The problem of self under materialism

[bahman]

Proponents of strong AI claim that sometime in the future computers will be so complex that out of this complexity consciousness will emerge. The overall claim is that the brain with it billions of connections creates something new that is more than the sum of its parts.

We know that a computer similar to a brain works based on laws of physics which are mainly cause and effect. This means that we are dealing with epiphenomena if consciousness is not an illusion within this framework.

[Immanuel Can]

Proponents of strong AI claim that sometime in the future computers will be so complex that out of this complexity consciousness will emerge. The overall claim is that the brain with it billions of connections creates something new that is more than the sum of its parts.

Yeah, that lovely "will be," meaning, "I'm your prophet, and I know what will happen...listen to me."

Hasn't happened yet. Not only that, but the concept of "artificial intelligence" is potentially highly deceptive. Take a look at Searle's "Chinese Room" experiment, or Weizenbaum's work with "Eliza" and you'll see how easy it is to fool technophiles, or even just ordinary folks, into thinking they've achieved it when they've done no such thing. So we have to be careful with such optimisms.

What seems clear is that people want to believe that AI can exist, so they do. Equally clear, though is that there are no data to support that right now.

In any case, it certainly doesn't help us with the present problem, which is with a kind of "consciousness" that is supposed to "emerge" with NO intelligent causal agency. That's certainly not a description of what AI will be, if it ever actually happens. AI will be the product of our intelligence. It will not be "natural" in any way...hence "artificial." So it will not come about by the same processes we would have to use to explain ourselves.

We need a better explanation.

[seeds]

I thought I had done so. The recipe for consciousness is having a working brain, of the type humans have.

Brain is the "cake." By the time one has a working brain in place, consciousness is already a fait accompli -- the "baking" is done already. We all know that, so it's entirely uninteresting. The question is much more challenging: at what point did hydrogen, carbon, and electricity amount to a thought. THAT, nobody knows.

Hi IC,

Questions such as the one you have posited above are relatively easy to answer if one is not afraid to entertain Idealism.

If Idealism is true, then what we refer to as being hydrogen, carbon, and electricity are constructed from the very substance of thought itself.

In which case, the obvious implication of literally everything being constructed from the fabric of thought is that literally everything (including the aforementioned hydrogen, carbon, and electricity) is already alive to begin with.

Therefore, it is just a tiny little step in the process of transitioning from “living inanimate matter” to “living animate matter” (DNA guided bio-formations emerging from the already living fabric of reality itself).
_______

[Immanuel Can]

Hi, seeds:

Questions such as the one you have posited above are relatively easy to answer if one is not afraid to entertain Idealism.

Well, what you're talking about certainly isn't the Idealism of Berkeley. That's for sure.

If Idealism is true, then what we refer to as being hydrogen, carbon, and electricity are constructed from the very substance of thought itself.

That seems a rather mystical idealism. There are more 'modest' kinds of Idealism, but maybe not quite the type you're talking about.

But we needn't nitpick. The key point would be this: whether it falls by the hand of your mystical Idealism, or Berkeley's, or by some form of Dualism, or by its own sheer reductional stupidity, what's pretty clear is that Materialism just can't "float the boat" when it comes to making an account of consciousness.

And I think that's the big takeaway here. On that much, I'm sure we agree.

[Londoner]

Brain is the "cake." By the time one has a working brain in place, consciousness is already a fait accompli -- the "baking" is done already. We all know that, so it's entirely uninteresting. The question is much more challenging: at what point did hydrogen, carbon, and electricity amount to a thought. THAT, nobody knows.

They always did. That two gases, hydrogen and oxygen can combine to make a liquid we call water was always there in the nature of hydrogen and oxygen. Just as it is already there in the nature of water that it will become a solid at freezing point.

Me: What sort of explanation about 'how they moved' to make the new thing are you looking for?
See above.

I am not enlightened. You seem to be looking for some sort of explanation to do with 'a point', where one thing turns into something else. But that only comes up because we choose to distinguish between states, because there is something about the change that seems significant to us. But that is a view we impose on the world; that water can exist both as a liquid and a solid was always there, both states are still 'water'.

