6 ms·

I never understood this. Evolution basically says humans are conscious matter...why would that not be replicatable via an intelligent designer (humans)? Random

I never understood this. Evolution basically says humans are conscious matter...why would that not be replicatable via an intelligent designer (humans)? Randomness created consciousness from a single cell...why would that be the most efficient solution?

jacobsimon 2y ago
I agree but even if you take materialism for granted, we’ve yet to uncover the exact biological mechanism. It’s entirely possible that it is unique to carbon-based and/or analog brains.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  That wouldn’t really be consistent with the laws of physics as we know them. So it would require a significant change in our scientific theories (which is possible, but I wouldn’t bet on it)
  - jacobsimon 2y ago
    I don’t follow you. I’m saying we haven’t discovered any inorganic consciousness, so it isn’t a given that we will be able to create it with digital computers. Not sure how that breaks the laws of physics.
    - __loam 2y ago
      Programmers seem to forget about how physics is the reason there's np-hard problems.
      - Thiez 2y ago
        Humans aren't better at solving NP-hard problems so I don't really see the connection with consciousness here.
    - anon84873628 2y ago
      "We haven't discovered any inorganic flying machines, so it isn't a given that we will be able to create them with metal." Turns out that if you get the structure right you can mimic the effect. Mimic the brain structure in silicon and you will get a similar effect. Just like how birds and airplanes are similar but different.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  Uh, it seems pretty clear that the "exact biological mechanism" is neural networks. Like, literally the connectedness and firing of neurons in the brain. And no there is no proof that quantum effects play a significant role.
jugg1es 2y ago
We can't replicate something we don't understand. The mechanism for consciousness is not understood at all right now and could actually be based on quantum effects that we haven't detected yet. It's also possible that it is only achievable in an organic machine. Until we understand how consciousness actually arises, the best we can do is a simulacrum of it.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  We can’t replicate it now but it doesn’t means it’s impossible. Like no one thinks that humans visiting Pluto is impossible, it’s just not something we can feasibly do right now.
  - thethimble 2y ago
    The framework of materialism posits that there’s a physical universe and consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes. This view is so prevalent in the western world it’s hard to imagine how it could be anything else. As an alternative, imagine that consciousness is primary. After all, any evidence that you have about the material world happens as an appearance within consciousness. (See “brain in a vat” and related thought experiments for the legitimacy of this idea). In this alternative model, the concept of replicating consciousness with material processes doesn’t make any sense because consciousness is primary. To be clear I’m not making any assertions about which model is correct. Instead I’m suggesting that the model you choose is axiomatic - taken as given as opposed to inferred from evidence. And starting with the latter model means artificial replication of consciousness isn’t even a logical proposition.
    - fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
      >I’m suggesting that the model you choose is axiomatic - taken as given as opposed to inferred from evidence The brain is the seat of consciousness and the brain is material, therefore consciousness is emergent from material. My evidence that the brain is the seat of consciousness is that when my head hurts it impairs my thoughts, and that my eyes are connected to by brain. Stated a bit differently: All events must have a cause, therefore consciousness must have a cause. The brain is the most likely candidate for the cause of consciousness. The brain is material, therefore consciousness is emergent from material. What role do you think the brain plays in consciousness? Do you believe that events must have causes?
naasking 2y ago
Some people are convinced by p-zombies and The Knowledge Argument that not everything we experience can be reduced to matter interactions.
- chrsw 2y ago
  How is that different than saying the function of the lungs, kidneys and heart can't be reduced to matter interactions? How is the brain special?
  - ikrenji 2y ago
    well the brain is special because it gives rise to consciousness. lungs, kidneys and heart don't
    - astrange 2y ago
      There's a lot of nerves and bacteria in the digestive system that might contribute some of it. That and various hormonal glands and reproductive systems.
    - anon84873628 2y ago
      The brain evolved to be intelligent. Intelligence is the ability to model the outside world in order to make predictions and then choose an optimal course of action. More intelligent beings are generally more "fit" in the evolutionary sense. Hence how humans have conquered all the ecosystems on the planet. Turns out, consciousness/experience/qualia is an unexpected side effect of this process. We can "feel" the intelligence happening. Where we humans get lost is believing that it has any meaning, or that we are somehow in control. We're not; the feeling of free will is just a other trick of qualia.
    - nprateem 2y ago
      We don't know that either. We may be a collection of interacting consciousnesses arising from different organs that all pass around the baton called "I".
cambaceres 2y ago
> Evolution basically says humans are conscious matter. Evolution states nowhere that humans are concious.

