Mindful Matter

[Peskanov]

Hammegk,

----
quote:
See the problem here? You request I grant your answer to the question under discussion, and then say you will "prove" things using that as a 100% certain axiom. Phooey.
----

Let's see. A few posts ago you presented 3 choices: Idealism, Dualism and something which resembled materialism. About materialism you said something like "matter exists objectively and by some unknowable methodology produces as a quality of itself life".
My points:
- The 3 choices are axiomatic: idealism, dualism and materialism.
- Under axioms of materialism, life is a propierty of "systems" of matter, not of matter itself, and the metodology of it's aparition is not unknowable, as far as I know. In fact viable hypothesis are presented at good rate.

----
quote:
I have no interest in re-cycling, and I don't even agree that subjective / objective is the correct question.
----

That's a relief...

----
quote:
So far as I am concerned the problem lies with life / non-life interface. If you have a better -- falsifiable of course since you are following the scientific method -- answer than life is energy(certainly energetic), non-life is static, please advise.
----

I don't know if I understand you well. Are you saying that fire is alive, for example?
As far as I see, our whole planet is a very dinamic object due to it's position in a powerful gradient of energy comming from the sun. Life doesn't produce energy as far as we know, it only administers received energy.

----
quote:
Do you agree that dualism does not make logical sense?
----

At least one of the dualist views I have seen is logically posible: in this view, awareness has a one way interface with the matter. It just receives information from matter, it does not interact. Hence, it can be argued that is not physical.
I just simply see this option as redundant...

 

[BillyTK]

Can anyone please clarify this: my understanding of entropy is that it's the natural state of matter to return to its component parts, in which case it's impossible for mind to arise from matter (or more precisely, life to spring spontaneously from non-life). I'm not offering this is an argument against physicalism, just interested if this is a correct understanding of entropy?

 

[Peskanov]

BillyTK,

There was a very good post about entropy few time ago. However the forum search engine does not allow me to ask for "sun entropy source".
If anybody remenbers which thread could be...

If I understand correctly, the entropy law applies for closed systems. This means that if you measure the entropy of the whole universe you will see it increasing. However, if you measure subsets of this system, it's posible to find one decreasing.

Damn, I would love to find that post...

 

[BillyTK]

BillyTK,

There was a very good post about entropy few time ago. However the forum search engine does not allow me to ask for "sun entropy source".
If anybody remenbers which thread could be...

If I understand correctly, the entropy law applies for closed systems. This means that if you measure the entropy of the whole universe you will see it increasing. However, if you measure subsets of this system, it's posible to find one decreasing.

Damn, I would love to find that post...

Thanks for the search tip and the explanation! I found this post by Flatworm which addresses all my concerns; is this the one you mean?

 

[hammegk]

Thanks for the search tip and the explanation! I found this post by Flatworm which addresses all my concerns; is this the one you mean?

Continuing to contemplate entropy and total energy in universe perhaps led Franco to his discussion of the implications of gravity, imo. I also see the force (hmm, is that "energy"?) of gravity as a mystery and approaching even The Mystery.



Peskanov ... Agreeing that dualism is redundant, we have 2 choices. Hmm, is fire "alive"? Please define "life".

My basic thought -- call it a belief -- is that *I* have lbf, and that my intent does effect the "reality" of my neuronal network. Seems to work that way for everyone as long as the dna built the perceived *body* within acceptable operating limits, and me works withing acceptable environment, not screwing up the operating limits either physically or chemically.

Continuing, *I* think. Which monism is the correct one?

 

[Peskanov]

BillyTK, yes, I think it is.

Hammegk;
The biological definition of life is good for me and cover all the propierties which I intuitively assign to it.

About your thought, I have the problem of determinism or quasi-determinism. Sorry if the post is long, but I don't know if you are familiarized with "error control" systems.

If the brain is a system that works following a known set of rules for small, universal components, (put neurons), any external agent who influence it should show a break of these rules. And this has not been the case in the study of neural nets.

More important:
When a human design a machine, he states the basic rules of working, and then he study how to avoid external forces in the machine which could break the rules: dust, vibration, strong magnetic fields, etc...
The brain, (designed by evolution or by god, it does not matter) has tons of compensation mechanism to avoid "error".
The problem: we have observed a set of rules on neural nets, we have observed mechanism to protect this rules, so: where is the external agent? And why would the brain "protect itself" against it?

Umm...I think your view seems dualist, maybe I am understanding you badly?

 

[hammegk]

Hammegk;
The biological definition of life is good for me and cover all the propierties which I intuitively assign to it.

