Science and Awareness

[Alkan]

Dear ksm,

If my posts are correct, the universe might as well be a really complicated version of a bunch of steel ballbearings rolling around in a crate. The universe is about as irrelevant as that is what I am saying. Thats what those rules show, is that the universe is just movement.

Expecting awareness to come out of a bunch of steel ballbearings rolling around in a crate, is essentially the same as saying it will come out of the brain, if the rules I listed above are true.

And of course an illusion of awareness came from evolution, but its just not possible with our current laws of physics for an actual awareness to exist. The only way for it to be physical is for the universe to be more than just movement, and everything you'll find is only an example of movement *except* the awareness.

Tell me if you don't understand.

[Cyberia]

Respectfully, I just don't see how it couldn't be merely energy moving across physical neuron connections.  If I play a game that creates a 'virtual' world (any FPS really) then that 'world' is just a sequence of bits in memory, processed by the CPU.  There's nothing outside the laws of physics.

You said: "Without this literal awareness, we'd literally be going around like computers, thinking we're aware."

I think that a computer could very well become self-aware one day.  There is a famous AI test called "The Turing Test" that basically says that if a computer can actually fool a human being into thinking that he is talking to a real person, then the computer IS a real person, in every way that actually matters. 

In other words, at some point the 'simulation' of intelligence (or consciousness) actually IS intelligence/consciousness.  If there is no difference detectable, then it IS the real-deal.


EDIT: If one day, we do make a sentient computer.....then it would be absolutely possible to build a different 'computer' that worked on purely mechanical principles...wheels, gears, etc...and THAT could be sentient too.  This is because computers operate on logical principles above all, electronic internal components are NOT required, merely convenient.  Can you imagine that?  A collection of gears that is fully sentient, self-aware, and has all the rights of a person.

[Cyberia]

Sorry for double-posting.

I just figured out what you are talking about regarding 'movement', and I think you're right.  In fact, I think you've just solved a major AI problem.  Nevertheless, no physical rules are being violated, you're wrong in that regard.

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon derived from the system of neuronal interactions.  As such, it does NOT have a physical representation or place of residence.  It's the system of interactions. 

Lets use my example of a mechanical gear-based computer:  The position of the gears represents individual bits of data (blue, up, 736, etc) but it's the total system of movement of the gears that IS the consciousness.  The movement is the consciousness.

This means the AI researchers are wrong, plain and simple.  Consciousness isn't hardware or software based.  It's how those two systems interact!  It's the exchange of data, not the data itself, nor the rules that process the data.

The 'bottom-up' approach that I described in my first post is therefore the ONLY possible method of duplicating the effect.  MOST INTERESTING.

[L6]

Awareness is the only absolute certainty we have. All of science is ultimately based on that basic certainty. As such, I figure Awareness is one Question that science will never be able to fully address, because that would effectively be Awareness trying to prove to itself that it exists. I think that all inquiry into this question will indeed reveal a lot about not just ourselves, but of reality as a whole, because we would need to learn about all of reality before coming round full circle to "prove" the one fundamental fact (rather, to bring our understanding of the system to complete consistency*).

* No, this would not violate Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, as complete understanding does not require an axiomatic system.

[captainmanacles]

AWARENESS IS NOT PHYSICAL.

Merely stating something in capital letters does not make it so.

No f**king duh, thats what I hate about some of you people. You assume everyone's an idiot because they don't agree with you.

Freak is a major example of someone that I actually LIKE to talk to because they don't go around touting how they're right without actually reading the other few thousand words someone's written!

He didn't say anything about you being an idiot, or that he didn't agree with you.  You seem to be reading a lot of things that aren't there.  You might want to get that checked.

[ksm]

And of course an illusion of awareness came from evolution, but its just not possible with our current laws of physics for an actual awareness to exist. The only way for it to be physical is for the universe to be more than just movement, and everything you'll find is only an example of movement *except* the awareness.

No. You have not established this.

