I suggested the expectation that another moment will follow the present one is carried right down into the chemistry. When an energy source is used it will be renewed. When waste products build up in the muscles the body takes whatever measures are necessary to regain strength as soon as possible.
It has to be this way for survival. During the moment to come.
The expectation there will be another moment exists in every subsystem. This is true for every organism, so that they might survive, If this expectation is the basis for consciousness,
then every organism has consciousness.
Now depending upon the suite of subsystems contained in the organism, that consciousness may be different.
This line of thought does away with the core of homo sapiens' ego.
But it allows there to be more than one kind of consciousness.
Furthermore since the expectation exists as a survival mechanism, it is not a leap to say that evaluating risk is a process integral to consciousness.
I think of 'consciousness' as being exhibited degrees of sense/reaction behavior. Organisms from bacteria to humans exhibit behavior and so are 'conscious', each to it's own abilities.
Hosea 14:1 O Israel, return to the Lord your God,
For you have stumbled because of your iniquity;
2 Take words with you,
And return to the Lord.
Say to Him,
“Take away all iniquity;
Receive us graciously,
For we will offer the sacrifices of our lips.
3 Assyria shall not save us,
We will not ride on horses,
Nor will we say anymore to the work of our hands, ‘You are our gods.’
For in You the fatherless finds mercy.”
4 “I will heal their backsliding,
I will love them freely,
For My anger has turned away from him.
5 I will be like the dew to Israel;
He shall grow like the lily,
And lengthen his roots like Lebanon.
6 His branches shall spread;
His beauty shall be like an olive tree,
And his fragrance like Lebanon.
7 Those who dwell under his shadow shall return;
They shall be revived like grain,
And grow like a vine.
Their scent shall be like the wine of Lebanon.
8 “Ephraim shall say, ‘What have I to do anymore with idols?’
I have heard and observed him.
I am like a green cypress tree;
Your fruit is found in Me.”
9 Who is wise?
Let him understand these things.
Who is prudent?
Let him know them.
For the ways of the Lord are right;
The righteous walk in them,
But transgressors stumble in them.
Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
John 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, 23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. 25 Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, 27 and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. 30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.
John 16:5 “But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.
John 14:14 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
I don't see much attention (alright, any attn) on the thread to the role neuro circuitry at a variety of levels and in a variety of forms is likely to play in generating consciousness (cf: memory) (e.g., consciousness as a process or stream). Now granted, since I used to be an engineer and a lot of my background is in hands-on circuit design, I might be guilty of a certain engineering and circuitry chauvinism. ;)
But then again, just consider the opening lines here...
Half a trillion neurons, a hundred trillion synapses
As you know, these thousands to billions (if not trillions) of micro events and structures aren't just laying about dishoveled, they're arrayed in order. It's how they're put together. A synergistic sum (cf: arithmetic sum) of sorts - a term lunko's under-appreciated if not ridiculed in the past. Arrays of circuits, "engineered" by an evolutionary process that was/is considerably unique, considerably powerful, considerably different - as compared to any that modern constructionists (like engineers or cognitive scientists) are used to working with.
In my view therein lies the secret(s) to the many and various emergent functions to our nervous system (incl sentience, the muther of these mysteries) evolved as a "controller" of the body - that we like to describe as "consciousness."
In my book, the "smart money" is on circuity - circuitry evolved by natural selection - circuitry that might tap into micro structures at the physical chemical subcellular level (to produce functionalities) that modern science and engineering together isn't aware of. Yet or forever.
As an aside, I think it's worth noting that IF modern science and engineering - in particular analytical bioengineering in neuroscience - were not constrained to work with dead brains and their products - needless to say, understandably so! - analyses and advances wouldn't have to be so circumstantial.
But my interest: it's all mechanistic, that is, it's all causally determined (prediction, predictional determinism aside). That remains the claim I find most reasonable, in addition to interesting; most challenging as a psychological hurdle to clear; and most worthy to be included into a larger model as a tool of the future for getting on in a truly modern practice of living.
.....
