Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kharakov · 02-02-2002, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Selby:

It can be theorized that a rock could be conscious in a way we don't understand, but the problem with that is that we're saying of consciousness, it is or can be in things that show awareness, volition etc. and in things that never show those traits, regardless of their physical makeup.

I tried to show earlier that things do not show awareness, and while they might possess volition, they might lack the ability or desire to make their will known. If showing awareness means responding to the environment, every single piece of matter is "showing" awareness at all times.

Quote:

I just develop and marshall what evidence I have for these things and show that until there's a better reason for thinking anything could be conscious there's no point in altering my thinking with regard to arrangements of matter.

I think the better reason is this: that matter is what makes up these arrangements of matter, so the fundamental unity behind consciousness is that it consists of matter and its (matter's) interactions with other matter. While one arrangement of matter might display what are apparently "more organized" responses to other matter, all of the fundamental principles that organize the matter into a being (human or otherwise) still govern all matter. Or do you think humans are exempt from these laws, even if they were created by them?

Quote:

Anyway, I'm confident that other matter can't experience qualia because all the evidence so far shows its only brains and other complex central nervous systems that have ever given an indication that any kind of experience is present.

Actually, evidence shows that most brains and complex central nervous systems only believe the indications that similar brains and complex central nervous systems have experienced something.

Nothing has shown that other arrangements of matter do not experience qualia or have experiences. In fact, since qualia and experiences arise from our interaction with other matter, there is reason to believe that qualia and experiences are had to some degree by all matter that interacts with other matter.

All matter reacts to all other matter. Those reactions to other matter stay with the matter forever (as experiences), although the matter continually interacts with other matter and is further altered. Some arrangements of matter (brains) appear to react "more" to interaction with other matter (but brains follow the exact same laws as other matter!). So while the effect of some photons hitting an eye will alter the interior structure of a brain to a greater extent than photons would alter the interior structure of a rock, it does not mean that the rock does not experience any effects from its interaction with the photons. It just shows that there is a different magnitude of effect upon the rock. The photons (probably) follow the exact same physical laws when interacting with the matter of the rock as they do when they interact with the matter of the body/brain.

Adrian Selby · 02-02-2002, 09:54 AM

"they might lack the ability or desire to make their will known."

Have you any idea how a rock might 'will' something, is a rock purposive? People might lack such things, but its an unfeasible jump to suggest that rocks do. How does a rock have volition?

"I think the better reason is this: that matter is what makes up these arrangements of matter, so the fundamental unity behind consciousness is that it consists of matter and its (matter's) interactions with other matter. While one arrangement of matter might display what are apparently "more organized" responses to other matter, all of the fundamental principles that organize the matter into a being (human or otherwise) still govern all matter. Or do you think humans are exempt from these laws, even if they were created by them?"

So, I'm defining consciousness as a particular level of organised response, beneath which something cannot be said to be conscious. The problem with your definition with regard to response to the environment is one could say that a rock responds to water and ice by cracking. (You have the implicit problem of showing how this response can be said to be 'organised). But it doesn't make sense to say that cracking is the rock's response to the ice, that's the result of ice and water on it. I think part of the problem with saying 'respond' is that its an active verb, I think it misleads you. Pretty soon we'll be saying that the ice's response to the rock cracking is to make it crack further, the chocolate bar's response to me eating it is to decrease in size. Honestly, the argument from mere response in an environment is absurd. Besides, we have to be careful again with language, because it doesn't make sense to say that the rock responds 'to' the ice, the rock is affected by the ice, it does not respond to it.

At the least, that's extremely counterintuitive.

"Nothing has shown that other arrangements of matter do not experience qualia or have experiences. "

With regard to rocks and plastic cups and chocolate bars, nothing has shown they do. It's mere conjecture.

"In fact, since qualia and experiences arise from our interaction with other matter, there is reason to believe that qualia and experiences are had to some degree by all matter that interacts with other matter."

I have argued there is no reason to believe that rocks (an arrangement of matter) can be said to have qualia at all. I've offered evidence for this, by looking to organisms that at least display the right behaviour, at least mind you, I'm not saying that's conclusive. Even by a dictionary definition of consciousness (not an argument in itself, but hey, what else can we be talking about) rocks do not have any of the qualities we attribute to the concept.