Tell me explicitly where in the "laws of physics" awareness is prohibited. Gravition? Electromagnetism? The Nuclear Forces? Relativity? Define and categorize the features of the "laws of physics" that will prevent awareness.

And while you are at it define "actual awareness", "the illusion of awareness", and the difference between them.

Your ball bearing analogy is an extreme over simplification and ignores everything we have learned about quantum mechanics, chaos, and others have mentioned emergent phenomena.

[gonegolfing]

The level of awareness in the human mind is directly proportional to the brains ability to accept the perceptions of our sensibilities. Awareness is the by-product of a brain that has deciphered the data that has been perceived and delivered to it by the senses. Therefore rudimentary awareness is completely dependent on a fully functioning and healthy brain that can discern and understand its surroundings through the data sent to it by the senses.

The brain does not respond to or is affected by awareness as you state, it creates it after the fact. The blind person who does not see the post in front of them is going to end up with a goose egg, or the deaf person who does not hear the vicious barking dog coming from behind is in serious trouble. Therefore if the senses are impaired and/or the brain is malfunctioning or damaged, the level of awareness will then be proportional to the impairment and/or damage. When evolution gave birth to our senses is also the time when the brain then began to give birth to awareness. No deception required.

Awareness therefore is not a universal entity as some assume. Not all humans are aware. The level of what it will be in an individual, will rest on the power of ones sensibilities and then the brains power to produce it. Awareness then is not an energy and is only the powerless effect and by-product of the chemical reactions of the brain, which works in codependency with the senses.

It's all physical mate.

IMHO 

 

That bi-product of intelligence- awareness, is what I was talking about the illusion of awareness. For an actual awareness to exist in an evolutionary life form, it needs to develop a system where an illusion of awareness forms. So, if awareness is an illusion, we really shouldn't be here. The entire universe is made up of arbitrary movement. Without this literal awareness, we'd literally be going around like computers, thinking we're aware. But the fact that I am actually in an intelligent animal that observes awareness is something remarkable- and NOT explainable by how the brain works.

The brain forms an abstraction of awareness. I am fully aware of that fact, and need that fact to actually make my point. I also need the fact that we're actually here experiencing this "illusion."

The fact is, awareness is undeniably something new- not energy. Energy only moves, yes in a variety of ways, but everything is just movement- like a bunch of steel ball bearings rolling around in a crate. The only difference is transformation- when something transforms it only changes the way it moves, is arranged and moves other things. I should be able to take out the arranged part in the midst of the fact that energy is infinitely divisible- its a substance made up of infinitesimal points, which makes movement a constant rearrangement. Some things happen in unison.

The human brain might as well be a very complicated abacus. Get what I'm saying yet?

I believe so.  Is it not the bottom line that you are suggesting that awareness is the result of an unknown or foreign law and not the physical laws of our universe ??

Awareness is not an abstraction or not an illusion. It is a real event. It's an actuality that, as has been pointed out here by myself and others, is due to the exchange of information between the senses and the prefrontal cortex. Awareness came when the brain enlarged to give us the larger frontal lobe, and not only the ability to be aware but the comprehension of awareness. Yes, some species have other mechanisms and capabilities that we do not have, but name one other species that has the ability to comprehend and be aware to the magnitude that our species has ?? Not one, and it's due to one thing and one thing only: the physical increase in the size and capacity and abilities of the prefrontal cortex and its ability to discern and comprehend information. I'm very reluctant to call awareness a form of energy, and yet to achieve the result requires the movement of information between the separate systems of the senses and the cortex.    We do experience a comprehension event when this happens... Hmmmm... I'm not sure what to label awareness yet I guess. I do feel it's a phsical event.

Awareness and intelligence simply came as a natural result of the evolution of an increasingly complex brain which of course is striving to work for us and not against us. Awareness, as all other evolutionary processes, was very slow, but inevitable, as the species gradually formed better ways to survive, and most certainly evolving awareness was a change that was beneficial to our species.