Well, we agree that defines "biological life".

About your thought, I have the problem of determinism or quasi-determinism.

Could you explain your concerns in a bit more detail please?

Sorry if the post is long, but I don't know if you are familiarized with "error control" systems.

Yes.

If the brain is a system that works following a known set of rules for small, universal components, (put neurons), any external agent who influence it should show a break of these rules. And this has not been the case in the study of neural nets.

Yeah, and we can probably agree the brain is not a "neural net" -- it is itself & "mind", perhaps.

More important:
....The brain, (designed by evolution or by god, it does not matter) has tons of compensation mechanism to avoid "error".
The problem: we have observed a set of rules on neural nets, we have observed mechanism to protect this rules, so: where is the external agent? And why would the brain "protect itself" against it?

Again *I* am not a "neural net" imo. My brain -- part of *me* -- has some similarities to computing AI neural nets perhaps.

Umm...I think your view seems dualist, maybe I am understanding you badly?

When I started participating here I considered myself a dualist. I am no longer. Which monism makes most sense is my current thinking, and I lean more & more to Idealism (metamind shall we say?).

 

[Peskanov]

Hammegk,

----
quote:
Could you explain your concerns in a bit more detail please?
----

If we are able to build a formal model of the brain (based in observation) which correctly predicts person's behaviour, this makes materialism more realistic imo.
When I see what has been acomplished with the "brick" of the brain, the neuron, I think than that formal model is possible, and very probable.

----
quote:
Yeah, and we can probably agree the brain is not a "neural net" -- it is itself & "mind", perhaps.
----

Errr...yes. But for materialism, the most probable hypothesis for the mind is to be the configuration of the brain (very close to hardware running software).
Maybe like a chess play...The board, the pieces, and the position of the pieces form the play.
But from an Idealist POV, I don't know which rol the brain has.A reflection of the mind perhaps?

----
quote:
Again *I* am not a "neural net" imo. My brain -- part of *me* -- has some similarities to computing AI neural nets perhaps
----

Well, artificial neural nets were modelled upon real neurons. It's true that following studies has shown real neurons have a more complex behaviour than the original artificial model.
I go back to my earlier suggestion: If I (hypothetically) could show you the whole information circuit, how it enters, how it is processed, and exits, then which would be you position between materialism/idealism? Would it change?

----
quote:
When I started participating here I considered myself a dualist. I am no longer. Which monism makes most sense is my current thinking, and I lean more & more to Idealism (metamind shall we say?).
----

Don't you think that the metamind model is far more complex than the materialist one. I certainly feel so.

 

[hammegk]

If we are able to build a formal model of the brain (based in observation) which correctly predicts person's behaviour, this makes materialism more realistic imo.
When I see what has been acomplished with the "brick" of the brain, the neuron, I think than that formal model is possible, and very probable.

Brain models are certainly possible. The question will be is it "alive and conscious". How would that ever be demonstrated?

If it self-replicates by building another one (I assume robotic I/O), without human instruction to do so, would it be alive? The copy?

If it's built -- from let's say quark level -- up through DNA & as a "replicated human", and it seems to all purposes sentient, did we create the life, or just provide a structure "life" can use to display humanness?

But from an Idealist POV, I don't know which rol the brain has.A reflection of the mind perhaps?

It provides structure in the perceivable world (perceivable to all life I'd say) to exhibit human attributes using the perceived body as I/O & storage. That would be one way to see perhaps.

If I (hypothetically) could show you the whole information circuit, how it enters, how it is processed, and exits, then which would be you position between materialism/idealism? Would it change?

Most likely not until you address my point on creation v. use-by.

Don't you think that the metamind model is far more complex than the materialist one. I certainly feel so.

Yet you don't stumble a bit going from objective, inert "matter" to life and on up to human level expression, knowing that when science looks for matter -- the A-tom -- all it finds is "energy".

We can agree to disagee for the moment. Meanwhile *I* think & enjoy the life that is all around me. Again where do you draw the line non-life to life, and why there?

 

[Peskanov]

Hammegk,

----
quote:
Brain models are certainly possible. The question will be is it "alive and conscious". How would that ever be demonstrated?
-----

You can look at the evidence (compare reactions/display emotions, communicate with it, etc) and judge it enough for you or not. Exactly equal with humans

----
quote:
If it self-replicates by building another one (I assume robotic I/O), without human instruction to do so, would it be alive? The copy?
----

I don't see any sacred meaning in the term life. I mean, we built that word (ovserved a set of properties and put a label on it), and we are free to put the frontiers where we like. Call it "artificial life" if you want.