"All matter reacts to all other matter. Those reactions to other matter stay with the matter forever (as experiences"

Not true, the reflexive nature of my interaction with the environment produces changes to the neural pathways, but those changes aren't fixed, and the pathways can change again, so that one set of relationships between neurons no longer exists. Of course, all matter reacts with other matter. I'm disputing the second point.

"So while the effect of some photons hitting an eye will alter the interior structure of a brain to a greater extent than photons would alter the interior structure of a rock, it does not mean that the rock does not experience any effects from its interaction with the photons. "

I think it does. The photons no doubt affect the rock, but whether the rock experiences the effect, I can't see how it could. After all, it doesn't contain a central nervous system, let alone a complex one. Until you can show me that something without a central nervous system has experiences, I'm inclined to disagree. Not that this is an insult, but you're starting to sound like a theist. This rock could be conscious, it displays no signs of consciousness, no volition, no action, no intent, it doesn't have a nervous system even, it doesn't 'sense' the environment, and no such rock has behaved differently to this. But it could be conscious. Sorry, but when theists say God exists but can't point to any evidence, I have the same worry.

"I still possessed consciousness, although I was not interacting with the external world in the usual manner. All the other people thought that I was unconscious (only I realize that I still had some type of consciousness). "

(From your response to Croc's post) I'd ask here whether you were attached to a device that measured brain activity. Only if you did show brain activity, and I'd bet my house on it, I'd argue that this activity was a sign of consciousness, or dreaming. Put the same electrodes on a rock, and, nope, nothing. Unless you think that our electrodes wouldn't be measuring the right kind of thing in a rock with regard to its dreaming or otherwise. But like that concrete in the doctor nurse example, it could still be conscious just not displaying any signs whatsoever. Even in a coma there can be brain activity, and while we don't know what that indicates, we know that brain activity in people not in comas indicates consciousness. We extrapolate, and conclude that this brain may be at some level conscious, or thinking, or dreaming. Unconsciousness is different from non-consciousness. You being unconscious is not you being non-conscious.

Give me one reason, one solid reason why I should extend the same conclusions to a rock. Or a plastic cup? I know you've talked about all matter interacting with all matter, but you haven't shown why the particular arrangements of matter I have called conscious cannot be the only arrangements of matter that can be conscious. I'm hoping we stick to the human rock example here because on the definitions you've quoted, I don't see the rock fitting any of them.

Adrian

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Adrian Selby ]

excreationist · 02-02-2002, 01:57 PM

Kharakov:
This is m-w.com's defition for awareness:
"1 archaic : WATCHFUL, WARY"
"2 : having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge"

And it is probably a fairly circular definition if you look those words up. Instead of just having synonyms in my definition, I actually had some real content.

Here is what I said in my previous post. Maybe you will respond eventually rather than continue to ignore it.

Quote:

Even by your definition of awareness, a rock that does not make an obvious response does not necessarily lack awareness (or have awareness).
I agree! And if that is the case, dualism would be true.

Just because one form of consciousness displays numerous obvious behaviors (us) doesn't mean that every other form of consciousness needs to display those same behaviors.
I said I agree.

Quote:

...You can determine nothing about the conscious state of any object through observation because the conscious state is an internal one (although it sometimes affects the external environment).
I said I was talking about whether something is aware or not, and systems can demonstrate whether they can learn and have goals/desires. This is how I define awareness - the system as a whole is "aware". Some part of the system is managing the learning and goals/desires otherwise the system would be incapable of displaying that behaviour. The ONLY other explanation is chance. Do you have any hypothical examples of systems that do meet my criteria for awareness, and aren't aware?

Notice the question mark...

I'll also repeat the part about why aware things need to interact with (i.e. affect) their environment, at least during the initial learning process, which is done by themselves (if their knowledge is programmed in then this isn't independent awareness).

Quote:

My definition of awareness is:
"a process where a system receives input and responds according to its goals/desires and beliefs learnt through experience about how the world works."

And I generally define consciousness as second-order awareness. I'll just talk about awareness now, and note that everything that applies to awareness also applies to consciousness.

My definition says that an aware system responds to its environment. But let's just ignore that part for now.

