Has consciousness been fully explained?

[rocketdodger]

Let's consider an example of a system of particles becoming more stable. How about, say, a lava flow congealing into a rock? Is that a system of particles increasing its own stability? Yes. It does so by releasing heat into the environment. It is then much more stable - in fact, it's capable of retaining its configuration for millions of years.

Does it do this via a process of computation? I can't see how that's the case.

First, you don't seem to understand the difference between a computation and the act of computing. A computation requires stabilty in the first place -- in fact you can define stability in terms of a computation. Computing, on the the other hand, is a series of computations.

I clearly defined a computation for you:

It is the property of a stable system that can be mathematically described as mapping the set of all external states to a SMALLER set of internal states, where "state" is defined according to the idea of "stability" described in the first idea.

You honestly can't see how the behavior of, for some external temperature T, a mass of rock converging on a stable state of non-solid for all universal states where T > some value and converging on a stable state of solid for all universal states where T <= some value satisfies that definition?

This is clearly a behavior of mapping an infinite set of external states to a finite -- 2, to be specific -- internal states.

Second, the lava system is not "computing." It is merely exhibiting a computation, and even then only when it passes between states -- a very narrow temperature range. Computing requires a series of computations, as I clearly stated. Also, the lava is not actively increasing it's own stability. It's stability is just increasing -- by no action of the lava itself. Contrast this with a cell, which actively responds to environmental conditions by changing it's behavior so it survives as long as it can.

Here, let me make it simple:

A computation -- The behavior of mapping a larger set to a smaller set.
Computing -- A series of computations by subsystems that result in greater stability for the meta-system than what would have resulted otherwise.

Isn't that simple? A cell survives longer as a cell than a pile of chemical survives as a pile of chemicals -- all else being equal -- because series of computations by the cellular subsystems result in greater stability. The cell reacts to changes in the environment such that the cell continues to exist longer than it would otherwise.

Are you seriously disputing this?

The problem is of course that the most stable physical system is an entirely inert one. What is preserved by life is not stability, but patterns of information - and defining that is a big job.

No, that is untrue -- because fully inert systems cannot interact with other fully inert systems. So in a fully inert universe there would be many very stable systems but no meta-systems, etc. In other words, what incentive does life have to just die and become a solid mass? None, because it would no longer exist as life. The whole reason a cell acts against entropy is because if it didn't it would cease to exist as a cell.

Again, are you seriously disputing this?

 

[rocketdodger]

But as it stands, we don't yet know which, if any, of those ideas would actually work in practice because we haven't yet documented exactly what the brain is doing when it generates consciousness.

Yes but this is quite a different position to be in from the state of cluelessness your posts seem to suggest you believe science to be in right now.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Also, if we take a concert's sound equipment as a single system, a feedback howl is the result of the system using its own output as an input.

That howl would be the intentional expression of what your sound equipment accepts as of ultimate importance, be that existence, knowledge, or truth, while acting to increase the magnitude of the encompassing set of narratives, symbols, and practices

 

[Earthborn]

By "alone" here I mean that it does it without the aid of other organs.

Does it? What a strange thing to claim that it does; without most organs the brain wouldn't even be alive, and without the sensory organs it wouldn't even have anything to be conscious of. The whole body aids in consciousness.

 

[Beth]

Does it? What a strange thing to claim that it does; without most organs the brain wouldn't even be alive, and without the sensory organs it wouldn't even have anything to be conscious of. The whole body aids in consciousness.

You are right. The brain is the whole body. It has the greatest concentration in the head of course, but the nervous system is as encompassing of the entire body as the veins, arteries and capillaries. But I think what Piggy is trying to express is that consciousness does not seem to invoke any other tissue type to execute the behavior.

 

[Robin]

Well, Stephen Wolfram, for example, has an interesting way of viewing weather systems as performing computations.

Well of course if Wolfram is correct then everything is a computation.

 

[Earthborn]

But I think what Piggy is trying to express is that consciousness does not seem to invoke any other tissue type to execute the behavior.

I don't think that is true either. Many other tissue types are used in behaviour, most notably muscles.

All those attempts to claim that consciousness is a localised phenomenon in the brain seem as ridiculous to me as claiming that "communication" is localised in the telephone exchange. I think consciousness is best understood as a process rather than a thing that needs a specific location.

 

[Beth]

I don't think that is true either. Many other tissue types are used in behaviour, most notably muscles.

Yes, that's almost universally true. Consciousness appears to be unique in being a behavior that is confined to the nervous system.

All those attempts to claim that consciousness is a localised phenomenon in the brain seem as ridiculous to me as claiming that "communication" is localised in the telephone exchange. I think consciousness is best understood as a process rather than a thing that needs a specific location.