jacobsimon 2y ago

I agree but even if you take materialism for granted, we’ve yet to uncover the exact biological mechanism. It’s entirely possible that it is unique to carbon-based and/or analog brains.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago
That wouldn’t really be consistent with the laws of physics as we know them. So it would require a significant change in our scientific theories (which is possible, but I wouldn’t bet on it)
- jacobsimon 2y ago
  I don’t follow you. I’m saying we haven’t discovered any inorganic consciousness, so it isn’t a given that we will be able to create it with digital computers. Not sure how that breaks the laws of physics.
  - __loam 2y ago
    Programmers seem to forget about how physics is the reason there's np-hard problems.
    - Thiez 2y ago
      Humans aren't better at solving NP-hard problems so I don't really see the connection with consciousness here.
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    "We haven't discovered any inorganic flying machines, so it isn't a given that we will be able to create them with metal." Turns out that if you get the structure right you can mimic the effect. Mimic the brain structure in silicon and you will get a similar effect. Just like how birds and airplanes are similar but different.
anon84873628 2y ago
Uh, it seems pretty clear that the "exact biological mechanism" is neural networks. Like, literally the connectedness and firing of neurons in the brain. And no there is no proof that quantum effects play a significant role.

jugg1es 2y ago

We can't replicate something we don't understand. The mechanism for consciousness is not understood at all right now and could actually be based on quantum effects that we haven't detected yet. It's also possible that it is only achievable in an organic machine. Until we understand how consciousness actually arises, the best we can do is a simulacrum of it.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago
We can’t replicate it now but it doesn’t means it’s impossible. Like no one thinks that humans visiting Pluto is impossible, it’s just not something we can feasibly do right now.
- thethimble 2y ago
  The framework of materialism posits that there’s a physical universe and consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes. This view is so prevalent in the western world it’s hard to imagine how it could be anything else. As an alternative, imagine that consciousness is primary. After all, any evidence that you have about the material world happens as an appearance within consciousness. (See “brain in a vat” and related thought experiments for the legitimacy of this idea). In this alternative model, the concept of replicating consciousness with material processes doesn’t make any sense because consciousness is primary. To be clear I’m not making any assertions about which model is correct. Instead I’m suggesting that the model you choose is axiomatic - taken as given as opposed to inferred from evidence. And starting with the latter model means artificial replication of consciousness isn’t even a logical proposition.
  - fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
    >I’m suggesting that the model you choose is axiomatic - taken as given as opposed to inferred from evidence The brain is the seat of consciousness and the brain is material, therefore consciousness is emergent from material. My evidence that the brain is the seat of consciousness is that when my head hurts it impairs my thoughts, and that my eyes are connected to by brain. Stated a bit differently: All events must have a cause, therefore consciousness must have a cause. The brain is the most likely candidate for the cause of consciousness. The brain is material, therefore consciousness is emergent from material. What role do you think the brain plays in consciousness? Do you believe that events must have causes?

naasking 2y ago

Some people are convinced by p-zombies and The Knowledge Argument that not everything we experience can be reduced to matter interactions.

chrsw 2y ago
How is that different than saying the function of the lungs, kidneys and heart can't be reduced to matter interactions? How is the brain special?
- ikrenji 2y ago
  well the brain is special because it gives rise to consciousness. lungs, kidneys and heart don't
  - astrange 2y ago
    There's a lot of nerves and bacteria in the digestive system that might contribute some of it. That and various hormonal glands and reproductive systems.
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    The brain evolved to be intelligent. Intelligence is the ability to model the outside world in order to make predictions and then choose an optimal course of action. More intelligent beings are generally more "fit" in the evolutionary sense. Hence how humans have conquered all the ecosystems on the planet. Turns out, consciousness/experience/qualia is an unexpected side effect of this process. We can "feel" the intelligence happening. Where we humans get lost is believing that it has any meaning, or that we are somehow in control. We're not; the feeling of free will is just a other trick of qualia.
  - nprateem 2y ago
    We don't know that either. We may be a collection of interacting consciousnesses arising from different organs that all pass around the baton called "I".

cambaceres 2y ago

> Evolution basically says humans are conscious matter. Evolution states nowhere that humans are concious.