Consciousness: Is It Possible?

[Terxpahseyton]

@Terx, Souron, and Timtofly, forgive me for being absent in responding.

No worries, it is tough meat and I still need to read and consider some posts myself.

 

[Hygro]

Aren't the energy processes in the sun just nuclear fusion though? Would nuclear fusion plants be conscious, once we build one?

I'm trying to understand how you get from 1. energy
to 2. therefore consciousness

That's like saying the processes in the brain are just synaptic.

So referring back, the interaction of energy in an aggregated system. The sun is a funny thing, because it also has endogenous gravity, crazy non-fusion things including humongous heat transfers via its convection currents, the stimuli so to speak of having its own satellites feeding into its being. It also has in its composition an abundance of every natural element we know of along them to conduct whatever capabilities they have. The sun probably doesn't have protein folding going on, but might it have a much larger much slower analogue, or might the data from fusion be even more intense?

 

[Souron]

I did not "say" limit. I said "as efficient". If software is more efficient than how it was designed to be, then the software figured out something the designer did not include. It has already figured things out on it's own?

Unless you are just saying that a designer can design software that goes beyond what the designer can do. That is the definition of all tools.

If one is designing a consciousness just to be a tool, then that is different than designing one that can think for itself. It seems to me that humans have a consciousness that allows them to think for themselves.

But it's quite possible to write software that can figure out stuff the designer did not think of. Neural net programs are able to identify patterns in their input that cannot be readily articulated, but can be used to categorize input data. You can write image recognition software like this. Doing it this way you don't program what a face looks like. Instead you feed a suitably complex neural net with a test set of pictures that categorized as pictures of faces, and not. Then you apply unknown pictures, and the program will determine if they show faces or not.

People can identify faces pretty well, so computers do not exceed humans in that particular application. But for finding patterns in MRI scans, for example, computers can be superior in finding patterns humans can't.

So, something to remember about computer consciousness:
Unless we get into deep speculation, we have a model of consciousness that we know works. Our own. It's a giant leap of faith to assume that other people are conscious, but we made remarkable progress once we made that allowance. After that, we decided that neuroanatomy was incredibly important. One component of our neuroanatomy is that we actually have thousands (if not millions) of sensory inputs. We have these sensory detectors across a wide variety of inputs (changes in air pressure, photons, tactile pressure, chemical senses, etc.). I'm quite convinced that consciousness requires sensory inputs across a variety of modalities (i.e., sight AND sound at the same time). Now, you can maintain consciousness with a temporary cessation of some inputs, but I don't know if you can maintain consciousness with a complete cessation. Consciousness IS experience, coupled with interpretation and prediction. You cannot have consciousness of something you cannot experience: this becomes less true as we use analogy and imagery. A color-blind person cannot experience Red (I should know), but we can all imagine radio waves despite never experiencing them. We can nearly convince ourselves that we perceive them, because the analogies are so strong. A non-colorblind person actually has more consciousness than I do, and this is because they have more neuron types than I do. Now, maybe, because we have equal levels of brain neurons, I have some consciousness that they don't. But that's hardware problem. The [edit:] non-colorblind person would definitely have more consciousness if they had both more neurons and more sensory inputs.

So, can a computer be conscious? I don't doubt it. The complexity of their sensory inputs and their modality integration will be decidedly important to the scale and intensity of consciousness. The sheer level of modality integration required will probably require a scale of computing that can only be measure in the 'supercomputer' scale for next many years, but still ...

What do you mean by modular integration, and why do you see this as a problem for computers?

I'm also weary of the claim that a super computer would be required, when our own brain is not a particularly efficient thinker. It has a lot of neurons, but they operate slowly compared to computers. Estimating how many binary equivalent operations our brain does per second is a little challenging, but why should it take a super computer? Now, granted, our brain is very specialized, so a computer capable of functioning like our brain would have to either have specialized hardware, or a bit more powerful to accommodate the generality, but still. Moreover, ostensibly the objective would be achieved if someone made a very dumb true artificial inteligence.

 

[warpus]

That's like saying the processes in the brain are just synaptic.