Therefore I feel awareness is not remarkable at all, and is very easy to understand when looking at the facts of the evolution of our own species in comparison to the evolution of others. The fact that we are a singularity in evolution is quite remarkable, but our abilities as a result of it do not surprise me or cause me to consider an outside source for the awareness that we possess.

Cheers   

[Alkan]

Sorry for double-posting.

I just figured out what you are talking about regarding 'movement', and I think you're right.  In fact, I think you've just solved a major AI problem.  Nevertheless, no physical rules are being violated, you're wrong in that regard.

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon derived from the system of neuronal interactions.  As such, it does NOT have a physical representation or place of residence.  It's the system of interactions. 

Lets use my example of a mechanical gear-based computer:  The position of the gears represents individual bits of data (blue, up, 736, etc) but it's the total system of movement of the gears that IS the consciousness.  The movement is the consciousness.

This means the AI researchers are wrong, plain and simple.  Consciousness isn't hardware or software based.  It's how those two systems interact!  It's the exchange of data, not the data itself, nor the rules that process the data.

The 'bottom-up' approach that I described in my first post is therefore the ONLY possible method of duplicating the effect.  MOST INTERESTING.

I don't think you get it quite yet. I know what I am explaining is almost certain to me now, yet explaining it is seemingly impossible, not because of my audience, but because of what it literally is. That consciousness you speak of is something I've already accounted for- the fact that the brain must organize itself into a conscious system, with a central awareness is essential- and any animal could function on that alone, including us. Its the fact that we're here that's so strange. If the universe was just a bunch of movement, it would be virtually non existant. Humans would be moving around with an evolved awareness, but really, would still be virtually non existant because there would be nothing to observe the humans' consciousness-just a brain to calculate the world around it. As it is, our brains are only a complex arrangement of quarks and possible higgs particles existing and changing over space-time.

[Ambassador Pony]

but its just not possible with our current laws of physics for an actual awareness to exist. The only way for it to be physical is for the universe to be more than just movement, and everything you'll find is only an example of movement *except* the awareness.

Tell me if you don't understand.

I don't accept your premsie, stating that something is impossible without the capacity to measure the variables involved or know what they all are (despite your claiming to be able to do this), is akin to a theist saying "It's a mystery, therefore god" or making any argument from personal incredulity.

But assuming you're, by some miracle, dead-on, how is it not infinitely more impossible (if something could be more impossible than impossible) for a god with even more refined awareness to exist?

It seems self-refuting as evidence for any deity.

[Alkan]

but its just not possible with our current laws of physics for an actual awareness to exist. The only way for it to be physical is for the universe to be more than just movement, and everything you'll find is only an example of movement *except* the awareness.

Tell me if you don't understand.

I don't accept your premsie, stating that something is impossible without the capacity to measure the variables involved or know what they all are (despite your claiming to be able to do this), is akin to a theist saying "It's a mystery, therefore god" or making any argument from personal incredulity.

But assuming you're, by some miracle, dead-on, how is it not infinitely more impossible (if something could be more impossible than impossible) for a god with even more refined awareness to exist?

It seems self-refuting as evidence for any deity.

Actually, I came to my conclusion while doubting God's existence...

If you understood what I understood, you'd see that it really is the only example of energy doing something other than moving. I'm only leaving the part about what awareness IS to everyone else to interpret. What I am saying, is it breaks the laws of every other physical phenomenon observed.

Anyways, don't come on with the abstractness of the brain argument- if it wasn't for the fact that we evolve to an awareness, my argument wouldn't really be possible. I want to tell you something that is fact- The brain is made up entirely of quarks and the possible Higgs particle, and the only thing that these things are doing is MOVING. Because human beings classify the movement, we think its doing something other than moving. Its humans being abstract that causes the assumption that awareness is the result of the brain's complexity. Its almost sad how scientists have such a magical idea of energy.

I'm also shocked at how abstract scientists are being when they instantly attribute awareness to the complexity of the brain. Its the classic human error of quanitity- we assume something becomes something new at a certain point. What people trying to design A.I. have assumed is that the awareness is physical.

