Consciousness, Emergence, Evolution Theory, and Scientific Materialism
Offline Several points...
- I am using the term "consciousness" to mean, at the very least, "conscious-awareness."
- It is generally argued by materialists that consciousness is an "emergent" property. That is, somewhere during the process of biological evolution, consciousness suddenly emerged in living organisms. Exactly when this emergence occurred seems to be a bit of mystery. And there doesn't appear to be any kind of consensus in the scientific community concerning which organisms are conscious and which are not. Also, keep in mind that consciousness as an emergent property cannot be compared to any other form of emergence we may observe in nature because every other form is physical, not mental.
- Evolution theory basically holds that the fittest survive by the process of natural selection. In other words, those members of a species with genetic traits or characteristics which confer some kind of survival benefit are the ones that live and reproduce and thereby pass on their traits to subsequent generations.
- Materialism generally holds that consciousness is a by-product or an epiphenomenon of the physical or that consciousness supervenes on the physical. Both epiphenomenalism and supervenience theory hold that conscious is not causally-efficacious. (Incidentally, both eiphenomenalism and supervenience are dualistic...but now I digress.)
Here's the dilemma for materialists as I see it...
Why was the characteristic or trait of conscious-awareness naturally selected if consciousness does not confer any survival benefit? In other words, why aren't all living organisms simply organic "robots without consciousness?" (Remember, according to materialism, consciousness is not causally-efficacious. So it cannot confer any survival benefit.)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline What kind of nonsense is this? If the "structure of the universe is random," then "everything is NOT bound by causality." Duh!
Uhm, no.
Sorry you missed the analogy. Basically, the structure of the universe is fairly static, such as the snowfield I mentioned. Moving from point-to-point results in randomness, such as you might find in a snowfield on the scale of a snowflake. But, it's all laid out in advance. On the scale of the snowflake, moving from point-to-point seems random, but it doesn't change. The snowfield already exists. The randomness is built-in, but never-changing. From our scale, the snowfield appears to be smooth and homogeneous; however, if we were to observe a very small creature about the scale of a snowflake (let's say, a mite), we would observe a certain randomness in the wanderings of the creature. It might be in a more-or-less straight line, but it would be moving around the random layout of the snowflakes, as a result of the snowflakes. That is: it's path seems random on the small scale (due to the structure of the substrate on which it travels), but really it's traveling in a more-or-less straight line. It's seemingly-random path is caused by the random layout of the static substrate on which it travels.
Really, this is a simple concept. I'm surprised you seem to be having troubles understanding it.
The interesting thing about CDT is that the theory is based on an "invisible immaterial substance" called a cosmological constant which exists independently in space, apparently causing the emergence of matter. LOL!
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quantum-universe&page=4
Uhm... you do realize the "cosmological constant" was predicted by Einstein's general relativity? And that it has subsequently been observed? That is: it matches with reality?
That is actually one of the CDT's strengths: that it independently, from first-principles, predicts the cosmological constant. This is a good thing. It predicts something that would otherwise be unpredictable, something that has been observed.
I'm not quite sure why you think this is a flaw.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm not quite sure why you think this is a flaw.
Duh! DUH!
The theorom doesn't even have Jesus as the main character. So obviously it's flawed!
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:I'm not quite sure why you think this is a flaw.Duh! DUH!
The theorom doesn't even have Jesus as the main character. So obviously it's flawed!
C'mon, Kevin. Paisley is much more sophisticated than that. He has quantum mechanics, fer cryin' out loud. That's at least 20 times better than Christ. Even though it amounts to the same thing. I mean, "indeterminacy" is way more obscure than Jesus.
That's gotta count for something. Right?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline C'mon, Kevin. Paisley is much more sophisticated than that. He has quantum mechanics, fer cryin' out loud. That's at least 20 times better than Christ. Even though it amounts to the same thing. I mean, "indeterminacy" is way more obscure than Jesus.
That's gotta count for something. Right?
I like your explanation. Though I probably would've thrown in "pseudo-random." In my limited knowledge, all processes seem to be controlled down to the finest detail, and only appear random. That is with the possible exception of quantum mechanics. I'm still holding out hope that quantum interactions turn out to be truly random. I have no idea how we could tell the difference between random outcomes and pseudo-random outcomes though...
