Has consciousness been fully explained?

[rocketdodger]

I suspect that whatever property allows single celled organisms to self-generate and self-sustain is either a physical requisite of consciousness, or a rudimentary level of consciousness.

Yes.

Its called computation.

 

[AkuManiMani]

A more logically valid conclusion is that thermodynamic properties similar to those exhibited by life are a necessary condition for a system's ability to support consciousness.

Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty sure it may be possible to produce synthetic life (and consciousness) of a different composition than naturally evolved organisms

 

[AkuManiMani]

I suspect that whatever property allows single celled organisms to self-generate and self-sustain is either a physical requisite of consciousness, or a rudimentary level of consciousness.

Yes.

Its called computation.

Computation is a general abstraction of what a given system is doing. The abstraction itself is not identical to what is physically occurring in the system.

 

[dlorde]

I actually addressed this in the portion of my post that you sniped out:

The self-organizing energy controlling properties that allow single celled organisms to exist and behave as they do are an extremely scaled down version of the same capacity that allows us to control the organization of our surrounding environments to produce artificial constructs [i.e. art and technology].

That doesn't explain why you think consciousness is dependent on 'self-organizing energy controlling properties' - even if you think "controlling the organization of our surrounding environments to produce artificial constructs" is the essence of consciousness (and I'm not suggesting you do). What makes consciousness require 'self-organizing energy controlling properties' ?

Like I've already emphasized in previous posts, organisms are self-sustaining systems.
...
Non-living systems, like our present day electronic devices, do not all exhibit these properties.
...
They are not dynamically self-generating or self-sustaining. Living systems are the only systems that exhibit this property, and conscious systems exhibit this property so such an extent that they extend their creative and organizational capacities beyond the confines of their biological structure to the surrounding environments.

So what? what has that to do with consciousness? As long as the entity in question has energy to run its processes for a reasonable time (e.g. months, years, or decades) why should it matter that it will eventually fail? As I said before, living things also fail and die.

In humans this capacity is expressed in our material culture.

So what? Are you saying it isn't consciousness unless it expresses some form of culture?

I suspect that whatever property allows single celled organisms to self-generate and self-sustain is either a physical requisite of consciousness, or a rudimentary level of consciousness.

You say you suspect metabolism is prerequisite for consciousness - but you still haven't explained why.

Are you saying you suspect life is necessary for consciousness? If so, why not just come right out and say it? And explain why you think that.

 

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by dlorde:
What is the essential connection you think you see between the thermodynamics of life and consciousness?

Computation.

However, many things besides life exhibit computation ...

Yes, exactly. So consciousness may be dependent on computation, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily dependent on the thermodynamics of life, as Aku appears to maintain.

 

[dlorde]

A more logically valid conclusion is that thermodynamic properties similar to those exhibited by life are a necessary condition for a system's ability to support consciousness.

Why properties 'similar to those exhibited by life'?
Why not simply properties 'that can support computation'?

 

[dlorde]

Computation is a general abstraction of what a given system is doing. The abstraction itself is not identical to what is physically occurring in the system.

That's pretty obvious... are you implying that computation is not sufficient?

 

[Orbini]

Computation is a general abstraction of what a given system is doing. The abstraction itself is not identical to what is physically occurring in the system.

As long as the outcome is the same, it doesn't matter how the computation is performed. You've said so yourself.

 

[rocketdodger]

Computation is a general abstraction of what a given system is doing. The abstraction itself is not identical to what is physically occurring in the system.

So what?

An abstraction is a reference to an archetype member of an equivalence class, which is itself just a collection of references that humans (or any intelligent entity) consider alike in some way.

And every reference has a referrent. Meaning, there are many things referred to by the class archetyped by the abstraction "computation." Just as there are many things referred to by the class archetyped by the abstraction "running" or "crystallization" or "growth" etc.

I wish people would stop getting stuck on the strawman that just because computation is an abstraction it is somehow less real than any other process. So is cooking. Cooking is an abstraction. Cooking is not identical to what physically occurs when you bake a cake. Cooking is just what we call it when things bake (among other things ).

 

[Orbini]

An abstraction is a reference to an archetype member of an equivalence class, which is itself just a collection of references that humans (or any intelligent entity) consider alike in some way.

For instance, the signals in your brain are an abstraction of the musical notes you listen to.

(Unless the brain is made from sound tubules)

 

[rocketdodger]

Why properties 'similar to those exhibited by life'?
Why not simply properties 'that can support computation'?

Well that is a further conclusion, yes -- but you need to do much more inference to get to it. Namely, you need to be able to infer that life is the result of computation.

 

[AlBell]

One thing we do actually seem to know is that computation is the result of life.

 

[rocketdodger]

of particular significance:

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/...-faces-never-familiar-to-famed-doctor/?hpt=C1

what would it be like to not recognize faces? I can't imagine. An experience forever alien to me, because subjectivity is subjective by definition.

 

[rocketdodger]

One thing we do actually seem to know is that computation is the result of life.

No, non-living things compute all the time. In particular, the sub-systems used by life.

Is an organelle alive? Not by any of the traditional formal definitions of life.

 

[westprog]

I wouldn't classify it as an hypothesis, but as an axiom.

In fact, just a definition.

 

[Orbini]

In fact, just a definition.

"axiom" sounds much more impressive.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

(Unless the brain is made from sound tubules)

Mine is. But I'm a washing machine.

 

[AlBell]

One thing we do actually seem to know is that computation is the result of life.

No, non-living things compute all the time. In particular, the sub-systems used by life.

Is an organelle alive? Not by any of the traditional formal definitions of life.

Yet, when life isn't involved, why do you think computation is underway? Is Na combining with Cl a computation? Or an electron changing energy state?

And I really enjoy the final throwaways "sub-systems used by life" and "formal definitions of life".

 

[Orbini]

Is Na combining with Cl a computation ?

Not by itself.

 

[blobru]

Mine is. But I'm a washing machine.

I expected a dryer response.

Not by itself.

Meaning something else has to treat it (the presence of salt) as a specific instruction?