Mental life and phase transition

[GrowingSmaller]

Physical things can change from solid to liquid to gas etc. I believe that these changes of state are known as phase transitions. What do you make of the theoritical idea that matter can 'change state' from unconscious to conscious? We talk about conscious and unconscious states in everyday English usage but is there any support for the above idea other than by loose analogical reasoning?

Maybe the various sensory modalities employ different phase states of matter (realised in brain mechanics) which in their turn determine whether something is seen, heard, felt, tasted etc. Perhaps the study of synesthesia might lead to an understanding whereby we can model, predict and then induce mental states like "hearing colour" or "tasting sound" or even "what it's like to be a bat (note, the idea that we can't know this comes from Nagel link)" etc. Just imagine the possibilities for the arts!


Also, just as there are more physical states than solid and liquid, could there be more states than merely not conscious and ordinary consciousness, maybe a hyperconsciousness or something we can't really describe or at present comprehend? Well I suppose there could, but so what, except the idea spices up the debate a bit...

 

[quatona]

Physical things can change from solid to liquid to gas etc. I believe that these changes of state are known as phase transitions. What do you make of the theoritical idea that matter can 'change state' from unconscious to conscious?

Like when matter becomes a person or ceases to be a person?

We talk about conscious and unconscious states in everyday English usage but is there any support for the above idea other than by loose analogical reasoning?

Actually, I find the analogical reasoning rather weak compared to the fact that it´s observable.

Maybe the various sensory modalities employ different phase states of matter (realised in brain mechanics) which in their turn determine whether something is seen, heard, felt, tasted etc. Perhaps the study of synesthesia might lead to an understanding whereby we can model, predict and then induce mental states like "hearing colour" or "tasting sound" or even "what it's like to be a bat (note, the idea that we can't know this comes from Nagel link)" etc. Just imagine the possibilities for the arts!

Yes, the way people experience is amazingly varied.

Also, just as there are more physical states than solid and liquid, could there be more states than merely not conscious and ordinary consciousness, maybe a hyperconsciousness or something we can't really describe or at present comprehend?

I don´t think we even really comprehend that which you´d call "ordinary consciousness".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Like when matter becomes a person or ceases to be a person?

Yes I suppose you're right, but I was thinking on a more basic level of sensory awareness. Do you think that the self is a ontological phase state of the brain?

Actually, I find the analogical reasoning rather weak compared to the fact that it´s observable.

Please elaborate.

Yes, the way people experience is amazingly varied

So that could be a source of science. If we can understand the variations, and what correlates with what, then modles will be more powerful as they have more data to work with.

I don´t think we even really comprehend that which you´d call "ordinary consciousness".

But take the senses we have. I Imagine yuo know what it means to "see" something. I may be wrong, but I imagine that in the future we might be abe to transmute senses (for example "seeing" into something else entirely..."squarbing?"). What do you think. Maybe there are animals that squarb today but we don't know it.

I have an idea that there is something akin to a spectrum weher instead of various categories of light thare are various categories of awareness on a scale from auditory, mood, visual etc with there being some form of analogue to wavelength that determines where we are (seeing, hearing) and at what stage (seeing red, blue, green etc) we are at. So maybe 'squarbing' is next to seeing violet for instance.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

How is it that we can have "unitary awareness" of various objects at the same time? If consciousness is reduced to localised brain states then in which locality are they all combined? And if that locality is not atomic are we not faced with the same issue?

 

[quatona]

How is it that we can have "unitary awareness" of various objects at the same time?

I´m not sure what "unitary awareness" is supposed to be and whether we can have it - but the first thought that strikes me when reading your question:
There aren´t any objects - dividing that which is into distinct objects is an achievement (?) of our mind. Consequently it is possible to rearrange this conceptualization.

 

[variant]

Physical things can change from solid to liquid to gas etc. I believe that these changes of state are known as phase transitions. What do you make of the theoritical idea that matter can 'change state' from unconscious to conscious?

I don't think conscious material systems are a differnt "phase" of matter.

We talk about conscious and unconscious states in everyday English usage but is there any support for the above idea other than by loose analogical reasoning?

No. I have supported the idea from the ground up on many occasions.

