Quote: Original post by Sneftel

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Therefore, to the extent that we are permanently attached to the Earth, the Earth is conscious through us.

I can't totally get on board with this statement. The idea of consciousness jumping between levels seems awfully "supernatural". If a conscious entity can be built from pieces (like protons) that are not themselves conscious, then it stands to reason that unconscious (at least as a whole) things can be made from things that are more conscious. Consider a variant of the Chinese room experiment where instead of formulating chinese conversations, the guy is simply adding numbers that are fed to him through a slot. If one accepts (as I do) the "systems reply", that the standard Chinese room derives its consciousness not from the man but from the rules and actions being carried out, then it stands to reason that the equivalent Adding Machine Room would not be conscious, despite the consciousness of the man inside the room.

It's a hastily crafted statement. I agree that jumping through levels seems supernatural. I said as much in the sentence following the statement you quoted.

I would disagree with the Chinese room example in either formulation. The system "man + room" contains consciousness because it contains a man, regardless of the task at hand. Removing the man removes the consciousness.

I think there's some confusion between consciousness and what is a living organism. I am looking out the window at a tree right now. It's certainly a complex system which is living, yet it's not conscious.
The Portoguese Man o' War mentioned by Sneftel is certainly a living thing, but is it conscious? I don't think it exhibits any sense of free will. It can't decide where it wants to go, it just floats on top of waves and goes wherever the current takes it. This lack of self will is most obvious when they get washed up onto a beach and die. To me, it's no different from a bacterium.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Sneftel makes avery good point.

That's exactly why I introduced the notion of the Earth as a system. As long as we're in that system, the Earth is conscious. From another perspective, as a species we can't live apart from the Earth. Maybe someday, but right now and for the foreseeable future, we can't. Therefore, to the extent that we are permanently attached to the Earth, the Earth is conscious through us. Does that mean that our consciousness extends beyond us and into the inanimate-inorganic components of the Earth? No. My claim isn't supernatural. By extension, I wouldn't say that the moon was conscious, even though it could be thought of as part of the Earth system. So too with the sun (although with the sun, it's the Earth that would be part of the Solar System).

Quote: I would disagree with the Chinese room example in either formulation. The system "man + room" contains consciousness because it contains a man, regardless of the task at hand. Removing the man removes the consciousness.

So, by your reasoning, at one point in time the moon was also conscious: When man was walking on the moon. After man left, the moon 'lost' its consciousness.

P1: Your position, generalized says that "Anything that contains a conscious object is also conscious." Earth contains human beings and other conscious life forms. Therefore, Earth is conscious. The solar system contains conscious life forms. Therefore, our solar system is conscious. The universe contains conscious life forms, therefore the universe is conscious. I don't understand why you disagree with the chinese room example; I'm in a room right now, so the room contains consciousness and is thus conscious, right? If you don't agree, then why is the Earth any different from the room?

P2: You say that people depend on the Earth to survive, therefore that makes the "man + earth" system a conscious system. You acknowledge that in the future we may not depend on Earth for our existence. People living on the International Space Station don't depend on Earth. You might say that we have to periodically send them food from Earth and that's their dependency, thus the system has Earth in its equation. We can't live apart from the Earth, but neither can we live without the Sun. Our food ultimately depends on the Sun. Yet you say that the sun isn't conscious. Your criteria that a living organism be dependent on an object for its survival seems a bit inconsistent, so it shouldn't be used as a defense for P1.

I've often wondered if non-biological entities, like planets, rocks, and automobiles, might be able to "perceive" reality in some way (our high level of perception and awareness is what we consider to be sentience.) Surely a tree does not see, hear, smell, and feel pain as we do, but it is a complex system and whose to say that as a whole, it does not experience reality in a higher-level way? Perhaps complexity itself endows a system with the ability to experience the universe in a way we might consider to be "living", even if it cannot actively respond because it lacks the functionality of a nervous system. Perhaps the more complex something is, the greater the level of awareness and perception it has.

Right now, we lack the understanding to address this issue, but perhaps someday we will unlock this most fundamental of mysteries. I have no doubt that if it happens, we will discover some very surprising things.

Quote: Original post by trzy
Perhaps the more complex something is, the greater the level of awareness and perception it has.

By that reasoning then, computers should already have a very high level of awareness and perception. They don't.

Therefore, either A) They aren't complete enough or B) Complexity doesn't cause awareness and/or perception.

I'm voting for B.

Quote: Original post by Sneftel

Quote: Original post by Nypyren
I generally agree with the ideas behind a conciousness-by-proxy point of view, but that it's got a completely different behavior at its scale which makes it hard to classify as "a" conciousness.

But why do you assume that densely connected, non-noisily-signalling neurons are the only model of connectivity under which "a" consciousness can occur?

When did I say 'only'? I am comparing two systems, not all possible systems. It seems as though YOU'RE the one doing assuming here.

For all I know, our Sun could be conscious due to unknown properties of large scale, sustained nuclear reactions.

Quote: Original post by slayemin

Quote: Original post by trzy
Perhaps the more complex something is, the greater the level of awareness and perception it has.

By that reasoning then, computers should already have a very high level of awareness and perception. They don't.

Therefore, either A) They aren't complete enough or B) Complexity doesn't cause awareness and/or perception.

I'm voting for B.

I also vote for B. But awareness probably requires some minimum complexity.

[Edited by - Nypyren on March 13, 2009 9:56:15 PM]

Quote: Original post by Witchcraven
Is the Earth conscious?

Conscious of what?

Quote: Original post by slayemin
So, by your reasoning, at one point in time the moon was also conscious: When man was walking on the moon. After man left, the moon 'lost' its consciousness.

If you take that as a system, but I think it's a stretch to say that astronauts on the moon made a system.

Quote: Original post by slayemin
P1: Your position, generalized says that "Anything that contains a conscious object is also conscious." Earth contains human beings and other conscious life forms. Therefore, Earth is conscious. The solar system contains conscious life forms. Therefore, our solar system is conscious. The universe contains conscious life forms, therefore the universe is conscious. I don't understand why you disagree with the chinese room example; I'm in a room right now, so the room contains consciousness and is thus conscious, right? If you don't agree, then why is the Earth any different from the room?

That generalization is fair enough for your question. I don't agree with the Chinese room example because it posits that rules and tasks make up the consciousness, not the person abiding by the rules and performing the tasks.

Quote: Original post by slayemin
P2: You say that people depend on the Earth to survive, therefore that makes the "man + earth" system a conscious system. You acknowledge that in the future we may not depend on Earth for our existence. People living on the International Space Station don't depend on Earth. You might say that we have to periodically send them food from Earth and that's their dependency, thus the system has Earth in its equation. We can't live apart from the Earth, but neither can we live without the Sun. Our food ultimately depends on the Sun. Yet you say that the sun isn't conscious. Your criteria that a living organism be dependent on an object for its survival seems a bit inconsistent, so it shouldn't be used as a defense for P1.

People living on the ISS depend on the Earth to the extent they are resupplied from Earth. I suppose you're right, by what I've been saying, the solar system is conscious. We are the consciousness of the solar system - and based on the extent of our knowledge at present - the consciousness of the universe too.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by slayemin
P1: Your position, generalized says that "Anything that contains a conscious object is also conscious." Earth contains human beings and other conscious life forms. Therefore, Earth is conscious. The solar system contains conscious life forms. Therefore, our solar system is conscious. The universe contains conscious life forms, therefore the universe is conscious. I don't understand why you disagree with the chinese room example; I'm in a room right now, so the room contains consciousness and is thus conscious, right? If you don't agree, then why is the Earth any different from the room?

That generalization is fair enough for your question. I don't agree with the Chinese room example because it posits that rules and tasks make up the consciousness, not the person abiding by the rules and performing the tasks.

Time to argue semiotics.

We probably wouldn't argue whether LessBread is conscious. By our definitions, he most definitely is. We wold assume that he is also a human and that he is composed of a brain, heart, liver, bone, skin, muscle, etc, like a standard human. As far as we know, his brain is the organ that gives him consciousness. We probably would agree that any of his organs other than his brain are not conscious, but he as a whole is. Remove or disable his brain, and by our definition he ceases to be conscious.

The problem is that our definitions are vague. If LessBread were to have his foot amputated, would we call his foot "LessBread?" We could, but it would be a real stretch of the word and most likely used for ironic or darkly humorous effect. It is much less ambiguous to call it "LessBread's foot" in order to distinguish it from the other bits of him.

By the standard understanding of the terms involved, we are not an integral part of the term "Earth", in that every conscious entity could leave and the planet would still be called Earth. But if LessBread's brain were to leave his body, we'd probably not consider him a whole "LessBread" until it was back inside his head.

To say "Earth is conscious", you are adding attributes to the existing term "Earth", and most people capable of thinking about consciousness in this manner already have a pretty inflexible definition of what "Earth" means, and how part-whole relationships work in general.

The goal of avoiding confusion with the existing definition and be able to say that the unified entity -- the planet and all of its inhabitants -- is definitely conscious by means of those inhabitants suggests that you either fully define it that way each time you mention it until your definition replaces the old one, or come up with a proper stand-alone term for the concept which is not confused with the existing one.

Quote: Original post by slayemin

Quote: Original post by trzy
Perhaps the more complex something is, the greater the level of awareness and perception it has.

By that reasoning then, computers should already have a very high level of awareness and perception. They don't.

Therefore, either A) They aren't complete enough or B) Complexity doesn't cause awareness and/or perception.

I'm voting for B.

How do you know computers aren't aware? Their sensory inputs are different than ours, but they are certainly capable of reacting to stimuli.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by slayemin

Quote: Original post by trzy
Perhaps the more complex something is, the greater the level of awareness and perception it has.

By that reasoning then, computers should already have a very high level of awareness and perception. They don't.

Therefore, either A) They aren't complete enough or B) Complexity doesn't cause awareness and/or perception.

I'm voting for B.

How do you know computers aren't aware? Their sensory inputs are different than ours, but they are certainly capable of reacting to stimuli.

So is a piano. The input is the keys, the output is a sound. It's also reacting to stimuli. Then, is a piano aware too?

Consider the mathematical function:
F(x) = x^2;
The input is any number. The output is the square of that number. Is the function aware because it's performing an operation on input and spitting out output?

I think that just because something can sense input and react to it doesn't cause it to be aware.