Author: Robin Smith
Date: 22:59:19 03/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2001 at 11:15:40, Christophe Theron wrote: >I'm extremely puzzled because I still do not see where the problem is. Perhaps "problem" is the wrong word. "Unexplained phenomenon" or "mystery" is probably better. But I refer to it as the "problem of consciousness" because that is how it has been refered to in much of the literature on consciousness. Philosophers started it, not me, and books and science magazines like Scientific American have continued the tradition. >The problem is that I'm not even sure the concept of "conscience" is of any use. Yes, no use that we know of ..... at this time. But then, when the elements uranium, thorium and radium were found to be emitting a strange source of energy called "X-Rays" (where the X stood for mysterious or unknown) in the late 1800's and early 1900's people didn't have much use for it either. Yet once they figured out the theories about atomic energy all KINDS of uses were discoverd. But at first it just seemed like a strange, inexplicable and perhaps useless phenomenon. >You can't define it, and it has no purpose. It is not even useful to explain >anything (is it?). You are correct, I can't define it, I don't know it's purpose and I can't explain anything with it. But I CAN observe it. I can notice that I feel feelings. I can notice that I am confused and struggling to understand something. This are all observations I can have about myself. Rather like the observations of X-Rays that people could not define, had no purpose and could not be used to explain anything. But never the less, these observations of X-Rays were still there waiting to be explained. I don't think it is scientific to discard observations just because we don't have a purpose for them (yet), or because the data doesn't fit neatly into our present theories. And I see no reason subjective, inwardly focused observations (data) should be treated differently than external observations. The only thing different about inwardly focused observations is that they are harder to study scientifically because we cannot see them (yet) unless we focus inwardly. But just because it is hard to study does not mean it doesn't exist. >If this concept is different than "intelligence", then it has no purpose at all. The concept is different from intelligence, although it is probably related in some way. But I fail to see why that means it has no purpose. Lots of concepts are different than the concept of intelligence. Are all other concepts of no purpose? I can't believe this is really what you meant to say. In the case of consciousness, the reason for having this word is to be able to talk about an observation, to provide words. Do you see a purpose for the words "fear", "puzzled", "beautiful", or "love"? I'll bet the answer is yes. But you can't point to a set of neurons or a computer program and say "there is fear". We don't understand these subjective experiences, that's all. It is, so far, a mystery as to where they come from. That doesn't make them non-existant or without purpose. >If it is the same thing as "intelligence", there is no need for two distinct >words. It isn't the same thing at all, thus the need for two distinct words. >Maybe somebody is going to name "Descartes" and mention something like >"self-awareness". But being aware of itself is not such a wonder. This is indeed more or less what I am talking about, or at least part of it. I am talking about anything and everything that makes up our subjective experiences. The wonder is that it has not been explained. >It can either >be the result of a high level information processing entity exploring its >universe and noticing itself as a part of this universe, or it can be a >"built-in" feature of this entity, and it is the case for most high level >animals on this planet (the instinct of preservation being the most basic >version of self-awareness). Yes it COULD be a result of the things you describe. But so far no one has been able to demonstrate that it is or isn't and no one has been able to come up with a theory that decribes the necessariy conditions for consciousness to occur. Why should a bunch of electro-chemical reactions start to have feelings and thoughts? But apparently under the right circumstances they do. I find this remarkable. And why are there portions of the brain that are engaged in significant information processing that don't seem to have anything to do with consciousness? What is present in the conscious portions of the brain that is absent in the others? >Maybe this is going to shock some people, but to me it sounds just like another >useless concept. Some people love theories. In the 1800's, there was a proof that the sun could only be a million or so years old, max. This was because people could calculate how much energy the sun was giving off. And the only source of energy known at that time which could give off that amount of energy was gravitational contraction. And that could only last so long. Geologists thought the Earth must be much older, but they went back and reworked their geological theories to fit this theory of the sun's source of energy. But then these useless rocks of the elements uranium, thorium and radium were studied because of the mysterious "X-Rays" they gave off. Useless, pointless stuff, but people are curious. And lo and behold a new theory of where the sun gets it's energy also neatly expained X-Rays. I am a data man myself. The geologists had data they ignored because of this incorrect theory about the suns source of energy. They should have stuck to their data. But no one had heard of nuclear energy before, even though they had these strange rocks that gave off energy for no apparent reason. The moral of the story is that sometimes concepts that seem useless turn out to be very usefull. And sometimes an odd and inexplicable piece of data that seems useless leads to some amazing new discoveries. >Something we are pleased to think at, like the concept of >"soul", but a totally useless one from a scientific point of view, >at least in >the state of our knowledge. I am not aware of any data that supports the concept of the soul. I AM aware of data that supports the concept of consciousness. All I have to do is feel or think. But I think some people are like fish in water. They are so immersed in something that they don't realize it is there. Consciousness, self awareness, feelings or whatever else you want to talk about in ones subjective world are there and they a real whether we know of a purpose for them at this point or not. The data is obvious. That we don't have a theory for it is no great surprise. This has happened inumerable times throughout history. And it is, as always, amazing ... until we discover a theory that explains it. Robin
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.