crocodile deathroll

I you remove any oxygen atom, calcium, or iron atom from your brain and compare it with any corresponding oxygen calcium, iron atom from your muscle. You will find that they are fundamentally identical. There is nothing special about any of these atoms in isolation.
I am sure that if you were put under a general anesthetic and every atom in your brain was swapped with the same corresponding atom from a bucket of offal then you will still wake up feeling you are the same person. It is the configuration of these atoms and not the atoms them selves that are the essence of your personality.

crocodile deathroll

Baloo

Sorry to jump into the discussion so late. If I may present an argument to refute the notion that a human brain, even in principle, is predictable given the physical properties of our universe...

Our universe is governed by laws of quantum mechanics. These laws assertain, irrefutably, that it is impossible to know the EXACT position and momentum of a particle. If you want to start with the assumption that this information is known, you are no longer talking about a brain made up of matter that obeys the laws of this universe. Please do not make the common mistake that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle relates in anyway to poor or inadequate measuring methods. The crux of the problem is that particles do not actually have an exact position/momentum, and has nothing to do with methods of observation.

Therefore, the knowledge of any human brain, even if complete to the fullest degree possible for a brain within our universe, will contain a degree of uncertainty. Past that degree of uncertainty, there are an infinite number of indecipherable, yet different, conformations that the human brain could be in. For simplicity sake, let's assume we pick two of these. Both choices are equally valid according to our limited knowledge of the brain.

Now, another fun property of a physical human brain is the fact that it is a chaotic system. As such, ANY change in the initial conditions, no matter how small, will at some future point result in a major divergence in the behavior of the brain.

Thus, if we put our two (equally plausible) initial conditions into a God-like supercomputer, and try to calculate the actual future path of the brains behavior, at some point, the predictions will be in complete, utter disagreement.

Put another way, if we take a human brain, and make an EXACT physical copy of it, the two brains will at some point begin to behave very differently.

In summary, speaking sheerly ontologically, but accepting the physical properties of our universe, it is impossible to predict the full future path of a human brain, regardless of the completeness of the knowledge of its present state.

excreationist

Ave.

Well if you read my earlier posts in this thread, I just said that deterministic systems, such as chess computers can be said to make selections or decisions - or even "choices" (assuming choice is taken as a synonym for selection). And if deterministic chess computers can "choose" than so can deterministic people.

So you are a dualist then? There are two substances in the universe, mind and matter?

No, they are not the only differences!!!! A human being can extract useable energy from their environment and store it for later use, as directed by their brain, which uses complex reasoning based on learnt experiences to execute behaviours. With rocks, there is no information processing - it is simply acted on by gravity and then it moves down. A human brain contains billions of neurons that have learnt patterns to predict its experiences - it can anticipate what will be the likely outcome of its possible actions and then decide the optimum course of action based on its desires or goals and its knowledge of how the world works.
So it isn't about a rock vs. a rock with "a mind" as you imply. You imply that this supernatural mind can just interact with the physical world without being limited by deterministic physical laws. If this is true - if the basis of our intellect is non-material, then what are the billions of neurons in our brains for? Why aren't conscious beings just water or sand or air or two eyes and a mouth (with no brain)?

Well humans can learn language and commentate their reasoning using language. Their reasoning is based on neural networks though, so it is very complex, using some patterns they've learnt throughout their entire life. This is simplified/summarised into concise language, and we can be aware of these linguistic thoughts. Without language, babies aren't aware of their reasoning process in an analytical/philosophical way - they simply do it.

Whatever...

Well it takes a while to explain but how about this as a start:
I'd say that "consciousness" means being aware of the personality or the existence of the "mind" of yourself. I just assume that this requires the reasoning system to use sophisticated language and be aware.
Awareness can be a very vague term and sometimes be applied to rivers or trees, but I have a clearer definition of it.

Awareness - a process where a system receives input and responds according to its goals/desires and beliefs learnt through experience about how the world works.