So referring back, the interaction of energy in an aggregated system. The sun is a funny thing, because it also has endogenous gravity, crazy non-fusion things including humongous heat transfers via its convection currents, the stimuli so to speak of having its own satellites feeding into its being. It also has in its composition an abundance of every natural element we know of along them to conduct whatever capabilities they have. The sun probably doesn't have protein folding going on, but might it have a much larger much slower analogue, or might the data from fusion be even more intense?

Okay, but where do you see intelligence and consciousness in all of that? As far as I know we haven't observed the sun responding to stimuli in anything but a cursory and reactionary way, the way chemical reactions behave - following physical laws rather than the intents of an conscious creature.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, while I disagree with Hygro's theory on what causes consciousness, in fact it's a giant assumption that all of the Sun's behaviour can be explained in a perfectly reactionary way. We don't know why the Sun does a ton of the stuff that it does.

Now, I don't see any neuroantomical correlates to consciousness in the Sun's anatomy either. That said, I know nearly nothing about the Sun. And we barely have a human neuroanatomy of consciousness right now. Though, I expect progress to continue at a rate proportionate to general technological progress and neuroscience funding.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm coming late to this party, so to offer my reflections on whether the sun has consciousness, I'm going to have to recapitulate certain elements of the discussion so far. My view chimes with one warpus offered fairly early on: that the proposal that the sun does have consciousness is based on an unconventional definition of the word "consciousness" that Hygro offered early on:

I am of the view that consciousness is the experience that any system of energy has as a collected system of energy.

Someone asked: The sun has a lot of energy; does it have consciousness. To which Hygro replied:

I would presume it does. Plus it gets to experience gravity on a whole higher level. I have no idea what its conscious experience would be, or if it's particularly interesting. Maybe it's way cooler? Not literally mind you.

It's narcissistic to anthropomorphize everything, and it's also narcissistic to think that things don't have feelings just because they are different. Hell, plants can feel, they have hormones and respond to stimuli. That's damn near what feelings are. Neurotransmitters are pretty much hormones with a different name.

My original point in its smaller form was this: just because it doesn't have our system, aka a brain and a nervous system and more, doesn't mean it doesn't have consciousness (or feelings) or some kind of living experience, but nor does its living experience mean it is anything like ours or should be treated with our social constructions and instincts of respect for biological creatures.

What we are being asked to do is define "consciousness" in such a way that it can apply to energy systems. We're told that not to do so is anthropomorphizing (later we'll be told its chauvinistic (though all I think was meant by that is humano-centric)). But it's this notion that will want to challenge. As I say, I share warpus' initial response:

I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that the sun is conscious. You must be aware how .. unconventional that sounds, yes?

It just doesn't seem right on any sort of level at all. I disagree with it on all levels possible.

We're reminded that all that is involved in redefining the word is stop anthropomorphizing:

Once you divorce the idea that consciousness has to be like your own, it makes a lot more sense.

But warpus says but that is what we mean when we use the word:

But then your definition of consciousness seems to lose all meaning for me as it becomes something that describes things that aren't like the things we mean when we say "this is conscious".

In essence to me it sounds like you're saying "red is green", so then I'm going to stop you and ask what exactly you mean by "red" and what you mean by "green", because we can't really have a meaningful conversation if we don't even see eye to eye on the things we are discussing in the first place.

My version would be, yes, we could say the sun is cold--if we were to redefine "cold" as "really, really hot." Now people do seek to redefine words all the time. That is what Hygro seemed to me, from the start, to be proposing to do. But people who aren't prepared to redefine the word that way are characterized as follows:

your first sentence is awfully chauvinistic.

Neurons don't know what they are, but a collection of them does. At some point consciousness emerges from neural activity. Is it really that strange to imagine that at some point consciousness might arise from photonic interactions with strong magnetic fields in a very strong gravity well?

But I want to point out something that has started happening. First consciousness was, definitively, "the experience that any system of energy has as a collected system of energy." Then we "presume" that the sun experiences gravity. Now we've retreated to "is it strange to imagine that it might?" (It is, incidentally, strange; but I don't mind being asked to imagine strange things. John Donne's "The Sun Rising" imagines that the sun can listen to him, and talk.) Note this retreat in the following. It's not that the sun is conscious; we'd just be chauvinistic say it's not:

I think it's premature to say that we know everything there is to know about the sun, however robust astrophysics is these days. Do we know a heck of a lot? Certainly. But we can't even be sure that some birds and cetaceans aren't conscious - and they share not only evolutionary history with us, but also some of the same exact wetware! How can we be so confident to say that there is not any analogous structure in stars?

Maybe we will be able to rule that out some day, but I really don't think we're there yet.

I meant chauvinistic in the sense that you're looking for consciousness and neural nets similar to our own, rather than leaving open the possibility that there could be drastically different substrates or phenomena that could have the same result. It's like expecting all alien life to be humanoid, when not even all life on earth is humanoid.

Now what is behind this effort at redefinition comes out in another of Hygro's posts. In the first flush of seeing how much of mentation is neurochemical, we're starting to feel that all of it might be:

consciousness is experienced. where does the experience comes from. Well it comes from a bunch of different, separate things acting in coordination. And in aggregate, those things are experiencing something.

So, the thinking goes, the separate-things-acting-in-coordination, energy systems, that comprise the sun might be regarded as conscious too. Here's where the logical error enters in. If x is a case of y, it doesn't mean that all cases of y are x. If consciousness is a case of separate-things-acting-in-coordination (and I'm not sure our studies of the brain's electrochemical processes let us yet confidently conclude that it is just that, but even if), that does not mean all separate-things-acting-in-coordination are conscious.

Here's my take: The brain is responsible for the nature of our consciousness as it builds and directs the energy-information aggregation network that spawns a conscious experience. The sun doesn't have a brain, but it does have an aggregated energy process from which a sun-relevant consciousness would spawn. Is its process similar to a brain in that it makes calculations and semantic judgments? Maybe, but lord knows what the hell a billions year old whose life process seems fairly predetermined by physics has to "think" about. Maybe a lot. Maybe nothing and its consciousness is literally just the pseudo-cognizant experience of nothing other than what it is to be nuclearly-fusing.

So, finally, my response is as follows.

First, I don't want to treat this entirely as a matter of semantics, because semantic arguments are tiresome, and there are some ideas (about how the brain works) lurking behind this proposed redefinition. But, the fundamental thing being proposed here is the redefinition of a word: consciousness. People propose to redefine words all the time. Knock yourself out. This proposed redefinition has, it seems to me, little to recommend it beyond that it enables the thought experiment of thinking what the sun would be thinking if it could think. If.

Second, I want to point out that the redefiners are being no less narcissistic, chauvinistic or humano-centric than the likes of warpus, or any who favor the present definition of consciousness. Although Hygro and peter grimes have abstracted differently from human processes, they have still devised their definition of consciousness working from (present neurological science regarding) the one kind of entity in which we are sure (by definition) that consciousness is present.

Third, I have pointed out the logical error. Now for the verbal slipperiness (not, I think, deliberate) that has quietly functioned to allow Hygro and grimes to make their redefinition plausible. It concerns the word "experience." We use that word in a way that need not assume consciousness (the sun is experiencing something right now, many things--the pull of the earth's gravity, for instance--but, in this sense of the word, things that can be described entirely in physical terms). But we also use the word "experience" in situations that do presuppose consciousness: "I had a great experience at the bar last night." Along the multivalence of that word have Hygro and grimes imagined a conscious sun. With the undoubted truth that the sun experiences things, they have snuck in conscious experience of those things. But that was the point to be demonstrated.

Thank you all for bearing with an extensive multi-quote for me to get my two cents offered.

 

[Borachio]

Well. I've entirely out of depth here.

(But I won't let that stop me.)

The only way to settle the question of whether the Sun is conscious or not (and it might be, I don't see anything intrinsic in the Sun that refutes it), is to try and communicate with it.

But what would it mean to do this? How might you even try?

(Actually, failing to communicate with the Sun wouldn't tell you anything; except that you had failed.)

 

[Gatsby]

Well. I've entirely out of depth here.

(But I won't let that stop me.)

The only way to settle the question of whether the Sun is conscious or not (and it might be, I don't see anything intrinsic in the Sun that refutes it), is to try and communicate with it.

But what would it mean to do this? How might you even try?

(Actually, failing to communicate with the Sun wouldn't tell you anything; except that you had failed.)

Also, how would you ensure that you didn't just find the answer you wanted to find? That you weren't just 'reading from your own text'?

What might a Sun and a human possibly have to talk about anyway?

