Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 14:04 (5196 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: ...some theorists from computing fields are suggesting that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of cells; that who we are is the result of highly connected cells. [...] in this explanation consciousness itself is still an immaterial thing; it has a physical cause but you cannot study consciousness itself just by studying the cells. I hope I'm not bungling this...-I suspect that the confusion comes from the theories rather than from you! None of these statements bring much clarification, which is not surprising given the complexity of the problem.-1) That "consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of cells" is self-evident, since we know cells are involved in the process. But does the process emerge from the cells, are the cells used by an immaterial identity that controls the process, or is it a mixture of both?-2) That "who we are is the result of highly connected cells" is also self-evident, since the body has an enormous influence on our identity, but this is not enough to describe, explain or account for consciousness or identity, unless we are to regard ourselves as automata.-3) The statement that consciousness is immaterial but has a physical cause could just as well read "consciousness is immaterial but has a physical manifestation". We don't know whether an immaterial element sets the physical element in motion or vice versa, but I have the impression that most of the time "I" make the wheels roll. "I" am of course a collection of highly connected cells, but back we go to 2).-If one day you and your computer buddies build a machine that is conscious, sentient, imaginative, creative etc., the mystery may be solved. I'm aware that such a project is in the pipeline, but you know what a sceptic I am. I'll believe it when...if...