Karma

[Sriram]

I don't think invoking magic is any way to get closer to truth; rather I see that as an exercise in avoidance. We have learned that complexity evolves over time, conscious intentionality took 3.5 billion years to evolve on this planet for instance, so if this entire cosmos was the product of an intelligent designer in some higher realm, then that designer would presumably also be a product of its own evolutionary process of rising emergent complexity over time.

You are just using the word 'magic' for something that we don't understand. That does not make it impossible.

For the robots who are unable to sense humans, everything that we do would be magic!  Doesn't mean it cannot actually happen.

Isn't Dark Matter ...'magic'?

[torridon]

It is by no means essential or imperative that the higher beings should themselves be an outcome of the same principles. Why is that necessary? The  principles that operate in other worlds we cannot know. They don't have to be the same as the principles here.

Even assuming that the principles and outcomes in other worlds are the same...so what?  Why should that become an impediment to their intervention in our world?

Because the insights around the emergence of complexity are ultimately principles of logic, of information theory.  They would apply anywhere and everywhere, just as 2 plus 2 would always equal 4 anywhere and everywhere.

[torridon]

You are just using the word 'magic' for something that we don't understand. That does not make it impossible.

For the robots who are unable to sense humans, everything that we do would be magic!  Doesn't mean it cannot actually happen.

Isn't Dark Matter ...'magic'?

no I distinguish between 'magic' and 'unexplained'. 'Magic' means logically impossible; unexplained merely means unexplained. Dark matter is not magic, it is merely a placeholder for something that is still currently unexplained.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

no I distinguish between 'magic' and 'unexplained'. 'Magic' means logically impossible; unexplained merely means unexplained. Dark matter is not magic, it is merely a placeholder for something that is still currently unexplained.

That's not the Clarke definition though, is it?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#535

If the principle of emergence implies something from nothing, then that would be a challenge for us to rise to.  Nobody said stuff is easy and throwing out logic principles altogether to avoid the challenge would be one step forward but two steps back. That would be like Isaac Newton deciding that invisible magic pixies must be pulling apples down from trees; but he didn't do that, rather he rose to the challenge to think it through and thanks to that persistence we can now land robots on Mars.  Something from nothing is hard; but something from something more complex defies observed ubiquitous principles.  Magic pixies and gods are manifestations of a preference to avoid thinking things through imo.

You say that Something from nothing is hard; but something from something more complex defies observed ubiquitous principles. Sriram in his response (#536) to you gave an analogy with robots, where the arguments used against the idea of life being created are applied to robots. That, in my opinion illustrates the problem neatly. However, it was illustrated even more strongly by this in SusanDoris’ #538:

Re robots: Sriram seems to be putting forward the idea that robots could evolve naturally. They are, I would just like to mention, invented and made by humans so I think, if that is supposed to be an analogy, it doesn't work.

Which, in my opinion falsifies the argument that “something from something more complex defies observed ubiquitous principles.”

It is true that robots were invented and made by humans. That truth is not affected by whether or not the origin of human beings is known. To go with Sriram’s analogy, if robots had the ability to question their origin, then the types of arguments currently used against claims for life being created would also have to apply to the creator of robots, i.e. human beings! Because we know that human beings invent and make robots, all of these arguments would be false, as his post illustrated. This must surely indicate that similar arguments being used against claims that life may have been designed and created cannot be correct ones!

I think your post mentions two extremes. On the one hand, invoking God/the supernatural when it is not appropriate, on the other hand, something from nothing. You mention something from nothing being hard. From my perspective, I don’t disagree with it because it is hard, I disagree with it because I see what is known of the natural world contradicting it (e.g. Newton’s conservation of xxx laws). So the latest fudge seems to be to extrapolate from emergence that is observable (consciousness, life already existing) to try and explain that which is not observable (where that consciousness, life came from in the first place!). When anything is presented that would appear to falsify the proposition, it gets taken out of the picture and only applies to a non-adaptive environment (my use of Newton’s laws, for example)! Therefore, pertinent to this are Ekim’s questions in #546 and #581 respectively

I notice that the word 'adaptive' has been introduced, which I don't remember seeing before.  What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?

