How Can Molecules Think?

[Bradskii]

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

I've no problem in accepting a proposal that AI will become conscious. The tablet on which I'm writing this has more computing power than NASA could ever dream of when they put men on the moon. And that was in my lifetime. Jump forward a hundred years. You can't imagine what would be available. What about a thousand? Hey, a few million - assuming we're still here...

Well before that they won't be building computers. They'll be breeding and growing them. Vehicles that will take your distant descendents to the stars will be sentient.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I've no problem in accepting a proposal that AI will become conscious. The tablet on which I'm writing this has more computing power than NASA could ever dream of when they put men on the moon. And that was in my lifetime. Jump forward a hundred years. You can't imagine what would be available. What about a thousand? Hey, a few million - assuming we're still here...

Well before that they won't be building computers. They'll be breeding and growing them. Vehicles that will take your distant descendents to the stars will be sentient.

That may be so but really doesn't get to the root of our little debate. Will computers be sentient persons because consciousness is inherent in matter?

 

[Tinker Grey]

That may be so but really doesn't get to the root of our little debate. Will computers be sentient persons because consciousness is inherent in matter?

Inherent? I don't think anyone says that. It's possible. It exists IFF matter is configured in such a way that supports it.

 

[partinobodycular]

Well before that they won't be building computers. They'll be breeding and growing them. Vehicles that will take your distant descendents to the stars will be sentient.

I wouldn't dismiss this possibility, I would simply question whether you can do it by simply manipulating matter. As if putting a sufficient number of cogs and gears together, or electrical circuits, will be sufficient to produce sentience. However, go beyond that and begin to manipulate the underlying quantum fields directly and creating sentience might not be so implausible.

As of now we manipulate matter which is but one single instantiation of a set of fields that exist in a superposition of states. It's like having one letter of the alphabet and trying to write a novel with it. Highly unlikely. But gain access to the entire alphabet, i.e the quantum fields themselves and all bets are off, even the creation of sentience.

It's as if we're trying to build a computer and the only tool that we have is a hammer. It doesn't mean that the task is impossible, it simply means that we don't have the right tools yet.

 

[Bradskii]

That may be so but really doesn't get to the root of our little debate. Will computers be sentient persons because consciousness is inherent in matter?

No. Consciousness is not inherent in matter. But certain configurations of matter will become conscious.

 

[Bradskii]

It doesn't mean that the task is impossible, it simply means that we don't have the right tools yet.

I agree. It's like the ape with the jaw bone in 2001. It was only a weapon. But the ability to turn a blunt instrument into a tool has taken us from also-ran's in the grand scheme of things to creatures that can produce instruments that can see almost back to the begining of time.

Dare anyone say what can't be accomplished? What is now considered impossible will eventually be thought of as probable. And what is probable will eventually become a certainty.

 

[Kylie]

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.

If you are correct and the one step process you propose is true according to Occam's razor, then you will need to explain how "consciousness creates physical reality" is a simpler solution.

 

[partinobodycular]

If you are correct and the one step process you propose is true according to Occam's razor, then you will need to explain how "consciousness creates physical reality" is a simpler solution.

First, I'm happy that you seem to have at least taken my post seriously. That's a better response than I usually get, so kudos on that.

Second, I don't actually think that consciousness creates physical reality, I think that consciousness is an effect, not a cause.

As to the whole consciousness problem, I think that for years the explanation of consciousness was fairly straightforward, if not completely understood, the universe is made up of a menagerie of particles, molecules, and matter, arrange those particles and molecules in a sufficiently complex pattern and you get consciousness. Nobody's exactly sure how, but that's the gist. Not entirely simple, but still a one step process. Physical matter gives rise to consciousness.

Then about a century ago along comes quantum mechanics and the idea that all those particles and molecules actually arise out of the interactions of a set of fields. Which if you think about it turns that simple one step process into a two step process. The fields give rise to particles and then the particles give rise to consciousness. Arrange the fields in such a manner as to produce particles, and then arrange the particles in such a manner as to produce consciousness.

