From: rotflol2@hotmail.com   
      
   On 2025-04-18, Chris  wrote:   
   > Borax Man  wrote:   
   >> ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.philosophy.]   
   >> On 2025-04-18, Newyana2  wrote:   
   >>> On 4/17/2025 6:40 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:   
   >>>> Newyana2:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> If you believe in scientific materialism then you might   
   >>>>> believe that consciousness is an emergent quality, arising   
   >>>>> from chemical reactions in the brain.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Is this compatible with us perceiving our own consciousness   
   >>>> and being able to discuss it, which means it is casually   
   >>>> active?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Do you mean strong (aka miraculous) emergence, or weak   
   >>>> emergence? IMHO, the weak variety is out of the question:   
   >>>> chemmical, electrical, and other material processes can   
   >>>> produce only other material processes, but not feelings,   
   >>>> emotions, qualia...   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't support either premise. Do we perceive   
   >>> consciousness? That seems questionable. "I think,   
   >>> therefore I am" is a desperate grasping at ground,   
   >>> not an observation.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Consciousness being an emergent quality seems like handwaving to me.   
   >> "We don't have the foggiest idea of how it works, so I suppose a   
   >> computer would become conscious because are like computers".   
   >   
   > Biology is full of emergent properties that, on the surface, seem to break   
   > physics principles. Life, for example, violates the principle of   
   > conservation of energy.   
   >   
   > A tiger violates newton's third law. You poke it with a stick and it's   
   > response won't be "equal and opposite".   
   >   
   > Emergent properties are a fundamental result of truly complex systems. It   
   > isn't unique to biology.   
   >   
      
   Life does not violate any laws of physics, nor does it violate the   
   principle of conservation of energy.   
      
   Also, Newtons third law applies to physical motion, the Tiger does not   
   apply here.   
      
   The problem with stating that consciousness is an emergent property, is   
   that no one knows, or has found any mechanism at all, by which   
   consciousness can emerge.  Surface tension of a body of water is an   
   emergent property of the weak bonds between water molecules, but we can   
   understand how that works, and what the underlying force that provides   
   this emergent property is.  With consciousness, such claims are purely   
   and utterly speculative.  There is no *clue* as to what causes   
   consciousness.  The only thing we can surmise, is that it brains are   
   conscious, but this is based on observation, not deduced from understood   
   physical principles.  Despite that, we can duduce some things based on   
   where it has been observed, and from general principles of natural   
   selection.   
      
   >> Computation and intelligence are two different things, and our brains,   
   >> our minds work fundamentally different to a Ryzen chip.  Also, if   
   >> conciousness arises from chemical reactions, why not elsewhere?  Why not   
   >> in a beaker?   
   >   
   > Depends how complex the beaker is.   
   >   
   >> Consciousness doesn't make sense outside of a living thing,   
   >   
   > Why not? It is possible to explain consciousness without dependency on a   
   > (biological) living thing. It's arguable that a conscious entity then is   
   > also living then gives to ethical discussions around right to life etc.   
   > i.e. if an AI becomes conscious do we have the right to turn it off?   
   >   
      
   It has not been observed outside of a living this, and as consciousness   
   seems to have a biological function, it seems a product of living   
   things.  AI is not living, therefore very unlikely to be conscious, or   
   even become conscious.  We don't know how to create consciousness.   
      
      
   >> and it   
   >> likely was selected for during evolution.  This leads to two suggestions   
   >>   
   >> 1: Consciousness has a real-world difference in how a brain thinks,   
   >> which provides an evolutionary advantage.   
   >   
   > Maybe. We would need to be able to disassociate intelligence from   
   > consciousness in terms of their evolutionary advantage.   
   >   
      
   I think consciousness is tied with cognition, and is either a side   
   effect, or a tool, to allow us to think of different things   
   simultaneously and come up with new insights quickly.  If the brain uses   
   Quantum Mechanics in order to break away from pure determinism, this   
   this could speed up cognition.   
      
   Traditional computers I don't think can become consciousness, but   
   Quantum Computers, possibly could be made to be concious.   
      
   >>   
   >> 2: It isn't wholly emergent simply by virtue of a brain being a brain,   
   >> but is something that has to be specifically catered for.  That is to   
   >> say, a computer could only become conscious if we designed it to become   
   >> conscious, which we haven't.   
   >   
   > That sounds like an intelligent design argument.   
   >   
      
   No. I'm arguing that at some point during history, a mutation occured   
   which allowed the primitive brain to use its neural pathways in a novel   
   way, which also produced consciousness.  This was an advantage spread.   
   This if how a Quantum Computer can solve a particular problem in a   
   fraction of the time a traditional one can.   
      
   >>   
   >> I suspect Roger Penrose was onto something when he suggested a link   
   >> between consciousness and Quantum Mechanics, and somewhere during   
   >> evolution nature 'stumbled' on a way of introducing some chaos into   
   >> information processing which made sorting through alternatives much   
   >> faster.   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)