Emergence (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 09, 2013, 17:08 (3823 days ago)

DAVID: (Under "Cambrian Explosion"): Consciousness and its intellect are emergent qualities out of the biochemistry. [...] It takes billions of neurons and trillions of connections for consciousness to emerge in the brain.-There are two aspects of this statement that I'd very much like to discuss with you. Firstly, "emergence" is another way of saying that the sum is greater than its parts. The parts in this case are billions of cells interacting, cooperating, passing messages to one another. We still have no idea how this results in consciousness, let alone self-awareness (which must be distinguished from consciousness), but if each part contributes to the whole, what does it contribute? Is it only the whole that is "conscious", while all the parts are automatons? Or is it possible that the parts themselves have a degree of consciousness, and the unification of these billions of "degrees" creates a superconsciousness? My favourite analogy, as you know, is the ant. Individuals may not be Brunels or Le Corbusiers, but when they form a colony they can create stunning works of engineering and architecture. As with the brain, the sum is greater than the parts, and intelligence (I prefer that to consciousness, because you keep equating the latter with human self-awareness) emerges from the cooperating community.-My second point concerns an issue arising out of your post under "pre-planned brains": is it the cells that develop the abilities, or is it the abilities that develop the cells? Is it biochemistry that produces intelligence, or is intelligence a form of energy that drives the biochemistry? When "I" decide to perform an action, is this "I" an identity that emerges from a mass of chemicals, or is it a separate form of energy that interacts with the chemicals (sometimes controlling them, sometimes being controlled by them)?-This is the point where I have difficulty following your thinking. You believe in a form of intelligence that is entirely independent of biochemistry (your God), and you take with the utmost seriousness psychic experiences such as NDEs, which not only suggest a similar independent form of energy, but may even suggest an afterlife in which the entire identity of a person survives independently of his materials. And yet you believe that consciousness, intellect, intelligence emerge from biochemistry. We have discussed this before, but the two concepts of intelligence still seem to me to be contradictory.

Emergence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 09, 2013, 20:05 (3823 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: There are two aspects of this statement that I'd very much like to discuss with you. Firstly, "emergence" is another way of saying that the sum is greater than its parts. The parts in this case are billions of cells interacting, cooperating, passing messages to one another.-Emergence is certainly defined this way. Life is an emergent quality.-> dhw: We still have no idea how this results in consciousness, let alone self-awareness (which must be distinguished from consciousness),-Here I disagree. Consciousness involves self-awareness at the human level. Animals are conscious but generally not self-aware and therfore do not have the type of consciousness we have.-> dhw: but if each part contributes to the whole, what does it contribute? Is it only the whole that is "conscious", while all the parts are automatons? Or is it possible that the parts themselves have a degree of consciousness, and the unification of these billions of "degrees" creates a superconsciousness?-We just don't know, but it obviously takes a brain of human magnitude to create our level ofconsciousness. Now, is it a creation or does it act like a radio receiver? i've read all these opinions and I am currently reading Sam Parnia's book on NDE's and I just entering his discussion of that point.
> 
> dhw: My second point concerns an issue arising out of your post under "pre-planned brains": is it the cells that develop the abilities, or is it the abilities that develop the cells? Is it biochemistry that produces intelligence, or is intelligence a form of energy that drives the biochemistry? When "I" decide to perform an action, is this "I" an identity that emerges from a mass of chemicals, or is it a separate form of energy that interacts with the chemicals (sometimes controlling them, sometimes being controlled by them)?-Good questions. Your brain has plasticity, grows neurons and connections as you learn. It also modulates synapses so connections vary. I believe it is all automatic. Your 'self' identity is another philosophic and scientific issue. Sam Parnia talks about the history of the discussions in this area but I've yet to see an answer. Perhaps in the next 100 pages, but I doubt it. 
> 
> dhw: This is the point where I have difficulty following your thinking. You believe in a form of intelligence that is entirely independent of biochemistry (your God), and you take with the utmost seriousness psychic experiences such as NDEs, which not only suggest a similar independent form of energy, but may even suggest an afterlife in which the entire identity of a person survives independently of his materials. And yet you believe that consciousness, intellect, intelligence emerge from biochemistry. We have discussed this before, but the two concepts of intelligence still seem to me to be contradictory.-Not contradictory. I have no idea how consciousness emerges. I believe in a universal consciousness (GOD); I believe in species consciousness; and I believe in an afterlife in which my consciousness joins the universal consciousness. Remember the brain may be acting as a radio receiver to facilitate all of this. And biochemistry is at the base. Both consciousnes and life are emergent properties from the complexities of biochemistry.