 

[Gori the Grey]

What might a Sun and a human possibly have to talk about anyway?

Whether both the Indias of spice and mine be where thou left them or lie here with me.

 

[Borachio]

Also, how would you ensure that you didn't just find the answer you wanted to find? That you weren't just 'reading from your own text'?

This is the beauty of the solipsistic model: you'll never know that you haven't just found the answer you wanted. And in the end, it doesn't make any difference.

What might a Sun and a human possibly have to talk about anyway?

What might I have to talk about with another human being?

But if I never attempt to talk to the Sun, I'll never find out what it might have to say.

 

[Pangur Bán]

As warpus said, the feeling of the conscious state emerged in nature and so should be reproducible with the appropriate level of technology. Not being a science geek, but having taught on history of science courses, I've come to think that consciousness is a clue that the physics we now have is going to turn out to be highly imperfect. That was likely to be the case anyway, but to reduce, for instance, strong nuclear force and the state of consciousness to the same system will require radical overhaul. I say this with some reservation however, as cosmologists and quantum physicists are already explaining their theories in rather inappropriately mystical language and terminology ... that direction would undoubtedly make them even worse.

 

[Gatsby]

What might I have to talk about with another human being?

Where to find the tasty berries that won’t kill you, how quickly that enemy or predator is approaching, whether the other person is interested in copulating etc…

But if I never attempt to talk to the Sun, I'll never find out what it might have to say.

I wonder, what constitutes communication? If I throw a rock into a pond causing the water to splash and ripple, has the pond communicated a mathematical truth to me regarding the relationship between the rock’s size, shape and speed, and the size and frequency of the ripples? The pond has clearly reacted to my ‘message’, but does reaction equal communication?

The Sun may be incredibly complex, but I don’t think it automatically follows that it must therefore be conscious. What need would a Sun have to develop anything like consciousness? The Sun has no predators, competitors, or potential breeding partners. It sustains itself entirely on its own internal fuel sources, and its fellow stars are light years away doing their own thing.

 

[Borachio]

But wait. The Sun is spiralling inevitably into the black hole at the centre of the galaxy isn't it? That looks a bit like predation.

As for its fellow stars being light years away, doesn't that just mean that any conversation takes longer than a human being would consider normal, but might be quite acceptable in terms of the average life span of a star?

And what need did human beings have to develop the level of consciousness that they have?

Now, I personally don't think the Sun can be usefully considered conscious, by any means. That doesn't mean the question isn't an interesting or productive one, however.

 

[Hygro]

Gori, I like your contributions to the thread. I believe you've interpreted some of the things I wrote differently than I meant them, for example I don't think I've necessarily redefined consciousness so much as I've reexamined its causal mechanism. That's a pretty key difference. Unfortunately I have lost most of my motivation to keep up with the debate to delve into it.

@Borachio, that's pretty much my take on it at this time.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I dont think Sun is conscious on physical level as such. At least no more then any other formation of the gas within material universe but if there is also consciousness universe then the Sun is probably represented there just like anything else. Sun then could be said to have spirit/soul of its own with which one could communicate by the means of his own soul.

 

[Gatsby]

But wait. The Sun is spiralling inevitably into the black hole at the centre of the galaxy isn't it? That looks a bit like predation.

How long is that going to take? Will the Sun burn itself out before that happens? Imagine a predator which took so long to pursue you that you died of old age before it finally got to you...

Besides, how would the development of consciousness allow the Sun to escape or mitigate this fate? Wouldn't consciousness only give rise to existential suffering on the part of the Sun as it contemplates its ultimate demise?

As for its fellow stars being light years away, doesn't that just mean that any conversation takes longer than a human being would consider normal, but might be quite acceptable in terms of the average life span of a star?

But why are they conversing? What could they possibly gain from talking to each other? And is there any evidence whatsoever that they are communicating?

And what need did human beings have to develop the level of consciousness that they have?

Because it provided a survival and procreation advantage in a competitive and dynamic environment.

Now, I personally don't think the Sun can be usefully considered conscious, by any means. That doesn't mean the question isn't an interesting or productive one, however.

It is an interesting question, and imo this is largely because it can tell us a lot about our own thought processes.

 

[El_Machinae]

What do you mean by modular integration, and why do you see this as a problem for computers?

