The closest simplification to that idea I like working with is:Are you aware of orchestrated objective reduction that postulates that consciousness comes from quantum effects within the subcellular component microtubules? I have never thought so much of it, I cannot see any reason to believe it happens there, but some clever people like the idea.
Daniel's necessities for consciousness are arbitrary and not even correct.My very inexpert summary is that consciousness is actually defined by agency, which requires both a biological basis, which computers do not have, and a understanding of the wider consequences of our actions, which dolphins do not have.
Sounds fun. What's the festival called?Excuse my lack of coherence. It's 40C here, a lone saxophonist has been playing mellow tunes for the last two hours at the gin joint 20 metres from my window, and bats are dropping out of the sky onto the heads of music and comedy festival goers.
Adelaide Fringe: 16 Feb. to 17 Mar. 2024.Sounds fun. What's the festival called?
Asimov used the idea of the positronic brain in his robot stories."Computation without computers?"
From Asimov's nice story, "The Feeling of Power".
Excellent hypothesis! All you need now is evidence, a definition of consciousness and a tuxedo for your Nobel Prize ceremony.Consciousness certainly happens at the molecular and atomic levels and likely at the quantum levels.
If one defines consciousness as "awareness" sufficient to cause action, then the physical properties of matter at the molecular and atomic levels are a form of rudimentary consciousness that expands with complexity to include all matter living and dead. There is already lots of evidence of how proximity of atoms and molecules will cause things to happen. Currently, most folks label such behavior as an innate property of of chemistry or physics and in voluntary, so it can't be consciousness at work. Those people rarely actually define consciousness clearly but they always seem to know what it is not. By defining it the way I do, the definition problem goes away along with trying to find the edges or lines we like to drawn around things to include or exclude what we like and don't like.Excellent hypothesis! All you need now is evidence, a definition of consciousness and a tuxedo for your Nobel Prize ceremony.
What is "awareness"?If one defines consciousness as "awareness" sufficient to cause action, then the physical properties of matter at the molecular and atomic levels are a form of rudimentary consciousness that expands with complexity to include all matter living and dead. There is already lots of evidence of how proximity of atoms and molecules will cause things to happen. Currently, most folks label such behavior as an innate property of of chemistry or physics and in voluntary, so it can't be consciousness at work. Those people rarely actually define consciousness clearly but they always seem to know what it is not. By defining it the way I do, the definition problem goes away along with trying to find the edges or lines we like to drawn around things to include or exclude what we like and don't like.
How does it do that? I'm sure that there is some chemical or quantum process that is part of activity. "recognizes self" is just an extension of whatever that process is. It is a slightly more complicated capability over cells without it. Consciousness is a long continuum of evolving complexity in all matter.The closest I have seen that satisfies me is a hypothesis (I stole and cobbled together from others) about how consciousness might first have arisen.
In one of biology's favourite creatures, C. elegans, there is one neuron (out of the precisely 302 it possesses) whose sole function is to recognise "this is me".
I was merely pointing out that some things have the appearance of being alive and being able to respond to their environment and to change it. "Walking rocks" is just one example of that.You are the only one talking about walking rocks. Awareness as I see it is the capability of a thing to respond in some fashion to the proximity of some other thing. rocks are made up of different types of minerals? or other rock like materials that are made up of various atoms and molecules. Those atoms and molecules do respond in chemical and physical ways to heat, cold, water, other forces, etc. The primitive awareness built into the most basic elements of matter create change. In more sophisticated objects, a more capable level of awareness can be found in cellular life. It is really just about how one chooses to define things. Our human centered pov tends to dismiss many things because we view ourselves as some higher order and more important aspect of life. Our current standard view of consciousness is all about self recognition (mirror test) and problem solving. As more and more critters pass these tests we will be forced to either allow that non humans have consciousness similar to us or we will find a new way to define it so they don't. What happens when it is declared that factory farmed animals conscious beings?
How does it do that? I'm sure that there is some chemical or quantum process that is part of activity. "recognizes self" is just an extension of whatever that process is. It is a slightly more complicated capability over cells without it. Consciousness is a long continuum of evolving complexity in all matter.
I don't know either, but I do surmise that chemical and quantum properties are involved.I don't know how that particular C. elegans neuron does what it does. Nobody knows, and probably won't for a long time.
So the "this is me" moment comes at the moment said neuron appears. Prior to that moment, was C.elegans not C. elegans? Or nearly there? How big a step was it? Did the change happen when 301 neurons added one more? did it happen when C. elegans moved to neuron 295 from 294? However it happened a continuum of evolving conscious capability seems likely to be in play. As more elaborate and complex chemical and quantum interactions happen and manifest in new physical forms, new things happen. Viruses are an interesting example of what we don't know. How were they (if they were) involved in the transition to cellular life? Are they living? And at the other end, how did non living cells evolve from non cellular stuff? With each transition we see improvements in capabilities and greater complexity. Tiny steps over many years that seem to involve many very small changes. With each we get a bit more "awareness" and closer to the C. elegans "this is me moment.C. elegans, there is one neuron (out of the precisely 302 it possesses) whose sole function is to recognise "this is me".
