 19,763

N i n e t e e n...T h o u s a n d...S e v e n...H u n d r e d...S i x t y...T h r e e

So little knowledge, so many posts.

 

[dlorde]

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

You keep explicitly quoting this, but who actually said it other than you?

Link please.

 

[Leumas]

You keep explicitly quoting this, but who actually said it other than you?

Link please.

Sorry.... I misquoted.... it is "not a practical definition"

It isn't my position that there are currently conscious computers (I take Pixy's definition as a basic requirement for consciousness, not a practical definition of it). However, the speculation is based on reality. Brains are real, consciousness is real, computers are real, software is real.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

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.

Replication might not have anything to do with thermodynamics when looking at living systems in isolation from each other, as discrete entities. However, we can also look at them as a recurrent process. (Both are still anthropomorphic ways of course – but we don’t get around that anyhow.) We could then perhaps consider replication to be a way of preserving a self-sustaining systemic condition over time? Thus, there would still be an underlying thermodynamic aspect involved in the definition when looking at the process as one single chain of events.

“Living” self-sustaining systems seem to be quite different from self-sustaining weather systems in this regard. Not only do they have a self-sustaining systemic condition; the systemic conditions are configured in such a way as to have, or what perhaps could be described as: a mechanism for carrying over the systemic blue-print into new instances of the same process. The instances are different (ever new), but the process remains the same. Mitosis being a rudimentary example here. “Life” seems to have a self-sustaining “beat” to it, whereas self-sustaining weather systems just level off into other configurations.

 

[dlorde]

Sorry.... I misquoted.... it is "not a practical definition"

Put in context, "a basic requirement for consciousness" is very different from "of no practical value". A carelessness that tells its own story.

 

[Leumas]

Put in context, "a basic requirement for consciousness" is very different from "of no practical value".

You can play all the underhanded backpedaling games you want.

The fact remains that you said that it is a "not practical definition" (and I agree) and a non-practical definition is of no practical value. It may have some other value but not a PRACTICAL one since it is "not a practical definition".


Besides it is also "monumentally simplistic" according to Rocketdodger (and I agree).... so are you saying that a "monumentally simplistic" and "not practical definition" has a practical value because it is "a basic requirement" (according to you but not at all established)?

A basic requirement for all life on earth is Carbon....but yet it is not a practical definition to say that Carbon makes things alive and it would be an assertion that is monumentally simplistic and of no practical value.

You can back peddle and play disingenuous games with your statement as you wish.

But it remains to be a "monumentally simplistic" and "not practical definition" which therefore makes it of no practical value.... by honest and realistic standards that is.

It is your prerogative of course to argue that a "monumentally simplistic" and "not practical definition" has any PRACTICAL value..... but that would be

A carelessness disingenuousness that tells its own story.

 

[dlorde]

You can play all the underhanded backpedaling games you want.

Just correcting your misquote.

The fact remains that a "not practical definition" has no practical value. It may have some other value but not a PRACTICAL one since it is "not a practical definition".

The explicit context was this discussion and general discussion of consciousness. It is my opinion that it is only practical as a definition in considerations of the simplest forms of consciousness, which are typically outside the range of what most people mean by consciousness, and this discussion. As far as this discussion is concerned, I think it is reasonable to say it is a basic requirement.

I have no problem with you expressing your own opinions about Pixy's definition, that's the nature of discussion. My objection is simply to being misquoted and taken out of context in support of opinions I don't agree with.

 

[Leumas]

Just correcting your misquote.

The explicit context was this discussion and general discussion of consciousness. It is my opinion that it is only practical as a definition in considerations of the simplest forms of consciousness, which are typically outside the range of what most people mean by consciousness, and this discussion. As far as this discussion is concerned, I think it is reasonable to say it is a basic requirement.

I have no problem with you expressing your own opinions about Pixy's definition, that's the nature of discussion. My objection is simply to being misquoted and taken out of context in support of opinions I don't agree with.

So just to be clear..... You think that a "monumentally simplistic" and "not practical definition" has a practical value?

Do you think a person who says that because Carbon is a "basic requirement" for life then it must be the cause of life is making an assertion of a practical value?

 

[Brainache]

You can play all the underhanded backpedaling games you want.

The fact remains that you said that it is a "not practical definition" (and I agree) and a non-practical definition is of no practical value. It may have some other value but not a PRACTICAL one since it is "not a practical definition".


Besides it is also "monumentally simplistic" according to Rocketdodger (and I agree).... so are you saying that a "monumentally simplistic" and "not practical definition" has a practical value because it is "a basic requirement" (according to you but not at all established)?

A basic requirement for all life on earth is Carbon....but yet it is not a practical definition to say that Carbon makes things alive and it would be an assertion that is monumentally simplistic and of no practical value.

You can back peddle and play disingenuous games with your statement as you wish.

But it remains to be a "monumentally simplistic" and "not practical definition" which therefore makes it of no practical value.... by honest and realistic standards that is.

It is your prerogative of course to argue that a "monumentally simplistic" and "not practical definition" has any PRACTICAL value..... but that would be

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.

 

[Leumas]

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.

But dlorde said that it is a "not practical definition"..... so go argue with him.... I do agree with him however.

Also.... carbon is the basic element of living matter.... does that make carbon the reason for life?

Consciousness is much more akin to life in its complexity than to a compass.

So when you use simplistic analogies you are not helping your argument at all.

Constructing a compass from a magnet is not like making a living being from carbon. Making a living being out of carbon would involve extra complexity and steps akin to what it would take to make consciousness from a self referential thing.

Cockroaches are self referential....yet they are not conscious..... on the other hand a free floating magnet IS a compass even if no one constructed it at all to be one.

So can you see how SIMPLISTIC analogies are just as useless as the SRIP stuff in the first place.

I actually think that this might be the problem with all this..... MONUMENTALLY SIMPLISTIC thinking.

 

[dlorde]

So just to be clear..... You think that a "monumentally simplistic" and "not practical definition" has a practical value?

To be clear: I think that the definition in question is only practical as a definition in considerations of the simplest forms of consciousness, which are typically outside the range of what most people mean by consciousness, and this discussion. As far as this discussion is concerned, I think it is reasonable to say it is a basic requirement.

Do you think a person who says that because Carbon is a "basic requirement" for life then it must be the cause of life is making an assertion of a practical value?

If you provide a link to the relevant post where that was mentioned, I'll let you know what I think of it in context.