Would you have the same trouble if I asked how some water turned into 'slightly warmer water'? Because that is also a change of state for the water, just a less dramatic one. If that is also problem, then the problem is with 'change' as such, it isn't a problem that is specific to consciousness. We are back with Hericlitus and Parmenides.

Me: what is the aspect of consciousness we are calling unique?
There are several unique stages. One is when anything that was mere materials becomes even primitively "conscious." We need some account of how that can come about, because everything we know so far suggests it doesn't. Secondly, when does "consciousness" amount to "self-awareness"? And how does that happen? Then, when does "self-awareness" amount to "reflectivity," and "philosophy," and "science" and "art" and "engineering," and "existential thought?" How do all these transformations take place? Because somewhere along the line, we don't just lose your apes and dogs, but lower creatures and then it's inert materials and rocks and chemicals...How do these "low" elements become any and all of the "higher" ones?

Again, this seems to be a problem with the notion of 'change'. I might equally be asked how an atom becomes a molecule, or an acorn becomes an oak. If this is really about 'consciousness', then there has to be a line we can draw and say this effect is quite different to all the other effects we observe, such that none of the normal explanations are satisfactory.

I am not clear what you mean by consciousness. Is it just 'thinking'? In that case, then I think it would be hard to draw a line and say 'this is just a nervous reaction; but that is thinking'. Or, if it is 'self-awareness'? If so, it seems to me a fairly minor step from being aware of the external world to being aware of ourselves.

Me: One reason we cannot find a simple explanation for 'consciousness' is that it is a generality, an abstraction. ( I have no problem explaining why we might have consciousness of something in particular. ) One might equally ask 'What is the explanation for 'life'? For 'being'? For 'energy'? and have the same problem.

Yes. A similar one, anyway. Consciousness is a problem of an even more complicated order, of course.

If it is a similar problem, then the problem is in the form of the question. It isn't a problem specific to consciousness; in belongs in the philosophy of language.

There's no reason to think this is a true statement. In fact, if Materialism, Naturalism or Evolutionism are true, it is EXACTLY what owe should expect to find: an objective, naturalistic, materialistic explanation for all the phenomena in the universe, including consciousness.

And since we don't have one, it's time to doubt that Naturalism, Materialism and that sordid lot is actually an explanation of anything...let alone consciousness

As I say, I think the problem only arises because we don't know what it is we think needs explaining, not what sort of explanation we are looking for.

[Justintruth]

You are right. Saying that additional posits are needed is not saying what those posits are. Chamers does not have that. It will take a lot more investigation by neuroscience to define the many posits that will be needed.

Then we're back to square one, having made no progress at all. "Additional posits are needed" is just a way of saying, "We still have no idea."

I'll take the first "posits" if you have them. What is the very first element of a mechanism by which materials convert into consciousness?

Excellent question. We haven't seemed to move much from the 'ghost in the machine' stage, have we? I mean, we can slowly describe how bits of the brain work, but that is a far cry from 'what is it about the brain that it hosts this unique consciousness we have'. I'm satisfied that we have it, so I wont be taking a stab at answering. Hence the, perhaps first, truth of philosophy; there is thought.

That is technically incorrect. We have had an idea for a very long time. Why do you think that Galileo pointed the back end of his telescope at his eye? Perhaps he had some idea that that would allow him to see?

We have had an idea since the first caveman ducked a chucked rock so it wouldn't hit his head - and probably before that.

And we know even more. Just look at anesthesiology. Don't you see the obvious? We know that if we introduce certain chemicals into the brain consciousness will cease.

There am many other things that are known. All of them are characterized by an association of some material description "I point the telescope's back end to my eye" with a non material description "...so I can see through it"

I guess first you have to see my point to address it. I am saying that additional posits - beyond that consciousness is associated with a brain - beyond that a brain under anesthesia will not be conscious.

[Justintruth]

[quote="Immanuel Can] "Additional posits are needed" is just a way of saying, "We still have no idea."

I'll take the first "posits" if you have them. What is the very first element of a mechanism by which materials convert into consciousness?[/quote]

We know a lot. Look at my response to Dalek

[Justintruth]

What you've given me here is a bit routine, isn't it? You've said, "Well, we know something about physiology." Yes, yes we do: but what's that got to do with how consciousness appears from non-conscious materials? You're still only saying, "We know something about materials." You've said nothing about how those materials become conscious.