----
quote:
It provides structure in the perceivable world (perceivable to all life I'd say) to exhibit human attributes using the perceived body as I/O & storage. That would be one way to see perhaps.
----

The problem is determinism. If I observe my brain, and I am able to register the whole process of a decission (for example) and match it with formal rules, then I claim I am seeing my mind in action.
Imagine you see a machine reflected on a lake. Looking that reflection you deduce it's logic. IMO, it does not matter if this image is distorted or indirect if you really understood the inner nature of the machine.

----
quote:
Most likely not until you address my point on creation v. use-by.
----

In my view, "used by" applies to entities. Is a chess board "used by" it's games? Is "life" an entity, instead of a property of other entities?

If I program an algor. to create noise in the screen:
1.-Am I using the program to create the noise?
2.-Is the noise using the program, and my person, to exist?
In my terms, correct answer is 1.

----
quote:
Yet you don't stumble a bit going from objective, inert "matter" to life and on up to human level expression, knowing that when science looks for matter -- the A-tom -- all it finds is "energy".
----

Because I dont think "life=energy", but "life=a use of energy". This comes from observation.

----
quote:
Again where do you draw the line non-life to life, and why there?
----

I repeat: we (mankind) invented the word, and we can draw the line wherever we want....
My personal opinion? I think complex IA is perfectly posible in a far future, and I don't care too much about putting the label "life" to it or not. BTW, I also reckon I don't like the perspective of having digital super-smartasses around us

 

[hammegk]

....
You can look at the evidence (compare reactions/display emotions, communicate with it, etc) and judge it enough for you or not. Exactly equal with humans

Nah, I don't think passing the Turing test will do it. *I* know at 100% certainty one thing; *I* think. To avoid the meaninglessness of solipsism, I'll agree you (and other humans) also have a spark of life/consciousness -- and I'll even suggest libertarian free will for all. Although TheLawsOfMind may be as strict on mind as TLOP are on matter; if so, still no lbf.

I don't see any sacred meaning in the term life. I mean, we built that word (ovserved a set of properties and put a label on it), and we are free to put the frontiers where we like. Call it "artificial life" if you want.

Again, phooey. There are many types of "life" that we agree occurs, has occured, and will continue without regard to humans.

And if the world is at heart inert matter, there is a line somewhere between life & non-life.

The problem is determinism. If I observe my brain, and I am able to register the whole process of a decission (for example) and match it with formal rules, then I claim I am seeing my mind in action.
Imagine you see a machine reflected on a lake. Looking that reflection you deduce it's logic. IMO, it does not matter if this image is distorted or indirect if you really understood the inner nature of the machine.

Er, oh. Don't you wonder what that observing *I* you sense might actually be? That is what my *I* thought we were discussing.

In my view, "used by" applies to entities. Is a chess board "used by" it's games? Is "life" and entity by itself, instead of a property of other entities?

Seems to make better logic than inert matter creating it, at least to me.

If I program an algor. to create noise in the screen:
1.-Am I using the program to create the noise?
2.-Is the noise using the program, and my person, to exist?
In my terms, correct answer is 1.

I may have to change my thinking about your "spark of life" if you are actually just a Turing machine.

Because I dont think "life=energy", but "life=a use of energy". This comes from observation.

Yes, I can see we disagree.

I repeat: we (mankind) invented the word, and we can draw the line wherever we want....

See my comment above. I fully disagree.

My personal opinion? I think complex IA is perfectly posible in a far future, and I don't care too much about putting the label "life" to it or not. BTW, I also reckon I don't like the perspective of having digital super-smartasses around us

Yeah, I think complex AI is possible, and not too far in the future. If it turns out that IS life and its striving, who will win the human v. conscious-living-machine struggle for supremacy?

PS. How can the terminators ever miss a human target, or for that matter overlook it.

 

[Peskanov]

Hammegk,

----
quote:
Nah, I don't think passing the Turing test will do it. *I* know at 100% certainty one thing; *I* think. To avoid the meaninglessness of solipsism, I'll agree you (and other humans) also have a spark of life/consciousness -- and I'll even suggest libertarian free will for all. Although TheLawsOfMind may be as strict on mind as TLOP are on matter; if so, still no lbf.
----

But your bias is showing here; you are ready to assume a spark of consciousness in a natural human, but not in an artificial one? Also you are assuming a universal relation between life and consciousness, despite much life not showing the propierties we relate to consciousness. A question of empathy? Using this axiom, idealism look more attractive, of course.
About lbf, after reading this forum for some months, I simply can't make head or tails of the idea. I am going as far as saying the concept is contradictory and therefore impossible in materialism & dualism & idealism.