I don't think anyone on this thread is arguing that it isn't a process. But it seems fairly clear that the process of consciousness occurs in the nervous system.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't think that is true either. Many other tissue types are used in behaviour, most notably muscles.

All those attempts to claim that consciousness is a localised phenomenon in the brain seem as ridiculous to me as claiming that "communication" is localised in the telephone exchange. I think consciousness is best understood as a process rather than a thing that needs a specific location.

It's certainly a process.

It jus as certainly has a specific location.

Muscles are irrelevant. Hearts can be replaced. It's the brain what does it.

 

[Earthborn]

It jus as certainly has a specific location.

How do you know this?

Muscles are irrelevant.

Muscles are irrelevant in behaviour? Maybe you move with electric motors, but I don't.

It's the brain what does it.

The brain doesn't do it alone.

 

[PixyMisa]

How do you know this?

Psychopathology and neurobiology.

The brain doesn't do it alone.

Yes it does.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, that's why I was careful to say that it is correlated with conscious processes but not with non-conscious processes. That's certainly a breakthrough, but definitely not an explanation of how the brain does consciousness.

Progress is being made, certainly, but we haven't yet cracked the nut.

Well considering there are more neurons in a brain than stars in our galaxy, I don't think we have done more than examine the shell.

 

[Dancing David]

Does it? What a strange thing to claim that it does; without most organs the brain wouldn't even be alive, and without the sensory organs it wouldn't even have anything to be conscious of. The whole body aids in consciousness.

Yes, the PNS is rather imporatant, there is the interaction between teh systems.

I don't know hwo well a brain would develop without stimulation, certain unethical experiments suggest stimulation is part and parcel of development.

 

[Dancing David]

It's certainly a process.

It jus as certainly has a specific location.

Muscles are irrelevant. Hearts can be replaced. It's the brain what does it.

Nope, stimulation during development is an essential part of brain structure development, not so much at the gross level but at the process level.

 

[Dancing David]

By "executive" I mean "carrying out". That is, without some executive (in this sense) mechanism, the signal associated with constricting the iris won't do anything. The overt behavior won't happen. You'll be left with just the neural chain reactions in the brain.

Something has to translate (so to speak) between the IP-supported-by-just-enough-hardware-to-accomplish-it and the bodily function which is not merely IP.

There's no reason to expect consciousing to be any different.

Just as with regulating body temperature or heartbeat or anything else you can think of that the body does, something has to "carry out" the task based upon the output, or there is no behavior beyond the background logic, the entire purpose of which (of course) is to drive the behavior.

Thanks I have much to ponder.

 

[Earthborn]

Psychopathology and neurobiology.

I was actually asking for specific evidence, not names of sciences.

Yes it does.

Really? Is there a bodyless brain somewhere that is functioning normally?

 

[westprog]

Well of course if Wolfram is correct then everything is a computation.

Which is a kind of a theory. It shows a bit of promise. Whether it will be helpful in understanding what goes on in the human mind is another thing altogether.

 

[westprog]

You are right. The brain is the whole body. It has the greatest concentration in the head of course, but the nervous system is as encompassing of the entire body as the veins, arteries and capillaries. But I think what Piggy is trying to express is that consciousness does not seem to invoke any other tissue type to execute the behavior.

But to consider the brain as acting in isolation, and to assume that it could exist in a jar without input or output, and still be conscious - that's a huge leap of faith. The function of the brain is not to sit thinking beautiful thoughts - it's a control and monitoring device. It's job is to work the body, on the basis of sensory input.

When the brain is conscious, it's conscious of something, in almost all cases. That's why we don't regard the dreaming mind as conscious, in the full sense.

 

[westprog]

First, you don't seem to understand the difference between a computation and the act of computing. A computation requires stabilty in the first place -- in fact you can define stability in terms of a computation. Computing, on the the other hand, is a series of computations.

I clearly defined a computation for you:

You honestly can't see how the behavior of, for some external temperature T, a mass of rock converging on a stable state of non-solid for all universal states where T > some value and converging on a stable state of solid for all universal states where T <= some value satisfies that definition?

This is clearly a behavior of mapping an infinite set of external states to a finite -- 2, to be specific -- internal states.

Second, the lava system is not "computing." It is merely exhibiting a computation, and even then only when it passes between states -- a very narrow temperature range. Computing requires a series of computations, as I clearly stated. Also, the lava is not actively increasing it's own stability. It's stability is just increasing -- by no action of the lava itself. Contrast this with a cell, which actively responds to environmental conditions by changing it's behavior so it survives as long as it can.

And here's the central issue, which is critical to not just this discussion, but many others. The lava and the cell are both acting, to an equal extent. There's nothing special or unique happening in the cell that isn't happening in the lava. They are both doing the only things that they can do.