Emergence

by dhw, Thursday, October 10, 2013, 12:00 (3822 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We still have no idea how this results in consciousness, let alone self-awareness (which must be distinguished from consciousness)...-DAVID: Here I disagree. Consciousness involves self-awareness at the human level. Animals are conscious but generally not self-aware and therfore do not have the type of consciousness we have.-You disagree, and then you proceed to agree. That is why there is so much confusion between us over this issue. When you talk of consciousness, you think in terms of human self-awareness (your 2nd sentence), whereas I am constantly emphasizing that there is a distinction between the two, and that there are different degrees and types of consciousness (your 3rd sentence). You cannot see the dislocation between your two statements, and this is what influences all your thinking on the subject.-dhw: ...but if each part contributes to the whole, what does it contribute? Is it only the whole that is "conscious", while all the parts are automatons? Or is it possible that the parts themselves have a degree of consciousness, and the unification of these billions of "degrees" creates a superconsciousness?-DAVID: We just don't know, but it obviously takes a brain of human magnitude to create our level of consciousness. Now, is it a creation or does it act like a radio receiver? -It's obvious that there is an association between the complexity of our brain and the level of our consciousness, but it is not obvious that your brain has CREATED that level if you think the brain may be a receiver. Meanwhile, I'm delighted at your admission that we don't know whether the parts have a degree of consciousness, bearing in mind that the parts are cells. There's hope yet for A-B and me!-dhw: ...is it the cells that develop the abilities, or is it the abilities that develop the cells? Is it biochemistry that produces intelligence, or is intelligence a form of energy that drives the biochemistry? When "I" decide to perform an action, is this "I" an identity that emerges from a mass of chemicals, or is it a separate form of energy that interacts with the chemicals (sometimes controlling them, sometimes being controlled by them)?-DAVID: Good questions. Your brain has plasticity, grows neurons and connections as you learn. It also modulates synapses so connections vary. I believe it is all automatic. Your 'self' identity is another philosophic and scientific issue. -It is the same issue. Our intelligence, consciousness, memory, emotions, will, imagination, reason constitute our identity. If you believe the brain is an automaton which produces all these things biochemically and automatically, what part of our identity do you think is not automated? -dhw: You believe in a form of intelligence that is entirely independent of biochemistry (your God), and you take with the utmost seriousness psychic experiences such as NDEs, which not only suggest a similar independent form of energy, but may even suggest an afterlife in which the entire identity of a person survives independently of his materials. And yet you believe that consciousness, intellect, intelligence emerge from biochemistry. We have discussed this before, but the two concepts of intelligence still seem to me to be contradictory.-DAVID: Not contradictory. I have no idea how consciousness emerges. I believe in a universal consciousness (GOD); I believe in species consciousness; and I believe in an afterlife in which my consciousness joins the universal consciousness. Remember the brain may be acting as a radio receiver to facilitate all of this. And biochemistry is at the base. Both consciousnes and life are emergent properties from the complexities of biochemistry.-You are reiterating your beliefs, but you can't see the contradiction. If your consciousness and your life emerge from biochemistry, how and in what form do you think your consciousness and your life can survive the death of the chemicals that produce them?