In fact, in this lecture by Sam Harris on "free will" (one of his worst, I think, to date, btw) he alludes to this very view - along the lines that insofar as evolutionary theory was/is a psychological hurdle, our mechanistic nature (that precludes "free will" in the traditional philosophical sense) is one/ will be one even so much higher. Mercy!
smaller scales mean higher energy, not a good thing for life
Ed, explain or point me to a better explanation, please. Not sure what law or dynamic you're referring to.
....
I think I'm having difficulty tracking the different ideas presented here. Whew. I'll try to summarize.
Ed seems currently interested in notions of life as the result of molecular machinery and genomes. Ed had also brought up Watson (implying Turing) and hinted that what is human is what humans do. The use of language socially seems to be a key factor in the definition of humanity for Ed.
Largo argued that Watson cannot glean experience; nor can Watson have (subjective) experiences at all. Largo complains that Ed is being too rational (via the discursive mind) or has bifurcated consciousness inappropriately into objective and subjective, when in fact they are an example of dualism.
I was commenting on free will vs. determinism: organisms are limited by their nature, with given characteristics within specific contexts that stipulate their functioning. Nature and nurture stipulate specific individualities and their behaviors. (My experiences and observations are bringing me to this position, and it has big implications.)
Slayton disagrees with me. He believes that many (infinite) choices are available to mind-body organisms.
Donald wants to know what consciousness is.
Rectorsquid is having a side argument with BB about evolution.
Werner seems to be suggesting physical experiments and actions to illustrate the extent of free will vs. destiny. Karma / action can lead to pain and destiny. (I sense there is a lesson about learning in his comments.)
As I understand Jstan now, he seems to be arguing that past experiences are gleaned and create physical mechanisms (learning) in organisms so that similar situations in the future are handled well--leading to survival of an organism. (This point of view, I think, seems to be an "evolution explanation," although there it was not made on a specie level.) Jstan claims this argument explains that all organisms have consciousness, and opens the door for different kinds of consciousness.
Cintune seems to be enjoying the view.
Dr. F. seems unhappy about something.
Not really sure what Go-B of BB or splitter is saying about any of these topics. (Sorry, guys.)
HF likes systems and designs of neurons (a great many of them) to explain sentience and consciousness. He thinks not enough consideration is being given to Neurobiology or neuroscience. For him, consciousness is causally determined, although I am not sure that he means the fact of consciousness alone or whether he includes the results of consciousness (e.g., decisions, specific feelings, emotions, or thoughts in specific situations).
Sooooooo, what I see is general split between materialists / objectivists, and a few of us who are, hmmmmmm . . . less so. Consciousness and free will seem to be the current topics. This "thread" often seems like a random walk. We just wander around. I guess that's how these things go, even when people know a lot in their own areas of experience and knowledge.
If I've mis-characterized what you said or were thinking, please correct it. If you see a nexus among the postings that I have missed, please note it.
EDIT: HF's background lies in neuroscience, not neurobiology.
once you get down to the atomic level we know that the physical description of particles making up that system reach a limit of description. This happens between pairs of descriptors of those particles which we term "canonical" (more appropriation of words by physicists that mean something very different than in their original meanings).
So momentum and position, p and x, are canonical variables... one way of thinking about this is the spatial gradiant of a wave function (which describes the particle in the infinite dimensional Hilbert space that quantum mechanics constructs) is proportional to the momentum of the particle.
The "observable" is not the average of the wave function over space, but of the square of the wave function, and so for momentum, but we find the famous relationship:
ΔpΔx≥h/2π
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Since the product of Δp and Δx has to be greater than or equal to a constant (h/2π) we see that as Δx gets smaller, Δp gets larger...
now the momentum is related to the kinetic energy of the particle K, remember that we have
p=mv
and
K = ½mv²
so
K = p²/2m
and
ΔK = pΔp/m
We also know that the kinetic energy is related to temperature of the system, especially if the momentum average of all the particles is zero, but the kinetic energy of the system is not,
〈K〉 = kT
where T is the temperature, (and k is the Boltzmann constant) and 〈K〉 is the average kinetic energy of the system.