Life is, of course, a special and unique phenomenon in the universe - but it's not a separate phenomenon, and it's not governed by special laws. There is no distinction, as far as we know, between the "active" behaviour of a cell, and the "passive" behaviour of a lava flow. When we claim that the one is acting to achieve something, whereas the other is just letting itself be pushed around, we're being fooled by the seemingly purposeful nature of evolution.

Here, let me make it simple:

A computation -- The behavior of mapping a larger set to a smaller set.
Computing -- A series of computations by subsystems that result in greater stability for the meta-system than what would have resulted otherwise.

Isn't that simple? A cell survives longer as a cell than a pile of chemical survives as a pile of chemicals -- all else being equal -- because series of computations by the cellular subsystems result in greater stability. The cell reacts to changes in the environment such that the cell continues to exist longer than it would otherwise.

Are you seriously disputing this?

Well, clearly I am. What's very clear about life is that it doesn't last very long, while random piles of chemicals, in the absence of life, last over geological eras.

No, that is untrue -- because fully inert systems cannot interact with other fully inert systems. So in a fully inert universe there would be many very stable systems but no meta-systems, etc. In other words, what incentive does life have to just die and become a solid mass? None, because it would no longer exist as life. The whole reason a cell acts against entropy is because if it didn't it would cease to exist as a cell.

Again, are you seriously disputing this?

The idea that cells "act against entropy"? Certainly I'm disputing it. Cells do nothing of the sort. As with many other physical systems, cells run on "negative entropy", or "sintropy" or what layman might summarise as sunlight keeping the system going. Living tissue is not the only example of physical systems shuffling entropy around in this way. It's simply that evolution has focused the reproduction of systems which use entropy. They can equally arise by chance.

As an overview of how life tends to reproduce itself, the above is not too far off - but a lot more work needs to be done to establish the relationship, if any, between computation as a way of mapping larger sets to smaller sets, and what happens when chemicals become organised into living tissue.

 

[rocketdodger]

And here's the central issue, which is critical to not just this discussion, but many others. The lava and the cell are both acting, to an equal extent. There's nothing special or unique happening in the cell that isn't happening in the lava. They are both doing the only things that they can do.

And by extension we are doing the only things that we can do. So what? What is your point?

I never said anything to the contrary. I simply gave you a definition for something called "computing" that, in general, does not take place in lava. It does, in general, take place in life.

EDIT: Oh, I see your point. Since if monism is true we are doing the only things we can do, and you want libertarian free-will and a soul and all that warm fuzzy stuff to exist, then clearly monism must be false and dualism is true. Got it. And you wonder why I say you are a dualist?

Life is, of course, a special and unique phenomenon in the universe - but it's not a separate phenomenon, and it's not governed by special laws.

I didn't say it was a separate phenomenon or governed by special laws.

I clearly said it was special and unique because it is the result of the same laws everything else follows coming together in a special and unique way.

But lets play a game -- since you know everything about this topic, why dont you tell me what makes life unique and special, since you obviously agree that life is unique and special.

Oh, and please make sure to formulate your response in "physical" terms that don't rely upon human specific concepts, since after all that is your own standard, no?

There is no distinction, as far as we know, between the "active" behaviour of a cell, and the "passive" behaviour of a lava flow.

But you just said "Life is, of course, a special and unique phenomenon in the universe"

So how is there no distinction at all? If there is no distinction between the behavior of lava and cells, then how can we tell them apart? How could you make a statement like the one you just made?

???

Well, clearly I am. What's very clear about life is that it doesn't last very long, while random piles of chemicals, in the absence of life, last over geological eras.

You are claiming that if you take a cell, place it in a random location on the planet, and somehow stop all life processes in that cell, it will continue to exist in the same form for longer than if it was alive?

The idea that cells "act against entropy"? Certainly I'm disputing it. Cells do nothing of the sort. As with many other physical systems, cells run on "negative entropy", or "sintropy" or what layman might summarise as sunlight keeping the system going. Living tissue is not the only example of physical systems shuffling entropy around in this way. It's simply that evolution has focused the reproduction of systems which use entropy. They can equally arise by chance.

I am talking about local entropy, not universal entropy.

What I clearly mean is that cells exhibit a sequence of physical processes that prevent them from becoming non-cells.

Do you dispute that cells exhibit this behavior?

As an overview of how life tends to reproduce itself, the above is not too far off - but a lot more work needs to be done to establish the relationship, if any, between computation as a way of mapping larger sets to smaller sets, and what happens when chemicals become organised into living tissue.

Well, I don't see what cells do differently from lava that doesn't fall under the definitions I gave you regarding computation.

If you have some counterexamples -- stuff that life does differently from lava -- then by all means please actually contribute to the conversation.