Emergence

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 10, 2013, 16:16 (3822 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You are reiterating your beliefs, but you can't see the contradiction. If your consciousness and your life emerge from biochemistry, how and in what form do you think your consciousness and your life can survive the death of the chemicals that produce them?-Simply at a quantum level, in the other level of our reality.-For consciousness I still stick to "aware that you are aware" and the following excerpt from a paper I found:-It might be conscious:
(a) in the sense that one is conscious of the process
(b) in the sense that the operation of the process is accompanied by consciousness (of its results) and
 (c) in the sense that consciousness enters into or causally influences the process.-they find many things for phenomenal consciousness to do. For example:
1. By relating input to its context, consciousness defines input, removing its ambiguities in perception and understanding.
2. Consciousness is required for successful problem solving and learning, particularly
where novelty is involved.
3. Making an event conscious raises its "access priority," increasing the chances of
successful adaptation to that event.
4. Conscious goals can recruit subgoals and motor systems to carry out voluntary acts.
Making choices conscious helps to recruit knowledge resources essential to arriving at
an appropriate decision.
5. Conscious inner speech and imagery allow us to reflect on and, to an extent, control
our conscious and unconscious functioning.
6. In facing unpredictable conditions, consciousness is indispensable in allowing flexible
responses.
"In sum, consciousness appears to be the major way in which the central nervous system
adapts to novel, challenging and informative events in the world" -http://cogprints.org/6453/1/How_to_define_consciousness.pdf

Emergence

by dhw, Friday, October 11, 2013, 14:29 (3821 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We still have no idea how this results in consciousness, let alone self-awareness (which must be distinguished from consciousness)...-DAVID: Here I disagree. Consciousness involves self-awareness at the human level. Animals are conscious but generally not self-aware and therfore do not have the type of consciousness we have.-Dhw: You disagree, and then you proceed to agree. That is why there is so much confusion between us over this issue. When you talk of consciousness, you think in terms of human self-awareness (your 2nd sentence), whereas I am constantly emphasizing that there is a distinction between the two, and that there are different degrees and types of consciousness (your 3rd sentence). You cannot see the dislocation between your two statements, and this is what influences all your thinking on the subject.-DAVID: I still stick to "aware that you are aware" and the following excerpt from a paper I found.-The paper proceeds to list all the things we do with consciousness, some of which apply to cells, ants, dogs, and every organism you can think of, although all of them are clearly geared to human consciousness. Once again, you are doing a Mayweather sidestep. Bearing in mind that 1) restricts consciousness to humans, and 2) acknowledges that there are different types of consciousness, which of your two statements do you now adhere to? 1) "Consciousness involves self-awareness at the human level", or 2) "Animals are conscious but generally not self-aware and therefore do not have the type of consciousness that we have."
 
Dhw: You are reiterating your beliefs, but you can't see the contradiction. If your consciousness and your life emerge from biochemistry, how and in what form do you think your consciousness and your life can survive the death of the chemicals that produce them?
 
DAVID: Simply at a quantum level, in the other level of our reality.-I don't find this simple. In fact, I don't understand it at all. This is the subject I have raised under "Cell Memory".

Emergence

by David Turell @, Friday, October 11, 2013, 15:27 (3821 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: which of your two statements do you now adhere to? 1) "Consciousness involves self-awareness at the human level", or 2) "Animals are conscious but generally not self-aware and therefore do not have the type of consciousness that we have."-Both. For me they are consistent.
> 
> Dhw: You are reiterating your beliefs, but you can't see the contradiction. If your consciousness and your life emerge from biochemistry, how and in what form do you think your consciousness and your life can survive the death of the chemicals that produce them?
> 
> DAVID: Simply at a quantum level, in the other level of our reality.
> 
> I don't find this simple. In fact, I don't understand it at all. This is the subject I have raised under "Cell Memory".-I don't understand it either. Another possibility is that consciousness is a quantum hologram in the brain. The fMRI's never show consciousness. I think our consciousness rejoins the universal consciousness at death. But I know you won't undestand that eiher.

Emergence

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Thursday, October 10, 2013, 16:28 (3822 days ago) @ dhw

By coincidence I came across this link on twitter:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/emergenc/-I was interested to note that the term 'emergence' was coined by G. H. Lewes, 
a Victorian writer who seems to have become neglected.-A lot of disagreements about freewill and consciousness etc it seems to me turn on what "I" means. In my view what one is results from (a) the evolution of one's species, (b) the particular genetic make-up one inherits from parents, (c) each individual's physical growth and development, (d) one's personal life experiences, which are held in one's memory, which is not necessarily all in the brain. -In short what I am now is the result of my history. The "I" is not a sort of homunculus in the control room of the brain. It is everything that has gone in to making up one's existence. Even the people you have interacted with and the places you have visited may be considered to form a part of one's self or one's 'extended phenotype'.