We know a lot about what makes materials become conscious. We know it has to do with the brain and not the hand or heart for instance. We know if we make a baby it will become conscious. We don't know exactly when. I am saying something about how materials become conscious. Specifically I am saying that you will not be able to describe how materials become conscious without additional posits about matter. That matter organized in some way will become conscious in some way. Now please don't say we know nothing about it. We know a lot about the visual processing in the brain. But we have more to learn. When we do we will have statements that say if you organize matter is such and such a way you will produce conscious experiencing of such and such a type.

I am not sure why you are not seeing what I have said. Clearly, I did not just say we know something of materials as you said I did. I said that what we know of materials allows us to predict some things like what will happen if you give an anesthesia. But I am also saying that- the standard physical theories - will not be able to explain consciousness without further posits. Just as the current understandings - all of them - associate some physical reality with some conscious experience - hearing for example with the side of our brain - so too further posits will be needed.

Then you've issued a promissory note that science will one day be able to do it. Really? How did you become possessed of this confidence?

Basically by looking at the anatomy of the brain and the history of science and the tools becoming available. There does not seem to me to be any obstacles to eventually understanding how brains are organized. It will take creative science but I think we can get there. They are complex but we have a lot understood on the way neurons communicate for example. We know what an action potential is. We know that firings are digital we know something about the electrochemistry of the synapse.

Look just take memory. We know that long term memory is created when different connections are created between neurons and that short term memory is created based on the synapse biochemistry. Just take that one point. It is something we know isn't it? Not sure why you don't see it?

Is it your assumption that science will eventually "do everything"?

No. And I never made a claim remotely like that. It does not do everything. Science has many limitations. "Science does not think" was what Heidegger said and if you understand how he meant - or if you understand what I think he meant - then it I think he is right. (Obviously scientists have to think in another sense about their work. But their job is not to say what the implications are metaphysically. As Einstein said scientists usually make bad philosophers. You can see that in Hawkings.)

But in the same moment, you are accidentally admitting what we all know, namely that it HASN'T done so yet. So what imparts to you this amazing power of prophecy about what science "will do" when it's finished "developing"?

Why be shocked?! We make those decisions all the time! It doesn't take prophecy to see whether a scientific investigation has a chance of succeeding. Look at Cern. Billions of Euros invested all because of some prophecy that it might find the Higgs boson. And it did! Walla! People are funding brain research right now. Are they wild eyed "prophets" or just practical predictors guessing that progress can be made?

I'd be willing to wager if you want. I will bet I can find at least some fact associating a conscious state with some aspect of the physics of the brain that is discovered or clarified in the next 5 years. Want to take it? You can put your money where your keyboard is. :grinning and rubbing my hands:

... your response above consists only of a truism plus a promissory note.

The ensuing analogy (the Newtonian analogy) isn't any more helpful; it's just another kind of promissory note, one all the weaker for being framed as an analogy. For all analogies are questionable for as to their aptness, and we have no way of knowing if this one has any real bearing on the case at all: I suspect it doesn't, and would have to be shown that it does.

Ok. I can give that to you right here. I can show you right here. There is a way of knowing. You must know a little of quantum mechanics. Basically the current physics represents the properties of matter as a kind of state vector in Hilbert space. The theory says that those state vectors evolve according to the time dependent Schrodinger equation to different state vectors. That theory, plus the facts of the standard model that describe various interactions allows one to predict the future states of matter from the previous states statistically. This is what we mean when we say "physical" or "That is a material device" that it is operating according to this physics. Now if you make the device more complicated you just add dimensions to its state vector. And all of those dimensions represent the current types of physical measurements - position, momentum, energy etc. You do nothing else. It is still a collection of state vectors. And the physics then does nothing more than predict how it will evolve to future states. It does not predict any sensory experience occurring. That is why the situation is like Newton's and why the analogy is apt. Just as Gravity could not be derived from the equations of motion but required an additional posit - so experiencing cannot be derived from the equations of quantum mechanics no matter how complicated the initial state of the device or how it is arranged or how long you wait.