The reason why I defined consciousness and awareness is so that I could explain exactly what I'm talking about so that I can explain how matter could be conscious.

I'll just start with my definition of awareness first and later get onto human-level consciousness. So say we're talking about the awareness that animals such as dogs or birds possess. Do you think that my definition of awareness adequately sums up what animal consciousness involves and does it seem impossible to you that a man-made entity could ever possess animal-type awareness?

Well there is a distinction really.... on my computer I can see windows and files but on the other hand it is just a bunch of electronics components. The functioning brain (mind/personality) is different to the brain itself. In the same way, a computer that isn't running doesn't obviously contain windows or files. (and if the hard-drive is destroyed then the windows and files can never be recovered).
Another example is a fan that blows air. A fan on its own doesn't do this - it is just a pile of metal and plastic. But if it is operating properly, it blows air.

Ok, so I see you have a similar definition of consciousness to me. But first let's look at a simpler component of this - basic animal-style awareness.

I think you mean consciousness...? The conscience is usually a component of the personality that involves your moral ideals.

I am talking about "consciousness" not "conscience". And this possibility of consciousness depends on the arragement of the matter, in the same way that matter can be used to make lava lamps.

So what? There are also distinct disciplines that deal with chemistry and physics. It is just because of the scale of the things. e.g. physics is about small particles, chemistry is about larger ones, biochemistry is about larger ones, biology is about even larger ones and ecology is about systems of even larger particles or elements.

Well a bug can store energy and it has a little brain that directs its behaviour. Robots can do the same thing. Paper isn't a very mechanically sophisticated system - it is pretty uniform all the way through, so obviously its reaction to fire is pretty simplistic.
Ok, how about another example besides hot and cold substances...? How about hexagonal style crystals vs. irregular crystals or water vs. burning oil? These things are very different but they are both made up of matter...
Or what about an atomic explosion involving plutonium vs. an ice cube? They are also very different.

Well life evolves. Do you think that the cause of the evolution of life is supernatural?
BTW, what about mechanical engineering that involves gears, wheels and pulleys? These principles don't apply to many things. Or what about laws electronics that are used to build electronic circuits? I know these things apply to complex systems that behave in sophisticated ways, but life is also a complex system.

What about the thoughts that we have? I believe that these involve the neurons sending information around the brain. Or do you think that the neurons serve some other purpose and our reasoning process doesn't require neurons?

Well as I have said before, natural neural networks are far more powerful than the ones we can build at present. Our brain contains about 100 billion neurons each connected to about 10,000 others. At the moment they're trying to build artificial animals that only have about 20 million neurons.
So there is currently no conscious robot, but I think that awareness is a different matter.

I think you mean "consciousness". Actually, <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=conscience" target="_blank">conscience</a> used to mean consciousness, but as that link says, it is an obsolete term.

Having the ability to control a dishwasher or a washing machine is different from a computer with human-like abilities - this seems to require about 100 billion neurons. There is a big difference in "computing power". At the moment, no computer is close to the raw computing power of our brains. Of course, computers can do mathematical calculations much faster than we can since we are very inefficient at doing basic maths. e.g. 3672.342 x 23123.12332

And electronic and non-electronic systems use different laws since laws about resistors, etc, don't apply when there are no resistors there.

Well laws about the tides which involve the sun and the moon don't apply to other things like rocks, since rocks don't contain water, but so what?

I don't think the principles of software development and programming have much to do with physics either, but that doesn't mean that software doesn't rely on a physical world.

Well as I said, our brains have a huge amount of computing power and they have been shaped by evolution as well as decades of life experience (where we learnt how to interact with the world in sophisticated ways).
I agree that it involves a leap of faith to think that we could one day make computers that seem like humans, but what about the question of whether computers can have animal-type awareness? BTW, do you think that animals possess any kind of awareness? Or are they "zombies"?