Living systems are at their root conscious because they give us abstraction on the lowest levels of organization by differentiating themselves into identities that do not exist outside of their own definitions. These relationships are abstract at their base, representational and form the root of all consciousness.

Our "consciousness" is a building on that idea through several levels of organization.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Variant, sorry but i don't understand your ideas.

 

[variant]

Variant, sorry but i don't understand your ideas.

Sadly I don't think I have ever been able to properly explain it.

I am saying that consciousness is not a phase of matter but a matter of how it is structured.

Life causes consciousness because it must form relationships within matter for the sake of the living system.

This gives rise to abstraction, boundary and representation (which do not exist otherwise).

You, the conscious thing are a byproduct of being a very complicated living thing. An emergent entity based upon very simple rules.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Are you saying all life is conscious, even protozoa?

 

[variant]

Are you saying all life is conscious, even protozoa?

I am saying that all life contains the basis upon which our self aware consciousness is founded.

All life requires abstraction and boundary, a crude sense of self, all life I know of is reactive to it's enviroment.

In a crude sense you could say that all life contains some basic consciousness and that is the only place where I have observed any to exist.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am saying that all life contains the basis upon which our self aware consciousness is founded.

Ok, thats a position.

All life requires abstraction and boundary, a crude sense of self, all life I know of is reactive to it's enviroment.

How does life require abstraction. How does a bacterium "abstract"?

In a crude sense you could say that all life contains some basic consciousness and that is the only place where I have observed any to exist.

I suppose we could, but we could say a lot of things, not all of them necessarily true or well argued....

 

[variant]

Ok, that’s a position.
How does life require abstraction. How does a bacterium "abstract"?

Through boundary and representation. A bacterium is a series of boundaries that are mediated in order to both reproduce and react to the environment and the needs of the bacterium.

These include the most obvious walls such as cell walls and membranes.

Differentiation between food excrement and self ect.

The bacterium requires a coded chemical representation of itself that can be used to produce other bacterium via other ribosomes. Some (many) bacteria can even exchange information through small packets of DNA. This is abstraction simply enough.

Life requires boundary and abstraction to reproduce itself.

I suppose we could, but we could say a lot of things, not all of them necessarily true or well argued....

This from the one that thinks that consciousness comes from states of matter.

 

[Nanopants]

In a crude sense you could say that all life contains some basic consciousness and that is the only place where I have observed any to exist.

I assume that by "life" you mean sentient life, or at least life with some form of awareness of its surroundings. Given that the functions of single cell organisms can be entirely explained by chemical reactions, it seems that the meaning of the term "life" is just too ambiguous to be useful in the context of the discussion.

Regardless, my own personal belief (based on other scientific studies) is that what we experience to be the conscious observer is not actually material at all - it is illusory and exists as a pattern or relation of the information exchanged by our many material faculties working together in a very particular way. In some sense you could say it is like a symphony performed by an orchestra, and not the orchestra itself.

With regard to the OP, it would seem that consciousness can and does change state, and that it must in order to exist as consciousness in the first place.

 

[variant]

I assume that by "life" you mean sentient life, or at least life with some form of awareness of its surroundings. Given that the functions of single cell organisms can be entirely explained by chemical reactions, it seems that the meaning of the term "life" is just too ambiguous to be useful in the context of the discussion.

I believe that it is not and I think your assumption is wrong

Life is that which can reproduce itself. For that life requires something that can stand in for itself and a basic definition of itself, it does this chemically, and that chemical process is the basis for all consciousness.

For living things to do this they need to differentiate themselves from the environment and react to it.

It is ALWAYS done chemically at it's root, and this is where abstract relationships (where one thing stands in for another) come into the material world.

Regardless, my own personal belief (based on other scientific studies) is that what we experience to be the conscious observer is not actually material at all - it is illusory and exists as a pattern or relation of the information exchanged by our many material faculties working together in a very particular way. In some sense you could say it is like a symphony performed by an orchestra, and not the orchestra itself.

The information contained in relationships between materials is a material thing in my opinion. None of it is illusionary, it is representational.

With regard to the OP, it would seem that consciousness can and does change state, and that it must in order to exist as consciousness in the first place.