I also said that the system has goals and desires - so it is observing its environment for a purpose - to try and fulfil goals and desires. This is what motivates thought. If there were no goals, then what reason would there be for thoughts? Goals give structure to thoughts.

Goals and desires are also a good way about learning about the environment. I think that the main way we learn is to interact and then see for ourselves which behaviours lead to what outcome.

If the system is just a passive observer, their goals are meaningless since it can take no action to seek or avoid anything, and I don't see how they could empathize with people. (This is an important aspect of human-type consciousness) If it could interact then it could see that it can move, etc, like a human. But as a passive observer, it would just be like an adult, raised from infancy glued to a television, unable to move a muscle or even blink. It might learn patterns about what to expect but since it is incapable of moving - seeking or avoiding anything, it is all unimportant. There is no purpose for it to learn anything since it is unable to apply this knowledge.

Also, people have senses like eyes and pain receptors. Toy trucks don't. And when these senses are cut off from our brain, we can no longer see or feel pain from that area. So awareness of the external world requires senses to detect the external world. We also need a fairly complete brain. Those with brain damage often report a loss of memories or sensory awareness (e.g. <a href="http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b/b210.htm" target="_blank">awareness of movement</a>) so it seems that brain structures are required for those functions. (Which is obvious to materialists)

Toy trucks don't have brains either - they are just crudely manufactured clumps of metal and plastic.

For dualists, it is true that toy trucks *could* have human level consciousness though... so you should treat your toy trucks nicely otherwise you could hurt their feelings.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]

crocodile deathroll · 02-02-2002, 04:48 PM

In my view this is just like saying iron has always existed. It do not exist a the time of the Big Bang but like consciousness the laws of physics were established to make such emergent phenomena possible.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kharakov:


I agree and disagree with your statements. I tend to think that different arrangements of matter are conscious in entirely different ways. If you are saying that it is the arrangement of matter that determines the consciousness, then consciousness is likely to be an innate property of matter, that can be built up in many different ways.

In keeping with Occam's Razor, I don't think there has to be a cause for consciousness, it just always existed, in some form or another.

Kharakov · 02-02-2002, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Selby:

Have you any idea how a rock might 'will' something, is a rock purposive? People might lack such things, but its an unfeasible jump to suggest that rocks do. How does a rock have volition?

Do you actually think you have volition beyond that which the physical laws that determine every neurons firing enforce? Is it your volition that drives the neurons? Is it a rocks volition that causes it to be attracted to other matter?

Quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Selby:

So, I'm defining consciousness as a particular level of organised response, beneath which something cannot be said to be conscious.

What do you mean by particular level? Do you mean a particular speed or amplitude? I would admit that humans appear to show greater response to stimuli than rocks, and this greater response has to do with the configuration of the matter that makes up humans. I tend to think that rocks require more input to change their configuration than humans. Does this indicate lack of consciousness or a different order of consciousness?

Quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Selby:

Even by a dictionary definition of consciousness (not an argument in itself, but hey, what else can we be talking about) rocks do not have any of the qualities we attribute to the concept.

Good, back to the dictionary definition. The dictionary definition of consciousness only outlines internal characteristics- since by its very nature consciousness is internal to something. So by the dictionary definition, we do not have any information about a rocks consciousness.

Quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Selby:
 Kharakov:
"All matter reacts to all other matter. Those reactions to other matter stay with the matter forever (as experiences"
Adrian Selby:
Not true, the reflexive nature of my interaction with the environment produces changes to the neural pathways, but those changes aren't fixed, and the pathways can change again, so that one set of relationships between neurons no longer exists. Of course, all matter reacts with other matter. I'm disputing the second point.

"Those reactions to other matter stay with the matter forever (as experiences) although the matter continually interacts with other matter and is further altered." The full quote

When you experience something, it causes a physical change to your brain. When a physical change is triggered in any piece of matter, it stays with the matter until something further changes it (just like your neural net example). When matter experiences something, it does so because it has been altered (to experience something in the physical world, the object has to be altered in some way).

Quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Selby:

The photons no doubt affect the rock, but whether the rock experiences the effect, I can't see how it could. After all, it doesn't contain a central nervous system, let alone a complex one. Until you can show me that something without a central nervous system has experiences, I'm inclined to disagree. Not that this is an insult, but you're starting to sound like a theist. This rock could be conscious, it displays no signs of consciousness, no volition, no action, no intent, it doesn't have a nervous system even, it doesn't 'sense' the environment, and no such rock has behaved differently to this.

Funny, I thought you were acting like a theist in your refusal to see that it is matter reacting to things that determines consciousness- although a central nervous system allows matter to make a more refined reaction to less stimuli, it does not give the possessor of the central nervous system a monopoly on consciousness. While a rock might require 1000's of Watts of energy to change its form, a being with a central nervous system requires a very tiny amount of energy for a new idea to pop into its head.

This whole thing about intent/ volition being displayed- when something displays volition, it merely displays flow of energy in a particular direction. For something to expend energy, it needs to absorb energy first. The energy will be directed in whatever direction it is most likely to go in.

I assure you, your sensory perception of yourself and the environment is merely the flow of energy from one place to the next, and you happen to be in the middle of the flow. Energy is conducted by all types of matter, including rocks.

What behavior have you or I displayed that separates us from all other matter?

Quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Selby:

Put the same electrodes on a rock, and, nope, nothing.

Actually, you can measure electromagnetic fields in all matter, although they are normally very weak for rocks. To weak to hook up an EKG or ECG to.

Adrian,

I am not comparing human consciousness to rock consciousness or any other form of consciousness.
I am just saying that it is a logical conclusion that if our consciousness is formed out of matter and our experiences are formed by interaction with other matter/energy then all matter that changes over time has some form of consciousness. Even if it takes 1000 times the energy it takes to change our neural net to melt and change the crystaline structure within a rock, it has some form of slow consciousness that probably doesn't even realize that humans exist.

I am really tired now, so will try to rattle of one other post and be done.

Kharakov · 02-02-2002, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist:


My definition of awareness is:
"a process where a system receives input and responds according to its goals/desires and beliefs learnt through experience about how the world works."

Do you have any hypothical examples of systems that do meet my criteria for awareness, and aren't aware?

excreationist,

If something has goals/desires this implies that it is conscious. So if anything meets your criteria for awareness, it is by definition conscious (anything that has goals or desires possesses volition (intent) which is part of the definition of consciousness that we are discussing).

If something possesses consciousness (which is implied by it having goals/desires) and has learned through experience how the world works (is aware of the world), than of course the thing is aware.

Quote:

If the system is just a passive observer, their goals are meaningless since it can take no action to seek or avoid anything, and I don't see how they could empathize with people.

There is no purpose for it to learn anything since it is unable to apply this knowledge.

I understand the words you are saying, but don't see the relevance. Why does it matter if a consciousness has goals or not? Why would it have to have goals besides observation and learning? Can't you learn through observation? I can learn through both passive and active observation.

Kharakov · 02-02-2002, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll:
In my view this is just like saying iron has always existed. It do not exist a the time of the Big Bang but like consciousness the laws of physics were established to make such emergent phenomena possible.

Big bang is a theory

.

And it is not like saying iron has always existed, It's more like saying energy/matter has always existed. Although I prefer saying that consciousness has always existed, and energy/matter are forms of it. When I'm in a different mood, I argue for the other side and state that energy/matter have always existed, and consciousness is just one of the many forms of energy/matter.

I didn't really get what you meant by this part:

"but like consciousness the laws of physics were established to make such emergent phenomena possible."

Did you mean that the laws of physics were established to make consciousness possible? (This implies intent in establishing the laws of physics).

Just the fact that you state the laws of physics were "established" leads me to believe that you think there is some kind of orderly intent to the universe. What are you talking about?

tronvillain · 02-02-2002, 07:52 PM

Looking at the statement quoted, I'm going to have to go with crocodile deathtroll - it is like saying iron always existed. In other words, both are possibilities inherent in the law of physics.

excreationist · 02-02-2002, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kharakov:
If something has goals/desires this implies that it is conscious. So if anything meets your criteria for awareness, it is by definition conscious (anything that has goals or desires possesses volition (intent) which is part of the definition of consciousness that we are discussing).

Well what about in AI where there are chess computers or a-life (like in the "Creatures" games and "Black & White")? AI researchers say that chess computers have goals, and creatures in a-life games have desires (like hunger, mental stimulation, etc). They aren't aware, but do you think they have goals and/or desires?

