Chemical Consciousness

[Samildanach]

What you call mixing chemicals to create life is really mixing chemicals to form electrochemical circuits. Consciousness arises when you eventually get a circuit that is more or less a loop hooked into sensory equipment. the loop occurs very quickly and can monitor the changes in the sensory equipment. That is all consciousness is.

[orgaelin]

I feel a huge urge to combat your argument, yet I find a sensible counter-argument to be... less than forthcoming!

Hmmm... (scratching head)

OK, "consciousness" isn't really quite that simple. If it was, I could create a simple computer program to store a variable, endlessly loop to check for changes to that variable, and say that the program itself was now conscious.

Have you ever considered what would be involved in trying to make a computer program that was conscious? The first and most obvious problem is language recognition, and then more difficult, language construction. This is about as far as most chat-bots go, and they're all largely pathetic, tripping up on a majority of sentences.

One day, given enough input and training, as well as clever programming, it will be quite possible to create a chat-bot that will seem almost completely human. But it won't be.

Why?

Because of the lack of consciousness. The program could never be made to be aware of itself, to appreciate fine music, or to love another computer program. I'm not just talking about emotion. That could easily be emulated to be indestinguishable from those of a human... but the difference is that no-one would be *feeling* those emotions. Hard-drives don't churn awkwardly like a nervous stomach!

Now whether we're talking about electrochemical circuits or just electric circuits in a computer, neither of them can explain the sense of self that defines true consciousness. Electrochemical organisms could well mimic consciousness, and for all I know I could be the only *really* conscious person alive... but that's what consciousness is - knowing your own mind exists, not knowing whether someone else's does.

If I agreed with you, or was forced to see that you were right, I would weep till the end of my days. And I truly cannot begin to understand how you can hold such a view without feeling the most intense dissatisfaction with your own existence. But for the same reason I respect your view; it is objective, and based on reasoned analysis. I am not so impartial.

[Samildanach]

Albeit my explanation was a grossly oversimplified one but at its heart I believe it to be true. What you say about speech, love and a sense of self etc are more or less just add on modules the way I see it. The basic explanation I gave is more or less equivalent ot uss just emerging from the womb. At that stage it is exactly what we are, a loop monitoring our sensory apparatus. The bit you may have problem with maybe is in reality we are running multiple loops all assessing things simultaneously. One monitors the environment as it currently is, one monitors for changes in the environment, one monitors for pleasureable change in our sensory feedback and one monitors for unpleasant changes. What gets defined as good produces pleasureable feedback and so we always are trying to produce this feedback when we are young, hence we learn that producing sound through our vocal apparatus will usually give us food which makes us feel good. Everything else can be extrapolated from this I feel.
As we get older our sensory equipment gets more sensitive and the number of loops ie circuits we create increase so consciousness is more or less the continual evaluation of multiple loops or slidebars depends on how you want to look at it at any point in time. There may well be thousands and thousands of them which lends a sense of me or I to your unique setup as your slide bar settings are largely determined by experience. Thats the way I see it anyway and while it may be dismaying or troubling to someone such as yourself be consoled by the fact I could be completely wrong.

[orgaelin]

I can see, Sam (Can I call you that? I'm lazy!), that you and I are not about to agree on this subject!!

But since I respect your view, I would like to reccommend an article by a fellow I also rather respect, who details at length how consciousness forms as a simple matter of chemical interactions in the developing foetus brain...

The Nature of Man, by Ebtx

Ebtx is a genius, or so his fans like to think! Also check out the Nature of Existence article while you're there.

Everything else can be extrapolated from this I feel.

That's what I'm talking about when I say that "we choose our beliefs and then find the proof we need to verify them to ourselves". I agree that you could look at consciousness as benig formed the way you describe, and can completely follow your reasoning and see how it could work... AND I can see the other side of the coin; that consciousness is inexplicable, that the knowingness I feel inside me has no equal in nature (except for other people of course!) and no paralel from the perspective of which I could come to understand my own self.

Put simply, (I say that too much!) from everything I see which is part of the makeup of the physical universe, my mind is impossible.

Now I think about it, I have just realised we are kind of talking about seperate things...

OK: science can explain the ability of my brain to produce thought and emotion, but what it cannot explain is that I am here to watch it. I mean, my brain could do all these things all by itself. It doesn't need anything to be aware of it. It's just a body and a brain that could survive alone. Yet I am sat here inside my head as an observer. This is MY body. Why?

I mean, from my perspective you are just a body and a brain... I don't feel that you are me or that I am you... so why should I feel that this brain and body are me? There is no need for that. I am not this body, I'm just kinda stuck in it.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by orgaelin, I can see, Sam (Can I call you that? I'm lazy!), that you and I are not about to agree on this subject!! But since I respect your view, I would like to reccommend an article by a fellow I also rather respect, who details at length how consciousness forms as a simple matter of chemical interactions in the developing foetus brain... The Nature of Man, by Ebtx Ebtx is a genius, or so his fans like to think! Also check out the Nature of Existence article while you're there. That's what I'm talking about when I say that "we choose our beliefs and then find the proof we need to verify them to ourselves". I agree that you could look at consciousness as benig formed the way you describe, and can completely follow your reasoning and see how it could work... AND I can see the other side of the coin; that consciousness is inexplicable, that the knowingness I feel inside me has no equal in nature (except for other people of course!) and no paralel from the perspective of which I could come to understand my own self. Put simply, (I say that too much!) from everything I see which is part of the makeup of the physical universe, my mind is impossible. Now I think about it, I have just realised we are kind of talking about seperate things... OK: science can explain the ability of my brain to produce thought and emotion, but what it cannot explain is that I am here to watch it. I mean, my brain could do all these things all by itself. It doesn't need anything to be aware of it. It's just a body and a brain that could survive alone. Yet I am sat here inside my head as an observer. This is MY body. Why? I mean, from my perspective you are just a body and a brain... I don't feel that you are me or that I am you... so why should I feel that this brain and body are me? There is no need for that. I am not this body, I'm just kinda stuck in it.

Technosoul remarks.

Those are like the ideas I attempted to relate in my other post called "Hollywood Heaven".

Now a person could think about their thoughts, which thinking would be no different then the thoughts that we had that we are now thinking about.

But do we have an "eye" that can be outside of the thinking process, a point of observation that that is just watching and that is not involved in an attempt to analize self through additional reasoning, excuses, or a need to make judgements based on what we have learned and put away in our memory.
A "I" that is not really part of anything physical or mental?

Can we observe the self without formulating an opinion about the self?

Technosoul.

[Samildanach]

Will think on your points Org and Tech, its getting too late to solve the various mysteries of the human mind tonight. I'll work on it in my sleep and have it all wrapped up for you tommorrow, undisputable facts about consciousness and how it works and why it works, well at least the best I can come up with. :)

[Samildanach]

Will think on your points Org and Tech, its getting too late to solve the various mysteries of the human mind tonight. I'll work on it in my sleep and have it all wrapped up for you tommorrow, undisputable facts about consciousness and how it works and why it works, well at least the best I can come up with. :)
Will look at you ebtx link tommorrow as well.