Is the Universe alive and intelligent?

I don't think that necessarily follows. The brain has a remarkable ability to cope with damage and rebuild 'subroutines' from the remaining tissue, but all bnrains grow from conception according to the same priciples. The compartmentalisation of the brain is quite well studied and shows little variation between individuals on the whole.

That brain damage to specific areas leads to quite specific effects on the mind and personality of the person affected is strongly indicative that cognition is an emergent property of the physical brain of course. As is the effect of various chemicals. People are still desperate to find some 'magic' in our heads though...
 
But it is not argued in Neuroscience that the seperate compartments of the brain are working pretty much in a centralised manner and so each main ability is generated/organised/maintained in the corresponding one (at least more abstract, mental or linguistic or math abilities appear to be highly synergistic and not traced to specific parts of the brain).
It likely is different with senses, eg hearing or seeing, but those are of course very distinct from the mental and interwoven substrata of our consciousness.

(PS: even a discussion between two individuals with some degree of self-reflection, easily can lead to the note that they form more abstract notions in highly personal manner, and of course this mostly happens without a conscious resolution to do so).
 
I think that has to do with the fact that we are using brains evolved to hide from tigers and hunt mammoths to discuss abstract philosophical concepts. We don't have an evolved brain partition for philosophy, so we borrow language and structure from all over the brain.

It was recently reported that human brains are shrinking - possibly they are becoming more efficient at this type of information processing over the millenia, maybe our distant descendants will have a distinct brain structure for dcogitating over really clever stuff (then there will be less fallacies flying about online).
 
Seriously, though, if atoms and molecules aren't sentient to any degree at all, how is it that consciousness arises?

We dunno. It'll be a neuroscientist that figures it out, and we give them a trickle of funding in this question. There's not been a Darwin moment yet.
 
We dunno. It'll be a neuroscientist that figures it out, and we give them a trickle of funding in this question. There's not been a Darwin moment yet.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if it turns out that beyond some orders of magnitude above those now commonly studied in complicated systems, the possibility that interconnections form and are sustained exponentially rises with each new degree of over-complication in those systems :) In fact i find such a possibility highly poetic, in a 'you are a speck of dust and you are trying to examine infinite infinities above you' kind of way. (only that you aren't trying to examine those, but infinite infinities inside you, remaining a speck yourself).
 
Actually plants, including potatoes, may have a certain level of intelligence (a very low one, but still).
Yeah, maybe intelligence. Not consciousness, but maybe intelligence. Intelligence is measured by behaviour.

If the potato is dead after cooking it, why does it grow hair after sitting in the refrigerator too long?

They don't grow hair after being cooked. They're dead.
 
They don't grow hair after being cooked. They're dead.

You cannot prove that they grow hair when they are alive, why do you not keep them around long enough after they are dead to disprove they do not grow hair?

My point was how can you prove they are dead?
 
P1: Systems can have attributes that are not possessed by its individual component parts owing to the nature of their mutual arrangement.
P2: Consciousness is such an attribute.
P3: Our brains possess the attribute of being conscious.
P4: Brains are an information processing neural network.
C: Having a functioning brain or similar information processing apparatus makes you conscious.

There's no proof that the above is true, but the only reason people find it hard to believe is that they want to see a 'mechanism' for consciousness - a consciousness particle or energy that is not necessary if you accept P1.

That's good. I like it.

But then there's no possible reason why a sufficiently advanced computer programme wouldn't be conscious too.

Which is all fine and dandy, but intuitively it seems unreasonable to suppose that a computer programme could be conscious. After all, all it's doing is processing information.

Your reasoning, if I've followed it correctly, would lead me to suppose that any and all computer programmes are conscious to some, albeit very small extent.

Which leads me full circle, back to atoms and molecules being also conscious to some, albeit very-extremely-small extent.

It's me, isn't it? I'm still none the wiser.
 
does it:

respond to stimuli?
reproduce?
grow?
self-regulate?

if not, then it's dead.

Are you saying that a potato can be alive to begin with?
 
This is silly! Of course a potato is alive! How could a potato plant grow, and reproduce, and self-regulate (through the three hormones - remarkably similar to those regulating animals), if it wasn't alive?