That is why it does have bearing and is an apt metaphor.

What we really need is proof -- some actual reason, not just a hopeful analogy, to buoy our confidence that all that stands between us and an answer to the riddle of emergent consciousness is the passage of a few years. Let's see some actual progression the question itself: HOW does unthinking matter become conscious entities? What's the scientific mechanism there?

You don't need proof to see my point. Just look at the physics and a description of any conscious experience and try to derive the latter from the former. You can see not only that you can't but why you can't. Its that why that is important. Its not because you are not smart enough or don't have enough time. You can show it cannot be done. Of course we will need proof that any of the things we do posit are true. You put a flashlight to your eye and turn it on. Its a simple experiment and it associates seeing with the optic pathway. Do the same with a flashlight to the ear. Doesn't work. That is the kind of proof we already have. That is why we do the science - to get that kind of proof. We already can prove a lot. We already know that it is in the brain that it is happening - not the heart for example. We know that if we have children they will become conscious. We know that anesthesia prevents consciousness. We know that alcohol will make you drunk and LSD will make you trip. We can associate certain areas of the brain with hearing - others with sight. V1,V2, V3, V4 etc. We know about synesthesia and have proposed mechanisms for it. I don't think it is credible to say we know nothing. we know a lot. ALL of these describe very physical actions that can be described completely by the physics under material science. All of these actions affect brains. All of these also describe an event that cannot be described in physical terms: Conciousness, drunk, trip, synesthesia, seeing.

Perhaps to flip it around - if you believe that there ever will be a physical description of any kind, where by physical I mean described solely by the current physical science, and you believe that that description will allow you to predict using the current physics alone that consciousness will occur, you are wrong. On the contrary the current physical science itself can be used to show it cannot predict or explain consciousness. But that does not mean that we will not find more information on how certain assemblies produce certain conscious experiences. And we can use that knowledge to posit novel properties of material arrangements and then - then!- using those new posits - predict whether matter will become conscious and if so of what. It is exactly like gravity and the laws of motion in Newtonian mechanics. Additional posits are used. We have many already - when a hand is amputated we throw it away and save the rest. Why? Because we posit that our brains are what generates are consciousness and interfering with it will cause us to loose consciousness while our hands do not. Look at what would happen - will happen - when we get brain transplant's mastered. Do you think it will be like a heart tansplant? Who will be dead and who alive? Which house will the patient return to? Who's wife (husband)? Who exactly is the patient? We already know something of what matter does and we already use that knowledge in things like brain surgery. But we do not have a precise description of exactly what neural states produce exactly what experiences yet. Nor how endocrinology affects the brain. But it is realistic to believe that neurology/endocrinology will eventually get there.

Here is a simple prediction based on what we already know: Point a flashlight directly right up close to your eye and turn it on you will see something very different than if you turn it off. Try it. Then point it in your ear and see the difference. Perhaps then you will realize how much you already know! And realize that pointing that flashlight and throwing the switch is just a physical act. But seeing? No it cannot be described by the current physics.

I don't know where your idea that we know nothing comes from nor do I understand where your pessimism about our ability to proceed further on a course that has already born much fruit.

[Dalek Prime]

Then we're back to square one, having made no progress at all. "Additional posits are needed" is just a way of saying, "We still have no idea."

I'll take the first "posits" if you have them. What is the very first element of a mechanism by which materials convert into consciousness?

Excellent question. We haven't seemed to move much from the 'ghost in the machine' stage, have we? I mean, we can slowly describe how bits of the brain work, but that is a far cry from 'what is it about the brain that it hosts this unique consciousness we have'. I'm satisfied that we have it, so I wont be taking a stab at answering. Hence the, perhaps first, truth of philosophy; there is thought.

That is technically incorrect. We have had an idea for a very long time. Why do you think that Galileo pointed the back end of his telescope at his eye? Perhaps he had some idea that that would allow him to see?

We have had an idea since the first caveman ducked a chucked rock so it wouldn't hit his head - and probably before that.

And we know even more. Just look at anesthesiology. Don't you see the obvious? We know that if we introduce certain chemicals into the brain consciousness will cease.

There am many other things that are known. All of them are characterized by an association of some material description "I point the telescope's back end to my eye" with a non material description "...so I can see through it"

I guess first you have to see my point to address it. I am saying that additional posits - beyond that consciousness is associated with a brain - beyond that a brain under anesthesia will not be conscious.

I'm well aware that the mind begins and ends with the wet works. But how much we really know about it is tiny. What is it about this brain that can spark anything like the consciousness we have? We can describe processes,, but we can't recreate this consciousness, artificially. And that's because we don't know what consciousness is, beyond the fact we have it. And that's what Immanuel Can was asking you.

[Londoner]

And that's because we don't know what consciousness is, beyond the fact we have it.

If we don't know what consciousness is, then we can't know we have it.

[Dalek Prime]

And that's because we don't know what consciousness is, beyond the fact we have it.

If we don't know what consciousness is, then we can't know we have it.

You are aware, yes? Then of course you know you have it. Don't overcomplicate the obvious. It's just absurd. And even the absurd requires conscious observation to know that something is absurd.

If you're saying stuff like this, it's time to go back and establish some basic premises you can build a philosophy on. You can't build a structure on a sand dune, and expect it to support the structure.

[Londoner]

And that's because we don't know what consciousness is, beyond the fact we have it.

If we don't know what consciousness is, then we can't know we have it.

You are aware, yes? Then of course you know you have it. Don't overcomplicate the obvious. It's just absurd. And even the absurd requires conscious observation to know that something is absurd.

If you're saying stuff like this, it's time to go back and establish some basic premises you can build a philosophy on. You can't build a structure on a sand dune, and expect it to support the structure.

Yes, that's just what I would like to do. What seems absurd to me is to have pages of discussion about something we have not even attempted to define. As I asked earlier, is 'consciousness' the same as 'thinking'? Or is it one particular kind of thinking? Or what? I think the fact we can never define what we are talking about suggests that this problem represents a confusion about language.

For example, you say I know I 'have consciousness'. But I do not think I 'have consciousness', not unless we think consciousness is something separate from us, such that we can have it or not have it. Or, if conscious is not separate from us, if we are the same as our consciousness, then to treat it as if it was separate and ask 'what is it?' is to make the same mistake as treating 'existence' as a predicate.

[Dalek Prime]

If we don't know what consciousness is, then we can't know we have it.

You are aware, yes? Then of course you know you have it. Don't overcomplicate the obvious. It's just absurd. And even the absurd requires conscious observation to know that something is absurd.

If you're saying stuff like this, it's time to go back and establish some basic premises you can build a philosophy on. You can't build a structure on a sand dune, and expect it to support the structure.

Yes, that's just what I would like to do. What seems absurd to me is to have pages of discussion about something we have not even attempted to define. As I asked earlier, is 'consciousness' the same as 'thinking'? Or is it one particular kind of thinking? Or what? I think the fact we can never define what we are talking about suggests that this problem represents a confusion about language.

For example, you say I know I 'have consciousness'. But I do not think I 'have consciousness', not unless we think consciousness is something separate from us, such that we can have it or not have it. Or, if conscious is not separate from us, if we are the same as our consciousness, then to treat it as if it was separate and ask 'what is it?' is to make the same mistake as treating 'existence' as a predicate.

Well, without the consciousness, we are without thought. As to what it is, I simply accept that we have it; may, we are it. Otherwise, we would be no different from a rock ie. things without thought. Keep your premises simple, and you'll do fine. Remember, from solid premise, led by firmly connected reasoning. That's how a good philosophy is built. Follow that, and you'll do fine. You strike me as a good thinker, Londoner.

[Immanuel Can]

we can't recreate this consciousness, artificially. And that's because we don't know what consciousness is, beyond the fact we have it. And that's what Immanuel Can was asking you.

This is well put. Thank you.

[Immanuel Can]

If we don't know what consciousness is, then we can't know we have it.

If you don't have it, then I guess I'm not talking to anybody.

Get the point? It's that simple. If "consciousness" is not a real thing, then there's nobody around to notice it. "Noticing" is an activity of consciousness.