----
quote:
Again, phooey. There are many types of "life" that we agree occurs, has occured, and will continue without regard to humans.
And if the world is at heart inert matter, there is a line somewhere between life & non-life.
----

Yes, I am sure there is a lot of phenomena unknown to mankind. And we don't even have labels for most of it! Life is a label we build to clasify some things we observed. Every child comes an age in which he learns to make that distinction. And this is evidence of the complexity of the concept, because learning what is life is not done very early. IMO, "Life is..." comes much later than "*I* think"!

----
quote:
Er, oh. Don't you wonder what that observing *I* you sense might actually be? That is what my *I* thought we were discussing.
----

Well, I thinked I was defending the materialist answer to this question...

----
quote:
Seems to make better logic than inert matter creating it, at least to me.
----

To me it seems "simple evolving into complex" versus "complex building for itself". I find the first option aesthetically nicer. My bias, I guess...

Btw, about your thought of "life creating a support for itself"...This implies that life existed before it's physical support, and that life is actually something different from it...And it also implies that a relation exist between both entities. But then it comes the problem of the reflection I stated before. If I can see it's guts working without flaw...Where is that creative entity? These concepts are really hard, some implications scape me...

----
quote:
Yeah, I think complex AI is possible, and not too far in the future. If it turns out that IS life and its striving, who will win the human v. conscious-living-machine struggle for supremacy?

PS. How can the terminators ever miss a human target, or for that matter overlook it.
----

One of the finest/original ideas I ever seen about this topic comes from Stanislaw Lem masterpiece, Cyberiad (a fantastic book about philosophy, don't get fooled by it's title). The characters of the histories are robots in a universe of robots. In one history, a legend is told about "prehistoric beings made of soft albumins". Scientists laugh about the idea, but a few eccentric ones even suggest that the universe has cycles of "life based on metal" and "life based on meat"!

PD: I am out a few days, anyway I will look to reply when I come back. That is, hoping my memory will serve me well!

 

[davidsmith73]

Brain models are certainly possible. The question will be is it "alive and conscious". How would that ever be demonstrated?

More fundamentally, the question is whether the poeple or animals I observe possess consciousness and how that can be demonstrated.

 

[davidsmith73]

I suggest that if there is the meta-psychic it would have a testable hypothesis, at least subject to thought experiments.

My mind is part of reality and a product of matter. Why is it nessecary to know each step in the process to say that my mind is part of matter?

Peace
dancing David

Perhaps a far fetched thought experiment from your perspective might be interesting. If consciousness is a product of the physical workings of the brain, lets say certain computations, then it would be possible in principle to produce consciousness out of silicone - a computer. Lets say that one day we actually achieve this.

Would it not then be possible to act out these computations using any physical medium we wanted, as long as the logical relations are follwed ? What if we could create a consciousness from handshakes using the world population ? If we did this, where would the consciousness be locallised ?

 

[hammegk]

More fundamentally, the question is whether the poeple or animals I observe possess consciousness and how that can be demonstrated.

Actually, you can't. That's why the best I've come up with is to agree you also have *something* -- I call it my *I* -- that thinks.

That is my 100% certain datapoint.

 

[ShottleBop]

Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality has one of the more lucid descriptions of idealism I've come across. It is written in the context of a critique of Objectivism, but it is also a good introduction to several aspects of philosophy in general.

 

[hammegk]

ShottleBop, thanks for the cite.

Any chance you might provide as much synopsis of what you got regarding "what is Idealism" as you would be willing to?

Even a sentence or two is better than nothing.

 

[ShottleBop]

The author used to have the text of his book posted, which is where I read it. Now, you can read it online (by following the links to his publisher, iUniverse), but you have to advance a page at a time. I do not have a printout with me. I will post sometime during the week, when I have the printout. I hesitate to try to post from memory, because I find that I have the same problem with philosophy that I do with tax law: I can remember it for short periods of time--enough to carry on a decent conversation about what it is I've just read. Long-term, I retain only vague outlines.

 

[Dancing David]

Hammegk: So , it would seem that the argument rests on wether or not anyone can prove where life comes from and what consiousness is. Thank You for your patience.

DavidJ: Where are you headed ? I think that there are reverberating biochemical messes in the heads of many creatures that I would choose to label as 'mind'. So I don't object to the idea that 'mind' could arise from some sort of reverberations in a silcon based mess.

Peace
Dancing David

 

[Blue Monk]

That way lies madness.

~~ Paul

You got that right. I'd rather remove my own liver with a spoon.