Yes that is a pretty all encompassing statement. I have no proof of course, but.... The chemical, molecular and quantum properties of non living things are part of the processes that make living things living. The physical nature of the matter involved has changed (from often hard to softer) but iron atoms in a rock are no different than iron atoms in the blood. They have a different function perhaps and interact with different things in racks versus when in blood. If consciousness resides in living things but never in non living things then at some point "magic happens" and it appears. My point is that I think conscious is a natural thing that is ever present in nature and as complexity grows it begins to manifest itself more obviously."Consciousness is a long continuum of evolving complexity in all matter."
But that still remains to be demonstrated. My main disagreement is with that assertion is the use of the term "all matter".
This is just another way of defining consciousness such that we can exclude some living things and not others. BTW there is evidence that some cats can sense the death of people."As more and more critters pass these tests we will be forced to either allow that non humans have
consciousness similar to us or we will find a new way to define it so they don't."
That distinction already exists to some extent. Among other aspects, living organisms, from the unicellular to higher primates,
have never been shown to possess the knowledge that they will eventually die. The old "sapience and sentience" aspects of human existence have never been shown to exist in other lifeforms.
Sure, but that's not much different to saying that there is a Michelangelo's David inside every sufficiently large lump of marble.If consciousness resides in living things but never in non living things then at some point "magic happens" and it appears. My point is that I think conscious is a natural thing that is ever present in nature and as complexity grows it begins to manifest itself more obviously.
This is just another way of defining consciousness such that we can exclude some living things and not others. BTW there is evidence that some cats can sense the death of people.
So the "this is me" moment comes at the moment said neuron appears. Prior to that moment, was C.elegans not C. elegans? Or nearly there? How big a step was it? Did the change happen when 301 neurons added one more? did it happen when C. elegans moved to neuron 295 from 294?
One "thing"? I doubt it.So I ask you. Is consciousness one thing that we can fix limits too? Is that important and if so, why? Do dogs understand love? Does the mother-baby bond that is found across the animal kingdom fit the I and Thou relationship of knowing that "this is me and that is you" we humans deem so important?
Quick response for now:And so to the gist of our disagreement
For sake of argument, I'm happy to agree with you everything you've written, except on one major point.
I do not accept that consciousness is inevitable as complexity increases.
I think that you are making a fundamental error: confusing potentiality with inevitability.
Again, for sake of example: Suppose that we have an infinite universe and and an infinite amount of time.
That does not mean that one particular "thing" must eventually and necessarily occur.
If you want to reject the notion of an infinite universe and infinite time, then let's take a "finite universe and finite amount of time".
Then, I'd argue there is even less reason to accept the inevitability that something like consciousness will necessarily arise.
Thanks a lot for putting me on the spot by asking for a cite!Can you give a reference to anything about this "this is me" neuron? You're saying you don't know how it does that, but I'd be interested to know how/why anyone thinks it does that at all.
No quick example, but the closest I can offer now is that consciousness could just be a spandrel of evolution, a "side-effect" of natural selection for other traits. Therefore it could either reduce or increase as animals evolve. There is no inevitability of consciousness improving (or deteriorating).maybe not but looking aback at what we know about life on earth are there examples of more complex life not having an "improvement" in consciousness?
Can you offer your definition of consciousness or its threshold?
Bingo, we are in agreement finally. I'm probably a lot more scathing in my opposition to the idea than "not a fan".An infinite or finite universe makes no difference to me, but for the record, I think our current view of the expanding universe is on the right track. I am not a fan of the "many worlds" view multiple universes.
I wasn't attempting to put you on the spot, I was just interested and couldn't find anything about it during my admittedly brief google.Thanks a lot for putting me on the spot by asking for a cite!
I can't remember if it was a video lecture, or from a Machine Learning Street talk podcast, or in a journal I read.
The closest I have in my collection is to this paper which mentions propriocentesis in C.elegans.
That "sense" is effectively the "this is me" and externally "not me" for this critter.
Open access paper you can download:
Oressia Zalucki, Deborah J. Brown, Brian Key,
What if worms were sentient? Insights into subjective experience from the Caenorhabditis elegans connectome
Biology & Philosophy (2023) 38:34
What if worms were sentient? Insights into subjective experience from the Caenorhabditis elegans connectome - Biology & Philosophy
Deciphering the neural basis of subjective experience remains one of the great challenges in the natural sciences. The structural complexity and the limitations around invasive experimental manipulations of the human brain have impeded progress towards this goal. While animals cannot directly...link.springer.com
When I find the exact cite I'll post it, but I read more than 10-20 papers a day, and my wife and I listen to about 8-10 hours of lectures and various fiction works (audio books, podcasts etc) per day so it could take me a while to remember where I got it.
You putting me on the spot about the cite was just a joke.I wasn't attempting to put you on the spot, I was just interested and couldn't find anything about it during my admittedly brief google.
I haven't read the full paper you linked, but the abstract seems to be saying the exact opposite of what you're saying (unless I'm misunderstanding) - that they find against subjective experience in the worm and question the validity of using motivational trade-offs as an indicator of subjective experience in general.
I'm afraid I don't know what "propriocentesis" means, but the word doesn't appear to feature in that paper and google doesn't seem to give any hits for it either. I guess it's a misspelling of something?