I highly doubt it.

 

[Nanopants]

Life is that which can reproduce itself. For that life requires something that can stand in for itself and a basic definition of itself, it does this chemically, and that chemical process is the basis for all consciousness.

For living things to do this they need to differentiate themselves from the environment and react to it.

It is ALWAYS done chemically at it's root, and this is where abstract relationships (where one thing stands in for another) come into the material world.

Are you familiar with IBM's Watson computer? Artificial intelligence may not yet be sentient, but if it is possible there's a good chance that we may see it realized within a life time. And if it does happen, we're going to need a new definition that does not hinge upon bio-chemical reactions.

The information contained in relationships between materials is a material thing in my opinion. None of it is illusionary, it is representational.

Hypothetically, assume that a sentient and self-aware computer program exists, its state is saved, its information is transferred from its host machine to another and is restarted as if nothing happened. In this case how would you interpret the role that the material universe plays in defining exactly what the conscious observer is?

 

[variant]

Are you familiar with IBM's Watson computer? Artificial intelligence may not yet be sentient, but if it is possible there's a good chance that we may see it realized within a life time. And if it does happen, we're going to need a new definition that does not hinge upon bio-chemical reactions.

Sure it does. It is an artificial replica of what biochemical reactions do for us, made by us (who are the conscious the byproduct of life).

Hypothetically, assume that a sentient and self-aware computer program exists, its state is saved, its information is transferred from its host machine to another and is restarted as if nothing happened. In this case how would you interpret the role that the material universe plays in defining exactly what the conscious observer is?

That the consciousness is contained in the digitized information is still material in nature.

Also I think that any analog interruption of a consciousness probably ends that experience from it's perspective, similarly to if you were to transport me by destroying my body and replacing it with an exact replica ten feet away.

I think "I" cease to exist.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Life is that which can reproduce itself. For that life requires something that can stand in for itself and a basic definition of itself, it does this chemically, and that chemical process is the basis for all consciousness.

For living things to do this they need to differentiate themselves from the environment and react to it.

Sorry, self-reproduction is not enough. Both viruses and prions can self-reproduce; yet the idea that viruses are alive is controversial, whereas prions are almost always classified as non-life.

 

[variant]

Sorry, self-reproduction is not enough. Both viruses and prions can self-reproduce; yet the idea that viruses are alive is controversial, whereas prions are almost always classified as non-life.

Viruses and prions do not self-reproduce, they do so as an extension of life reproducing so their controversial nature is not relevant to my analysis.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Viruses and prisons do not self-reproduce, they do so as an extension of life reproducing so their controversial nature is not relevant to my analysis.

It depends on how you define it. Parasites also need cells to reproduce; the fact that viruses need polymerases and ribosomes, rather than the haemoglobin that Plasmodium (for example) needs, is to me, purely quibbling. It is still a matter of co-opting the environment to facilitate reproduction. Prions need neither of these; all they need is protein (as far as I am aware, any protein will do); similar, for (an admittedly rather flippant) example, how Mr. Smith reproduces in the matrix (which is itself a visual representation of a computer virus).

 

[variant]

It depends on how you define it. Parasites also need cells to reproduce; the fact that viruses need polymerases and ribosomes, rather than the haemoglobin that Plasmodium (for example) needs, is to me, purely quibbling. It is still a matter of co-opting the environment to facilitate reproduction.

Requireing another oranisms cellular machinery to reproduce is differn't than feeding off of another organism as a metabolite in a manner that is not as you put it quibbleing.

If you aren't interested in quibbleing though my definition of life holds up well enough for the purposes of my discussion in the first place.

Viruses and prions are alive enough with respect to everything else to be examples of what I am talking about with consciousness. Or not, I can't really seem to wrap my head around why it matters that life is sometimes ambiguous.

Prions need neither of these; all they need is protein (as far as I am aware, any protein will do);

You are incorrect.

Prions reproduce themselves by causeing other simmilar protiens to fold as they are folded. They are an interesting cravat of molecular biology but they are simply a byproduct of living systems that produce protiens that are likely to fold in such a manner.

The phenomina is about as closely related to the chemical chain of events that happen in plastic as it is related to complex biological life.