--
GPJ

Emergence

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 10, 2013, 18:32 (3822 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: By coincidence I came across this link on twitter:
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/emergenc/-> 
> A lot of disagreements about freewill and consciousness etc it seems to me turn on what "I" means. In my view what one is results from (a) the evolution of one's species, (b) the particular genetic make-up one inherits from parents, (c) each individual's physical growth and development, (d) one's personal life experiences, which are held in one's memory, which is not necessarily all in the brain. 
> 
> In short what I am now is the result of my history. The "I" is not a sort of homunculus in the control room of the brain. It is everything that has gone in to making up one's existence. Even the people you have interacted with and the places you have visited may be considered to form a part of one's self or one's 'extended phenotype'.-I fully agree with your analysis of each of ours' existing personalilties.-Thank you for the reference. It concludes:-"Following this line of thought it can be argued that though we do not have actual empirical proof that emergent properties exist, the right attitude to hold is to be open to the possibility o their existence. That is, given that there is no available physiological account of how mental states can cause physical states (or how they can be identical), while at the same time having everyday evidence that they do, as well as a plausible mental—psychological or folk psychological—explanation for it, we have independent grounds to believe that emergent properties could possibly exist."-Consciousness appears emergent to me.

Emergence

by dhw, Friday, October 11, 2013, 14:34 (3821 days ago) @ David Turell

George: By coincidence I came across this link on twitter:-http://www.iep.utm.edu/emergenc/-A lot of disagreements about freewill and consciousness etc it seems to me turn on what "I" means. In my view what one is results from (a) the evolution of one's species, (b) the particular genetic make-up one inherits from parents, (c) each individual's physical growth and development, (d) one's personal life experiences, which are held in one's memory, which is not necessarily all in the brain.
 
In short what I am now is the result of my history. The "I" is not a sort of homunculus in the control room of the brain. It is everything that has gone in to making up one's existence. Even the people you have interacted with and the places you have visited may be considered to form a part of one's self or one's 'extended phenotype'.-DAVID: I fully agree with your analysis of each of ours' existing personalilties.
Thank you for the reference. It concludes:-"Following this line of thought it can be argued that though we do not have actual empirical proof that emergent properties exist, the right attitude to hold is to be open to the possibility o their existence. That is, given that there is no available physiological account of how mental states can cause physical states (or how they can be identical), while at the same time having everyday evidence that they do, as well as a plausible mental—psychological or folk psychological—explanation for it, we have independent grounds to believe that emergent properties could possibly exist."
Consciousness appears emergent to me.-I also agree with George's description of what makes up our identity, but you are talking about two different things. One is the influences that shape our identity (on which we all agree), and the other is whether the identity can be independent of the body. George does not believe in an afterlife, and so I suspect that for him (he will correct me if I am wrong) "emergence" ends when the biochemical processes end. For David, "emergent property" means something non-material that can survive death. See my post on "Cell Memory".

Emergence

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Friday, October 11, 2013, 23:11 (3820 days ago) @ dhw

It is nice to find everyone apparently agreeing with me!-dhw questions "whether the identity can be independent of the body. George does not believe in an afterlife, and so I suspect that for him (he will correct me if I am wrong) "emergence" ends when the biochemical processes end."-This is indeed a correct understanding of my view.-dhw says DT thinks identity is "something non-material that can survive death." I just don't see how this could possibly happen. A lot of it depends on the linkages within the nervous system that have been set up as a result of one's life experiences. These clearly do not survive death.

--
GPJ

Emergence

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 12, 2013, 01:51 (3820 days ago) @ George Jelliss


> George: dhw says DT thinks identity is "something non-material that can survive death." I just don't see how this could possibly happen. A lot of it depends on the linkages within the nervous system that have been set up as a result of one's life experiences. These clearly do not survive death.-How do you explain Sam Parnia's research, shown in his latest book I am reading? He calls them ADE's, actual death experiences, not near to death. He thinks his patients and others are dead and brought back. And like everyone else he has no idea how the experiences are remembered after resuscitation

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum