0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What is interesting is the first quote in Genesis is, in the beginning was the word and word was God. Genesis appears to equate the new universe of the ego; conscious mind, with the invention of written language; the word.
having marvelled [sic] at the gullibility of humans (including verbatim acceptance of garbage like Genesis) for many years, I fear that scientific thought in homo sapiens is something of a rarity compared with other species
Animals have only one conscious center; inner self, which is connected to natural instinct.
Becoming aware that friction produces heat, and that this can be sufficient to start a fire, is a pretty impressive leap.
Quote from: puppypowerAnimals have only one conscious center; inner self, which is connected to natural instinct.I think this is one social idea that is overdue for revision. I think it is based more on wishful thinking or guilt avoidance than on scientific analysis.
Sorry, my questions are a little more simple. Making fire is a great leap in man's development as pointed out. And apples falling to the ground time after time can fascinate. But is it a more recent development when man started asking what is fire? why do apples fall to the ground? Not just discovering things happening but asking 'why' things happen?
In short, consciousness is something a computer has not got, and that you think other species don't waste time worrying about. Or possibly it's the difference between autonomic and intentional action, except that we can design machines that work towards a goal without following a prior program, or monitor their own working, which contradicts the first statement. And we have no way of knowing what goes on in the brain of a dog (except that it has far more sensory input than ours) or a whale (except that it is a lot bigger than ours) or a gorilla (except that it is very similar to ours) or an octopus (which seems to have a sense of self; learning, tool use and problem-solving capacity; and almost no central brain at all). You are not alone in failing to define consciousness - I haven't found anyone in this forum or elsewhere who has used the term with any selfconsistent idea of what he meant by it. I think it is a magic word that nonscientists utter to kid themselves that homo sapiens is in some way superior to all the other species, which simply regard us as competitors, predators, vehicles, or food. But this is a bit of a digression from the question. I'd put Galileo forward as the earliest provable (i.e. recorded) example of the essence of scientific thought: the reductio ad absurdam of Aristotle's gravitation. He simply asked "if a heavy stone falls faster than a light one, what happens if we tie them together? Does the light one slow down the heavy one, or vice versa?" It's quite likely that homo erectus asked the same question, but se'll never know because the defining characteristic of homo sapiens is that we, alone of all species that have ever lived, make physical records of things that are too trivial to remember.
If we all agree it was dark and the woods were thick, this is more scientific since all see the same thing
computers are not considered conscious
Life has unique hardware.
memory... will spontaneous change in an attempt to lower potential. This is the wild card behind consciousness.
if we had two programs working the same computer, that don't agree, the tension will create compromises that may not be part of either logic base
This suggests that consciousness is due to errors. By this definition, if you never made errors, you would not be conscious?Why can't we have an algorithm that says "every so often, make an error"?If you never made errors, you act like a computer (but not like any computer I have ever owned!)If you make errors too often, you would be illogical, and unable to carry out any consistent course of action. This could be described as insane.Presumably, somewhere there is a happy medium, where errors are at a tolerable level (or even an optimal level?) to function well in a given environment.
although they had human DNA, they only had a primary
Computer memory, besides starting at lower chemical potential; stability, is based on the movement of information and not chemical potential. This output from this type of hardware is not governed by the basic laws of chemical and physics, but manmade criteria where random has no sense of direction.
However, we do have psychological test results from several species today that show that some do have a sense of self-awareness.
Why can't we have an algorithm that says "every so often, make an error"?
if I had a dream and I observed and carefully recorded all the details, since this is unique data that can't be reproduced in the lab by others, to prove what I claim, it violates the scientific method, even if real, accurate and honest.
if it competes with others of the same sex for mating privileges, it's a remarkably sophisticated sense of self as being both similar and different to others.
Electrical, magnetic, chemical, or holes punched in tape - the mechanism is surely immaterial. What matters is the ability to store and recall data. Animal brains (humans included) do have a content-addressable feature that is rarely used in machine memories, but some neural networks have similar learning behaviour to animals.
when chemical entropy changes near neurons and synapses new states of matter will appear that reflect this value.
Quote from: Puppypowerwhen chemical entropy changes near neurons and synapses new states of matter will appear that reflect this value. In humans, neurons in the brain operate pretty much at 37C (if it diverges by more than a few degrees, you die).When a nerve impulse propagates through a neuron, the temperature remains at 37C (because the brain has an effective liquid-cooling system).No new states of matter appear because the temperature does not approach 0C (where ice could appear) or 100C (where steam could appear) or the air pressure on Mars (where steam could appear). The neuron operates in a liquid water environment.The only change of state is the transient depolarization/repolarization change which propagates through the cell, plus possibly some more permanent adjustment in the synaptic linkage to adjacent nerves.
the output expression of the DNA will be unique for each cell type. These are states of the DNA. These define informational capacitance.
Quote from: puppypower on 27/10/2015 19:52:35the output expression of the DNA will be unique for each cell type. These are states of the DNA. These define informational capacitance.Computer programs also have states; they are stored in the RAM and files of the computer. Some extreme programmers even modify the executable code image (but virus scanners take a dim view of this practice).So how do the states of human DNA and nerve cells differ fundamentally from the states of a computer?
Taking science as modifying natural matter by applying energy and observing the results the first scientist was probably Eve when she first cooked Adam something on a fire?
A beaver, who is nature's engineer, can build dams that can alter the environment. This is done unconsciously;
Quote from: puppypower on 28/10/2015 17:55:43A beaver, who is nature's engineer, can build dams that can alter the environment. This is done unconsciously; Please justify that statement by reference to the known thought processes and EEG patterns of a beaver. Or retract it as pointless guesswork.
Considering that pre-humans, e.g. Neanderthals, had stone tools and fire, I would say that "science" preceded humanity. The capacity to experiment, learn from experimentation, create and refine tools, etc. isn't only human. Apes, monkeys, birds, and cephalopods all do it. Dolphins use sponges and maybe other tools.
The factory worker may fabricate complex parts of machines without ever really knowing what it does or why it needs that shape. The goal of fabrication is to duplicate, not engineer new parameters based on science.
If we go 10,000 years and all we have are stone tools and fire, they are copying/fabricating but not inventing.
If I was flying a competition glider... I would be looking around and making tweaks in the systems.
What part needs proof or retraction; beavers are nature's engineer, beavers can change the environment by creating dams, or that they don't have a conscious mind in the sense of humans but act instinctively/unconsciously.
the bird is not thinking of any of this, even though he is unconsciously learning from his success and failure. He may look like an adapting genius, but that is all projection from humans, because this is done unconsciously via instinct.
If I was flying a competition glider, I would be consciously aware of the many aspects of science that are at work. I would be looking around and making tweaks in the systems.
Birds and beaver don't have the secondary, only a primary.