Mind

[Luc Turpin]

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Just curious following the discussion from the sidelines; What is the connection between cosmos, scientific revolution and the linked article? I can't find such a quote in the arXiv paper.

It is text taken from the general article, not the Xiv paper.

“Mathematician and physicist Johannes Kleiner, at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy in Germany, told author Michael Brooks that a mathematically precise definition of consciousness could mean that the cosmos is suffused with subjective experience. “This could be the beginning of a scientific revolution,” Kleiner said, referring to research he and others have been conducting. “

“Kleiner and his colleagues are focused on the Integrated Information Theory of consciousness, one of the more prominent theories of consciousness today. As Kleiner notes, IIT (as the theory is known) is thoroughly panpsychist because all integrated information has at least one bit of consciousness”

Integrated Information Theory (ITT) proposes a mathematical model of consciousness. ITT is panpsychist and panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or mind like quality.

All things in the cosmos having a min or mind like quality would be a scientific revolution.

 

 

 

 https://nautil.us/electrons-may-very-well-be-conscious-237818/

 

•  
•  
• Quote

 

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

All things in the cosmos having a min or mind like quality would be a scientific revolution

I’m skeptical. I think nothing actually changes, from a scientific standpoint. 

[Luc Turpin]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

I’m skeptical. I think nothing actually changes, from a scientific standpoint. 

I thought long and hard on this one and agree with your statement.

It would change dramatically from a psychological but not a scientific standpoint.

What is going on would not change, but why it is going on would.

[Luc Turpin]

I committed to a search on consciousness-cognition in non living matter. I did so and have not found very much evidence that would support this contention. I did however stumble upon this interesting article on the origins of chemical evolution by David Lynn, Cynthia Burrow, Jay Goodwin and Anil Mehta

“A dynamic exchange of network component structures and assemblies, via both covalent and noncovalent associations, is fundamental for the network’s ability to learn, to capture and integrate information about an environment that ensures the network’s future response to similar conditions, as an inherent part of chemical evolution. In considering the origins of chemical evolution or discovering the simplest molecular systems capable of promulgating intelligent behavior, we acknowledge that merely defining the terms learning, intelligence, and evolution at a molecular level remains a significant part of our challenge in this Accounts of Chemical Research issue."

"The origins of life on Earth, the remarkable result of chemical evolution through emerging self-assembly into ever-increasing hierarchical complexity in structure and function, remains one of the greatest research challenges of our time."

"The Darwinian threshold required for appearance of the biological cell underscores the development of “self” versus “non-self” in these chemical networks. The barriers that define dynamic chemical systems as uniquely self must be physically and kinetically selective to permeability, primarily of nutrient molecules that maintain network viability."

"These diverse approaches to deconvolution and reintegration of the origins of the cell, projected in collaboration through the lens of chemical evolution, suggest a remarkable degree of intrinsic molecular intelligence that guide the bottom-up emergence of living matter. However, this idea of molecular intelligence is certainly not new. Charles Darwin imagined a chemically rich “warm pond” from which evolution originated, and his idea was published almost 100 years before the duplex structure of DNA was proposed. A population of simple molecules, storing and copying information to ensure their own survival prebiotically, argues that intelligent behavior is not restricted to complex genomes but is an inherent property of matter. Darwin’s hypothesis further predicts the emergence of new intelligent materials, ones not limited to what can be deduced from biology’s “archeological” remnants but even more diverse and exotic realms of dynamic chemical systems that might never have been explored by extant biochemistry."

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ar300266q

[Bufofrog]

22 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I committed to a search on consciousness-cognition in non living matter. I did so and have not found very much evidence that would support this contention.

You haven't found much support?  Golly, what a shocking outcome.

[dimreepr]

On 7/9/2024 at 11:05 AM, Luc Turpin said:

I thought long and hard on this one and agree with your statement.

It would change dramatically from a psychological but not a scientific standpoint.

What is going on would not change, but why it is going on would.

That's kinda the point of science, the psychological why is immaterial in the pursuit of actual knowledge.

That's why they hide the psyche from the results of a blind study. 