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
- Login to post comments
Offline I like your explanation. Though I probably would've thrown in "pseudo-random." In my limited knowledge, all processes seem to be controlled down to the finest detail, and only appear random. That is with the possible exception of quantum mechanics. I'm still holding out hope that quantum interactions turn out to be truly random. I have no idea how we could tell the difference between random outcomes and pseudo-random outcomes though...
That's one of the things that's cool about the CDT hypothesis. Even if you assume every four-simplex (an abstracted lowest-level "mesh" element) is laid out randomly, the universe still turns out to be just as we see it: smooth and homogeneous at our human-scale, but random at and below the quantum level. So it isn't even that QM events are pseudo-random; they are truly random, due to the truly random structure of the universe at that scale. They are still caused, however. And that's the sticking point for ideas that build on some sort of QM consciousness, like Paisley's. QM events are no more conscious than a Pachinko ball falling down through the sargasso sea of pins.
This is all just an hypothesis, however. Granted, it already is heads and shoulders above string theory, due to its ability to predict both 4 dimensions and (as Paisley rightly pointed out) the cosmological constant. All it does is demonstrate how the universe might demand causality. It might be a fundamental principle without which the universe would implode into a tangled ball of infinite dimensions.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline Uhm, no.Sorry you missed the analogy. Basically, the structure of the universe is fairly static, such as the snowfield I mentioned. Moving from point-to-point results in randomness, such as you might find in a snowfield on the scale of a snowflake. But, it's all laid out in advance. On the scale of the snowflake, moving from point-to-point seems random, but it doesn't change. The snowfield already exists. The randomness is built-in, but never-changing. From our scale, the snowfield appears to be smooth and homogeneous; however, if we were to observe a very small creature about the scale of a snowflake (let's say, a mite), we would observe a certain randomness in the wanderings of the creature. It might be in a more-or-less straight line, but it would be moving around the random layout of the snowflakes, as a result of the snowflakes. That is: it's path seems random on the small scale (due to the structure of the substrate on which it travels), but really it's traveling in a more-or-less straight line. It's seemingly-random path is caused by the random layout of the static substrate on which it travels.
Really, this is a simple concept. I'm surprised you seem to be having troubles understanding it.
Where are you getting this notion that the substrate is static? This contradicts the Wikipedia article on CDT. The spacetime structure is not static but dyanmically-varying due to quantum fluctuations. There is nothing in the Wikipedia article or the Scientific American article that suggests that quantum fluctuations are somehow illusory. (As I understand it, the model starts with space, time, the cosmological constant and quantum fluctuations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamic_triangulation
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quantum-universe
Uhm... you do realize the "cosmological constant" was predicted by Einstein's general relativity? And that it has subsequently been observed? That is: it matches with reality?
Yeah, didn't Einstein say that was his biggest blunder?
That is actually one of the CDT's strengths: that it independently, from first-principles, predicts the cosmological constant. This is a good thing. It predicts something that would otherwise be unpredictable, something that has been observed.
No, they didn't predict the cosmological constant. They initialized a variable with a constant in their computer simulation program and what emerged was a "four-dimensional unvierse."
I'm not quite sure why you think this is a flaw.
I don't consider it a flaw. I'm simply laughing at their description of the cosmological constant (I believe this is acutally what is referred to as the vacuum energy from which all virtual particles emerge) as an "invisible and immaterial substance." I thought atheistic materialists don't believe in the "invisible" and the "immaterial." Certainly, they have been known to scoff at the idea.
Incidentally, you do know that the cosmological constant has been employed by Steven Weinberg (a Nobel Laureate in physics) to argue for the anthropic principle?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline That's one of the things that's cool about the CDT hypothesis. Even if you assume every four-simplex (an abstracted lowest-level "mesh" element) is laid out randomly, the universe still turns out to be just as we see it: smooth and homogeneous at our human-scale, but random at and below the quantum level. So it isn't even that QM events are pseudo-random; they are truly random, due to the truly random structure of the universe at that scale. They are still caused, however. And that's the sticking point for ideas that build on some sort of QM consciousness, like Paisley's. QM events are no more conscious than a Pachinko ball falling down through the sargasso sea of pins.This is all just an hypothesis, however. Granted, it already is heads and shoulders above string theory, due to its ability to predict both 4 dimensions and (as Paisley rightly pointed out) the cosmological constant. All it does is demonstrate how the universe might demand causality. It might be a fundamental principle without which the universe would implode into a tangled ball of infinite dimensions.