Modality integration, and it's not a problem for computers. We have different sensory modalities (touch, taste, hearing, etc.) and I believe that consciousness comes from an integration of these modalities. It's a combination of two modalities, along with the prediction of what's coming next that can result in qualia. Now, it's tough to show easily in people, because emotions are modality too, but an incredible amount of our conscious experience is an integration across multiple senses. This isn't a problem for computers, but we have to remember that people have dozens of different senses. I can never experience Red, even though I have cones that detect Red. Detecting Red requires the ability to detect Green, which I don't have.

I'm also weary of the claim that a super computer would be required, when our own brain is not a particularly efficient thinker. It has a lot of neurons, but they operate slowly compared to computers. Estimating how many binary equivalent operations our brain does per second is a little challenging, but why should it take a super computer? Now, granted, our brain is very specialized, so a computer capable of functioning like our brain would have to either have specialized hardware, or a bit more powerful to accommodate the generality, but still. Moreover, ostensibly the objective would be achieved if someone made a very dumb true artificial inteligence.

Yeah, there's no doubt that it's possible to make a 20 watt consciousness ... that's what we are. What I mean is that it will take 'supercomputer' levels of computing to model human neuroarchitecture using modern computer technique. Now, we pursue the development of specialized transistors, the raw computing power needed would drastically drop, but specialized transistors are merely another form of computing. As Turing showed us with Turing machines, specialized machines are just a way of changing how the processing is compacted; but you can always 'unpack' into less specialised devices and still get the same answers.

 

[Borachio]

How long is that going to take? Will the Sun burn itself out before that happens? Imagine a predator which took so long to pursue you that you died of old age before it finally got to you...

Which is kind of the position that human beings are in now. As far as I know, predation no longer figures as a factor in human development.

Besides, how would the development of consciousness allow the Sun to escape or mitigate this fate? Wouldn't consciousness only give rise to existential suffering on the part of the Sun as it contemplates its ultimate demise?

How does the development of the awareness of death in human beings mitigate their fate either? Doesn't it also give rise to existential suffering in us?

But why are they conversing? What could they possibly gain from talking to each other? And is there any evidence whatsoever that they are communicating?

I really don't know what they could possibly gain. I don't know what you and I could possibly gain from this exchange, come to that.

As for the evidence of it, I'd have thought that's obvious: Electromagnetic radiation, and other stuff, is being emitted from the Sun all the time. It's no great stretch to posit that information could be encoded therein.

Because it provided a survival and procreation advantage in a competitive and dynamic environment.

This isn't immediately obvious. Plenty of other species have survived with substantially less intellectual capability.

 

[Gatsby]

Which is kind of the position that human beings are in now. As far as I know, predation no longer figures as a factor in human development.

It did for about 99.99% of our evolutionary history, i.e. when we were developing consciousness.

How does the development of the awareness of death in human beings mitigate their fate either? Doesn't it also give rise to existential suffering in us?

It encourages people to self-preserve for long enough to pass their genes onto the next generation. The existential suffering is a by-product of a very ancient survival instinct combining with a recently-evolved capability for abstract thought.

I really don't know what they could possibly gain. I don't know what you and I could possibly gain from this exchange, come to that.
As for the evidence of it, I'd have thought that's obvious: Electromagnetic radiation, and other stuff, is being emitted from the Sun all the time. It's no great stretch to posit that information could be encoded therein.

Perhaps a better understanding of how we think and why we think the way we do? Which in turn could be useful in terms of managing the aforementioned existential suffering?

The Sun does emit a lot of EM radiation, but it doesn’t automatically follow that there is any organisation or intelligibility to it. We could say that the Sun communicates information to us about the behaviour of stars and the types of radiation they emit, but then the intelligence of that communication would be entirely on our side of the exchange.

This isn't immediately obvious. Plenty of other species have survived with substantially less intellectual capability.

Because 1) they developed other adaptations according to their circumstances (e.g. speed, strength, webs, electric charges, flight etc), and/or 2) like us, they only developed intelligence to the extent to which it was biologically economical given their circumstances.

 

[Gori the Grey]

like us, they only developed intelligence to the extent to which it was biologically economical given their circumstances.

Have homo sapiens only developed intelligence to the extent to which it was biologically economical given our circumstances? How is that measured?