A potato, the tuber, is alive (unless you cook it or leave it to completely dessicate or rot on the shelf) since it continues to transpire at a cellular level. [Or is it respire? (I get those two muddled.)]

The tuber is a particular stage in the life cycle of a potato (and one of the ways it ensures its continued existence - in this case, as an individual organism). In the winter, it's dormant but still alive. In the same way a hibernating bear is still alive.
 
You cannot prove that they grow hair when they are alive, why do you not keep them around long enough after they are dead to disprove they do not grow hair?

My point was how can you prove they are dead?

There are times when playing with the definition of life is fun ("are viruses alive?" "is a fire alive?"). This is not one of those times. If the difference between alive and dead means anything, each cell in a cooked potato is dead. Cell membranes have been destroyed, all proteins and enzymes have been denatured. All respiration has stopped.

Cooked potatoes are dead.
 
Then explain away the hair of a cooked potato. It would seem to me that it defies death even after being cooked.

BTW I have not point in this whole exchange.
 
The "hair" is another organism entirely.

(Unless you're thinking of something else than the mold you might find growing on mashed potato you've left in the fridge too long . I really don't know what.)

That's like saying grass growing in a graveyard is indicative of dead people being still alive.
 
I honestly have no idea WTH you are talking about. A cooked potato doesn't grow hair. Look to google for what you're thinking about, and then please post an explanation.
 
'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This potato is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-POTATO!!
 
:lol:

Oh, very good!

Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that potato down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent 'em apart with its stalk, and VROOM! Feeweeweewee!

Listen, moosh, this potato wouldn't vroom if you passed 40 million volts through it.
 
Regarding how consciousness arises:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...&cmpid=SOC|NSNS|2013-GLOBAL-hoot#.U7WsbbFsDD8

ONE moment you're conscious, the next you're not. For the first time, researchers have switched off consciousness by electrically stimulating a single brain area.

Scientists have been probing individual regions of the brain for over a century, exploring their function by zapping them with electricity and temporarily putting them out of action. Despite this, they have never been able to turn off consciousness – until now.

Although only tested in one person, the discovery suggests that a single area – the claustrum – might be integral to combining disparate brain activity into a seamless package of thoughts, sensations and emotions. It takes us a step closer to answering a problem that has confounded scientists and philosophers for millennia – namely how our conscious awareness arises.

Many theories abound but most agree that consciousness has to involve the integration of activity from several brain networks, allowing us to perceive our surroundings as one single unifying experience rather than isolated sensory perceptions.

One proponent of this idea was Francis Crick, a pioneering neuroscientist who earlier in his career had identified the structure of DNA. Just days before he died in July 2004, Crick was working on a paper that suggested our consciousness needs something akin to an orchestra conductor to bind all of our different external and internal perceptions together.

With his colleague Christof Koch, at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, he hypothesised that this conductor would need to rapidly integrate information across distinct regions of the brain and bind together information arriving at different times. For example, information about the smell and colour of a rose, its name, and a memory of its relevance, can be bound into one conscious experience of being handed a rose on Valentine's day.

The pair suggested that the claustrum – a thin, sheet-like structure that lies hidden deep inside the brain – is perfectly suited to this job (Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, doi.org/djjw5m).

It now looks as if Crick and Koch were on to something. In a study published last week, Mohamad Koubeissi at the George Washington University in Washington DC and his colleagues describe how they managed to switch a woman's consciousness off and on by stimulating her claustrum. The woman has epilepsy so the team were using deep brain electrodes to record signals from different brain regions to work out where her seizures originate. One electrode was positioned next to the claustrum, an area that had never been stimulated before.

When the team zapped the area with high frequency electrical impulses, the woman lost consciousness. She stopped reading and stared blankly into space, she didn't respond to auditory or visual commands and her breathing slowed. As soon as the stimulation stopped, she immediately regained consciousness with no memory of the event. The same thing happened every time the area was stimulated during two days of experiments (Epilepsy and Behavior, doi.org/tgn).

To confirm that they were affecting the woman's consciousness rather than just her ability to speak or move, the team asked her to repeat the word "house" or snap her fingers before the stimulation began. If the stimulation was disrupting a brain region responsible for movement or language she would have stopped moving or talking almost immediately. Instead, she gradually spoke more quietly or moved less and less until she drifted into unconsciousness. Since there was no sign of epileptic brain activity during or after the stimulation, the team is sure that it wasn't a side effect of a seizure.

Koubeissi thinks that the results do indeed suggest that the claustrum plays a vital role in triggering conscious experience. "I would liken it to a car," he says. "A car on the road has many parts that facilitate its movement – the gas, the transmission, the engine – but there's only one spot where you turn the key and it all switches on and works together. So while consciousness is a complicated process created via many structures and networks – we may have found the key."

So you need to have some kind of central processing unit it seems to bring all the parts to a sum.
 
Regarding how consciousness arises:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...&cmpid=SOC|NSNS|2013-GLOBAL-hoot#.U7WsbbFsDD8

ONE moment you're conscious, the next you're not. For the first time, researchers have switched off consciousness by electrically stimulating a single brain area.

Scientists have been probing individual regions of the brain for over a century, exploring their function by zapping them with electricity and temporarily putting them out of action. Despite this, they have never been able to turn off consciousness – until now.

Although only tested in one person, the discovery suggests that a single area – the claustrum – might be integral to combining disparate brain activity into a seamless package of thoughts, sensations and emotions. It takes us a step closer to answering a problem that has confounded scientists and philosophers for millennia – namely how our conscious awareness arises.

Many theories abound but most agree that consciousness has to involve the integration of activity from several brain networks, allowing us to perceive our surroundings as one single unifying experience rather than isolated sensory perceptions.

One proponent of this idea was Francis Crick, a pioneering neuroscientist who earlier in his career had identified the structure of DNA. Just days before he died in July 2004, Crick was working on a paper that suggested our consciousness needs something akin to an orchestra conductor to bind all of our different external and internal perceptions together.

With his colleague Christof Koch, at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle, he hypothesised that this conductor would need to rapidly integrate information across distinct regions of the brain and bind together information arriving at different times. For example, information about the smell and colour of a rose, its name, and a memory of its relevance, can be bound into one conscious experience of being handed a rose on Valentine's day.

The pair suggested that the claustrum – a thin, sheet-like structure that lies hidden deep inside the brain – is perfectly suited to this job (Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, doi.org/djjw5m).

It now looks as if Crick and Koch were on to something. In a study published last week, Mohamad Koubeissi at the George Washington University in Washington DC and his colleagues describe how they managed to switch a woman's consciousness off and on by stimulating her claustrum. The woman has epilepsy so the team were using deep brain electrodes to record signals from different brain regions to work out where her seizures originate. One electrode was positioned next to the claustrum, an area that had never been stimulated before.

When the team zapped the area with high frequency electrical impulses, the woman lost consciousness. She stopped reading and stared blankly into space, she didn't respond to auditory or visual commands and her breathing slowed. As soon as the stimulation stopped, she immediately regained consciousness with no memory of the event. The same thing happened every time the area was stimulated during two days of experiments (Epilepsy and Behavior, doi.org/tgn).

To confirm that they were affecting the woman's consciousness rather than just her ability to speak or move, the team asked her to repeat the word "house" or snap her fingers before the stimulation began. If the stimulation was disrupting a brain region responsible for movement or language she would have stopped moving or talking almost immediately. Instead, she gradually spoke more quietly or moved less and less until she drifted into unconsciousness. Since there was no sign of epileptic brain activity during or after the stimulation, the team is sure that it wasn't a side effect of a seizure.

Koubeissi thinks that the results do indeed suggest that the claustrum plays a vital role in triggering conscious experience. "I would liken it to a car," he says. "A car on the road has many parts that facilitate its movement – the gas, the transmission, the engine – but there's only one spot where you turn the key and it all switches on and works together. So while consciousness is a complicated process created via many structures and networks – we may have found the key."


So you need to have some kind of central processing unit it seems to bring all the parts to a sum.

I personally don't like this article (too little info about the old research, too much focus on an isolated experiment by others) but i have to say i am quite sad that this patient was used as a guinea-pig when she was not there to be tested for examining consciousness, but supposedly to help with her epilepsy. Now i doubt she would have been helped either way through untested experiments (it's not like the science of effecting crucially or directly such issues as epilepsy is currently mapped-out and put to use) but i am alarmed she was used for something entirely unrelated to her presence there.

Btw(edited the less good part :) ).
 
Back
Top Bottom