How Can Molecules Think?

[doubtingmerle]

Consciousness of the physical world may cease but the being may be conscious of other dimensions and not remember them upon waking back in physical realm.

How convenient. While under anesthesia the person loses all contact with the senses, doesn't even dream, and when he wakes up, he is not even aware of the passage of time while he was out. I contend that is good evidence the person was not conscious during that time.

But you say the person is conscious the whole time. That is, the soul is conscious the whole time, but it loses contact with the brain's senses. What is the soul doing all that time? Playing back favorite songs, counting to 10,000, or thinking about his next day? That person may have had several hours of quality time to think with no possible disturbance. But he wakes up, and all the thoughts he was experiencing are just conveniently not remembered? How convenient for your hypothesis!

If your hypothesis of a soul requires contrived explanations like that, you might want to reconsider your hypothesis.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Did molecules think all this up?

My molecules did that, and a whole lot of other things.

Let's all take a moment of silence to be thankful for what our neurons do for us.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Molecular inspiration.

All thoughts are given by inspiration of neurons, and are profitable for doctoring, for proofs, for corrections, for instruction in right living.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

How convenient. While under anesthesia the person loses all contact with the senses, doesn't even dream, and when he wakes up, he is not even aware of the passage of time while he was out. I contend that is good evidence the person was not conscious during that time.

But you say the person is conscious the whole time. That is, the soul is conscious the whole time, but it loses contact with the brain's senses. What is the soul doing all that time? Playing back favorite songs, counting to 10,000, or thinking about his next day? That person may have had several hours of quality time to think with no possible disturbance. But he wakes up, and all the thoughts he was experiencing are just conveniently not remembered? How convenient for your hypothesis!

If your hypothesis of a soul requires contrived explanations like that, you might want to reconsider your hypothesis.

Not quite the strawman you present. My hypothesis is more like: consciousness has many modes, "thought" is only one of them. And what is "thought"?
"any mental event may be understood as a form of thinking, including perception and unconscious mental processes."

Indeed, "mental" is the key term linking thought to brain, a subset of the realm of awareness, an object of consciousness. "Consciousness" of the soul or inner aspects of being takes us deeper into the mind-body problem. But if one is a materialist it all seems brain dependent. After death all consciousness ceases. Thinking and all awareness is nothing more than the activity of neurons. Observing from physical senses that seems to be the case so far.

But others with a more spiritual sensitivity have other more mystical theories. The main question: Does consciousness arise out of matter? Or does matter arise out of consciousness?
The idea that everything from spoons to stones is conscious is gaining academic credibility

 

[doubtingmerle]

Not quite the strawman you present. My hypothesis is more like: consciousness has many modes, "thought" is only one of them. And what is "thought"?
"any mental event may be understood as a form of thinking, including perception and unconscious mental processes."

Indeed, "mental" is the key term linking thought to brain, a subset of the realm of awareness, an object of consciousness. "Consciousness" of the soul or inner aspects of being takes us deeper into the mind-body problem. But if one is a materialist it all seems brain dependent. After death all consciousness ceases. Thinking and all awareness is nothing more than the activity of neurons. Observing from physical senses that seems to be the case so far.

I was confused with what you were saying. Its still a little fuzzy, but I think I am beginning to understand you.

I have been contending that the conscious human mind is a result of brain function. One evidence for this is the affect of anesthesia. When a brain is under the influence of anesthesia, conscious human mental activity ceases totally (or very close to totally).

I thought you were disagreeing, but now I read that it is a strawman that you disagree. So if it is a strawman that you disagree, that must mean you agree, huh?

But others with a more spiritual sensitivity have other more mystical theories. The main question: Does consciousness arise out of matter? Or does matter arise out of consciousness?
The idea that everything from spoons to stones is conscious is gaining academic credibility

Thank you for sharing this link. It is quite interesting.

The link presents the idea that consciousness somehow permeates all of matter or all of the universe. Yes, the consciousness of the universe is qualitatively different from human consciousness, just like protons, neutrons and electrons are qualitatively different from human bodies that are a combination of these particles. So, just as atoms come together to form animal bodies, your link suggests background consciousness comes together to form human consciousness.

This is a slight change of topic. Regarding my topic, the idea that human consciousness relies on the functioning of the underlying brain, it appears we agree. I conclude that, when the brain ceases to function, human consciousness as we know it must cease.

But yes, it is certainly a mystery how molecules can create consciousness. I show a simple block diagram of how it could happen. If we could come up with a more complex block diagram that completely describes what is going on in human consciousness in simple steps, then, given enough time, clever programmers could write a computer program to duplicate that block diagram. Would that computer then be conscious? Most of us (but maybe not all of us) think such a computer would not be conscious.