All that I'm asking is that you reconsider that second step, and think about the possibility that what those fields are actually giving rise to is consciousness. And that concomitant with the emergence of that consciousness is the emergence of everything else. Only in this case 'everything else' doesn't constitute an actual physical reality. It's just an illusion of one. But this means that consciousness isn't the cause, consciousness is an effect. The fields are the cause, and I have absolutely no idea about how they do that, so people are still perfectly free to invoke God at this point. I've simply kicked the can further down the road, it's just a different road.

As I say Occam's razor would suggest that we at least consider this possibility because it requires one less step. The fields give rise to consciousness, and concomitant with the emergence of that consciousness is the emergence of everything else.

I realize that this goes against everything that you've ever believed. I'm just asking you to do what we humans are sometimes hesitant to do...consider it with an open mind.

 

[Bradskii]

As I say Occam's razor would suggest that we at least consider this possibility because it requires one less step. The fields give rise to consciousness, and concomitant with the emergence of that consciousness is the emergence of everything else.

But it's a three step process. Fields - matter - consciousness. Consciousness didn't emerge with everything else. It's a third condition. And obviously isn't needed for the second.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The fields give rise to particles and then the particles give rise to consciousness. Arrange the fields in such a manner as to produce particles, and then arrange the particles in such a manner as to produce consciousness.

Perhaps it is not that fields "give rise to particles" but that particles are, in fact, the fields as observed by current human capabilities. There is no step two other than the illusion of it. So consciousness would be directly associated with fields. Especially so when observed by another conscious human field.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Perhaps it is not that fields "give rise to particles" but that particles are, in fact, the fields as observed by current human capabilities. There is no step two other than the illusion of it. So consciousness would be directly associated with fields. Especially so when observed by another conscious human field.

Humans don't constitute a fundamental field. Consciousness is not demonstrated to be a field either.

 

[partinobodycular]

But it's a three step process. Fields - matter - consciousness. Consciousness didn't emerge with everything else. It's a third condition. And obviously isn't needed for the second.

It think that it would be petty of me to argue whether it's two steps or three steps. If you want to call it three steps I'm perfectly fine with that. Your perspective is just as valid as mine, if not more so. I'm definitely the outlier here.

Let's just agree that you're solidly in the camp that says that the fields gave rise to matter, and then the matter gave rise to consciousness. Full stop.

All that I'm suggesting is that there might be another alternative, that the fields gave rise to consciousness, and as @Akita Suggagaki has rightly surmised physical reality is simply those fields viewed from the perspective of that consciousness.

 

[partinobodycular]

Consciousness is not demonstrated to be a field either.

I would proffer that consciousness is simply an emergent property of those underlying fields, in the same way that physical reality could be said to be an emergent property of those fields.

You do accept the possibility that physical reality is an emergent property of underlying fields...correct? And if physical reality can be an emergent property of those fields then why not consciousness?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would proffer that consciousness is simply an emergent property of those underlying fields, in the same way that physical reality could be said to be an emergent property of those fields.

You do accept the possibility that physical reality is an emergent property of underlying fields...correct? And if physical reality can be an emergent property of those fields then why not consciousness?

This is largely a distinction without difference.

For the fundamental particles there is a fundamental field.

The quantum of the electromagnetic field is the photon.

The quantum of the electron field is the electron. Etc.

So if you want to remove the matter from your thinking, fine, but its still there. Think of it instead as fields/matter --> consciousness.

 

[Kylie]

First, I'm happy that you seem to have at least taken my post seriously. That's a better response than I usually get, so kudos on that.

Second, I don't actually think that consciousness creates physical reality, I think that consciousness is an effect, not a cause.

As to the whole consciousness problem, I think that for years the explanation of consciousness was fairly straightforward, if not completely understood, the universe is made up of a menagerie of particles, molecules, and matter, arrange those particles and molecules in a sufficiently complex pattern and you get consciousness. Nobody's exactly sure how, but that's the gist. Not entirely simple, but still a one step process. Physical matter gives rise to consciousness.

Then about a century ago along comes quantum mechanics and the idea that all those particles and molecules actually arise out of the interactions of a set of fields. Which if you think about it turns that simple one step process into a two step process. The fields give rise to particles and then the particles give rise to consciousness. Arrange the fields in such a manner as to produce particles, and then arrange the particles in such a manner as to produce consciousness.