If everything was physical, then the brain would be pure movement, and the universe would be as good as non-existent because we'd not be here to see it.

By the way, my existential crisis taught me a lot about not jumping to conclusions, and it got me here. My thinking is ridiculously technical. I have trained my mind to be so technical that I have to criticize and analyze every abstract statement that I see. You can imagine how I react when I see famous quotes by artists...

My conclusion is a result of being overly-literal, not the opposite, as so many would assume.

Now that I've shown you what my viewpoint is, I hope that my viewpoint allows you to be more open to my idea, so that you can actually take the time to understand it, because it is complicated, and takes ability to grasp mechanical concepts.

[ksm]

If you understood what I understood, you'd see that it really is the only example of energy doing something other than moving. I'm only leaving the part about what awareness IS to everyone else to interpret. What I am saying, is it breaks the laws of every other physical phenomenon observed.

What laws does it break? Please specify them.

I'm also shocked at how abstract scientists are being when they instantly attribute awareness to the complexity of the brain. Its the classic human error of quanitity- we assume something becomes something new at a certain point. What people trying to design A.I. have assumed is that the awareness is physical.

Present some evidence that awareness is non-physical, or that anything non-physical exists, and can interact with the physical world.

If everything was physical, then the brain would be pure movement, and the universe would be as good as non-existent because we'd not be here to see it.

Huh? Why?

By the way, my existential crisis taught me a lot about not jumping to conclusions, and it got me here. My thinking is ridiculously technical. I have trained my mind to be so technical that I have to criticize and analyze every abstract statement that I see. You can imagine how I react when I see famous quotes by artists...

You obviously have a well developed ego.

My conclusion is a result of being overly-literal, not the opposite, as so many would assume.

Now that I've shown you what my viewpoint is, I hope that my viewpoint allows you to be more open to my idea, so that you can actually take the time to understand it, because it is complicated, and takes ability to grasp mechanical concepts.

Your conclusion is waffle, because your premise is faulty, broken even.

You have provided no evidence to back up your ideas about awareness and physicality, just naked assertions and statements in capital letters.

[Freak]

OK Free Thinker, I've read everything in this thread, and thought a bit about it. You obviously have thought about this quite a bit, and have faced credulity from others. I appreciate that.

Unfortunately, I find that you have failed to demonstrate properly why quarks (etc.) in motion cannot account for consciousness. I realize that this is a tricky topic, and to be honest I don't know how one would show that anything could give rise to consciousness. Consciousness is very strange. Or, at least it feels that way. The problem seems to me to be one of not enough information. We need to discover more about what consciousness is, what it arises from, and how, if at all, it could arise from the physical. It certainly doesn't feel very physical.

You need to keep in mind however, when debating atheists on a board like this, that people are jaded to far out claims. Theists come in every day spewing all sorts of half-thoughts and crap, and we learn to simply tune them out. To suggest that consciousness is based on something other than the physical, you are forcing us to accept that there is something other than the physical. That is something that stretches credulity for many of us.

Don't get me wrong, I love pushing the limits. But what you are suggesting is... well, frankly, unprecedented. Your arguments need to be clear, and bullet-proof. I look forward to more clarifying posts form you.

[Alkan]

OK Free Thinker, I've read everything in this thread, and thought a bit about it. You obviously have thought about this quite a bit, and have faced credulity from others. I appreciate that.

Unfortunately, I find that you have failed to demonstrate properly why quarks (etc.) in motion cannot account for consciousness. I realize that this is a tricky topic, and to be honest I don't know how one would show that anything could give rise to consciousness. Consciousness is very strange. Or, at least it feels that way. The problem seems to me to be one of not enough information. We need to discover more about what consciousness is, what it arises from, and how, if at all, it could arise from the physical. It certainly doesn't feel very physical.

You need to keep in mind however, when debating atheists on a board like this, that people are jaded to far out claims. Theists come in every day spewing all sorts of half-thoughts and crap, and we learn to simply tune them out. To suggest that consciousness is based on something other than the physical, you are forcing us to accept that there is something other than the physical. That is something that stretches credulity for many of us.

