How Can Molecules Think?

[partinobodycular]

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.

That's a perfectly reasonable assumption, but is it correct?

The thing is that if you begin with a set of quantum fields that are in a superposition, then anything that can exist, will exist. The only alternative to that is the existence of a conscious "God" who can arbitrarily decide what will exist.

Absent this "God" one has to ask themselves, what causes a set of quantum fields that are in a superposition to collapse into individual eigenstates? Now those fields, with their various possible iterations of reality should be perfectly happy existing in a superposition, there's no obvious reason why they should do otherwise, but consciousness can't. Consciousness needs a coherent reality with a rational and logical context in which to exist. So it's not unreasonable to suggest that it's actually consciousness that causes the collapse of the superposition because consciousness can only exist within a collapsed superposition.

So the premise is, that the fields give rise to consciousness, and consciousness can only exist within a coherent "physical" reality, but physical reality doesn't cause consciousness, it only arises in conjunction with it. It will appear as if physical reality gave rise to consciousness but in fact it didn't.

At least that's the argument. What makes you so certain that it's wrong?

 

[Bradskii]

At least that's the argument. What makes you so certain that it's wrong?

I'm a materialist and I like to keep things simple. Matter - life - consciousness.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm a materialist and I like to keep things simple. Matter - life - consciousness.

Ah, well I'm an epistemological solipsist, I question everything, especially the supposedly obvious.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ah, well I'm an epistemological solipsist, I question everything, especially the supposedly obvious.

My preference is to go with the simplest and most likely explanation. The material explanation at least a basis--damage the brain; damage the consciousness. Fields may give rise to consciousness, but I can't even imagine how you'd test such an idea.

That's not to say it might turn out to be right, but I'm not entertaining ideas that aren't testable (yet).

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'm a materialist and I like to keep things simple. Matter - life - consciousness.

Simple but doesn't explain anything. Just a rudimentary observation that should include the word, "seems".

 

[Bradskii]

Simple but doesn't explain anything. Just a rudimentary observation that should include the word, "seems".

Well, we have evidence for that sequence of events. So unless someone has contradictory evidence I'll stick with that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

There is no "consciousness field" that generates matter. If there was we would detect it. That is (not so simple) physics, but it is solid. There are no undiscovered fields or forces that can interact with bodies. None. Non-corporeal spirits are excluded by physics. Consciousness can only be the product of the matter (fields). It is *not* a separate property of the Universe itself.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So the premise is, that the fields give rise to consciousness, and consciousness can only exist within a coherent "physical" reality, but physical reality doesn't cause consciousness, it only arises in conjunction with it. It will appear as if physical reality gave rise to consciousness but in fact it didn't.

We have multiple lines of evidence that indicate it is the brain that thinks. See Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free . Do you agree that it is the neurons of the brain that think?

And it appears that the neurons of the brain also produce a consciousness of the self, a consciousness that actually occurs a split second after the brain acts.

The only mystery to me is why it feels so real.

I would expect that, when evolution produces thinking animals, they would think with a cold, calculating thought process much as a simple computer. But somehow, the lights are on. Somehow it feels like something to be me. That really seems strange to me that it feels like something to be me. But it does.

And no, I don't think quantum mechanics, universal consciousness permeating spacetime, or individual souls does anything to explain why it feels so real.

 

[partinobodycular]

There is no "consciousness field" that generates matter. If there was we would detect it. That is (not so simple) physics, but it is solid. There are no undiscovered fields or forces that can interact with bodies. None. Non-corporeal spirits are excluded by physics. Consciousness can only be the product of the matter (fields). It is *not* a separate property of the Universe itself.

I realize that sometimes I do an absolutely terrible job of explaining myself. In fact most of the time I do a terrible job.

In this case what I'm suggesting is that the fields that give rise to matter are the exact same fields that give rise to consciousness. It's the same fields manifested in two different ways. As a conscious observer and as the physical reality perceived by that observer. That's why I say that it's not that the fields give rise to matter and then the matter gives rise to consciousness, rather the fields give rise to both of them in tandem. It's the same fields giving rise to two distinct aspects of one coherent whole.

Hopefully that's a little clearer, still absurd, but not completely out of touch with reality...barely.

 

[Kylie]

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.

This seems to be easily testable. Make changes to the physical structure of the brain and see if there is any corresponding change in the consciousness of a person. This has been done - many times - and the results all match what we would expect to see if consciousness is created by the physical structure of the brain.

 

[partinobodycular]

We have multiple lines of evidence that indicate it is the brain that thinks. See Is There Life after Death? - The Mind Set Free . Do you agree that it is the neurons of the brain that think?

This seems to be easily testable. Make changes to the physical structure of the brain and see if there is any corresponding change in the consciousness of a person. This has been done - many times - and the results all match what we would expect to see if consciousness is created by the physical structure of the brain.

Remember, I said that consciousness and physical reality are concomitant attributes. On its own consciousness can't do anything. It can't see. It can't hear. And it can't think. So if you hit me in the head with a bat and knock me unconscious my consciousness isn't sitting there wondering where everything went. It's just unconscious.

The problem is that whether reality is real or an illusion doesn't matter, it will look exactly the same either way. It will obey the exact same laws of cause and effect. The neurons in the brain will fire in exactly the same sequence. I'll still be asking these exact same questions, and hitting me in the head with a bat will have the exact same outcome.

Unfortunately there's just no way to tell the difference.

So here's the question that we're left with, do those fields give rise to a real physical reality, or do the fields simply give rise to the illusion of a physical reality?

In the end it probably makes absolutely no difference. But then again, if reality is an illusion, then what am I?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Remember, I said that consciousness and physical reality are concomitant attributes. On its own consciousness can't do anything. It can't see. It can't hear. And it can't think. So if you hit me in the head with a bat and knock me unconscious my consciousness isn't sitting there wondering where everything went. It's just unconscious.

The problem is that whether reality is real or an illusion doesn't matter, it will look exactly the same either way. It will obey the exact same laws of cause and effect. The neurons in the brain will fire in exactly the same sequence. I'll still be asking these exact same questions, and hitting me in the head with a bat will have the exact same outcome.

Unfortunately there's just no way to tell the difference.

So here's the question that we're left with, do those fields give rise to a real physical reality, or do the fields simply give rise to the illusion of a physical reality?

In the end it probably makes absolutely no difference. But then again, if reality is an illusion, then what am I?

I had asked you a question: "Do you agree that it is the neurons of the brain that think?" You quoted the question back, but you did not answer. Please answer. "Do you or do you not agree that it is the neurons of the brain that think?"

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

You mean “ become conscious “ or “ mimic consciousness”?

As to whether “ matter” is involved in consciousness.
That is just an assumption.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Do you agree that it is the neurons of the brain that think?

And it appears that the neurons of the brain also produce a consciousness of the self, a consciousness that actually occurs a split second after the brain acts.

The Eastern view is that, yes, the brain thinks. But the self, consciousness is witness to that thinking. It is a different level. So damaged brain brings damaged thought. We associate consciousness only with the outer manifestations, the tip of the iceberg.

 

[partinobodycular]

"Do you agree that it is the neurons of the brain that think?"

In some sense this is a question that I can't answer. But I can give you an opinion.

I think that the brain, along with everything else is most likely an illusion. The tricky part however, is assigning a probability to this conclusion, because there are a number of possible scenarios. For example I may be living in a computer simulation as Elon Musk suggests. In which case physical reality is simply an illusion. Or it may be, as some have proposed, that consciousness creates reality, where again physical reality is just an illusion. Or reality may be exactly what it appears to be, an actual physical entity. I just don't know, and that's why I'm an epistemological solipsist, because ultimately it's a question that I can't answer.

