so any self referencing system can potentially become conscious with enough complexity. Okay, we are in agreement here
Possibly, with enough of certain types of complexity. Massive parallelism (doing many small tasks simultaneously for one big task) seems crucial as well, for example.
okay, I follow, makes sense
Well, whatever you call them, base sensory and symbolic categories do integrate, via logic, memory, and association, into larger meaningful categories, semantic context, stories if you will. Similar to what AI calls "frames"; and if AI has a hard problem, it's how to switch between them.
I think my point was more to the fact that there is a depth and dimension in experience, which is potentially infinite or close to infinite, that does not appear to be accounted for in the language of materialism as I have found it thus far. I don't agree they can be summarized as merely 'base sensory and symbolic categories', I don't think that gives them proper justice in consideration.
If your
is the complex of feelings and emotions we associate with it (a state of 'happiness'), and is treated as information, a proposition even (the body telling the brain [or the brain telling the brain, or the body, etc: think message-passing between embodied systems], "things are fine"), it's not so bizarre.
Sure, if we treat it is information, but that's bringing it back down to A=A so it can be analyzed logically and mathematically, that's not what I am referring to, I am referring to the
experience of information, and material reality bursts into this 'dimension' of experience that transcends A=A. A neuron firing is a neuron firing, the experience of what that delivers, however, the imagination of it, is not proportional in dimension to a neuron firing. This seems to be the consistent breakdown in understanding between materialists and non materialists. Since I consider myself both, I find it twice as frustrating.
For computers, of course, networking can be a way of building one big computer, where the computers are all dedicated to the same task, and have global access to information.
agreed. We can't have the internet with just one computer, the internet is the culmination of all computers linking into it. I use the internet because it potentially may be a meaningful metaphor to equate with consciousness. So to me, it's like hearing a bunch of people claiming that the internet emerges from
a computer. That's the point I am trying to make.
Human "language", which our distinct embodiment entails, may limit how much global access a group of people can have (we can share descriptions of experiences, but not the experiences themselves). The differences are relevant and interesting. Not sure if the philosophers at these parties have had too many cocktails or what... it's the sort of the thing philosophers tend to love to discuss (John Searle, for one, has written extensively on collective intentionality).
I don't think I communicated my point properly. I don't mean the body of philosophy, I mean philosophical discussions with educated people discussing the basis for a material model of consciousness. That's it. And I was being snarky, so my apologies, I had a killer headache all day - what i mean is when I review the literature and books (yes have plenty to still digest), when I view the lectures and the TED talks and interviews online, when I read the articles, when I read the general discussion on the matter, the 'common' discussion, i note the consistent claim, the consistent model uses 'brain' in the singular. That's not only influential to the individual philosophy and understanding of the framework of those communicating it that way, but it's also influential in sharing the idea to others and how they frame the idea itself. I'm sure there are philosophers out there that think about these things, and write long extended papers for their philosophy chums and colleagues, but that's not what I am referring to.
The point is that a model of consciousness is being presented to the general public and students of science and philosophy in particular for consideration, a story or a narrative is being repeated that simply can be misleading conceptually. That's my only point.
Here is how I wrote it previously :
When I read all the literature on the matter, and I hear the talk at all the philosophy cocktail parties, I only ever hear the word 'brain', never a network of brains. Could consciousness emerge from one self referencing system with enough complexity or does it need a network of 'other selves' doing the same thing? That's a question I have not heard an answer to. I think it's a damn good and relevant question too.
and you said
That's the whole point of a model. Each model makes certain assumptions to see where they lead, how much can be explained by them. As a model, it's always 'open' by default (to correction, and to competition with other models). No empirical model is presumed absolutely true; some just explain facts better than others. Where no model is absolutely true, there is always mystery. Kind of pointless to allow for what it is always there.
okay, I like that you allow for the mystery there, but you did not directly address my question, and one where I am getting stopped in digesting the materialistic model. Could consciousness emerge from one self referencing system alone? because the answer I seem to get is 'yes' when I simply look at the language being used to describe a materialistic model of consciousness. I'm sure philosophers you know may love to discuss it, but I just asked a question and seeing if you had an answer, or what your POV was on the matter. Or maybe a link to a paper that covers this that I am unaware of. I still think my question is very relevant, and if this is common knowledge or deeply considered, I have not found it, yet.
You should. Because you've just described algebra and formal logic (which are based on allowing for the unknown to function as an entity within the system).
that's not what I mean, I may have been a little too snarky in this past exchange. My point is that we
may need to allow for the 'mystery' in our conceptual models of consciousness and reality proper as a permanent structure of the universe and consciousness itself
yes, thank you
As long as the competition is between things that evolve, whereever self-reference confers a local advantage, it will be selected for.
okay - so we are on the same page then. Thank you for helping me with my descriptive wording of these environments.