Don't get me wrong, I love pushing the limits. But what you are suggesting is... well, frankly, unprecedented. Your arguments need to be clear, and bullet-proof. I look forward to more clarifying posts form you.

Why quarks can't give rise to consciousness? Because, if quarks are just moving- from point A to point B, and causing some other bits of energy to move- even from themselves, then they would have defied their own limation of movement.

Awareness is a completely new phenomenon. I'm not saying its God, or anything like that. I'm not telling YOU that, because I don't know for sure. I am certain that its at least energy breaking the basic law of physics that shows that any action that something does has to be movement.

[L6]

Its almost sad how scientists have such a magical idea of energy.

I will grant you that. I tried to raise that question over at ATT and was met with ridicule. I don't think that's really relevant to this discussion, however.

I'm also shocked at how abstract scientists are being when they instantly attribute awareness to the complexity of the brain. Its the classic human error of quanitity- we assume something becomes something new at a certain point.

Actually, we observe that something becomes new at a certain point, because properties emerge that could not have been predicted from its component parts. Or are you just hinting at the Sorites Paradox?

What people trying to design A.I. have assumed is that the awareness is physical.

Science only deals with the physical. The whole point is to work within the physical, because then we can manipulate it. Even if we had some other epistemological means of knowing that everything was powered by some invisible awareness, that understanding would not actually advance our working knowledge of the world.

If everything was physical, then the brain would be pure movement, and the universe would be as good as non-existent because we'd not be here to see it.

Well, "things" are just processes that move relatively slowly compared to other processes, so everything is movement, and only in terms of other movement, since there is no asbolute center point in space. I'm not sure how the second half of your sentence follows from the first.

[ksm]

OK Free Thinker, I've read everything in this thread, and thought a bit about it. You obviously have thought about this quite a bit, and have faced credulity from others. I appreciate that.

Unfortunately, I find that you have failed to demonstrate properly why quarks (etc.) in motion cannot account for consciousness. I realize that this is a tricky topic, and to be honest I don't know how one would show that anything could give rise to consciousness. Consciousness is very strange. Or, at least it feels that way. The problem seems to me to be one of not enough information. We need to discover more about what consciousness is, what it arises from, and how, if at all, it could arise from the physical. It certainly doesn't feel very physical.

You need to keep in mind however, when debating atheists on a board like this, that people are jaded to far out claims. Theists come in every day spewing all sorts of half-thoughts and crap, and we learn to simply tune them out. To suggest that consciousness is based on something other than the physical, you are forcing us to accept that there is something other than the physical. That is something that stretches credulity for many of us.

Don't get me wrong, I love pushing the limits. But what you are suggesting is... well, frankly, unprecedented. Your arguments need to be clear, and bullet-proof. I look forward to more clarifying posts form you.

Well said.

[Ambassador Pony]

Actually, I came to my conclusion while doubting God's existence...

Irrelevant. Why did you even bring it up?

Was it intended as a response to my question about your philosophy being self-refuting as an evidence for god? Can you respond to that.

If you understood what I understood, you'd see that it really is the only example of energy doing something other than moving. I'm only leaving the part about what awareness IS to everyone else to interpret. What I am saying, is it breaks the laws of every other physical phenomenon observed.

Anyways, don't come on with the abstractness of the brain argument- if it wasn't for the fact that we evolve to an awareness, my argument wouldn't really be possible. I want to tell you something that is fact- The brain is made up entirely of quarks and the possible Higgs particle, and the only thing that these things are doing is MOVING. Because human beings classify the movement, we think its doing something other than moving. Its humans being abstract that causes the assumption that awareness is the result of the brain's complexity. Its almost sad how scientists have such a magical idea of energy.

I'm also shocked at how abstract scientists are being when they instantly attribute awareness to the complexity of the brain. Its the classic human error of quanitity- we assume something becomes something new at a certain point. What people trying to design A.I. have assumed is that the awareness is physical.