You are not using the term "random" consistently. If I understand you correctly, you are using the term "random" to describe a path between two points to be something other than a straight-line.
By the way, CDT supports the theory of an oscillating universe, not the theory of a universe subject to permanent heat death. (Previously, you argued that the eventual fate of the universe would be permanent heat death.)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline nigelTheBold wrote:Uhm... you do realize the "cosmological constant" was predicted by Einstein's general relativity? And that it has subsequently been observed? That is: it matches with reality?Yeah, didn't Einstein say that was his biggest blunder?
It doesn't matter whether he considered it a blunder or not. It's been measured and observed.
nigelTheBold wrote:That is actually one of the CDT's strengths: that it independently, from first-principles, predicts the cosmological constant. This is a good thing. It predicts something that would otherwise be unpredictable, something that has been observed.No, they didn't predict the cosmological constant. They initialized a variable with a constant in their computer simulation program and what emerged was a "four-dimensional unvierse."
It predicts the cosmological constant as it turned out that the cosmological constant was necessary for the model to work. That is a prediction, as it is a necessary component. Not that they predicted something new, of course, which is the real test of an hypothesis. But I think it's pretty cool nonetheless.
nigelTheBold wrote:I'm not quite sure why you think this is a flaw.I don't consider it a flaw. I'm simply laughing at their description of the cosmological constant (I believe this is acutally what is referred to as the vacuum energy from which all virtual particles emerge) as an "invisible and immaterial substance." I thought atheistic materialists don't believe in the "invisible" and the "immaterial." Certainly, they have been known to scoff at the idea.
I apologize for misunderstanding.
I think the reason it's called "immaterial" is because it's something other than matter, a structural component of the fabric of space itself, similar in that way to the concept off "quantum foam" (though not nearly as "wild" as quantum foam). But I get your point. It is kinda funny.
Incidentally, you do know that the cosmological constant has been employed by Steven Weinberg (a Nobel Laureate in physics) to argue for the anthropic principle?
Didn't know that. I kinda like Steven Weinberg's writing. I always thought he was an atheist, though, as he pretty much stated he did not think there could ever be an interested god. Here's one of my favorites of his quotes:
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline Paisley wrote:Yeah, didn't Einstein say that was his biggest blunder?It doesn't matter whether he considered it a blunder or not. It's been measured and observed.
Agreed.
Paisley wrote:No, they didn't predict the cosmological constant. They initialized a variable with a constant in their computer simulation program and what emerged was a "four-dimensional unvierse."It predicts the cosmological constant as it turned out that the cosmological constant was necessary for the model to work. That is a prediction, as it is a necessary component. Not that they predicted something new, of course, which is the real test of an hypothesis. But I think it's pretty cool nonetheless.
You can argue that they provided evidence that validates Einstein's original prediction. But I wouldn't exactly call this a prediction. Also, it seems to me that they could have "fine-tuned" the variable in order to produce the results they wanted.
Paisley wrote:I don't consider it a flaw. I'm simply laughing at their description of the cosmological constant (I believe this is acutally what is referred to as the vacuum energy from which all virtual particles emerge) as an "invisible and immaterial substance." I thought atheistic materialists don't believe in the "invisible" and the "immaterial." Certainly, they have been known to scoff at the idea.I apologize for misunderstanding.
I think the reason it's called "immaterial" is because it's something other than matter, a structural component of the fabric of space itself, similar in that way to the concept off "quantum foam" (though not nearly as "wild" as quantum foam). But I get your point. It is kinda funny.
What exactly is a "structural component" of spacetime in the absence of matter/energy?
Paisley wrote:Incidentally, you do know that the cosmological constant has been employed by Steven Weinberg (a Nobel Laureate in physics) to argue for the anthropic principle?Didn't know that. I kinda like Steven Weinberg's writing. I always thought he was an atheist, though, as he pretty much stated he did not think there could ever be an interested god.
Well, he may be an atheist, but the anthropic principle has been used to argue for intelligent design (although, I don't necessarily approve of this tack).
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline I argued (I think rather convincingly) in THIS ARTICLE that for the purposes of most theological and philosophical arguments, the exact definition of consciousness or sentience isn't as important as it seems.