Algorithms have output. That output is evidence that the algorithm exists (as the fossil record is superb evidence for the algorithm of natural selection). We distinguish very easily between conscious behavior (two people playing chess, for example) and unconscious (a meteor falling on their heads). If the universe has an algorithm which generates universal consciousness, it is keeping it well hidden.
Oh I agree it could be well hidden, not just by a higher intelligence (which could hide them for any numbers of reasons that we cannot think of, so pointless to guess), but by our own models of intelligence, consciousness, and reality proper. We could be hiding them too. So since anything 'hidden' would naturally fall into the 'mystery' which you agree we should allow for, I don't see how we can reject those sorts of ideas just because we cannot find material evidence for them as of yet. And that was what I meant by my snarky comment about allowing for an unknown entity, it was not an appeal for the creation of algebra - it was an appeal for the consideration of a mysterious or unknown form of intelligence.
Nobody is. Because nobody flat out knows (even if many religious claim to). All models are guesses.
yes
Some just happen to explain things better than others.
...to some, but not all people. I think that's important to consider. Naturally academic models of consciousness are going to appeal to academic people. Naturally models that base intelligence and consciousness on natural selection are going to appeal to western philosophers who accept a hard materialist model because that is the only way their model can possible account for it. So your phrase was a little subjective there.
Natural selection is an excellent model.
to the point of view of western materialists
If consciousness comes from natural selection, it's hard to see why the universe should be conscious (what is it competing with? for what resources, in what environment? how is it reproducing, (and with whom?)?).
galaxies, stars compete for space. galaxies slam into one another, ripping each other apart but also one dominates over the other one, and one galaxy gets consumed by another. I should point out a distinction here, just because the universe can develop consciousness potentially, that should not be considered that it would be 1 intelligence operating throughout infinity, that would actually seem impossible to me, how could it ever model itself? how could it know it even existed? it could be a collection of intelligences, distinct by the fields in which they govern.
Maybe universal consciousness has come about some other way; however, until we see collective intentional behavior from the universe, rationally speaking, the chances seem slim.
...to the point of view of the model which governs that idea. To me that's like saying 'Until SETI finds a radio broadcast from some star somewhere in our single galaxy, the chance that intelligent life exists in the universe seems slim.' The argument just doesn't seem cohesive to me.
A consciousness is not medium specific, right? Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, I understand this concept as 'pattern integrity', which I am using adaptively outside of Bucky Fuller's usage of the term used in design. It's not the medium communicating the pattern integrity that gives it it's 'strength' or 'consciousness', but rather the set of instructions, rules, or angles that define it.
"[A]nything that can happen, will happen" doesn't mean anything can happen, though.
Yes, I am aware of that, my phrase is really specific. Anything that can potentially happen, does happen, an infinite number of times in an infinite/eternal environment.
Starting conditions restrict outcomes.
in an infinite/eternal environment, 'starting conditions' are arbitrary.
The decimal expansion of 1/3 is infinite, but severely restricted.
sure, I can see that, but I don't think 1/3 covers the territory I am describing. A simple number line does, however, provide a simple conceptual framework. On a number line, there are an infinite number of orderings of '1'.
Maybe we can create other universes (video games already are, in a limited sense); whether those universes can be made conscious is another matter entirely.
That's something to inform the AI crowd, although not directly related to my point, it is related to the topic of this thread.
(it may be that the sort of tight-packed complexity essential to consciousness is impossible for such an incredibly sparse and dispersed thing as a universe).
maybe, but there are still many unknowns in the ordering of things both universally and sub-atomically, and that just covers 4% of the universe if we consider the Dark Matter models. so sure, maybe.
Many speculative avenues; many potential, and potentially terminal, obstacles.
well I am speculating on one specific avenue within the framework I provided. Not seeing any obstacles yet that dominate or terminate the consideration process.
Besides its lack of collective conscious behavior, it's not a good candidate for other reasons given above (apparent lack of evolutionary pressure for it to evolve consciousness; immense empty spaces which may make tightly-packed complexity, required for massive parallelism, impossible).
I think I addressed these things already. I think what your doing is projecting a model of intelligence and consciousness that is local and trying to stuff another model of the universe inside of it. That's how it seems to me, it's quite a common thing I run into when discussing this with more academic minded people like yourself. Is it possible I am being to dismissive here?
also, any reference point in such a field is by default self referencing, right?
No (needs a 'feedback loop' to accept its own output as input).
that was a snarky comment I made. I'm really sorry, I was mentally challenged today by massive headache and really a bit short and spiteful in some of my commentary. for example, I said :and besides, when certain philosophical, scientific people do look at this question, they produce things like this
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html Lol - and isn't the simulation argument intelligent design from another angle? (bubblefish teases the local skeptics)
I doubt they will feel too teased, since there have been quite a few threads discussing Bostrom's simulation argument. If its assumptions are correct (big if), it doesn't tell us anything about the virtual universe we live in being conscious; it would be only if the top-level universe it is simulating is, and so should be prey to the exact same objections raised above.
i posted it as a joke, but there is a point there I was making. First off, i think a big IF goes to all assumptions on these matters. the only thing that bonds some of us to some of them and others to another is our philosophy, so it's easy to apply the big IF's to others POV, but it's just as equal to our own. and the point is that there is a big IFF that a materialistic model could account for intelligent design, so I posted that as a joke. sorry
Discussed above: lack of collective conscious behavior; lack of evolutionary pressure; lack of apparent system-wide, tightly-packed complexity.
discussed above as well. as for tightly packed complexity, wow, wouldn't a black hole provide enough of that alone? IFF
Well, it's fairly easy to list the objections against it, so it's a pretty cold case.
Not the first time i have come across them, just haven't heard anything beyond them to the point of where I was inquiring in this thread.
Nevertheless, it's been discussed by scores of philosophers, from ancient presocratic, stoic, vedanta up through Plotinus, Spinoza, Liebniz, Schopenhauer, Whitehead; most recently, Galen Strawson
WP. If you're being teased when you bring it to their table, it may be lack of familiarity with their subject.
I don't think any of those people (with the exception of Strawson who I am unfamiliar with) discussed the philosophical implications of a universe that is a quantum computer as supported by Seth Floyd. and besides, that's not the point. I am not a historian of philosophy, I'm not repeating philosophical arguments I'm hearing somewhere else, i am simply asking questions along my own journey. So not sure your point here, unless my snarkyness effected you, sorry.
Both are considered. Reasons why one is a better candidate than the other are given. With new info, both are reconsidered. And so on.
hoping therefore we can reconsider some of these things together.
Okay. I'm going to have to stop you right here, I'm afraid. I really don't think, Bubblefish, you have demonstrated anywhere near enough familiarity with the subject matter of philosophy to include yourself in the group, "us philosophers". One never knows, of course. Like the universe and "consciousness", it may be that there is evidence hidden somewhere to suggest you do merit inclusion in the "philosopher" category; but, if so, it is very well hidden indeed, especially by this latest post...
wow, okay that was pretty condescending! Alright, I wrote a snarky response, so maybe I deserve some of that - but that's a bit harsh and a bit ignorant of what you know about my background, but also revealing what you believe about yours. Any thoughtful considering human being engages in philosophy. I have over 25 years of study in science, comparative religion, anthropology, psychology and philosophy, and about 20 years of practice in philosophical areas I would suspect you have never even encountered nor even heard of. I have developed philosophies for as simple and practical things such as the internet and new media in general. I have developed an entire system of dialectic for the internet that has produced incredibly practical results that are very clearly defined, have been sponsored in salons at university by accredited academics, and never once have I ever been told I was not allowed in their 'group'! True, there is still much knowledge for me to consume and consider, I never said i was some sort of philosophical avatar.
...and I'm saying that to be helpful, not mean (seriously). If you're interested in the topic ("consciousness", or philosophy in general), read some books [carefully], do some study, take some courses if need be to master
the basics at least, and then maybe "us philosophers" will have some more to talk about, without having
endlessly to go over them. Okay?
Are you serious? Do you know how long I have been studying consciousness for? How many books I have read in the past 25 years? How many discussions with brilliant minds? How comprehensive my approach has been? do you know how much
direct experience I have had with mind and consciousness that transcends virtually all of what you have covered in this discussion?
Do you actually believe the history of Western academic philosophy accounts for the entire body of philosophical thought?
Wouldn't it be a bit crude of me to request that you go study vegetalismo and sit with ayahuasca 50 or so times before could discuss the dynamics of intelligence in nature and consciousness in any meaningful way? Wouldn't it be condescending of me to assume your intellectual approach cannot fathom the depth of being and until you go experience it directly in meditation for 8 years? Wouldn't I be an ******* if I said that because you have not integrated the ideas of Taoism or the martial strategy of Aikido, your simply uninformed of the nuances of human interactions?
Philosophy is many things, but it ain't rocket science, and often it's just a shared set of distinctions using different symbols and language. One just needs to be honest and rational and consistent in their study to be a philosopher. You've been a great help, your a great communicator, but nothing you have said has thrown me for a loop. I follow you and understand you fine. You can think I am a poor philosopher, or an uninformed philosopher, that's fine, I'm trying to be better, but when you turn yourself into a little exclusive group that requires the study of your set of incantations and rituals, your turning philosophy into exclusive priestcraft.
I sort of expected more from you than that!