Your thought's are not involved... 🙄

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

A population of simple molecules, storing and copying information to ensure their own survival prebiotically, argues that intelligent behavior is not restricted to complex genomes but is an inherent property of matter

That presupposes that storing/copying information is intelligent behavior. A bit of wax will store information of anything that makes an impression. Is wax intelligent? If yes, as I’ve argued before, you’ve diluted the meaning of intelligence to a point where it’s meaningless.

Everything is intelligent. Nothing new is known. Science has not advanced at all.

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

You haven't found much support?  Golly, what a shocking outcome.

Objectivity dictates investigating before declaring null and void.

54 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's kinda the point of science, the psychological why is immaterial in the pursuit of actual knowledge.

That's why they hide the psyche from the results of a blind study. 

Your thought's are not involved... 🙄

Yes, science puts the psychological or subjective aside, but, again, our world is comprised of both the objective and subjective. So, only one side of the coin is being explored, which results in an incomplete understanding of our surrounding world.

My sincerest condolences Dim.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

That presupposes that storing/copying information is intelligent behavior. A bit of wax will store information of anything that makes an impression. Is wax intelligent? If yes, as I’ve argued before, you’ve diluted the meaning of intelligence to a point where it’s meaningless.

Everything is intelligent. Nothing new is known. Science has not advanced at all.

Can intelligent behaviour exist without acquisition, storage and use of information?

It is not intelligent behaviour, but probably needed for intelligent behaviour. A prerequisite of intelligence.

My understranding is that molecules would have to do more than that to demonstrate intelligent behaviour.

Physically pressing a shape on wax is not a sign of wax intelligence, but of a sign of intelligence on the part of the one pressing a shape upon the wax.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Can intelligent behaviour exist without acquisition, storage and use of information?

It is not intelligent behaviour, but probably needed for intelligent behaviour. A prerequisite of intelligence.

Being a prerequisite is a very different claim.

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

My understranding is that molecules would have to do more than that to demonstrate intelligent behaviour.

Physically pressing a shape on wax is not a sign of wax intelligence, but of a sign of intelligence on the part of the one pressing a shape upon the wax.

But your source was basically asserting that the wax is intelligent.

[Luc Turpin]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

Being a prerequisite is a very different claim.

But your source was basically asserting that the wax is intelligent.

1- Indeed it is! The prerequisite claim is mine while the molecular intelligence one is not.

2- I submitted the article for discussion as it was the only one that I could find where the authors were advocating for intelligence at the chemical level. I do not share all of their opinions on the subject matter. If the article asserts that wax is intelligent in the manner that I described it, then this is wrong.

"the network’s ability to learn, to capture and integrate information about an environment that ensures the network’s future response to similar conditions" - This would begin to be a sign of intelligence.

"A population of simple molecules, storing and copying information to ensure their own survival prebiotically, argues that intelligent behavior is not restricted to complex genomes but is an inherent property of matter." - Storing/copying information would be insufficient in claiming intelligence and then stating "that intelligent behaviour is not restricted to complex genomes but is an inherent property of matter"

"The origins of life on Earth, the remarkable result of chemical evolution through emerging self-assembly into ever-increasing hierarchical complexity in structure and function, remains one of the greatest research challenges of our time." - Unrelated to what is needed for intelligence, but the claim is correct.

I may be wrong, but possible litmus tests for conscioussness would be "awareness" and for intelligence "intention".

[StringJunky]

You need to figure out what 'life' is before you move onto 'mind', then, you do the fancy stuff like 'intention' and 'intelligence'

[swansont]

52 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I submitted the article for discussion as it was the only one that I could find where the authors were advocating for intelligence at the chemical level. I do not share all of their opinions on the subject matter. If the article asserts that wax is intelligent in the manner that I described it, then this is wrong.

Why share it if you aren’t defending it? It advocated for anything capable of recording information as having intelligence.. Surely more is required, if we conclude that wax is not intelligent.

[Luc Turpin]

44 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You need to figure out what 'life' is before you move onto 'mind', then, you do the fancy stuff like 'intention' and 'intelligence'

What is life? No one really knows! - "No definition of life has been satisfactory. Most include a cell with compartments, self-copying, metabolism, energy production or capture, adaptation to the environment and evolution. Another criterion is the transmission of information". - Lieff

Where does life come from? No one is really sure! The origin of life remains unknown.

