[Wittrs] Re: Variations in the Idea of Consciousness
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:44:17 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@> wrote:
>
>
> > I don't think the transience of the particular constituent particles
> > is the key ...
>
> That comment misses the point I was trying to make. My comment was not
> about the transience of particles, but about the importance of
> processes.
>
All right. It wouldn't be the first time I've misread you!
>
> > On that view the issue is not even so much the processes as the
> > functions that are performed by them.
>
> I would be careful with that. The primary functions performed by
> biochemical processes are biochemical in nature. But perhaps they also
> perform a secondary informational processing function. And, in that
> case, perhaps it is this secondary informational processing that
> matters as far as our interests are concerned.
>
That, of course, is the point of my position. That is, I am intentionally
separating the biological or biochemical ways in which brains (and other parts
of an organism) do what they do in favor of focusing on what they do.
> > Still, I think that Justintruth's formulation as an assembly of
> > particles is a useful shorthand for what is intended. If "assembly"
> > is taken as the key feature then it wouldn't matter what the
> > particles are as long as they can be assembled in the right way
> > where the right way will depend on their ability to accomplish the
> > requisite functions.
>
> It's not how the particles are assembled that matters, it is the
> processes being carried out.
>
Well on that I would say we seem to be in agreement though I say it tentatively
since I so often seem to get you wrong. Perhaps though we aren't saying the
same thing at all because, by the "processes being carried out" I mean whatever
it is they are accomplishing whereas, based on what you have just said above, I
take it you really mean the nature of those processes themselves, i.e., that
neurons in brains do what they do by biochemical operations.
I would agree that there may indeed be a relevant difference (relevant to the
ability to accomplish the same thing) between neurons in brains and chips in
computers, say. After all, there are certainly going to be some chips and other
kinds of mechanisms (even including some cells) that will just not be up to the
task of replicating what neurons in brains do. But I would say that, at this
stage of our knowledge, the notion that biochemical processes are uniquely able
to cause consciousness (or may be among the things that are uniquely able to do
it), while silicon chips and their proceesses must be excluded can only be a
possibility. Because of that I would not want to exclude computer chips, etc.,
from consideration.
> Our intuition is that particles are not aware, and thus that an
> assemblage of particles is not aware. Insisting on ascribing awareness
> to an assembly of particles feeds mysticism. I don't think we have the
> same sort of intuition about processes, so I think that the idea of
> processes experiencing is less of a mystery.
>
Intuition is a dangerous hook on which to hang our claims, I think. In fact it
is often wrong. Moreover, there is nothing mystical, as I see it, in supposing
that consciousness, awareness, is a function of a certain kind of physical
system (defined as certain things going on in a certain way to accomplish
certain tasks). Where is this mysticism you think inheres? Indeed, I would
argue that it is precisely the opposite of mysticism and that what is really
mystical is the picture that consciousness is NOT an outcome of certain
physical processes!
Now, in deference to our past misunderstandings, please note that I am not
asserting that this is your position. I am just saying that this is where we
will find mysticism, not in the notion that there is something about the
physics (defined broadly so that we take this up the line to chemistry,
biology, etc.) of how brains works that gives us the awareness we recognize in
ourselves and others.
>
> > ... and that you favor a view of consciousness that ties it rather
> > tightly to organic forms of life while I, of course, do not.
>
> Actually, that is wrong.
So what else is new?
> We see organic forms of life, but I treat
> that as a mere implementation detail. My interest is in the underlying
> principles. I am not committed to only organic solutions.
>
> Regards,
> Neil
>
> =========================================
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?
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