[ December 30, 2001: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

excreationist

Baloo:
It seems that you're saying that our behaviour is partly random, and this randomness is out of our control... well Einstein didn't believe in this kind of randomness (he was talking against quantum physics when he said "God doesn't play dice with the universe") but perhaps it is true.

crocodile deathroll

If someone had asked me when I was a teenager. What do you make of the universe I would so subscribed very strongly to teleology. I felt at the time the universe was designed for a purpose like a modern day theme park. The theme park, of course, had its architects, engineers, builders and if there was no body around to fore fill its intended purpose, it would never of been built in the first place, it would just be one great white elephant like a modern day ghost town. The universe too( I believed at the time) had its architect and builder or super-being deliberately giving guiding His/Her hand to guide it in the right direction so "we" can use and enjoy it just like the case would be with a theme park.

Now I have tossed all this teleology out the window when being enlightened by the fact of how complexity can very easily be generated by the very simplest of algorithms like the case is with the Mandelbrot set. Or even "phase transitions" like the case would be as water freezes into ice, creating complex crystals. Two very good examples of how complexity can easily be generated with out any need for a teleological explanation. The human brain, I strongly suspect is a product of a very similar principle where complexity can be necessarily generated without resorting to any teleological argument. But what about this so called "soul" that sits within it" I am of the view the multiplicity souls is an illusion. The soul, I believe, is a system when reaches a critical level of complexity it can become self aware, and the brain is the most complex known object in the universe, so I see there is a very strong correlation between complexity and self awareness, soul or consciousness (call it what you like). You can hardly imagine consciousness out there in an empty vacuum of even a human embryo to self aware, and therefore no soul to speak of. It is only when the human morphology reaches a critical level of complexity is when this property of self awareness can emerge. I feel it emerges more as what Carl Jung terms as a "collective unconscious" an important transitional stage between pure unconsciousness like what you find in a vacuum a rock or a human embryo and consciousness like in a baby, a chimpanzee or a human. This may sound a little too mystical to some, but it is a very simple cause to what turns out to be an extremely complex effect or full blown human consciousness and self awareness. It also requires no divine guiding hand or supernatural super-being, so it is any but mystical. I am not a big fan of Jung but I feel here he was really onto something that should be given a lot more serious consideration.

As for the multiplicity of souls being an illusion. Sure there is a multiplicity of brains, but from your own experience there is only one of those brains that are sentient, yours. The rest from your own perspective are just other parts of objective reality, and if you were a brain surgeon you will feel no differently about cutting someone's brain than cutting a vegetable.
I have a gut feeling there is a reason for all those extra brains in the cosmos. When you die, that sentiency in the universe that made you existence possible still remains as a collective unconscious and there will, I hypothesize be a gestalt switch to another brain, which may well be in your subjective past and not your subjective future. But there will still be only one sentient being in that particular portion of the universe. In other words you are alive in this world because you are either dead of yet to be born in every other alternative world. Of course any memory of any previous existence would totally impossible, so it would be a hard theory to prove.

Complexity and order is one of those gaps that even to this day and age theologians use their "epistemological putty" to fill the gaps and thus use C&O as evidence for the existence of God, so the teleological argument is still very popular. As the Mandelbrot set demonstrates, so even the most intricate complexity can be generated by to most simple equations. The brain, in a universe dominated by quantum uncertainties and as many as 11 dimensions is a necessary product of much the same universal laws of nature that originated from the most inconceivably simple beginnings. Something as simple as a mere quantum fluctuation in the unstable equilibrium of nothingness.

crocodile deathroll

crocodile deathroll

I feel one can not rule out other material like silicon with may well emulate the same information processes as neurons
You are probably right, but our brains are more geared towards the survival and not playing chess. A computer or a very well programmed robot still not be able to recognize when it is safe of paddle across a river whether be a log floating in it or a crocodile swimming in it. An it will have to make up its mind fast because a forest fire is advancing quickly and the river will provide a safe buffer if only there were no crocodiles to contend with, or maybe if crocodiles can only move at two meters forward and one meter to the left or right, or if forest fires can only move in a diagonal direction, and all rivers were exactly 50 meter across, the robot may have a chance. But the natural world does not have the fixed space coordinates like on a chess board A chess board has pretty fixed space coordinates, so the mathematical calculations will still be rather mechanical as there are 64 squares in a fixed pattern. The natural world is nothing like that and I feel your next quote pretty well rounds it off.