Likewise I have no way of assigning a probability to any of the above scenarios. So instead I simply accept the things that I can actually know to be true. If I drop a brick, it falls. If it lands on my foot, it hurts. Life is unfair, and people die. Illusion or not, physical or not, the same things are true.

So unlike most people I accept the possibility that life is just an illusion, but it's an exceedingly precious illusion, and if the only thing that's real...is me, then what kind of me do I want to be? I get to choose. Do I want to be a theist who believes that I'm right and everyone else is wrong? No. Do I want to be a staunch conservative who's constantly judging the moral integrity of everyone else? No. Do I want to be someone who goes through life doing the best that I can to love my neighbor, to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with my God? Yes. Will I fail in this...absolutely.

Thinking of life as an illusion doesn't mean that it's meaningless and pointless. It means that it's precious. It may never come to me again...ever. I will ponder about it, and agonize over it, but in the end I'll treasure having had it, and hopefully I'll be satisfied with what I did with it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Remember, I said that consciousness and physical reality are concomitant attributes. On its own consciousness can't do anything. It can't see. It can't hear. And it can't think. So if you hit me in the head with a bat and knock me unconscious my consciousness isn't sitting there wondering where everything went. It's just unconscious.

There is no evidence for consciousness as a "concomitant" attribute with reality. There seems to be no point in hypothesizing such.

The problem is that whether reality is real or an illusion doesn't matter, it will look exactly the same either way. It will obey the exact same laws of cause and effect. The neurons in the brain will fire in exactly the same sequence. I'll still be asking these exact same questions, and hitting me in the head with a bat will have the exact same outcome.

Unfortunately there's just no way to tell the difference.

So here's the question that we're left with, do those fields give rise to a real physical reality, or do the fields simply give rise to the illusion of a physical reality?

In the end it probably makes absolutely no difference. But then again, if reality is an illusion, then what am I?

Oh great! Solipsism. Speaking of things with no point.

 

[partinobodycular]

There is no evidence for consciousness as a "concomitant" attribute with reality. There seems to be no point in hypothesizing such.

Except that we're inquisitive primates, it's what we do.

Oh great! Solipsism. Speaking of things with no point.

Specifically I'm an epistemological solipsist, not a metaphysical solipsist. These are almost two diametrically opposite positions. But I understand how you could confuse the two, most people do. Ultimately epistemological solipsism is simply agnosticism pushed to its logical conclusion.

 

[Bradskii]

You mean “ become conscious “ or “ mimic consciousness”?

As to whether “ matter” is involved in consciousness.
That is just an assumption.

Well we can start to remove all the matter from inside your head and see what happens. I'm assuming that you'll become unconsious. What do you think?

 

[partinobodycular]

Well we can start to remove all the matter from inside your head and see what happens. I'm assuming that you'll become unconsious. What do you think?

But you're conflating thinking with consciousness. If I put you in a completely darkened room you're not blind simply because you can't see anything. You're capacity to see is still there. For all intents and purposes you're blind, but in actuality you're not. Likewise if I cut your consciousness off from all available stimuli your consciousness will appear to have vanished, but that too may be just an illusion.

 

[Mountainmike]

Well we can start to remove all the matter from inside your head and see what happens. I'm assuming that you'll become unconsious. What do you think?

What does that prove?
Alternative paradigm.
The brain is the mechanism by which a consciousness can interact with the universe. Not the permanent home of consciousness.

I have a remote villa in another country.
I interact with watering, Aircon heating, swimming pool, lighting cameras and the rest. The It/ router are the mechanisms by which I sense and interact with it.

When the router blew up, i was no longer able to detect or interact.
My consciousness was unaffected. So not unconscious. Unable to interact.

There are cases out of body consciousness where patients with inactive cortex in ED could not have experience details of places and conversations in other locations they describe in detail. Way past random chance, as a number of medics who investigated such Phenomena noted.

In essence Their consciousness was in another place . But their ability to interact was lost. Maybe consciousness is energy not matter. If that’s true the entire narrative around abiogenesis cannot describe the entireity of life.