So we circle back to your link. Could it be that there is an underlying substance of consciousness in the universe, which, when brought together, forms human consciousness? And could this underlying consciousness be distinct from the known particle physics of the brain? And could this help explain where human consciousness comes from? Perhaps.

I see this solution to "the hard problem of consciousness" as quite different from dualism, which says there is a distinct soul, not made of matter, that is in charge of the brain. That kind of dualism is defeated by evidence such as the affects of anesthesia.

There is a big difference between saying there is a soul in charge of the brain, and saying the mind that comes from brain function includes a combination of elementary universal consciousness.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So we circle back to your link. Could it be that there is an underlying substance of consciousness in the universe, which, when brought together, forms human consciousness? And could this underlying consciousness be distinct from the known particle physics of the brain? And could this help explain where human consciousness comes from? Perhaps.

Darn! I had a nice response written and left the page. Now its gone.

But Thanks for reading. I have no answers and no strong arguments. But I do like a theory that is a composite of things I have read. Kind of monist, panpsychic or whatever. Here goes.

Consciousness is the nature of the universe, existence, Being.
This pristine underlying conscious substance casts itself into matter, incarnates, first arising as the tiniest of particles, eventually coalescing into atoms, molecules, and in some cases cells, neurons. We begin to recognize consciousness, even as our good friend, doubtingmerle. And yet it was a hidden mysterious consciousness all the time.

My main questions: Why? Why would consciousness cast itself into what seems to be unconsciousness? Why would it subject itself to the suffering of that journey back to pristine consciousness? Why incarnate into all the dramas of life?

 

[doubtingmerle]

My main questions: Why? Why would consciousness cast itself into what seems to be unconsciousness? Why would it subject itself to the suffering of that journey back to pristine consciousness? Why incarnate into all the dramas of life?

Let me guess. You think this consciousness is God.

Let me guess further. You think this consciousness is Jehovah.

Once again, doubtingmerle's law applies: As an online discussion on Christian Forums grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a question arising about the origin of the universe approaches 1.

For what its worth, I address the question of the origin of the universe at Is There a God? - The Mind Set Free .

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think with my brain. My brain is made of molecules. Therefore, molecules, when arranged in a certain way, can think.

But how can that be? After all, you are alive, and you feel what it is to be alive. You are experiencing conscious awareness. How can this awareness be nothing more than the result of molecules and elementary physical particles?

Your conscious awareness might seem to you to be something immaterial that is telling the molecules of your body what to do. And yet, as I wrote at Is There Life after Death, there is abundant evidence that the physical brain is indeed the thing that thinks. There is no soul inside running the show. The brain is in control.

Your brain does the thinking. And it creates the appearance that there is a person in charge controlling everything. Rather, what you have is a mass of neurons acting in parallel. But within that mass of neurons, some ideas rise to attention and drive the body. They create the story that the attention is in charge, but it is only there for the ride. The many neurons acting in parallel are in charge. I discuss this at How Can Molecules Think?

...depending on which Jewish person you ask, you may come across one who says, "By golly, I think you may be right, Merle! That's what my rabbi says too!"

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Let me guess. You think this consciousness is God.

Let me guess further. You think this consciousness is Jehovah.

I think consciousness is mistaken for "God" and thus "Jehovah". I think those terms and the images they provoke don't really quite fit the case. Here I go Zen. What is that pristine consciousness? One can only experience it, not describe or define it.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think consciousness is mistaken for "God" and thus "Jehovah". I think those terms and the images they provoke don't really quite fit the case. Here I go Zen. What is that pristine consciousness? One can only experience it, not describe or define it.

[slight derail]
Why should one think there is such a thing as "pristine consciousness"?

To show my hand a little, we need to move away from ideas that there are ultimates. There is no ultimate meaning or value. There is no best rock or planet or star. They just are. Nor is there, I think, pristine consciousness whatever that might mean.

Consciousness just is and that's enough.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

[slight derail]
Why should one think there is such a thing as "pristine consciousness"?

To show my hand a little, we need to move away from ideas that there are ultimates. There is no ultimate meaning or value. There is no best rock or planet or star. They just are. Nor is there, I think, pristine consciousness whatever that might mean.

Consciousness just is and that's enough.

Just is what? A derivative of matter? An emergent property somehow?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Just is what? A derivative of matter? An emergent property somehow?

You didn't answer my question: Why should one think there is such a thing as "pristine consciousness"? Let me add: What would that even mean?

Consciousness, I think, is the software processing the feedback from experiences. It is the software that attempts to strengthen predictive capability which, in turn, provides desired outcomes. It's analogous to that software on your computer that monitors the health of the system. It is NOT analogous (AFAIK) inasmuch as those computer programs don't do desired outcomes.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You didn't answer my question: Why should one think there is such a thing as "pristine consciousness"? Let me add: What would that even mean?