Can life and consciousness be separated? - "It is not known whether there can be life without consciousness or consciousness without life?" - Lieff

"Consciousness and life are qualities of living cells showing unusual complexity, organization and information flows. A combination of top down causal organization and bottom up chemical evolution appears to be necessary to understand life and consciousness." - Lieff

For me, they share an inseparable kindship.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why share it if you aren’t defending it? It advocated for anything capable of recording information as having intelligence.. Surely more is required, if we conclude that wax is not intelligent.

To advance our discussion on the matter. Absolutely, more is required if we conclude that wax is not intelligent.

I gave 'intention' as a possible test for intelligence. Others would be problem-solving, decision making, modulating one's environment. Others contend that intelligence in matter would need to show self-deterministic decisions, patterns and actions, which is closely related to my "intention' test.

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

What is life? No one really knows! - "No definition of life has been satisfactory. Most include a cell with compartments, self-copying, metabolism, energy production or capture, adaptation to the environment and evolution. Another criterion is the transmission of information". - Lieff

Where does life come from? No one is really sure! The origin of life remains unknown.

Can life and consciousness be separated? - "It is not known whether there can be life without consciousness or consciousness without life?" - Lieff

"Consciousness and life are qualities of living cells showing unusual complexity, organization and information flows. A combination of top down causal organization and bottom up chemical evolution appears to be necessary to understand life and consciousness." - Lieff

For me, they share an inseparable kindship.

To advance our discussion on the matter. Absolutely, more is required if we conclude that wax is not intelligent.

I gave 'intention' as a possible test for intelligence. Others would be problem-solving, decision making, modulating one's environment. Others contend that intelligence in matter would need to show self-deterministic decisions, patterns and actions, which is closely related to my "intention' test.

So we're back to the anthill, ant's are alive but they don't pass any of your 'tests' for intelligence, an anthill isn't alive but it does fit all of your 'tests' for intelligence.

Cogito ergo sum, first principals are required to move forward in our understanding, if you can think of a better method than science to achieve that then tell us, but google isn't it.

[dimreepr]

“Don't for heaven's sake, be afraid of talking nonsense! But you must pay attention to your nonsense.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

So we're back to the anthill, ant's are alive but they don't pass any of your 'tests' for intelligence, an anthill isn't alive but it does fit all of your 'tests' for intelligence.

Cogito ergo sum, first principals are required to move forward in our understanding, if you can think of a better method than science to achieve that then tell us, but google isn't it.

1- Intention, problem-solving, decision making, modulating one's environment

Ants Ingenious Survival Method During Flood | Superswarm | BBC Earth (youtube.com)

Ant Colony IQ: Just How Smart is an Ant? (youtube.com)

2- A bottom-up and objective method is needed to explore one side of the coin, and a top-down more subjective approach is required for the other side.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- Intention, problem-solving, decision making, modulating one's environment

Ants Ingenious Survival Method During Flood | Superswarm | BBC Earth (youtube.com)

Ant Colony IQ: Just How Smart is an Ant? (youtube.com)

2- A bottom-up and objective method is needed to explore one side of the coin, and a top-down more subjective approach is required for the other side.

Where are you going to spend that coin?

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Where are you going to spend that coin?

Spend it on more complete knowledge of mind, consciousness, cognition, intelligence and life in general 

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Spend it on more complete knowledge of mind, consciousness, cognition, intelligence and life in general 

I asked 'where' are you going to spend it... 😣

[Luc Turpin]

50 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I asked 'where' are you going to spend it... 😣

I have been mulling this one ever since you posted it, but honestly, I have no answer to give!

[Luc Turpin]

Key points made so far in this thread:

There is apparently no centre in the brain for consciousness. Having found one would have favoured the mind from brain hypothesis.

There is no understanding on how the brain produces mind. Again, finding out how it works would have favoured the mind from brain hypothesis.

There is a case to be made for mind existing in all living matter, which could possibly favour the mind through brain hypothesis.

There are major issues with both panpsychism and materialism. The former suffers from a “combination” problem (how do particles combine to produce a more complex thing with its own conscious experience) while the latter has to contend with the “hard” problem (how does brain create mind).

There is little evidence that non-living matter is conscious, but some evidence that prerequisites of mind may be present, which could favour the “emergence” of mind from brain hypothesis.

There may be a demarcation line between the living and non-living, which could be mind.

It is not known whether there can be life without consciousness or consciousness without life.

A combination of top down causal organization and bottom up chemical evolution appears to be necessary to understand life and consciousness.

There is no sense of direction in evolution; therefore, no purpose in the living.

Not all occurrences are random.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Luc Turpin said:

There is apparently no centre in the brain for consciousness. Having found one would have favoured the mind from brain hypothesis.

The brain is the center for consciousness, sometimes there is no point to a centre.

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

There is no understanding on how the brain produces mind. Again, finding out how it works would have favoured the mind from brain hypothesis.

Yes there is, and when you understand the knowledge, the word you'd use is conclusion.

8 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

There is a case to be made for mind existing in all living matter

No there isn't, at least not one that you've produced in terms of a convincing argument; give it a go, without using google as a pseudo-argument.

I stopped reading at this point

[Luc Turpin]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The brain is the center for consciousness, sometimes there is no point to a centre.

Yes there is, and when you understand the knowledge, the word you'd use is conclusion.

No there isn't, at least not one that you've produced in terms of a convincing argument; give it a go, without using google as a pseudo-argument.

I stopped reading at this point

!- The brain is possibly the centre for consciousness, and yes sometimes there is no point to a centre, but, if there was one it would significantly bolster the mind from brain hypothesis; that is the point. And that is why neuroscientists are still  trying to find it.

2- Brain knowledge comes from neuroscientists who are saying that there is no understanding of how the brain produces mind. I am not stating this, they are.

3- No google this time; Why are we still trying to place humankind at the centre of the universe? Why would mind suddenly burst out in the clear as we humans arrive at the scene? If mind is an emergent property, why would it not emerge in other living entities before doing so in humans? Why not the notion of mind evolving from simple organisms to more complex ones as for most other living things in nature? Are there any logical premises opposing the notion that mind could be everywhere in nature? Can all of the complexity found in nature be explained by singular autonomic-instinctual functions alone? Would Occam's razor not apply here? It is like the notion of the beginning of the universe from nothing, give me a miracle and I will explain all the rest of it. Mind emerging for the sole purview of mankind is a bit of a miracle.

Stopped reading beyond that point 😊

[dimreepr]

54 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Why are we still trying to place humankind at the centre of the universe?

Who is this we, of which you speak?

[TheVat]

These might be useful in approaching the study of mind.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-scientists-10-commandments/

 

Sure, it’s important to have ideas, formulate hypotheses, and then devise methods to test those hypotheses, gather results, and draw conclusions that either support and validate or contradict and refute those hypotheses: the rough outline of how science is performed. But there’s so much more that goes into being a scientist that gets to the very core of what it means to investigate the origin, nature, and root cause of any phenomena that we dare to observe, design experiments around, and measure. Here, without further ado, are the 10 commandments that anyone who wishes to conduct good, quality science needs to follow...

 

1.) Thou shalt not assume thy preferred conclusion is correct.

2.) Thou shalt always consider the full suite of relevant data when drawing conclusions.

3.) Thou shalt remember the limits of thy theory’s range of validity, and only extend it cautiously.

4.) Thou shalt make public thy data, methods, and results, for all to consider and scrutinize.

5.) Thou shalt remain tenaciously skeptical of any hypothesis that thou encounters.

6.) Thou shalt quantify, respect, and not minimize thine sources of error and thy potential biases.

7.) Thou shalt not accept a new theory as representative of reality until it clears all three of the necessary, critical hurdles.

8.) Thou shalt obtain approval and consent from all relevant bodies before conducting research that may impact others.

9.) Thou shalt not exaggerate the significance of thine results in thine studies.

10.) Thou shalt hold even the best of scientific theories, models, and frameworks as provisional only, and constantly seek to test, revise, and refine them.