Although I think animals are far closer to approaching consciousness than the most sophisticated computers of the past like Deep Blue All Deep Blue proves, is that zombies can beat us at chess. There is a lot of fuzzy logic going on inside our brains and if computer and emulate those processes so closely that they some time in the future may well become conscious. I can't rule that out. But it may be interesting to find out exactly how that machine behaves the instance it becomes conscious, and may well be misinterpreted by us as just a frenzy of computer errors, when it is really a computer with a mind of its own. The conscious machine may not be of any practical use but it may well help to answer many of our generations of questions about the mysteries of consciousness. Why I feel this AI may be possible some time down the track is that I am sure consciousness is more of a universal complex mathematical pattern rather that a contingent bundle of material neurons and if that same mathematical pattern can be emulated by carbon fullerines, silicon or lead or plutonium or some other exotic matter then then consciousness will emerge there as well.

crocodile deathroll

excreationist

They are still neurons though - "artificial" neurons.

Well I actually mentioned controlling dishwashers and washing machines, and the illusion that calculators are more powerful than our brains due to our inefficiency at doing exact mathematical calculations.
We can learn new problem domains though - unlike a chess computer. And at the moment, some of us, like Kasparov, can beat the best chess computers.

This is animal-type neural network intelligence. As I said, currently (artificial) neural network robots only use a maximum of 10 or 20 million neurons which is probably less than any mammal has. So it is unlikely that these robots would be as good at solving problems as many mammals, such as mice or cats are. And also, it isn't just about the number of neurons, it is also the way that they are wired up - some badly set-up neural networks just aren't capable of learning new patterns properly.

Well Deep Blue is optimized to the domain of chess - it can't do anything else. BTW, things like insects are very optimized - they are very good fliers with very good reflex times - but this has come at the expense of them not being able to learn new behaviours.

It isn't just about fuzzy logic, it is also about us continuously learning how to seek desires and to do it.

Well I think that a computer is only obviously conscious if it can do things like ponder about itself in non-preprogrammed ways. I don't think that a fast computer that doesn't interact with its environment in competent ways is conscious.

I agree...

Neurons can be simulated in software too (and they are) - but they are still neurons. And each neuron has many mathematical-type "weights" which it uses to work out if it is going to fire or not. (Or just partially fire) This involves maths, but so does a falling rock or a rolling rock in a way. So anyway, neurons can be made out of many kinds of substances, including virtual ones, using software.

madmax2976

When threads get this long I sort of tend to shy away from them, but since Ysabella asks a direct question I will answer.

Ysabella has made a pretty good assessment of the question posed by this thread. Do we really have the ability to choose in a deterministic universe that is "governed" by the laws of physics?

madmax2976

If you had read the previous threads you would know that our ability to predict human actions has little to no bearing on the issue at hand. Your only pointing out a lack of ability on the part of humans. Even if we couldn't make a prediction ourselves or with a "supercomputer", the issue still remains of whether we really make choices or whether the laws of physics "force" us to take the actions we do. Don't forget, much of science counts on the predictability of phenomena.

However, you said that the universe is "governed" by the laws of quantum physics which is what I find most interesting. What exactly is meant by this statement? Based on such a view, please describe for me what a law is.

incommendatus

No, you will not be able to predict it, due to a corollary of the axiom of Consciousness that applies to humans, VOLITION.