As the system is constrained to smaller "scales", the temperature of the system increases. If it is a bound system, the energy of the binding, which is potential energy, has to increase to confine the system.
For instance, molecular size scales are bound with potential energies of order 1/10th of an eV (eV is an electron Volt, the energy difference that an electron has in a 1 Volt electrical potential). At atomic scales, electrons are bound to atomic nuclei with energies of order 1 to 10 eV, at nuclear scales protons and neutrons are bound together with millions of eV energies.
These are all estimates that can be calculated using the uncertainty principle above...
The problems with understanding life is to be able to describe molecular systems at finite temperature. We do not have a good theory of physical systems in these environments, our theories are "zero temperature" theories, which works well but cannot describe the behaviors, and especially the system dynamics at finite temperatures.
Interestingly, life generates energy abiotically through photosynthesis and chemosynthesis, which are not entirely understood processes. That is an interesting starting point for a description of finite temperature system behavior...
my point regarding Watson is that we don't know what goes on in Watson's "mind" but we are sure it is different than what goes on in our minds... but the only way we have of knowing is by communicating to Watson, which can be disconcerting because Watson appears to be able to talk to us about stuff... Watson is as incapable of describing that process as we are, that process being how we able to be "conscious."
I don't think that is being "overly analytical." If you want to say Watson is different from a person, then you have to be able to point to the distinction. Largo inspecting circuit diagrams for Watson's processor would be at a loss to describe, from those "maps" what Watson does... Watson's behavior is not in those maps.
So there is a mystery, how does Watson actually exhibit its behavior?
Prediction hasn't been overlooked. It's more a question of how it is achieved. We multicellular organisms model parts of the external world in our nervous systems and use those representations to make guesses about what the future holds. Just how that happens needs a good explanation.
One opinion that prediction is consciousness:
from The I of the Vortex
R. Llinás
And what about single-celled life? There was a recent discovery that plankton can adjust their distance from the ocean surface according to how many of their predators, also single-celled, are in the area. How the plankton sense the predator isn't known.
Roger Penrose (and R. Llinás) point to microtubules as possible sensing and reacting elements in single-celled organisms. Whatever it is that is going on may be 'mechanical' in some sense, but when you watch protozoa under a microscope they seem anything but mechanical. Perhaps that is only to be expected, given a couple billion years of selection wherein each new generation may take less than an hour to be produced.
The first single-celled life on Earth is thought to have appeared 2 billion years before the first multicellular life. According to one opinion, the reason it took 2 billion years for cells to organize into cooperating communities was that a fairly sophisticated system of cell-to-cell communication had to come first. I wonder if humans will ever learn to communicate with each other?
The problems with understanding life is to be able to describe molecular systems at finite temperature.
Ed, your post is way out there, I wish I could better understand it. But I'm glad you do and I'm glad there are others who can follow up on it. Maybe therein lies what we all seek?
.....
when you watch protozoa under a microscope they seem anything but mechanical
I totally get what you're saying.
Then again, there's 19th century "mechanical" and there is 21st century "mechanical."
My preferred term of "mechanistic" or even "mechanical" stems from (a) the wide confusion over the terms determinism, deterministic (which I recognized as problematic and let go of 20 years ago now); (b) the wide usage of "mechanism of action" used thoughout the physical and life sciences; (c) the ubiquitous presence of these "mechanisms of action" across life, in the buildup of life, and in its metabolism.
A couple of things about "mechanistic." To my mind, (1) a mechanistic process or a mechanistic reaction doesn't imply or suggest an algorithm in any way (although the reverse seems to); (2) the term, unlike the classical "determinate" or "deterministic" or "determinant," does not necessarily imply computability or predictability, so less chance of confusion there.
Bottom line, it works for me. And it allows me to cut through, or to cut around, much of the ordinary confusion we see in varius publics regarding use of det and what we all mean by the term when we use it.
Werner, you're right. Sam Harris is my guru. On this Wed esp. Here, check this out, even just the first 10 minutes. Why? Because he's so crystal clear, ad hoc, off the cuff...
