[Wittrs] Is Homeostasis the Answer? (Re: Variations in the Idea of Consciousness)
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:33:53 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@> wrote:
> > Okay. So you are open to the possibility that AI might be the
> > right path then, your previous insistence on the importance of the
> > homeostasis of living systems to this goal not withstanding?
>
> I never insisted that the homeostasis be biological. I still need
> something like homeostasis as the basis for making the pragmatic
> decisions required for a working system. I don't see a way for AI to
> solve that problem with computation.
>
> Regards,
> Neil
>
> =========================================
Okay, not necessarily biological then. And homeostasis implies purpose, right,
i.e., the purpose of maintaining the integrity of the system. From this drive
comes the many functions of living organisms though not necessarily only living
organisms. That is you want to say that it's at least conceivable that
something non-living could be a homeostatic entity, too.
As to life, I suppose at least one definition of it might be that of
self-regulating, self-sustaining, self-propagating closed systems which is, of
course, to say homeostatic systems of a sort. Thus, whatever the basis of the
system, it's being considered alive might hinge on its being homeostatic in the
way one-cell and multi-celled organisms are in the world in which we live,
right? In that case would it be fair to say that we have something of a
tautology, that is, that living organisms just are these kinds of systems?
However, there's at least another possibility, i.e., that to be "life" such a
system has to be constructed of the right stuff, i.e., the kind of complex
carbon based molecules that we're made of and that any other system,
constructed of anything else, would not be what we call "life". But that seems
odd if the functionalities are the same. Suppose we encountered a group of
closed systems that are, say, silicon based on another planet and they did all
the things described for living organisms here on Earth (they are
self-sustaining, self-regulating, self-propagating)? Wouldn't we want to call
them instances of "life" too?
Another possibility: Suppose by "homeostasis" you only mean self-sustaining and
self-regulating but not necessarily self-propagating. Then one might conceive
of some systems which are based in a material that lacks the ability to
propagate itself (say silicon chips) but would have the rest, i.e., the
capacity to maintain itself in a certain kind of equilibrium, to keep invading
entities out, etc. Would that be "life" or not? Must a living organism be, at
least in principle, all of the things we recognize in life forms like ourselves?
This is why I presumed that when you spoke of homeostasis, as found in living
cells, you meant only what we usually call "life". But given the possiblity of
more broadly or more narrowly defining "life" and your point that you don't
want to necessarily limit the possibilities to the familiar kinds of closed
systems we typically think of as "life" (and that "life" can be defined in a
variety of ways, as we've seen, even if the empirical facts of the universe
limit the ways life can actually occur) I am wondering what this implies for
your thesis concerning homeostasis as the necessary ingredient for
consciousness to occur?
As we've discussed in the past, if you mean by this requirement that the right
things must happen for consciousness to develop in certain kinds of entities
over the course of evolutionary time, I would be very much in agreement with
you, at least on a theoretical level. I rather expect that evolution IS the
important dynamic at work here for achieving consciousness through nature. But
the issue on the table is something a little different, i.e., it is what do
brains, that are the product of evolutionary development, do to
make/cause/produce consciousness in the world?
This, it seems to me, is a different question entirely from whether homeostasis
has a role in the occurrence of consciousness at some point in natural history
and one that begs an answer with regard to your thesis concerning the need for
homeostasis in order to achieve consciousness in any given entity.
That is, what is the mechanism that living entities of a certain type (those
with brains at least like ours) require for consciousness to happen? What is it
that brains must do, that they in fact do do, in to cause instances of
consciousness in the world?
Your view that homeostasis holds the key has always intrigued me, as you know,
but I have never quite gotten what it is you are claiming for homeostatic
systems (beyond the fact that they are very likely to have led to the
development of consciousness over evolutionary time).
You have suggested that it is pragmatic consideration, i.e., that homeostatic
systems (living organisms being the only ones of the right type I can think of
because only they have a complete set of those features we associate with
homeostasis) act in various ways to maintain themselves (that is, they are
self-differentiating or distinguishing, self-sustaining, self-propagating,
etc.).
Now all of this does, it seems to me, apply to evolutionary developments in
groups of individual systems qua species as noted. But what is there about
homeostasis that is uniquely required for consciousness to occur in any
particular instance of a system of this type?
I guess what I'm trying to understand is where is the homeostatic pragmatic
operation in the brain, aside from the fact that it's a product of eons of
selection in multiple environments in competition with competitor pragmatic
homeostatic systems? What is the pragmatic because homeostatic driven
feature(s) of the brain that gives us the features we associate with being
conscious, with having a mind.
I want to stress, Neil, that I am not intending to be a wiseguy here and I'm
not trying to put you on the spot. I just find your thesis interesting enough
to want to know more. I'm not saying it cannot be right by posing these
questions because, truthfully, I don't really understand it yet. But I would
like to because every suggestion may have within it the seeds of a solution.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