Consciousness, I think, is the software processing the feedback from experiences. It is the software that attempts to strengthen predictive capability which, in turn, provides desired outcomes. It's analogous to that software on your computer that monitors the health of the system. It is NOT analogous (AFAIK) inasmuch as those computer programs don't do desired outcomes.

The choice is either top down or bottom up. Either consciousness is fundamental or matter is fundamental. "Pristine consciousness is the original eternal consciousness that incarnates in matter. I believe it because it makes more sense to me than "software" derived from hardware.

 

[Bradskii]

The choice is either top down or bottom up. Either consciousness is fundamental or matter is fundamental. "Pristine consciousness is the original eternal consciousness that incarnates in matter. I believe it because it makes more sense to me than "software" derived from hardware.

As @Tinker Grey said, it isn't a case of consciousness or no consciousness. Let me be clear. There are no bright lines. There are no lines in the sand. There is no point when there was no consciousness and then there was.

There is a direct line between whatever you consider to be your own consciousness and whatever it was that might be considered anything like an automatic reaction to the environment by the earliest forms of life.

Take your consideration of self. Is that 'being conscious'? I'd say it is. But then work backwards through time. Your father. His father. And keep going. Eventually you will reach a point where you must, and I'll repeat that - MUST agree that a direct ancestor of yours was not self aware. That it acted automatically. That it gave no conscious thought to whatever it was doing.

So...when did a 'you' emerge in that long line of descent? Was there a generation where whatever it was suddenly thought 'Hey, where did I suddenly come from?'

Obviously not.

The statement 'consciousness is the hard question' doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying 'flight is the hard question'. There never was a moment when creatures could not fly and then could. And it's the same with conciousness. If it popped i to existence then it would be an extremely difficult problem to solve. But as it is...it's simply a gradual feedback loop from external input to iternal reaction.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But as it is...it's simply a gradual feedback loop from external input to iternal reaction.

I can agree with that in the evolutionary process. But do you think it is simply accidental? And that the personalization from inanimate molecules to you, is also a gradual accident?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can agree with that in the evolutionary process. But do you think it is simply accidental? And that the personalization from inanimate molecules to you, is also a gradual accident?

As is normally the case in evolution studies, accidental is not a great term. Consciousness and self-awareness clearly had survival advantages, whatever those might be, as that is generally how any trait arises and persists.

 

[Kylie]

You are experiencing conscious awareness. How can this awareness be nothing more than the result of molecules and elementary physical particles?

Because the interactions between the brain cells are incredibly complex.

 

[Bradskii]

I can agree with that in the evolutionary process. But do you think it is simply accidental? And that the personalization from inanimate molecules to you, is also a gradual accident?

I think that it's a natural outcome of the evolutionary process. Which is as natural as the formation of stars, solar systems etc. And yeah, 'I' just happen to be this conglomeration of matter that has a specific memory - which I believe is all the self is.

 

[partinobodycular]

Because the interactions between the brain cells are incredibly complex.

But let's consider for a moment what you're actually saying.

According to quantum mechanics, matter, i.e molecules are simply fluctuations in some underlying substrate of quantum fields, and everything that you see around you, including your brain, are nothing more than incredibly complex patterns in those fields. So in reality it's those underlying quantum fields that are giving rise to consciousness, and you're just misattributing the cause of consciousness to what is in fact just a concomitant effect, the illusion of a physical reality.

So isn't it possible that you have the causal order wrong? It's not that those quantum fields give rise to matter (your brain), which then gives rise to consciousness, it's that the fields themselves give rise to consciousness which subsequently perceives those fields as a physical reality.

Now I'm not saying that this is in fact the case, but Occam's razor says that you should at least consider the possibility because it's the simpler explanation. Why invoke a two step process when a one step process will produce the exact same effect?

You can either argue that those quantum fields give rise to a physical reality which then in turn gives rise to a conscious observer, or you can simply argue that those quantum fields give rise to a conscious observer directly, and that the conscious observer subsequently perceives those fields as a physical reality.

This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but the difference is profound. You're a set of quantum fields that have become conscious, you're not a set of brain cells that have become conscious.

But hey, I'm just an old solipsist so I obviously lost touch with reality a long time ago, but hopefully, if I haven't given you something to think about I've at least given you something to ridicule.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think that it's a natural outcome of the evolutionary process. Which is as natural as the formation of stars, solar systems etc. And yeah, 'I' just happen to be this conglomeration of matter that has a specific memory - which I believe is all the self is.

So you should have no problem attributing personhood to AI. AI and human intelligence are both hardware based in your view.