I read your article. To say that your description of evolutionary history and the development of consciousness was painfully tedious is more than an understatement. That being said, I'm not sure what to make out of your essay. You're either peddling eliminative materialism or unknowingly making a case for panpsychism.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
I'm saying that consciousness is clearly exhibited in the universe. What we call consciousness exists in the universe, because "consciousness" is the way we describe something that happens. That's what I can't argue with.
That there's a dualism of mind and body. I thought that's what dualism always meant.
No, I am taking quantum theory seriously, that's how I'd reach that conclusion. Of course, there are other explanations, apparently involving causality that work out. Nigel just found one for you. It's called "causal dynamical triangulation", and it's awesome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
You have to check it out. I guarantee there's something in there you can use.
Okay, that was funny, I'll give you that. You're right, I'm not spiritually enlightened. By Zen logic, of course, neither are the people who claim to be (although they got that from Laozi). Thanks for the laugh, though.
But to the point. Do electrons experience conscious awareness?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Agreed. Those who cannot determine whether they are aware or not should not continue in this discussion. To do so would be an exercise in futility.
Consciousness is not causally-efficacious on the materialistic worldview. To argue otherwise is to make an argument for free will, which undermines the materialistic worldview.
Data processing is a mechancial process. If consciousness can be explained in terms of data processing, then there would be no functional difference between a "robot with consciousness" and one without it. And this goes to the whole point. Consciousness is simply an attribute or property; it is not causally-efficacious. Therefore, why was it naturally selected when it cannot possibly confer any survival benefit?
What? Let me see if I follow your logic. A baby must first be taught language skills before he experiences subjective awareness?
This begs the question: How did language evolve from human beings who were completely devoid of subjective awareness?
There is no point of talking about the behavior of subatomic particles when you believe that apes do not have subjective experiences.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The "many worlds" interpretation implies the "many minds" interpretation as a corollary.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Huh? What exactly is this description of conscious behavior?
What I described previously in a post can probably best be characterized as a form of monism (more precisely, dual-aspect monism).
I checked it out and to be quite honest, I'm not very familiar with quantum gravity. It's not an area that has commanded my attention. That being said, quantum gravity - from my limited perspective - is the attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics with the theory of relativity. At any rate, I fail to see how CDT undermines quantum indeterminacy.
David Bohm, evidently, says "yes."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It isn't that it undermines quantum indeterminacy; it says causality is fundamental to the universe. Quantum inderminacy exists becase at quantum scales, the structure of the universe is random. QM events are statistical in nature because they follow a rough and random path. The example is a snow field; if you are the size of a snowflake, the world looks random and chaotic. If you look at a larger scale, it looks smooth and homogeneous. Everything is still bound by causality.
The interesting thing about CDT is that causality is necessary to explain the structure of the universe. Or: there is no such thing as an uncaused event, even in the quantum realm.
It's only an hypothesis, but it predicts many observed details of the universe, such as 4 dimensions, and general relativity. That makes it a strong contender for a correct interpretation of the universe.
Also, it does away with the "many worlds" interpretation.
Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that here is a strong, robust hypothesis that demands causality at the quantum scale. That's it.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Just the dictionary definition, Paisley. I'm not being tricky. All I'm saying is that we make the rules for what conscious behaviour is.
Oh, okay. All I have on this one is Wikipedia, so you'll have to help me out. Are you saying that mind is an "aspect" of matter? I'm not sure what "aspect" means in this context, whether that's simply a characteristic of matter or ...
It doesn't really (like nigel said), but it's a great angle. The only way these researchers were able to simulate the universe was to assume causality. If that line of research gains momentum, you may have more of an argument for causality. Now, what we have is an indeterminacy that agrees with statistical causality, but not strictly with classical causality (as you've pointed out).
I'm more concerned with what you say.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
What kind of nonsense is this? If the "structure of the universe is random," then "everything is NOT bound by causality." Duh!
The interesting thing about CDT is that the theory is based on an "invisible immaterial substance" called a cosmological constant which exists independently in space, apparently causing the emergence of matter. LOL!
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-self-organizing-quantum-universe&page=4
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I would say that the mental and the physical are "two aspects of the same process" rather than "two aspects of the same substance" (the Wikipedia article employs the term "substance" ).
The theorists not only assumed causality but assumed an immaterial space structure with an "invisible immaterial substance" which they dubbed the cosmological constant (I actually read the article in the "Scientific American." )
I'm inclined to agree with David Bohm on this point. The realm of mental possibility is represented mathematically by the probability wave.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead