Koyaanisqatsi

No problem.

But, hierarchical based upon a fundamental consciousness particle, shall we say, is what I was addending; such that, one consciousparticle adds to another (and so on) and the consciousness expands in the grouping in the same or similar manner as the organism (or construct)?

Well, again, we're stuck with the necessary paradox that I keep seeing in all of this; the requirement of a consciousness to "detect."

I know you're probably arguing that this isn't necessary, but I simply can't agree. Without a self-awareness, there is no point to this detection, just as the self-awareness function of programming a robot to "detect" is established.

In the case of the robot, it is the programmer that acts as the self-aware determinant that instructed the robot to mimic self-awareness, yes?

In other words, to say that a robot with AI is self aware would be a misnomer, ultimately, since it was the "orginal creator" (aka, human AI specialist) that "infused" the concept of self-awareness (again, note the inescapable religious analogy).

You can't separate the experimenter from the experiment; the observer from the observed.

Again, then, all you're doing is personifying mechanical functions, IMO, and simply saying that the "self" refers to the system as a whole.

In other words, semantics games along the lines of "Well, we say .9999 repeating equals 1."

It doesn't, but we say it does for all intents and purposes.

The .1SA that flips that .99999 repeating counter over, IMO, is found (at least) between your number 1 and your number 2, if not, as I contend, prior to your number 1.

See what I mean? You're using conveniences of language, I submit, in order to gloss over that nexus point. Suddenly it's "This learning" which already in itself implies a consciousness engaged in learning on its own for the sake of itself and not, say, the sake of fulfilling a programmer's program; of acting out a mechanic's code.

Likewise with the introduction of "self-motivated" intelligence. It seems to me that you are merely using terms we use to describe one another in an illegitimate fashion, without regard for the nexus point, perhaps because you're not considering the fact that a robot AI would have a pre awareness factored in; the pre-awareness of the designer/programmer.

In other words, you can program a machine all you like, but in the end, that's all it will be; a series of programs initially infused with intent by the programmer (again the religious overtones).

So long as, I argue, you do not accept that all matter is conscious as a necessary condition and that consciousness--true "self" awareness; aka, autonomous awareness--is therefore a universal and fundamental element to all matter.

Now, it is likewise true, of course, that one can poetically reflect on humanity and say, "Ahh, but isn't that all that a human is, as well? Nothing more than a series of programs and feedback loops?"

I don't know, but I think not (I conceit not, might be more appropos ), which is why I've sought here to reconcile science with religion; the study of the known with the belief in the unknown.

As I said before, it beats work.

Yes, I remember it from my Psych minor courses at Boston University and its certainly viable/sound for describing what is already conscious, but not, I contend, viable/sound, necessarily, for describing how consciousness emerges.

It just obfuscates the nexus point by doing the exact same thing mathematicians do with .99999 repeating; we simply say it equals 1, but the fact is, it does not and can never unless the rules change (or our perceptions of the rules changes, yes?).

Again, that explains the machine; the car, but not the driver. And, again, a driver cannot be said to drive itself, which is the point of my using it as an analogy.

Go back up to stages 1 and 2 and explain how the hardware (not the software, mind you, the hardware, which is what you're describing) can "detect" and "learn" and "self-motivate."

I just can't see it, other than as a convenience of language.

Of course, that could very well be my own problem--simply that I can't see it[/b]!

That's impossible for you to justify or qualify. Rocks have an exceedingly long "life" and could therefore be processing at a thought per one million years for all we know.

Agreed. I would argue (and was, which is why I threw it in) that rocks are far more intelligent because they don't do such things.

Perhaps, yes.

Conversely, it doesn't mean that they don't. For all we know, they've already figured out what life is all about and that's why they're dolphins.

I have absolutely no reason to assume they do not nor any way in which to confirm or dismiss such a possibility.

True, but not applicable to mathematics, since it is not a function that is subject to human limitation. An infinite being would never be able to count to 1, since it would always have to add the next decimal point for all eternity into the calculation.

Yes.

And is not applicable, IMO.

Which is why a car requires a driver; a driver that can enter and leave the car at will.

So far as humans are concerned, yes.

But only as a function of an initial "driver" telling it how to be autonomous. It doesn't spontaneously "decide" to "become" autonomous, yes?

Then is a watch "self-motivated?"

But, again, that necessarily demands a "programmer." To say that "nature" is the programmer could only be valid, I contend, if the fundamental condition of consciousness is established at a micro/particle level, otherwise we're talking purely about mysticism; about a condition of existence that comes from somewhere outside of nature; aka, big pile of rocks.

If matter is fundamentally and conditionally "conscious" (however that may break down), then it makes perfect sense that this planet (and the whole universe, as I believe is the case) would be teaming with life. Without it, we have either nothing but piles of dumb rocks or we have Goddidit, IMO.

True, so the concepts--the ideas; the very things that make up the intangible elements that allow a glowing fog of atoms (ourselves) to remain cohesive in the manner that we are must come from either "outside" the box or "inside" the box; "outside" the box is supernature and "inside" the box is my theory of mindmatter, that "mind" is a necessary and conditional function of matter configuration, in some manner as yet not understood or conjectured.

Again, that implies the paradox of a self-aware system giving itself the ability to be self-aware, or, at the very least, Goddidit, since there would have to be an intelligent, self-aware programmer to encode the genetic programs to serve that function, yes?

Unless, as I argue, all matter is conscious as a necessary and fundamental condition, in which case consciousness is indeed a matter (pardon the pun) of nature and not--as everything you are describing implies--supernature.

But, "preprogrammed" from whom? "Nature?" How? How would a non-self-aware programmer be able to program "self-awareness?" At what point along that .999999 repeating is there a .1 that stops the recursion and turns the odometer over and what is that .1 variable that accounts for "I think, therefore I am?"

If it is not a fundamental element of nature (as I contend) then it must be an external, supernatural element, such as Goddidit; a "consciousness/self-aware/Descartes" electro-shock jolt like in Frankenstein.

But even that would not account for, IMO, philosophy and the like. The evolutionary model for self-awareness simply does not work anywhere else but on paper, precisely because, I contend, the language obfuscates the odometer suddenly turning of its own accord.

Unless, like the theists, I'm simply deluding myself, which is a distinct possibility!

Not if consciousness is a fundamental building block that increases (in some manner) with configuration, just as we claim that a single celled animal is not as intelligent as we are, based upon the configuration of our systems as compared to theirs.

Again, it's by no means complete, but it certainly makes more sense, if I may be so crass, than arguing a collection of feedback loops eventually "becomes" human; the Pinochio effect, yes?

Then you consider "mind" to be a compartment of the brain; an imaginary construct that is simply another one of the language games I've been talking about?

Correct, but the OS would be and necessarily so by a programmer, yes? So the OS would require at least two sets of programs; one would be "seek new goals" and the other would be "eventually seek self-referential reflection based upon 'seek new goals'" (aka, philosophy).

The "seek new goals" is understandable, I suppose, from a "natural" explanation, but what would the "seek self-referential reflection" goal serve, if, as you seem to imply, matter is dumb, to use a colloquialism for effect?

See what I'm getting at? The second program would be unnecessary from a "dumb" matter perspective. There would be no need for a rock, for example, to self-reflect and in a dumb matter universe, a human is identical to a rock; we're just a collection of minerals and elements.

So, why would humanity--or even, the animal kingdom--have an such programming (either dormant or otherwise) "pre-programmed" into it by a dumb matter universe and how would that occur?

If dumb matter is only goal seeking, then there is no requirement for anything more than seeking goals, so where (and why) does "self-reflect upon goals already sought and transcend initial programming" come into the picture and what is it that's painting it in? Cosmology? A super nova?

Again, this is where, I contend, science hits a roadblock and stares at religion head to head. So, again, let's simply toss aside the roadblock and grant that all matter is conscious as a necessary condition of matter and see where that leads.

Then a rock being a rock makes perfect sense just as a human being a human makes perfect sense; it has autonomously decided to express itself in that manner.

Of course, it also means that we have to completely remove homocentrism and any concept of our "supremacy" from our thoughts immediately, which is, again, I contend at the heart of everything including emergent qualities, since it only serves as yet another way of describing how "great" we are (aka, how "smart" we are).

It also puts an end to the arrogance of dissociation we all feel; the idea that we aren't a part of nature, rather above or separate from nature, when precisely the opposite is the truth, though this, of course, could very well be explained more from social conditioning.

I don't know. As I've said many times, it's incomplete and highly speculative.

I'll give it this, it "rings" true to me and it certainly accounts for the origins of just about all religious mythology as well as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, since the reason it's uncertain is that it (the particle) just hasn't made up its mind yet and therefore literally does exist in an infinite state of possibility until it decides to "express" in four dimensional space.

Now, "what" it is expressing may not be understandable to us, but is it any less analogous to anything else that was once considered a mystery and now isn't? Democritus pegged atoms five thousand years ago, but it sure as hell took a loooooong time for him to proved correct. The idea that tiny, invisible to the human eye creatures caused illness would never have been accepted by the greatest minds, etc., etc., etc., and while, yes, that serves as an example of the real explaining the fictional, quantum mechanics certainly presents us with a case where perhaps the fictional has more of a lead or at least a better clue, even if the answer is not that mysterious at all, it just means we'll have to come up with a new way of considering what is and is not "conscious" and how that necessarily impacts upon our "place."

With my theory, it means we are in a unique position in that--at least on this planet, perhaps--we (meaning humans) actually did get to a certain level of consciousness that demands a new way of considering existence; this is certainly true of our philosophies, art, science and so on, but if we cannot transcend matter completely as a result of consciousness, then maybe the simplest answer as to why we can't do that is because it's not an option as a necessary condition of being in fourth dimensional spacetime and nothing else?

Anyway, food for thought.

I didn't think you were, but in essence, aren't we talking about a Piaget model with a Turing front? Once again, my computer can process all it wants and I can program it, theoretically, to program itself, but how does that translate--at what point does that translate--into, "I think, therefore I am?"

Of course, with my theory, I don't know how it translates either, except for the vague notion of manner of configuration; the complexity that emergent theorists also nod toward.

Again, I go back to the soup analogy; without the base, fundamental quality of water, you can't have soup of any kind, let alone a specific kind, so in my theory, mindmatter is the water and everything you are talking about is the ingredients of the whatever particular soup you want to make.

Yes, but you know the point I was making, even if that analogy didn't fit it. Extreme body piercing and sado/masochism would perhaps serve as a better example of the "mind" overcoming or overriding itself; self-hypnosis; spontaneous remission, etc.

Now, I grant all have explanations, but then, that's the whole point of my theory as well; it is an explanation for consciousness that also explains why otherwise intelligent men and women are so easily and consistently "duped" by religions; because there is a grain of truth.

It also explains quantum mechanics, but then, again, so does Goddidit.

Nor do I consider mindmatter to be super natural, either and that's the whole point.

Absolutely not as I've tried to explain repeatedly. There is no "mind" and there is no "matter" according to my theory, there is only "mindmatter." There is no either/or to it.

With what you've been describing, however, there must be an either/or on some fundamental level (at or before stages 1 and 2); an self-reflective programmer who programmed "self-reflection," since such a function would be (as far as I can extrapolate from a dumb matter universe) completely pointless.

Philosophy does not serve new goals; it does not serve survival; it does not serve anything at all really (which many agree with, by the way, independent of my theory ). It is quite literally, mental masturbation.

Now, it certainly can be argued (and I think you've done that here) that such a condition is the end result of seeking new goals, but, again, we're talking about something--a concept, a code, a program--that always makes us think that we are somehow special and others in the animal kingdom are not; that we are separate from nature, because only we seem to mentally masturbate.

But why would that be, if we live in a dumb matter universe? Any goal seeking animal that learns and follows Piaget's steps (which would be every single animal in the world to some degree, yes?) should be mentally masturbating all the time and perhaps they do.

Again, who are we to know and how would we?

But the paradox remains with a dumb matter universe and is removed to a larger extent but not completely, with a smart matter universe, I contend.

More later. I'm contending myself into a headache .

excreationist

Hi Koyaanisqatsi,
How about I just forget about replying to the other half and reply to what you recently wrote here... I think the other half you wrote was similar to what I had replied to. I'll write a reply which addresses your main points sometime... assuming this feeling of a brain overload ends sometime...

Koyaanisqatsi

No problem and sorry to DRF that I haven't responded to your post either.

This has been very interesting if only for me to deconstruct my own thoughts on this and I clearly need to do more research, considering I'm spewing largely out my gluteus and hoping it somehow "fits."

Thank you both for patiently indulging my flights of fancy and offering your intelligence and experience.

I do think there is something to my theory, but I'm not sure (at this point) how much of it is simply wishful thinking.

excreationist

Hi again,
You said that I was just glossing over some things through my use of language... well I guess that it quite a major point so I think I should respond to that sometime. I don't know if I'll continue to pursue the 0.999999 to 1 debate any more... perhaps I don't understand what you are saying exactly... I don't really see how 0.999999 and 1 has got to do with things "becoming" conscious...
As for a kind of related example... say there was about .99 tons of sand and you wanted to have at least 1 ton of it. When you got to .99999999999999 tons you might decide to break the next few grains into smaller and smaller pieces... but why not just be done with it and add another handful of sand?
Maybe you disagree that there can be an exact threshold for consciousness... well I guess it is somewhat arbritrary, in the same way that a "heap" of rice is somewhat arbitrary... I mean one grain is not a heap, neither is two grains, but eventually it becomes more and more like a heap... there is a fuzzy border really. I think I've said that already. But anyway, I don't understand how .99999999999999999999 never quite becoming 1 is related to this all.

Koyaanisqatsi

You said it with the "fuzzy border."

The word "becomes" doesn't actually mean anything if you deconstruct it. It is literally the equivalent of just heaping on another handful of rice, as you put it.

But that's not legitimate when asking (as I am) precisely what we mean when we say we "become" conscious.

The reason I was using .99999 repeating for all eternity is because it repeats for all eternity, thus it is actually, literally impossible to count from zero to one; there are an infinite number of decimal points between them.

However, mathematicians simply ignore this fact (because it is so minuscule a number) and simply say ".9999 repeating for all eternity is equal to 1."

I would contend that this is the same thing that Piaget is saying and you are saying when you simply declare "humans then become conscious."

Well, wait a minute. That's not true. Consciousness is an absolute, yes? One is either conscious or one is not. So the question I am getting at is the transition point from "not conscious" to "conscious" that is currently in fuzzy land with the word "becomes."

DRFseven

Not at all, I would say. I mentioned, briefly, conditions in which an alteration of consciousness occurs; there is also the mysterious relationship between autism and apparent disturbance of self-concept. In some of these conditions, it's not as if no one at all is home; wouldn't you agree?

Koyaanisqatsi

I would not, since it only appears to us in a comparative fashion to ourselves (homocentrism becoming egocentrism?) that makes us say "no one at all is home."

Take the example of the subject of the book/movie Awakening. If memory serves, he described what his condition was like, meaning that he was indeed conscious and self-aware, he just couldn't do anything about it.

Same with coma patience, right? They certainly appear as if "no one is home" but that isn't the case at all, yes?

Don't get me wrong, I agree that consciousness is not an either/or (hence my theory that it is always "on" so to speak) but it must be an either/or to a materialist/emergent theorist, yes, since they operate from a perspective of a "dumb" matter universe?

Isn't that the whole thrust to it all? That consciousness emerges from non-consciousness?

Pomp

Koy,

...it must be an either/or to a materialist/emergent theorist, yes, since they operate from a perspective of a "dumb" matter universe?

I don't see how your conclusion follows. I'm a materialist and an emergentist with regards to consciousness, and I don't regard consciousness as an either-or phenomenon but, rather, as a continuum. A rock has fewer (virtually none, in fact) of the properties from which consciousness emerges than does a tree which, in turn, has fewer of those properties than a dog, which has fewer than a human adult. At some ill-defined point on this line, we arbitrarily (well, not quite arbitrary...I think the point is determined anthrocentrically...we place the division at the point where there is just enough of a glimmer of emergent consciousness to include us) pick a point and say that we consider everything above that point to have a sufficient degree of the properties from which consciousness emerges to be called conscious.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, again, let's go directly to that point.

It seems to me that, as I've been saying all along, there is no actual point and that this is merely an obfuscation of language; i.e., we say .9999 recurring equals one, when in fact, it does not.

Granted, again, it still "works" as far as trips to the moon and all, but it is that nexus point that everyone seems so cavalier about glossing over and I contend brings the whole thing down.

If consciousness is not a necessary, contingent quality of all matter on some level and in some manner, then it is impossible to state (I boldly contend out my ass) that anything "becomes" conscious, other than in the same colloquial (and therefore illegitimately dismissive, IMO) manner as Piaget says, "If it walks like a duck then for all intents and purposes it we can consider it a duck."

That simply is not true. If it walks like a duck, it is nothing more than an imitation of a duck and never will be anything more than simply an imitation of a duck.

Does that matter, in the same sense that ".99999 recurring equals 1" doesn't effect mathematical calculations? I don't know and clearly nobody else thinks so, but, as I said, it sticks in my craw, burrowing its way through whenever I stop to really contemplate it.

That and, as I said, it helps me with my quest to expose precisely where the "grain of truth" that sells so many people on theism comes from.

And of course, slow work day .

If you wouldn't mind taking me as close to that point as you can from an emergent perspective, then perhaps I will see the error of my assumptions and recognize that it probably is nothing more than a holdover from my own cult indoctrination days, but right now, I just can't see how "dumb matter" gives rise to "smart matter," without the nexus point being conveniently obfuscated by the, IMO, magical word "becomes."

And, again, thank you all for your patience and expertise.

DRFseven

But, that's just the thing; I DON'T say "no one at all is home"; I say that there are varying degrees of "being home." And I wonder how, looking at some of these conditions, you would say otherwise.

If everything is conscious, then it appears to me that we are struggling to define something other than consciousness. What everyone wants to know about is the nature of this thing we humans have that that seems so different from what other animals have. It's not just intelligence, as studies show, since autistic children clearly have problems with sense of self, while other mentally retarded children without autism do not show those deficits. I can bring in a discussion of the neural underpinnings of autism and how that might relate to other consciousness studies, but we do need to pin down consciousness first, at least for purposes of THIS discussion, even if we fail to lluminate the whole world.

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>