Quote:

If something possesses consciousness (which is implied by it having goals/desires) and has learned through experience how the world works (is aware of the world), than of course the thing is aware.

The thing is that at the moment AI isn't very good at learning for itself about how the world works... but I think that the machines and programs have goals and/or desires.

Quote:

If the system is just a passive observer, their goals are meaningless since it can take no action to seek or avoid anything, and I don't see how they could empathize with people.
There is no purpose for it to learn anything since it is unable to apply this knowledge.
I understand the words you are saying, but don't see the relevance.

Well I think that only a system that can interact with the world in some way can truly understand what interaction means. A passive observer hasn't learnt for itself what interaction means personally because it has never interacted with anything. It might see humans interact together but it would be unable to pretend that it has in that human's place doing the interaction since it had never had any experience of personally interacting with anything.
How could that system knows what pleasure and pain is like? I think that pleasure is just a strong compulsion to repeat an experience and pain is a strong compulsion to avoid an experience. If it is just a passive observer, pleasure and pain become meaningless since it is unable to seek or avoid anything. So does awareness require emotion? If so, then I don't think that a system that has *never* interacted with its environment can be aware.

Quote:

Why does it matter if a consciousness has goals or not? Why would it have to have goals besides observation and learning? Can't you learn through observation? I can learn through both passive and active observation.

Even in passive observation you are still moving your eyes, focusing on what seems interesting. A truly passive being has NO control over their environment - they can't move, focus or blink their eyes or move any muscle at all. To get an understanding of this, there might be an injection you can get to temporarily paralyse all of your muscles, including your muscles that make your eyes blink and focus. They'd have to put drops in your eyes fairly often to stop your eyes drying out. So you wouldn't be able to communicate with the outside world at all. You might be able to increase your heart-beat and breathing rate though... that would be cheating so maybe they could give you an injection to stop you from cheating.
BTW, apparently our eyes are constantly jittering around. If they didn't, we'd only see gray with picture where the moving parts are. So if we weren't moving and nothing in our field of view was either, we'd just see gray. I guess to stop being bored they could put a TV screen in front of your eyes for most of the day. You wouldn't be able to close your eyes and I guess you'd just go to sleep when you lose consciousness.

Anyway, you would still be able to learn but the foundations for this were set up during your infancy and childhood - you experienced real interaction and learnt from it. But passive observers like rocks had no history of being able to intelligently respond to their environment. So where do they learn what it is all about? Is this knowledge given to them by God?
And what would the passive observer do? Just observe? What's the point? And if it has no emotions (as I explained earlier) then it doesn't matter morally anyway since for me, morality is just about not hurting the feelings of others.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]

Adrian Selby · 02-03-2002, 01:12 AM

"I would admit that humans appear to show greater response to stimuli than rocks, and this greater response has to do with the configuration of the matter that makes up humans. I tend to think that rocks require more input to change their configuration than humans. "

I think you're talking about rocks in a misleading way.

I don't think rocks show 'response' to anything. Humans don't 'appear' to respond more fully, they do respond more fully. To respond to something implies an activity. You need to change the wording as it implies the truth of your position, and its a position I don't think has foundation.

Rocks don't 'require' more input. Rocks require nothing, they don't have requirements. Even if you're using the word require without referring to a rock's requiring, rocks don't change their configuration. Their configuration IS changed. 'THEY' don't change it. I think your problem is a conflation of action attributes with your points regarding the basic fact that matter affects other matter. For matter to affect other matter with purpose requires a complex central nervous system. I am ruling out many kinds of matter interaction because I have a label 'consciousness' that I think means something specific. How do I define purpose, well, in a very similar way to how I define consciousness. Rocks don't have it.