So to rephrase my question, what causes one piece of matter to initiate an adaptation to its environment and another piece to be non adaptive?

[torridon]

But an ant colony doesn't have consciousness and more pertinently self consciousness, or a sense of self or a sense of being an individual colony of ants. It is nothing more than a machine.

And a brain is nothing more than a vast interconnected network of nerve cells.  Yet somehow consciousness seems to emerge from it.  So we look to simpler models of emergence like termite colonies to try to understand the processes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sririam,

It is by no means essential or imperative that the higher beings should themselves be an outcome of the same principles. Why is that necessary?

Because the alternative is magic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You are just using the word 'magic' for something that we don't understand. That does not make it impossible.

It's been a few posts now since we had an attempt at the negative proof fallacy. Good effort.

[Sriram]

And a brain is nothing more than a vast interconnected network of nerve cells.  Yet somehow consciousness seems to emerge from it.  So we look to simpler models of emergence like termite colonies to try to understand the processes.

Consciousness does not emerge from the network of nerve cells. It uses the network of nerve cells through the mind. Like a person uses computer hardware and software.

Termite and ant colonies are examples of networked systems....clearly a common consciousness operating here. A common consciousness also operates for the whole eco system, coordinating and managing the system.

[Alan Burns]

Because the insights around the emergence of complexity are ultimately principles of logic, of information theory.  They would apply anywhere and everywhere, just as 2 plus 2 would always equal 4 anywhere and everywhere.

But what if we discover that the emergence of complex conscious life forms, or perhaps any life forms, does not occur anywhere else in the universe?  Would this scupper the ideas on emergence?

[SusanDoris]

#629
Well, I listened to the post several times at the  speed (202 wpm) I normally use, then copied and pasted it onto a document, slowed the speed and listened again twice. At which point I have given up trying to understand what you are saying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

I never said that. What I said in effect was that your (science) conclusions on the matter are unfounded and premature. Hence my charge on you of arrogance and hubris.

They’re not conclusions, and nor are they unfounded or premature. Science tells us that complex systems come from simpler components, and emergence shows us that no top down designer is necessary for that to be so. There’s nothing we know if that’s inherently special about consciousness that would exclude it from that basic model. Absent any alternative explanation, consciousness as an adaptive emergent property appears therefore to be the most likely hypothesis. 

Blue, you're coming across as a little sad now. You have to explain why it is in a reasoned argument form, hence my curt statement. Just saying so doesn't make it so and explains nothing, and you aren't God!

Well, my wife would agree with you there but, in general, when a logical fallacy is committed it’s usually enough just to say so rather than have to explain what the fallacy entails. Nonetheless, if you really want me to I can readily in future say, “that a XXX fallacy because…” it that helps.

Besides the point to the issue at hand.

No it isn’t. It’s entirely relevant to say that all of nature that we know of works in a certain way if we also want to discuss another part of nature, namely consciousness.

Besides the point to the issue at hand.

No it isn’t. Emergence is the point at hand.

This statement is a leap of faith and stems from your personal incredulity on the matter. You have no basis on which to make such a claim.

You don’t understand the burden of proof. If you think that there’s something inherently different about consciousness that places it outside the rules by which nature plays then it’s for you to tell us why.   

So in fact your position is very iffy as an hypothesis is nothing more than a tentative jab at what the answer could be. What usually happens at this stage of things is that people either offer their own hypotheses on the matter from the data to date or comment on the on going hypothesis to why it is not reasonable and misguided.

No, it’s not “iffy” at all as an hypothesis because it's logically coherent and because there’s no other hypothesis on the table to falsify or supplant it.

All you have are assertions. That's my point your conclusions or arrogant claims are based on nothing but the prevailing materialistic fashion of science to see things in a certain light, such that the conclusions are already expected to be of a given outlook and perspective before all the data is obtained, pending some devastating revelation that would shake you lot out of your complacency. You lot have jumped the gun by hours!!!