If everything was physical, then the brain would be pure movement, and the universe would be as good as non-existent because we'd not be here to see it.

By the way, my existential crisis taught me a lot about not jumping to conclusions, and it got me here. My thinking is ridiculously technical. I have trained my mind to be so technical that I have to criticize and analyze every abstract statement that I see. You can imagine how I react when I see famous quotes by artists...

My conclusion is a result of being overly-literal, not the opposite, as so many would assume.

Now that I've shown you what my viewpoint is, I hope that my viewpoint allows you to be more open to my idea, so that you can actually take the time to understand it, because it is complicated, and takes ability to grasp mechanical concepts.

I am as open to your idea as I am to any other.

Your idea involves the capacity to deceive oneself into believing they have a grasp of the variables involved in what they propose to explain. You propose that you know all the variables involved (you don't, no one does), you propsoe that you understand how they relate to one another (you don't, no one does), and on top of everything you want others to consider your conclusion seriously based on your personal authority as a "smart guy". (due to an inability to render it in plain language).

Have you sent a formal version of your thesis to a Nobel Prize committee? You should, they accept submissions from teenagers, so no worries.

[Cyberia]

Why quarks can't give rise to consciousness? Because, if quarks are just moving- from point A to point B, and causing some other bits of energy to move- even from themselves, then they would have defied their own limation of movement.

Awareness is a completely new phenomenon.

No, I don't think it is.  It's an emergent phenomenon.  Let me give you another example:

The air we breath is composed of molecules.  Those molecules are governed by very simple rules, mostly electromagnetism.  Yet the phenomenon of "Weather" is just a system of interactions of simple particles and simple rules.

Consciousness is the same thing.  Simple rules govern neurons.  But the complex interactions of all of them working together produces consciousness.  We should be able to analyze consciousness in the same way we analyze weather.  We can't predict it exactly, but we DO have tools that we can use on complex systems.  Systems Analysis is a perfectly valid mathematical field.  Even though you can't point to it as having a specific physical representation in and of itself (try to point at the 'weather'), it is still a physical effect that can be understood to a certain extant.

That's what you made me realize.  That's where the AI guys are getting it wrong.  It's not specifically a hardware or software issue, although you DO need the right hardware/software to cause the specific interactions in the right way.  They are too close to the problem to see it.  Can't see the forest for all the trees.

The hardware doesn't cause consciousness.  The software doesn't cause consciousness.  The interaction of the two IS consciousness.  It's non-physical in that you can't point at something (ie: a part of the brain) and say "THERE IT IS!", but it IS physical in the sense that you get wet if you stand outside during a storm.

[Alkan]

Irrelevant. Why did you even bring it up?

I am as open to your idea as I am to any other.

Your idea involves the capacity to deceive oneself into believing they have a grasp of the variables involved in what they propose to explain. You propose that you know all the variables involved (you don't, no one does), you propsoe that you understand how they relate to one another (you don't, no one does), and on top of everything you want others to consider your conclusion seriously based on your personal authority as a "smart guy". (due to an inability to render it in plain language).

Have you sent a formal version of your thesis to a Nobel Prize committee? You should, they accept submissions from teenagers, so no worries.

What prize would I get? Peace, Physics? Its really neither, well, if it was one, its physics, but, it requires you to understand the basis of it.

I don't propose to understand every variable about the brain, however, I know that every variable we will find is limited to movement. Of all the variables we'll discover in the brain, the only thing we're going to find is movement- unless computer science shows that A.I. code starts doing things that are completely random and unexpected, when the code is fully understood- in which case my hypothesis would be supported, but that's something I almost expect not to happen.

However, don't begin to think that I am denying evolutionary consciousness. That is the awareness that science is discovering- my hypothesis wouldn't in fact be possible, or logical without it. Without the evolutionary consciousness being the result of movement, my theory would fall apart. But, if the evolutionary awareness was not, for some reason, part of only movement, then what I am trying to prove would be proven--however, I doubt that scenario as well.

To complete the final section of the overall explaination, the reason I don't believe awareness is physical, is because the universe is one big 10 dimensional shape, and energy is functionally a bunch of infinitesmals moving in unicen existing in point A, then existing in point B. The universe is made up entirely of energy. That also happens to be a past hypothesis of mine that it turns out I was right about. Its now usually accepted that matter is just a compression of energy.

So, if the universe is a bunch of empty space and infintesmals moving in unicen, and the awareness is physical- then the awareness is a bunch of infintesmals moving in unicen. That means the only thing that can decide this argument is answering both of these questions no- "Is awareness an illusion?" and "Is awareness another physical phenomenon- separate from energy, forces and empty space?"

The first question is complicated- immune to logical thought. The answer to the first one for me is- "I am here, so it can't be a total illusion." The second- its just an interpretation of what it could be if its not energy, force or empty space.

I don't know if I wish to even try to prove it anymore.

I also have a philosophical belief that science, religion and philosophy are all equally, but differently important to the truth. "A somewhat unfamiliar concept to the average mind."

[Alkan]

No, I don't think it is.  It's an emergent phenomenon.  Let me give you another example:

The air we breath is composed of molecules.  Those molecules are governed by very simple rules, mostly electromagnetism.  Yet the phenomenon of "Weather" is just a system of interactions of simple particles and simple rules.

Consciousness is the same thing.  Simple rules govern neurons.  But the complex interactions of all of them working together produces consciousness.  We should be able to analyze consciousness in the same way we analyze weather.  We can't predict it exactly, but we DO have tools that we can use on complex systems.  Systems Analysis is a perfectly valid mathematical field.  Even though you can't point to it as having a specific physical representation in and of itself (try to point at the 'weather'), it is still a physical effect that can be understood to a certain extant.

That's what you made me realize.  That's where the AI guys are getting it wrong.  It's not specifically a hardware or software issue, although you DO need the right hardware/software to cause the specific interactions in the right way.  They are too close to the problem to see it.  Can't see the forest for all the trees.

The hardware doesn't cause consciousness.  The software doesn't cause consciousness.  The interaction of the two IS consciousness.  It's non-physical in that you can't point at something (ie: a part of the brain) and say "THERE IT IS!", but it IS physical in the sense that you get wet if you stand outside during a storm.

Yes, two major things against your argument-

One, for me is the most obvious one.

The system of weather is still, nothing more than a more complicated system of interactions. The brain might as well be as arbitrary as weather.

Really, I don't think you get what I am saying quite yet- I am telling you that I know that there is an evolutionary consciousness- that is exactly what you're talking about. We could function off of that alone. Its the fact that we're here experiencing that complex interaction that is so bizarre.

Law of physics that confines everything to movement says we shouldn't be here- it says we should be an arbitrary system of atoms with an illusion of awareness. But we're here, and here we are...

[L6]

Free Thinker, I'm having a hard time following your reasoning. Perhaps you can start from the beginning and build to your conclusion logically, step by step. Start with, for example, the one certainty that "awareness adverts" and continue from there.

[ksm]

The system of weather is still, nothing more than a more complicated system of interactions. The brain might as well be as arbitrary as weather.

I think I see the problem now.

You are uncomfortable with the idea that we might just be super-advanced meat based computers.

Yes?

What if this is the truth? How would that change your life?

[captainmanacles]

The system of weather is still, nothing more than a more complicated system of interactions. The brain might as well be as arbitrary as weather.

I think I see the problem now.

You are uncomfortable with the idea that we might just be super-advanced meat based computers.

Yes?

What if this is the truth? How would that change your life?

mmmm.....meat computer, I'd buy one

I do kinda get what he's saying though.  I'd have more patience for it if he didn't have the attitude, but at what point of time does a collection of molecules cause awareness and why?  We don't know, but that doesn't support his "therefore maybe god or something" hypothesis, any more then it ever did for any other gap in our understanding. 