All that I'm asking is that you reconsider that second step, and think about the possibility that what those fields are actually giving rise to is consciousness. And that concomitant with the emergence of that consciousness is the emergence of everything else. Only in this case 'everything else' doesn't constitute an actual physical reality. It's just an illusion of one. But this means that consciousness isn't the cause, consciousness is an effect. The fields are the cause, and I have absolutely no idea about how they do that, so people are still perfectly free to invoke God at this point. I've simply kicked the can further down the road, it's just a different road.

As I say Occam's razor would suggest that we at least consider this possibility because it requires one less step. The fields give rise to consciousness, and concomitant with the emergence of that consciousness is the emergence of everything else.

I realize that this goes against everything that you've ever believed. I'm just asking you to do what we humans are sometimes hesitant to do...consider it with an open mind.

As I said in post 77, consciousness results from the enormous complexity of the way that neurons interact with each other. You've invoked quantum mechanics, but I honestly see no justification for that. They way neurons communicate is quite well understood, and it uses chemicals. Everything is well above the quantum realm. While the atoms that make up the molecules of the neurons and the neurotransmitters they use to communicate do indeed have their basis in the quantum mechanical, I see no justification for the claim that QM effects have any influence on their behaviour. Here's some more information about how brain cells communicate.

 

[partinobodycular]

This is largely a distinction without difference...

...Think of it instead as fields/matter --> consciousness.

I would restructure this as fields --> consciousness/matter, with consciousness being an emergent property of the fields, and 'physical' reality being a concomitant property of consciousness. What I'm proposing is that physical reality is simply an inherent property of consciousness, and not a cause of it.

I agree with @Kylie that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with how the brain produces consciousness, but then again I'm not convinced that the brain actually does produce consciousness. I'm suggesting that what those underlying fields actually give rise to is consciousness, and concomitant with consciousness is the perception of a physical reality.

I realize that this is an idea that most people will simply reject out of hand, and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but it doesn't mean that it's wrong.

So if you want to remove the matter from your thinking, fine, but its still there.

It's not that I want to remove matter from my thinking, it's that I'm questioning matter's role as the cause of consciousness. I still believe that wherever you have consciousness it will always be accompanied by the perception of a 'physical' reality, it's just not caused by it.

 

[partinobodycular]

Consciousness is not inherent in matter.

But the opposite may in fact be true, that matter is inherent in consciousness. Where you have consciousness you will always have matter.

But certain configurations of matter will become conscious.

Quantum fields by their very nature will always produce consciousness, and consciousness by its very nature will always be accompanied by a 'physical' reality.

 

[Bradskii]

But the opposite may in fact be true, that matter is inherent in consciousness. Where you have consciousness you will always have matter.

Well...yeah. If there's no matter then there's nothing to be conscious.

 

[partinobodycular]

Well...yeah. If there's no matter then there's nothing to be conscious.

But here's the odd part, you accept without question that consciousness will always be accompanied by matter because in your view matter causes consciousness, but you summarily dismiss the alternative that matter is simply a concomitant property of consciousness, and not in fact its cause. You may have simply mistaken correlation with causation. Now one might expect a theist to dismiss any possible alternates to their beliefs, but I would've thought that an open minded atheist like yourself would be above such presumptions. But it's completely understandable, it seems so self-evident that matter gives rise to consciousness that it's almost above question...almost.

 

[Bradskii]

But here's the odd part, you accept without question that consciousness will always be accompanied by matter because in your view matter causes consciousness, but you summarily dismiss the alternative that matter is simply a concomitant property of consciousness, and not in fact its cause. You may have simply mistaken correlation with causation. Now one might expect a theist to dismiss any possible alternates to their beliefs, but I would've thought that an open minded atheist like yourself would be above such presumptions. But it's completely understandable, it seems so self-evident that matter gives rise to consciousness that it's almost above question...almost.

It's a self evident as saying that you can't go for a drive unless there is a car. Matter in a certain configuration will result in an automobile. Likewise you can't think unless you have something with which to think. Matter isn't a cause of driving or thinking. It simply, under certain conditions, enables both of those activities by forming the means to do so.

I don't think it can be classed as being close minded in stating that consciousness can't exist without there being something to actually be conscious.