I raised the point quite some time back in the thread that predation is a prime evolutionary driver with [inherent] predictive capabilities essential to that evolution.
That simple sense / response behavior itself evolved in tandem with increasingly complex cellular forms with consciousness eventually emerging from those evolving predatory behaviors. Jstan's commentary on the role of time is central to that evolution of predatory behavior (both as predator and prey) and hence consciousness.
We can see the obvious evolution / emergence of 'consciousness' from simple behavior and predation in an observational sweep across the taxonomy of species which exist on the planet today.
BASE, but I hope you've had the opportunity to take in Sam Harris before now. I hope.
re: "death"
So much depends on how you look at it. "Look at it this way..."
Sam Harris, concerning the Abrahamic scriptures and their stories
"We are really prisoners of literature right now, we are constrained to talk either explicitly about these books or in some vague conformity to these books."
"prisoners of literature" "constrained to talk..."
Indeed, just as they threads testify to. Eh, Gobee? ;)
"These books were written by people who... Every person in this room has more access to information and scientific knowledge and what is now basic common sense than the authors of the Bible and the Quran. In fact there is not a person in this room who has ever met a person whose worldview is as narrow, just by the sheer time in which they appeared in history, as the worldviews of Abraham or Moses or Jesus or Muhammad.
Until we grapple with that fact and honestly commit ourselves to a 21st century conversation about the possibilites of human wellbeing, we're just going to be at sea... "
my point regarding Watson is that we don't know what goes on in Watson's "mind" but we are sure it is different than what goes on in our minds... but the only way we have of knowing is by communicating to Watson, which can be disconcerting because Watson appears to be able to talk to us about stuff... Watson is as incapable of describing that process as we are, that process being how we able to be "conscious."
-
This is an interesting take on mind but IMO it is important to realize Ed has parsed consciousness back to strictly neo-cortex functioning, in particular, what's commonly called left brain discursive functioning, which deals with objectifying people, places and things, the output of which is informatation, in the driest sense, facts and figures. So in a sense, Ed has separated out one of a myriad of human aspects, the very one that is most machine-like (quantifying info - data processing, etc.), but also, as every psychologist knows, is the least effective driver in human behavior. The language of the cortex is thoughts, and words.
But we have a triune brain, meaning three storied. The oldest, most powerful and least conscious is our brain stem, or reptilian brain, the language of which is sensation. The mamilian brain sits on top of that, and along with the limbic system, pumps out feelings. Sensations and emotions are the drivers behind behavior - which is why Vipassana or "Insight" meditation is so powerful because for the first time people see where their behavior comes from through tracking sensations. Otherwise we have no idea. At all.
Just a few rambling thoughts. And remember, my description of the turkey is different than the turkey itself. That is, the Map might not be the turkey, but the turkey is the meal nonetheless.
Happy thanksgiving to all.
JL
What the hell's that red thing jiggling on the gobblers neck? And what are giblets, anyhow?
I'm not sure if it has come up but there should be some discussion about the mind that includes instinct. The brain might very well turn a reference of a person into what is essentially numbers or nerve signals but those are weighted by instinct. The instinct comes from millions of years of evolution and has essentially preprogrammed kluges into the brain that alter perception in ways that are not immediately apparent.
For instance, there is no math for love but it exists. It likely comes from a tweaking of perception in special cases where the perception of a strong personal bond is important but isn't directly computed from the immediate surroundings or even from a person entire set of experiences.
In other words, there is certainly more to the mind than just brain computations. There is a set of values built in that have been good for the species in the past. Often, the skewed perceptions that make us see more than is in front of us might make us think that there is more to the mind and spirit than just a meta computer in our heads. If it is a meat computer than it has data in it beyond the experiences of any one of us. It has some amount of storage of the entire human evolutionary tree.
Spirituality might even be one of those pre-programmed things that helped the species survive (or helped those specific traits survive to be more accurate) once we got to having brains that were big enough to question everything around us.
Your dilemma with the nature of the mind, body, and spirit, might be an artifact of that hidden "information" in your meat computer brain! Now that would be ironic.
Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat.
I had just left the hospital where my gf/fiance had just had surgery after being hit by a car that had ran a red light. She pushed her two young daughters out of the way and was then struck. And I had gotten into it in the waiting room with her mother (basically didn't say anything, just caught a lot of shit). I loved Laura & her kids, but her mom was something else!
We were both in or late thirties and had been going together for some time. I'm not gonna get into the whole story, it really involves aspects of my whole life. But, I hit a wall, so to speak. As i was on my way home, I basically just said ef-it and decided to chuck everything I was doing, everything i was about, and take a time out (like i said long story). I kinda lost it.
So I did a very dumb thing. As I went over this bridge/overpass and was coming down the other side I said what I would now describe as an unholy prayer. I said, "I don't care WHO gets it for me, God or Satan, but I want enough crystal meth to drain my brain (or whatever/enough to temporarily escape). The thing about it was, I had never done meth/speed in my life. Hated the stuff for what it was doing to people. Other than once when i was working for this contractor from Fresno and the framing/joisting crew he hooked me up with one morning were putting it in their water containers and working/slamming nails from dawn to dusk. I was unaware of it being in the water. We were on top of a third floor apt building joisting and relied on the water containers (it was HOT/middle of summer). Well, before long I was slamming nails from dawn to dusk. lol I went home and came down and got sick as a dog and quit that job the next day. So I WAS familiar with what it was capable of doing.
So, ten years later, for whatever reason, it came to my mind and I said that damn "prayer"! I was coming down the far side of the bridge and noticed the light about 30 yards ahead was about to change and was about to gun it. But, the second I finished that "prayer" i heard an audible voice that said, "Turn left!" it was a command! I hit my brakes and skidded almost to a stop and hooked it left into this side street that paralleled the freeway I had just gone over, and pulled to the curb and stopped (i was on my bike). That whole instance from "unholy prayer" to turning and stopping took about 10-15 seconds!!
Right there at my feet was a baggy with, what turned out to be, an 8 ball of crystal meth (about 3.5 grams). That was the begginig of the end of my engagement/relationship with my gal. Likewise with a very dynamic Christian ministry in which I was very active. I believe it had something to do with the lives of two youth (16-17) being executed (it could have turned a lot different if i had been there for them like i was called to be). And so forth ... !
Like I said, my life has been a very long story, a very long spiritual path. And THAT, was one of the lowest points. I recall thinking, as I picked up the baggy, "OH, OH, WHAT DID I JUST DO?" I never went that way home, it was out of my way, a frontage road!!!!
Believe me, in the weeks that followed, I was "sifted like wheat"!!
...
...
BTW, I do not like telling these sordid stories here on ST, on the WWW/internet for the whole world to see! Why do i even bother? There are many, this one is really a rather minor one. But, I just wanted to tell it, because you guys (atheist) are clueless as to who exactly your dealing with.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."
This is an interesting take on mind but IMO it is important to realize Ed has parsed consciousness back to strictly neo-cortex functioning...The language of the cortex is thoughts, and words
Well, the way I got to this point was just to ask a practical question: what does a nurse, who is responsible for assessing a post-operative patient's status coming out of anesthesia , do to establish that status?
Anesthesia certainly puts an individual into an unconscious state. "Consciousness" is tested by responses to verbal commands and questions. It is how we actually assess it ourselves...
So while there is a lot of other things going on in the brain, and in the mind, and even under anesthesia, these things are different from "consciousness" and are not accessible to consciousness, which lacks the vocabulary to describe them (as we have been grappling with in this extended discussion).
These other things do affect our behavior, and there is certainly a sense of "subconscious" activity that is important to the conscious activity, we just can't describe it, though we recognize it.
I don't think consciousness is the same thing as awareness, which describes the state of predator and prey. It might even be a detriment to have consciousness in those cases. But consciousness seems important to our social interactions where our intention must be communicated in some way.
Messages 11541 - 11560 of total 15861 in this topic
"prisoners of literature"
Let us know!