[Alkan]

The system of weather is still, nothing more than a more complicated system of interactions. The brain might as well be as arbitrary as weather.

I think I see the problem now.

You are uncomfortable with the idea that we might just be super-advanced meat based computers.

Yes?

What if this is the truth? How would that change your life?

No, actually, we are just super advanced neuron based computers, an arrangement of chemicals, which is in fact a bunch of atoms, which is a bunch of electrons protons and neutrons, electrons also are moving throughout the brain, which are a bunch of quarks, which is all just a bunch of energy, which is just a bunch of movement.

Doesn't matter how complicated the brain is, or how level of awareness relates to the brain, we really can't be here experiencing this awareness we evolved to if we're just a substance moving from point A to point B.

Thats what evolutionary awareness is. Electron moves from point A to point B. Valence electron releases from a carbon based molecule. That molecule splits. Its all just movement.

Thats also what I was getting at with the weather- The climate is just an intricate sytem. Even though the weather makes up the climate, the climate is still just a bunch of weather.

The brain is still just a bunch of energy moving from point A to point B, no matter how complicated... lol.

See what I am getting at yet?

[Cyberia]

No, actually, we are just super advanced neuron based computers, an arrangement of chemicals, which is in fact a bunch of atoms, which is a bunch of electrons protons and neutrons, electrons also are moving throughout the brain, which are a bunch of quarks, which is all just a bunch of energy, which is just a bunch of movement.

Well, matter itself is 99% nothing.  There are days I feel like that...

[ksm]

See what I am getting at yet?

Ultimately no.

In my opinion you are contained wholly within your own skull. You are your brain, and the sum of it's interactions. If I damage your brain or fill it with chemicals, I can change you. Your awareness cannot withstand physical alterations of the brain it is part of.

Awareness is a by product of the emergent behaviour of the meat based computer inside our skulls.

[Ambassador Pony]

Free Thinker, don't take my word for it. 

1) Prepare a formal, detailed write up of your thesis, along with the supporting data (however anecdotal) and any testable hypotheses that follow.

2) Send this package to the appropriate departments of 25 major universities where the formost experts in those fields study and work.

When you receive your responses, or lack of them, go from there.

If, at any time you encounter criticism, and say to yourself, "they just don't understand the genius of my proposal", repeat steps 1 and 2 for 25 other universities.

With such a genius idea, wouldn't you get major recognition and meaningful employ? If you are a humble person, not in search of the limelight, you certainly could remain anonymous and translate your success into real help for your fellow humans who are suffering, give the money to charities and such.

Any other course seems selfish to me. Unless you think yahweh would be displeased with your work. He doesn't deal with anger well. 

[Alkan]

See what I am getting at yet?

Ultimately no.

In my opinion you are contained wholly within your own skull. You are your brain, and the sum of it's interactions. If I damage your brain or fill it with chemicals, I can change you. Your awareness cannot withstand physical alterations of the brain it is part of.

Awareness is a by product of the emergent behaviour of the meat based computer inside our skulls.

You still are stuck behind your abstractions.

"You a a brain, and the sum of it's interactions."

Well, that would explain functional awareness, but not literal awareness. Furthermore, all those interactions are just a mass of energy moving in various directions. I never rejected the idea that one could alter another person's behavior by doing something to their brain. All I am saying is that it seems like something is attached to this brain, or existing in unicen with it, if the brain is just movement.

I think I might repost this thread, but I think it will be simpler, and have terms given with definition to make the argument easier on everyone.

[Ambassador Pony]

Unison

[Ambassador Pony]

 All I am saying is that it seems like something is attached to this brain, or existing in unicen with it, if the brain is just movement.

What is the rate of causation between the two variables (1.0? .5?)? What scale of measurement did you use to measure the interaction?

I say all your posts come from a yellow lerprechaun, sure you are physcially responsible for your posts, but the leprechauns merely place the illusion (attached to your brain) in your mind that you are responsible for the ideas.