No, all I have is logical argument and evidence. “Science” sees a materialistic world because the material is all the method of science can engage with. If you think there’s such a thing as the non-material though, then it’s for you to come up with a method of your own to distinguish your claim from just guessing about stuff.

You have no firm facts and my point again is that science has concluded causes that are no more than correlations. Also, you lot seem to have redefined consciousness to be more like instincts. This is not self awareness.

I have lots of them – books full, research papers, lectures from people working in the field etc. What facts do you have for an alternative explanation – indeed what do you even think your alternative explanation to be?

Just repeating myself here. I'm saying science is looking at and approaching this with a biased and confirmation bias mind set.

What confirmation bias do you think “science” has exactly, especially as its methods are often designed precisely to avoid that?

Phenomena? I thought we were dealing with facts?

Consciousness is a phenomenon, and the question you ducked was about what alternative explanation for consciousness you propose.

[Alan Burns]

And a brain is nothing more than a vast interconnected network of nerve cells.  Yet somehow consciousness seems to emerge from it.  So we look to simpler models of emergence like termite colonies to try to understand the processes.

But we know and understand the physical properties of termite colonies.  We can't say the same about conscious awareness, so the comparison is not valid since we can't even confirm what makes consciousness work.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But we know and understand the physical properties of termite colonies.  We can't say the same about conscious awareness, so the comparison is not valid since we can't even confirm what makes consciousness work.

As so often, you miss the point entirely. The significance of termites (and of many other observations) is that complex adaptive systems can emerge from much simpler individual components with no top down designer involved. That principle applies wherever we look in nature; consciousness exists in nature; therefore emergence gives us a working hypothesis for how it comes about. In short, termites and neurons alike are subject to the same principle.

If you have a different working hypothesis that better fits the observable facts such that consciousness is exempt from the rules of nature, then tell us what it is.

[Alan Burns]

The phenomenon of 'intelligent design' as practised by humans is itself ultimately a product of blind unintelligent design.

It is only blind if you insist on the presumption that human free will does not exist and is in itself an illusion.  In this instance my most basic concept of reality is vastly different from yours

[Alan Burns]

AB,

As so often, you miss the point entirely. The significance of termites (and of many other observations) is that complex adaptive systems can emerge from much simpler individual components with no top down designer involved. That principle applies wherever we look in nature; consciousness exists in nature; therefore emergence gives us a working hypothesis for how it comes about. In short, termites and neurons alike are subject to the same principle.

If you have a different working hypothesis that better fits the observable facts such that consciousness is exempt from the rules of nature, then tell us what it is.

Just labelling consciousness as complex or adaptive does not put it in the same category as other observations of complexity derived from emergence.  Consciousness requires a single entity of awareness which we are unable to define in terms of the behaviour of sub atomic particles, no matter how complex their arrangement. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just labelling consciousness as complex or adaptive does not put it in the same category as other observations of complexity derived from emergence.

That's called the straw man fallacy: no-one does “just label” consciousness like that. Rather they observe that neurons act according to the same five basic principles as termites, that termites collectively are a complex adaptive system, and that a reasonable hypothesis therefore is to deduce that collectively neurons produce a complex adaptive system too that we call consciousness.

Consciousness requires a single entity of awareness which we are unable to define in terms of the behaviour of sub atomic particles, no matter how complex their arrangement.

That’s an assertion presumably born of your religious belief but that fails to map with any of the observable phenomena from neuroscience. But for you faith in “God”, why would you think that “consciousness requires a single entity of awareness”?

The only reason that we’re unable to define such a thing is that you’ve made it up, and then called it a “soul”. As it's your claim, you define it - it's your burden of proof.

[ekim]

The significance of termites (and of many other observations) is that complex adaptive systems can emerge from much simpler individual components with no top down designer involved. That principle applies wherever we look in nature; consciousness exists in nature; therefore emergence gives us a working hypothesis for how it comes about. In short, termites and neurons alike are subject to the same principle.

If you have a different working hypothesis that better fits the observable facts such that consciousness is exempt from the rules of nature, then tell us what it is.

Another view might be that consciousness is a simple (observing) entity with nothing complex about it.  It can only be detected by either turning in on itself or withdrawing into itself.  When it associates with appropriate matter/energy systems it causes them to become adaptive to their surroundings which are in a constant state of change and because of which they evolve into more complex bodies.  There is no top down designer, just a trial and error type of evolution until an emergent property which we call intelligence (ability to choose) arises and the adaptive process becomes more refined (e.g. rational and logical).  Meanwhile, throughout this process consciousness remains in its pristine simple state but can be veiled by the seductive nature of the complex adaptive systems.  The, so called, spiritual method is sometimes seen as an apocalypse/revelation, both of which mean 'the removal of a veil'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another view might be that consciousness is a simple (observing) entity with nothing complex about it.  It can only be detected by either turning in on itself or withdrawing into itself.  When it associates with appropriate matter/energy systems it causes them to become adaptive to their surroundings which are in a constant state of change and because of which they evolve into more complex bodies.  There is no top down designer, just a trial and error type of evolution until an emergent property which we call intelligence (ability to choose) arises and the adaptive process becomes more refined (e.g. rational and logical).  Meanwhile, throughout this process consciousness remains in its pristine simple state but can be veiled by the seductive nature of the complex adaptive systems.  The, so called, spiritual method is sometimes seen as an apocalypse/revelation, both of which mean 'the removal of a veil'.

An excellent point about consciousness not having to be something complex ......an argument which arises out of a view that it is just increased processing speed or power.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When we look at a system are we looking at it from the top or the bottom?

[SusanDoris]

As soon as the word 'entity' is used and associated with 'consciousness', it begins to imply separateness and, therefore, should be avoided.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Another view might be that consciousness is a simple (observing) entity with nothing complex about it.  It can only be detected by either turning in on itself or withdrawing into itself.  When it associates with appropriate matter/energy systems it causes them to become adaptive to their surroundings which are in a constant state of change and because of which they evolve into more complex bodies.  There is no top down designer, just a trial and error type of evolution until an emergent property which we call intelligence (ability to choose) arises and the adaptive process becomes more refined (e.g. rational and logical).  Meanwhile, throughout this process consciousness remains in its pristine simple state but can be veiled by the seductive nature of the complex adaptive systems.  The, so called, spiritual method is sometimes seen as an apocalypse/revelation, both of which mean 'the removal of a veil'.

The problem with that though is that it just posits this “observing entity” from nowhere. Complex or simple, it would presumably have to have enough complexity to perform the tasks you describe so how would any of that have come about? Our friend Mr Occam would suggest that adding more assumptions into the mix decreases the chance of finding the truth. Why not just stop at consciousness being an emerged level of complexity that sits on the layers of complexity beneath it all the way down to the neurons?

There’s an odd pattern here of people objecting to the hypothesis not because it’s non-congruent with the data and not because they have an alternative hypothesis that is congruent, but rather because it offends their sense of specialness (or in AB’s case because it undermines his personal model of reality).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As soon as the word 'entity' is used and associated with 'consciousness', it begins to imply separateness and, therefore, should be avoided.

A good point although if you are claiming an emergent property that necessarily implies some separateness.
If you can't be an emergentist be an honest reductionist or, as you are doing very refreshingly, oppose emergence from a holistic view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There’s an odd pattern here of people objecting to the hypothesis not because it’s non-congruent with the data and not because they have an alternative hypothesis that is congruent, but rather because it offends their sense of specialness (or in AB’s case because it undermines his personal model of reality).

So what you are saying is nobody should get overblown by what they consider to be their greater processing power................eh Hillside

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

A good point although if you are claiming an emergent property that necessarily implies some separateness.

No, it implies connectedness - that's the point.