"Do you actually think you have volition beyond that which the physical laws that determine every neurons firing enforce? Is it your volition that drives the neurons? Is it a rocks volition that causes it to be attracted to other matter? "

The word 'volition' describes the behaviour of certain arrangements of matter that in our experience seems self-directed (Directed by a 'self' not toward a self, self here being shall we say that which is capable of a fine tuned response to the environment). For example, to seek for food is just an organism doing what it has to do, but the organism displays properties such as free movement, and goal directed movement, and numerous other properties that distinguish it from rocks. We use the concept of volition to partially describe these sorts of arrangements of matter (organisms). To suggest that simply because volition is a description of matter in certain forms, but being matter could equally apply to other forms, does not in itself provide any reason for believing that matter in other forms has volition. Again, the onus isn't on me. You offer the possibility that rocks have volition and consciousness without either providing evidence or providing any other reason why I should think it beyond arguing that I would find it impossible to prove rocks don't have these attributes. Again, its a possibility, as is God, but aren't you asking for my faith, given that I can't possibly prove rocks aren't conscious beyond all doubt. Because you can't prove they are either, it remains a hypothesis. One which I don't find at all useful, indeed, misleading. I'm still given no reason to think otherwise. I address your position with regard to everything being matter underneath later as a defense of the consciousness of rocks.

"I tend to think that rocks require more input to change their configuration than humans. Does this indicate lack of consciousness or a different order of consciousness?" (Sorry, part quoted before, but here again because of the question following it)

It indicates a lack of consciousness. The only evidence I have that makes sense of the concept of consciousness seems never to apply to rocks. I can believe there's a different order of consciousness there, but I'd have no grounds for doing so.

"although a central nervous system allows matter to make a more refined reaction to less stimuli, it does not give the possessor of the central nervous system a monopoly on consciousness"

I'd argue that it does. It is precisely this complexity or refinement of reaction to stimuli that makes it conscious. I'm drawing a line, you're not. Perhaps that's our only dispute. Why shouldn't I draw the line with regard to the concept? Why can't I exclude rocks from the category of conscious things based on all the available evidence that relates to the concept as conceived?

"What behavior have you or I displayed that separates us from all other matter? "

We have behaviours that are self directed. This isn't apart from matter or apart from all arrangements of it, but definitely apart from most arrangements of it. But if I start with some stuff like a reflex response to danger, for example. If a huge weight is falling towards the rock, the rock will 'do' nothing about it, we will jump out of the way. Now, extrapolate all other kinds of behaviour that are dissimilar to rocks that we possess, and provide the visible signs of consciousness and I'm arguing that these things form an understanding of what consciousness is. It is precisely the arrangements of matter in particular ways that determines what is conscious. You're talking about consciousness as being part of all matter because all matter obeys the same laws of physics etc. We all only have the laws of physics in common, and they determine everything we are. But that doesn't mean there are no dissimilarities with regard to the different arrangements of matter. You seem to be arguing that because everything is matter, and some matter that changes is conscious, all matter that changes must be conscious. What can be ascribed to some matter must be ascribable to all? If this is your characterisation then it would make no sense to say some matter has vision and hearing, and some matter doesn't, because matter isn't really distinguishable like that, the rock has vision and hearing because its matter like us? We just can't tell how it sees?

"I am just saying that it is a logical conclusion that if our consciousness is formed out of matter and our experiences are formed by interaction with other matter/energy then all matter that changes over time has some form of consciousness."

I do not see a logical conclusion from this statement.

1.Consciousness is no more than matter changing over time.
2.All matter that changes over time is conscious.

I disagree with 2. I've been saying that it is the characteristics of certain matter's interaction with other matter that defines it as conscious. Rocks share none of those characteristics.

