Conciousness as a biological phenomenon or proo...

Originally posted by Conrau K
I'm not sure when modern computer, progressing at the rate they are now, could suddenly be conscious. And if conciousness can't be pinpointed exactly, does it exist at all?
I'm not even sure what consciousness is. Our brains are comparable to computers (albeit highly more complex). By conscious do we mean intelligent?

This definition from Answers.com seems to me as good as any;

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.

If all those things can be recreated in an AI type environment then have we not created consciousness?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
This definition from Answers.com seems to me as good as any;

Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts.

If all those things can be recreated in an AI type environment then have we not created consciousness?

The problem is, is that this is extremely metaphysical. How can you measure a computers awareness? I think why most people are refusing the "biological consciousness" is because, how do chemicals become aware? It all comes down to the genetic determinacy that religious people worry about.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The problem is, is that this is extremely metaphysical. How can you measure a computers awareness? I think why most people are refusing the "biological consciousness" is because, how do chemicals become aware? It all comes down to the genetic determinacy that religious people worry about.

My own feeling is that consciousness is an 'emergent property' of the brain. No one process or chemical is responsible for 'intelligence' or for 'conciousness', it is the interaction of thousands of processes and chemical signals that generates a hugely complex 'model' of external reality. The more complex of these models (such as in the higher apes including humans) also includes the self as part of that model, since there is biological usefulness in the inclusion of ones-self in the model.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The problem is, is that this is extremely metaphysical. How can you measure a computers awareness? I think why most people are refusing the "biological consciousness" is because, how do chemicals become aware? It all comes down to the genetic determinacy that religious people worry about.

Re Genetic determinism.

Forgot to mention this one. Genetics do have huge implications for peoples attributes etc. There are numerous studies that have implicated restricted mental processing in various parts of the brain with aggresive behaviour in individuals - literally these people cannot help themselves, they just stop thinking. It raises at this point important questions about whether guilt can be attributed in some of these cases - if they were clinically unable to help themselves are they guilty of the crime?

Originally posted by Conrau K

And as for conciousness, if conciousness is not the result of myriads of chemicals, why is that when you interfere with these chemicals, remove some of these chemicals or add more chemicals, conciousness is severerly subverted or lost.
Or, perhaps the myriad chemicals are the results of consciousness, housed in the human brain.
Otherwise, how difficult would it be to replicate dopamine and company, in a petri dish, and in so doing, create consciousness?

Originally posted by scottishinnz

It favours complexity, provided that complexity is biologically useful.
And it knows what is biologically useful, based on its recipe book.
For all of your scientific verbosity, the base elements simply cannot be denied for too long, can they?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]It favours complexity, provided that complexity is biologically useful.
And it knows what is biologically useful, based on its recipe book.
For all of your scientific verbosity, the base elements simply cannot be denied for too long, can they?[/b]

Eh? What ARE you talking about?? Biological usefulness is determined by selective death and reproduction (of organisms)...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]It favours complexity, provided that complexity is biologically useful.
And it knows what is biologically useful, based on its recipe book.
For all of your scientific verbosity, the base elements simply cannot be denied for too long, can they?[/b]

Evolution is not soem kind of rampant monster that selects organisms that are useful. It is incorrect to use the word 'favour' but it is easier to understand. If a characteristic is detrimental to an organism's reproductive ability, that organism cannot reproduce, hence has no children (esp. with that characteristic), hence there will be no children with that characteristic in the end. Conversely, if a characteristic facilitates reproduction, that characteritic will proliferate through the population. We tend to say evolution "favoured this variation". This is not in accordance with a recipe book but rather a pressure.
If the environment changed and that 'good' characteristic became 'bad' then it would probably disapear. The environment would thus be considered the pressure. Evolution in a sense "knows" what is useful through the evolutionary pressures exerted on the organism.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]And as for conciousness, if conciousness is not the result of myriads of chemicals, why is that when you interfere with these chemicals, remove some of these chemicals or add more chemicals, conciousness is severerly subverted or lost.
Or, perhaps the myriad chemicals are the results of consciousness, housed in the human brain.
Otherwise, how dif ...[text shortened]... it be to replicate dopamine and company, in a petri dish, and in so doing, create consciousness?[/b]

Huh?
This is purely metaphysical and has no scientific merit. And if assumed true, then why is it that consciousness is affected by other chemicals? It would be implausible to expect the relationship between the chemicals and consciousness to be mutual.


I dont exactly understand what you mean by "Otherwise, how difficult would it be to replicate dopamine and company, in a petri dish, and in so doing, create consciousness"

Originally posted by Conrau K
Huh?
This is purely metaphysical and has no scientific merit. And if assumed true, then why is it that consciousness is affected by other chemicals? It would be implausible to expect the relationship between the chemicals and consciousness to be mutual.


I dont exactly understand what you mean by "Otherwise, how difficult would it be to replicate dopamine and company, in a petri dish, and in so doing, create consciousness"

Don't worry, I've had this discussion with Chess Express before, and he doesn't get it either.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, the discussion point as far as I am concerned is 'Is conciousness a proof of god or simply a biological phenomenon?'

I don't even know where to begin.
All this talk of "life in a petri dish" and so forth leads me to believe some people expect science to create a universe identical to the one we have now as "proof" of science.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I don't even know where to begin.
All this talk of "life in a petri dish" and so forth leads me to believe some people expect science to create a universe identical to the one we have now as "proof" of science.

You and me both.....

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Eh? What ARE you talking about?? Biological usefulness is determined by selective death and reproduction (of organisms)...

So, somehow, the evolutionary process is working toward... uh, what, exactly?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Huh?
This is purely metaphysical and has no scientific merit. And if assumed true, then why is it that consciousness is affected by other chemicals? It would be implausible to expect the relationship between the chemicals and consciousness to be mutual.


I dont exactly understand what you mean by "Otherwise, how difficult would it be to replicate dopamine and company, in a petri dish, and in so doing, create consciousness"

Your assertion that it (consciousness) is nothing more than myriad chemicals, leads to the conclusion that the same could be replicated.

My objection is the chemicals emitted by conscious thought are merely readings of the thing, not the thing itself.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So, somehow, the evolutionary process is working toward... uh, what, exactly?

Evolution does not have a 'goal'. It doesn't work towards anything. It can't plan. It just is.