Adrian

02-02-2002, 09:54 AM	#142
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	"they might lack the ability or desire to make their will known." Have you any idea how a rock might 'will' something, is a rock purposive? People might lack such things, but its an unfeasible jump to suggest that rocks do. How does a rock have volition? "I think the better reason is this: that matter is what makes up these arrangements of matter, so the fundamental unity behind consciousness is that it consists of matter and its (matter's) interactions with other matter. While one arrangement of matter might display what are apparently "more organized" responses to other matter, all of the fundamental principles that organize the matter into a being (human or otherwise) still govern all matter. Or do you think humans are exempt from these laws, even if they were created by them?" So, I'm defining consciousness as a particular level of organised response, beneath which something cannot be said to be conscious. The problem with your definition with regard to response to the environment is one could say that a rock responds to water and ice by cracking. (You have the implicit problem of showing how this response can be said to be 'organised). But it doesn't make sense to say that cracking is the rock's response to the ice, that's the result of ice and water on it. I think part of the problem with saying 'respond' is that its an active verb, I think it misleads you. Pretty soon we'll be saying that the ice's response to the rock cracking is to make it crack further, the chocolate bar's response to me eating it is to decrease in size. Honestly, the argument from mere response in an environment is absurd. Besides, we have to be careful again with language, because it doesn't make sense to say that the rock responds 'to' the ice, the rock is affected by the ice, it does not respond to it. At the least, that's extremely counterintuitive. "Nothing has shown that other arrangements of matter do not experience qualia or have experiences. " With regard to rocks and plastic cups and chocolate bars, nothing has shown they do. It's mere conjecture. "In fact, since qualia and experiences arise from our interaction with other matter, there is reason to believe that qualia and experiences are had to some degree by all matter that interacts with other matter." I have argued there is no reason to believe that rocks (an arrangement of matter) can be said to have qualia at all. I've offered evidence for this, by looking to organisms that at least display the right behaviour, at least mind you, I'm not saying that's conclusive. Even by a dictionary definition of consciousness (not an argument in itself, but hey, what else can we be talking about) rocks do not have any of the qualities we attribute to the concept. "All matter reacts to all other matter. Those reactions to other matter stay with the matter forever (as experiences" Not true, the reflexive nature of my interaction with the environment produces changes to the neural pathways, but those changes aren't fixed, and the pathways can change again, so that one set of relationships between neurons no longer exists. Of course, all matter reacts with other matter. I'm disputing the second point. "So while the effect of some photons hitting an eye will alter the interior structure of a brain to a greater extent than photons would alter the interior structure of a rock, it does not mean that the rock does not experience any effects from its interaction with the photons. " I think it does. The photons no doubt affect the rock, but whether the rock experiences the effect, I can't see how it could. After all, it doesn't contain a central nervous system, let alone a complex one. Until you can show me that something without a central nervous system has experiences, I'm inclined to disagree. Not that this is an insult, but you're starting to sound like a theist. This rock could be conscious, it displays no signs of consciousness, no volition, no action, no intent, it doesn't have a nervous system even, it doesn't 'sense' the environment, and no such rock has behaved differently to this. But it could be conscious. Sorry, but when theists say God exists but can't point to any evidence, I have the same worry. "I still possessed consciousness, although I was not interacting with the external world in the usual manner. All the other people thought that I was unconscious (only I realize that I still had some type of consciousness). " (From your response to Croc's post) I'd ask here whether you were attached to a device that measured brain activity. Only if you did show brain activity, and I'd bet my house on it, I'd argue that this activity was a sign of consciousness, or dreaming. Put the same electrodes on a rock, and, nope, nothing. Unless you think that our electrodes wouldn't be measuring the right kind of thing in a rock with regard to its dreaming or otherwise. But like that concrete in the doctor nurse example, it could still be conscious just not displaying any signs whatsoever. Even in a coma there can be brain activity, and while we don't know what that indicates, we know that brain activity in people not in comas indicates consciousness. We extrapolate, and conclude that this brain may be at some level conscious, or thinking, or dreaming. Unconsciousness is different from non-consciousness. You being unconscious is not you being non-conscious. Give me one reason, one solid reason why I should extend the same conclusions to a rock. Or a plastic cup? I know you've talked about all matter interacting with all matter, but you haven't shown why the particular arrangements of matter I have called conscious cannot be the only arrangements of matter that can be conscious. I'm hoping we stick to the human rock example here because on the definitions you've quoted, I don't see the rock fitting any of them. Adrian [ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Adrian Selby ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-02-2002, 07:52 PM	#148
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Looking at the statement quoted, I'm going to have to go with crocodile deathtroll - it is like saying iron always existed. In other words, both are possibilities inherent in the law of physics.

02-03-2002, 01:12 AM	#150
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	"I would admit that humans appear to show greater response to stimuli than rocks, and this greater response has to do with the configuration of the matter that makes up humans. I tend to think that rocks require more input to change their configuration than humans. " I think you're talking about rocks in a misleading way. I don't think rocks show 'response' to anything. Humans don't 'appear' to respond more fully, they do respond more fully. To respond to something implies an activity. You need to change the wording as it implies the truth of your position, and its a position I don't think has foundation. Rocks don't 'require' more input. Rocks require nothing, they don't have requirements. Even if you're using the word require without referring to a rock's requiring, rocks don't change their configuration. Their configuration IS changed. 'THEY' don't change it. I think your problem is a conflation of action attributes with your points regarding the basic fact that matter affects other matter. For matter to affect other matter with purpose requires a complex central nervous system. I am ruling out many kinds of matter interaction because I have a label 'consciousness' that I think means something specific. How do I define purpose, well, in a very similar way to how I define consciousness. Rocks don't have it. "Do you actually think you have volition beyond that which the physical laws that determine every neurons firing enforce? Is it your volition that drives the neurons? Is it a rocks volition that causes it to be attracted to other matter? " The word 'volition' describes the behaviour of certain arrangements of matter that in our experience seems self-directed (Directed by a 'self' not toward a self, self here being shall we say that which is capable of a fine tuned response to the environment). For example, to seek for food is just an organism doing what it has to do, but the organism displays properties such as free movement, and goal directed movement, and numerous other properties that distinguish it from rocks. We use the concept of volition to partially describe these sorts of arrangements of matter (organisms). To suggest that simply because volition is a description of matter in certain forms, but being matter could equally apply to other forms, does not in itself provide any reason for believing that matter in other forms has volition. Again, the onus isn't on me. You offer the possibility that rocks have volition and consciousness without either providing evidence or providing any other reason why I should think it beyond arguing that I would find it impossible to prove rocks don't have these attributes. Again, its a possibility, as is God, but aren't you asking for my faith, given that I can't possibly prove rocks aren't conscious beyond all doubt. Because you can't prove they are either, it remains a hypothesis. One which I don't find at all useful, indeed, misleading. I'm still given no reason to think otherwise. I address your position with regard to everything being matter underneath later as a defense of the consciousness of rocks. "I tend to think that rocks require more input to change their configuration than humans. Does this indicate lack of consciousness or a different order of consciousness?" (Sorry, part quoted before, but here again because of the question following it) It indicates a lack of consciousness. The only evidence I have that makes sense of the concept of consciousness seems never to apply to rocks. I can believe there's a different order of consciousness there, but I'd have no grounds for doing so. "although a central nervous system allows matter to make a more refined reaction to less stimuli, it does not give the possessor of the central nervous system a monopoly on consciousness" I'd argue that it does. It is precisely this complexity or refinement of reaction to stimuli that makes it conscious. I'm drawing a line, you're not. Perhaps that's our only dispute. Why shouldn't I draw the line with regard to the concept? Why can't I exclude rocks from the category of conscious things based on all the available evidence that relates to the concept as conceived? "What behavior have you or I displayed that separates us from all other matter? " We have behaviours that are self directed. This isn't apart from matter or apart from all arrangements of it, but definitely apart from most arrangements of it. But if I start with some stuff like a reflex response to danger, for example. If a huge weight is falling towards the rock, the rock will 'do' nothing about it, we will jump out of the way. Now, extrapolate all other kinds of behaviour that are dissimilar to rocks that we possess, and provide the visible signs of consciousness and I'm arguing that these things form an understanding of what consciousness is. It is precisely the arrangements of matter in particular ways that determines what is conscious. You're talking about consciousness as being part of all matter because all matter obeys the same laws of physics etc. We all only have the laws of physics in common, and they determine everything we are. But that doesn't mean there are no dissimilarities with regard to the different arrangements of matter. You seem to be arguing that because everything is matter, and some matter that changes is conscious, all matter that changes must be conscious. What can be ascribed to some matter must be ascribable to all? If this is your characterisation then it would make no sense to say some matter has vision and hearing, and some matter doesn't, because matter isn't really distinguishable like that, the rock has vision and hearing because its matter like us? We just can't tell how it sees? "I am just saying that it is a logical conclusion that if our consciousness is formed out of matter and our experiences are formed by interaction with other matter/energy then all matter that changes over time has some form of consciousness." I do not see a logical conclusion from this statement. 1.Consciousness is no more than matter changing over time. 2.All matter that changes over time is conscious. I disagree with 2. I've been saying that it is the characteristics of certain matter's interaction with other matter that defines it as conscious. Rocks share none of those characteristics. Adrian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.