Mind Emerging Out of Matter via "Complexity"

[ronnie_bonigli]

bonigli

I find that when I come across an arrogant person, one who does not know that he is not half as smart as he thinks he is, it is best to just point him in the right direction rather then continue to engage his overblown hubris

With Touchstone you will find this not only the best strategy, but the only strategy.

thanks for the heads up, my alarm bells were going off

 

[Micawber]

If I may play devil’s advocate for a moment…

All physical computing machines are the products of human intelligence. They are limited by the fact that their existence depends on the will and intelligence of the human mind.

Right now they are - do you think it may be possible that someday they will be learning on their own? Improving themselves? Interacting with the environment in complex ways? Providing their own resources for continuence? Et cetera?

Man is not limited by depending on them for his existence.
.

True enough for now.

 

[Touchstone]

more from Bertrand Russell

he had a great demonstration of how inconsistent logic can be used to prove anything, Russell’s example was, “If 1=0, Bertrand Russell is the Pope.” See, Bertrand Russell is one person, and so is the Pope: 1+1. But 1=0, so it’s 1+0, and 1+0=1, therefore there’s only one person present, and it follows that Bertrand Russell and the Pope are the same person. The fact that’s utter nonsense is, well, because it’s inconsistent logic; one is not equal to zero. But the moment you grant that it is, you can prove anything by it."

But we’re not talking about inconsistent logic when we refer to formally incomplete systems, non-computability, or inconsistent formal systems. If you employ a logic that admits of any possible conclusion, than yes, you can produce any desired conclusion. But look at Russell’s Paradox; it wasn’t inconsistent logic that produced the Paradox. That’s would not even be noteworthy. It was the very consistency of the logic being applied in fleshing out set theory that made Russell’s Paradox a paradox at all. Surely you understand that the “Russell” your are referring to here is the same Bertrand Russell in “Russell’s Paradox”?

Do you suppose Russell concluded from that that set theory could prove anything, any arbitrary assertion? That’s was not what Russell, or anyone else identified as the problem, or a feature of the realization. If it were as you suppose, Gödel’s insight that all formal systems are necessarily incomplete would have been an epistemic apocalypse; there can be no distinction between true/false or consistent/inconsistent if your understanding is right, because ALL NON-TRIVIAL FORMAL SYSTEMS ARE INCOMPLETE. This is Gödel’s gift to the world.

Russell’s retort to his questioner who doubted the damage that (2+2=5 or) 4=5 could do to all sorts of propositions was not itself formal, but pedagogical. Neither Russell nor the pope is member of the alphabet being used, and his point was powerful, but only illustrative. If start with peano arithmetic, and add an inference rule like “4=5”, the resulting arithmetic becomes useless because “4=5” is general enough to be used to produce any and all other (previously unprovable) conclusions (e.g. 13=12, 4/2=6, etc.). A system that can prove anything and everything proves nothing.

This did not relieve Russell, the same guy you are quoting, of the difficulty of Russell’s Paradox. It wasn’t dismissed by simply chalking it up to inconsistent logic. It remained a problem because of the consistent logic applied, and was only addressed by restructuring the axioms (see ZF and axiomatic set theory that grew out of that problem) such that the same logic applied consistently would not produce those paradoxes (but may and does produce other difficulties – what we know and use as the foundations of mathematics is inconsistent on this same basis… and yet the Pythagorean Theorem we still embrace).

Again, if you can produce 1=0 from set theory and Russell’s Paradox and the inconsistency of the system that demonstrates, that would be pretty solid in showing I’m off base.

-TS

 

[Spock]

Right now they are - do you think it may be possible that someday they will be learning on their own? Improving themselves? Interacting with the environment in complex ways? Providing their own resources for continuence? Et cetera?

That is exactly the question. There is no need to assume that they cannot do all that. The point is that the working of the mind is what matters, not the hardware (or wetware) it runs on. Let’s do a thought experiment: let’s assume that all the neural connections and the current state of each neuron is copied over into a silicon-based hardware. (It is technical task, very complex and daunting for sure, but not theoretically impossible.) The resulting being will work exactly as the original.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

But we’re not talking about inconsistent logic …

-TS

Let’s see, touchstone took issue with my statement that inconsistent formal systems can prove anything true and touchstone was then quoted responding to me; “I don’t doubt that a system that “proves” Bertrand to be the Pope is an example of inconsistency. But it doesn’t follow that any inconsistent system can produce that, which seems to be an idea you are holding”

I provided him a link to a wiki article on Godel’s second incompleteness theorem stating "“The corollary also indicates the epistemological relevance of the second incompleteness theorem. It would actually provide no interesting information if a theory T proved its consistency. This is because inconsistent theories prove everything, including their consistency.” and rather than admit he was wrong, he just ignores it and rambles on, moving the goal posts, hoping no one will notice.

 

[Touchstone]

Not sure I understand the interchange about Godel.

Someone above pointed out the problem with the word “arranged” - that this presupposes an “arranger” of matter. I agree; however, it’s opening a proverbial can of worms, as everyone (and of all persuasions) knows.

I should have been clearer about his argument: with billions of years of matter interacting, eventually the happy coincidence eventuated whereby matter was of sufficiently complex; and “complex” in a certain way that made the emergence of consciousness/reason/awareness, etc. possible. So the theory goes anyway. I have lots of problems with this - howevever, I’d rather stay away from arguing this point with my friend. Maybe that’s impossible to avoid however.

Here’s one of the sticking points: if I am to say, “well, reason etc. cannot be the mere function of blind material forces because that would negate any possibility of genuine thought, free will, or capacity to belief that anything is true; including the very theory about the emergence of mind that you’re proposing.”

The problem with that^, however, is that I think he’ll say: reason etc. may be a product of blind forces, but it is not longer subject to them; it has transcended those forces. And is independent of them now.

Don’t know about your friend’s response, but my response would be that the material mind is still bound, as ever, by physics, but it is no longer “blind” like the forces that created it. It is a complex system that has evolved to ‘see’ in an intentional sense. That is, it can match goals or impulses with various potential outcomes (If I fashion this stone blade this way rather than the usual way, I think it will be stronger, sharper…) much more efficiently than “blind” lower level processes. The evolution of cognition greatly enhances the ability to traverse search landscapes, which means we can “see” improvements and available optima in a way the “blind squirrel” of evolution could not, having to just find a nut as it could in its wandering over that same landscape.

But the gist of the objection you anticipate is correct: material mind coming from non-cognitive origins does not negate the capacity for genuine thought, or the capacity for belief in the truth or falsehood of a given proposition. Freewill as it is understood in the superstitious/religious sense is problematic, but I suggest it is problematic because of its provenance and definition rather than because of any problem with materialism. Freewill is inchoate on its own terms, under most religious renditions, prior to being considered in the context of materialism.

That said, though, under a (materialist) compatibilist view of free will, none of the things you suspect are negated by a materialist origin for man warrant negation a priori.

How would you deal with that^ Does it make sense at all?

Thanks for all the advice!

~cawbs

 

[Touchstone]

Let’s see, touchstone took issue with my statement that inconsistent formal systems can prove anything true and was quoted saying " I don’t doubt that a system that “proves” Bertrand to be the Pope is an example of inconsistency. But it doesn’t follow that any inconsistent system can produce that, which seems to be an idea you are holding"

I provided him a link to a wiki article on Godel’s second incompleteness theorem stating "“The corollary also indicates the epistemological relevance of the second incompleteness theorem. It would actually provide no interesting information if a theory T proved its consistency. This is because inconsistent theories prove everything, including their consistency.” and rather than admit he was wrong, he just ignores it and rambles on, moving the goal posts, hoping no one will notice.

Ahem. You are not understanding what you are reading from the Wiki article. If you abandon logical inconsistency, well, all bets are off. 4=5 nukes the whole of peano arithmetic, when it is introduced as an inference rule. But logical inconsistency is not the same as “incompleteness” or an “inconsistent system”. Gödel shows how we know all non-trivial formal systems are incomplete, and the structure of a formal system enables for inconsistency that stems from the AXIOMS of the systems as opposed to the logic provided for the system.

In Douglas Hofstadter’s “MIU-system”, a small formal system he uses to look at this issue at length in Gödel, Escher, Bach, he asks, after laying out the structure of MIU-system (the axioms and the logic): Is “MU” a theorem of MIU-System?

The answer, based on the system Hofstadter defines is “no”. But it’s not dependent on the logic itself. It is “no” crucially because of the AXIOMS Hofstadter provides, or I should say AXIOM he provides, because there is just one given:

MI

Given that as the sole axiom, “MU” cannot be a theorem of MIU-System. But with the very same logic, left intact, as is, and the addition of another axiom, say:

MIII

You can trivially derive “MU” as a theorem of MIU-System. It’s easy to Google, but if you want the rules of MIU-System, here they are:

1. If *X is a theorem, then *XU is a theorem.
2. If M* is a theorem, then M** is a theorem.
3. In any theorem, III can be replaced by U
4. In any theorem, UU can be removed.

So, by those rules, with just the single axiom “MI” to start with, we will never, possibly get “MU” as a theorem (or any theorem where the number of I’s is a multiple of 3). But by adding “MIII” as an additional axiom, leaving the LOGIC COMPLETELY INTACT, we can derive “MU” in one step, just by invoking Rule 3.

This is an example of where the confusion between the inconsistency of a system and the “inconsistent logic” becomes a huge problem, as you’re demonstrating here. There is no contradiction in saying that inconsistent logic can produce explosive absurdity (all and any potential theorems being proved, even mutually exclusive ones), while some inconsistent SYSTEMS do not, and cannot.

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Micawber

I said:

physical computing machines are the products of human intelligence. They are limited by the fact that their existence depends on the will and intelligence of the human mind.

You answered:

*Right now they are - do you think it may be possible that someday they will be learning on their own? Improving themselves? Interacting with the environment in complex ways? Providing their own resources for continuence? Et cetera? *

They will learn on their own only if we program them to do so, which means we are still in charge. They will improve themselves only if we program them to do so. They will provide resources for continuance if we program them to do so.

At any stage along the way we are always in control. Even if we program them to pull our plug and take over, from that point on they will act in vain because they have no soul.

 

[Touchstone]

Micawber

I said:

physical computing machines are the products of human intelligence. They are limited by the fact that their existence depends on the will and intelligence of the human mind.

You answered:

*Right now they are - do you think it may be possible that someday they will be learning on their own? Improving themselves? Interacting with the environment in complex ways? Providing their own resources for continuence? Et cetera? *

They will learn on their own only if we program them to do so, which means we are still in charge. They will improve themselves only if we program them to do so. They will provide resources for continuance if we program them to do so.

At any stage along the way we are always in control. Even if we program them to pull our plug and take over, from that point on they will act in vain because they have no soul.

Isn’t that just missing an obvious level? If humans are the emergent product of blind, impersonal processes, then that impersonal natural was always and ever in charge. Humans will pass into ancient and even machines, should humans attempt some trans-biological leap, can no more escape the ultimate control of physics than a biological human can when entropy and heat death finally have their heyday.

I’m always surprised when theists point out that machines are intelligently designed as some kind of buttress against impersonal evolution giving rise to humans. If materialist science is right, then impersonal forces “designed” humans, and by extension, any robots or machines humans might develop. Impersonal physics owns it all, on that view. To omit is to beg the question, no?

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

If humans are the emergent product of blind, impersonal processes…

Because of this little “if” this argument will go round and round.

I think we ought to look more carefully at the question: do we have any reason to think the processes in the universe are “blind”? What do we mean by this term, and, is such a hypothesis even testable?

Welcome back, by the way.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Science has never explained the increase in complexity.
2. Complexity alone does not explain organization.
3. Complexity alone does not explain purposeful activity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone
*
If materialist science is right, then impersonal forces “designed” humans, and by extension, any robots or machines humans might develop. Impersonal physics owns it all, on that view. To omit is to beg the question, no?*

Your if is begging the question! You cannot prove there is no design behind the universe that provided a place even for the rise and evolution of matter. In that case, the Designer owns it all.

 

[Touchstone]

Because of this little “if” this argument will go round and round.

I think we ought to look more carefully at the question: do we have any reason to think the processes in the universe are “blind”? What do we mean by this term, and, is such a hypothesis even testable?

Welcome back, by the way.

Hi Ex,

The hypothesis is certainly testable, and falsifiable. If we can identify a Designer as the creative agent, something that has personal attributes and can be meaningfully said to “see” what it is doing (telic), then the “blind watchmaker hypothesis” is discredited.

Which is how all scientific knowledge is validated – it passes tests that can falsify the hypothesis/theory.

Going the other way, I think you can test it the same way I said above – present this Designer and link it/him/her to the creative process. But falsification is, as so often in theism, problematic. How would one show that no Designer is behind all this? Our friend Tonyrey here is a stark example of how impossible that would be; no amount of explanation could discredit the idea of a Designer. No matter how much we know, for him and many others, there simply must be something/someone behind it, by intuition. You can’t prove a universal negative, as you know, so this is trouble for the Design claim. It’s not falsifiable.

As for reasons to think the processes are blind: we conspicuously have, among and through all the accumulated scientific knowledge now available to us, NOTHING that “sees”, nothing that is sentient, capable, and present, back when things got going, or “got designed”, if that’s how it happened.

So, per above, the “blind hypothesis”, ever liable to falsification, and discredit (just show the Designer!), has run the table for centuries now, and is running the lopsided score of history-of-modern-science to Zero for the Design hypothesis.

If the blind hypothesis were true, this is exactly what we’d expect to see. No Designer(s) anywhere in sight, from all evidence available about the era in question.

If you disagree, I’d be interested to know what the world would like for us such that it would be consonant with the Blind Hypothesis, in your view.

Touchstone
If materialist science is right, then impersonal forces “designed” humans, and by extension, any robots or machines humans might develop. Impersonal physics owns it all, on that view. To omit is to beg the question, no?

Your if is begging the question! You cannot prove there is no design behind the universe that provided a place even for the rise and evolution of matter. In that case, the Designer owns it all.

I’ve not begged the question – I’ve left the question open. Neither have I claimed that I can prove there is no design behind the universe, or even that such a claim is possibly supportable even in principle.

I see no evidence for a designer. But I can’t prove a universal negative. There might be such a being, and it just is extraordinarily good at hiding all markers of its existence, or creative influence. That’s not begging the question at all. That’s remaining open to the central question. It’s not settled. There’s nothing to convince me, but it still could be true.

-TS

 

[inocente]

ronnie, CII, tonyrey, etc - a question, without being able to guess at all how you’ll respond.

This is a thought experiment. You replace each neuron, one at a time, in my head with a silicon version that precisely simulates the original, including a timer delay to slow it down. You also replace the connections between neurons with thin strands of silver wire. You do this really carefully .

Presumably one replacement out of billions of neurons will go unnoticed. But as you make more and more replacements, does my mind necessarily stop working at some point, or else do I lose the subjective experience of consciousness or something else?

If no, everything is the same, you go on to fabricate a few big chips that integrate my entire neural network so you can get rid of all those individual components. My head is now mainly fresh air (no change there then) and I set off airport alarms, but does my mind stop working/lose subjective experience now?

What if anything is lost, when and why?

PS: ronnie, once all the carbon is replaced, is my mind now a Turing machine, and if not why?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

ronnie, CII, tonyrey, etc - a question, without being able to guess at all how you’ll respond.

This is a thought experiment. You replace each neuron, one at a time, in my head with a silicon version that precisely simulates the original, including a timer delay to slow it down. You also replace the connections between neurons with thin strands of silver wire. You do this really carefully .

Presumably one replacement out of billions of neurons will go unnoticed. But as you make more and more replacements, does my mind necessarily stop working at some point, or else do I lose the subjective experience of consciousness or something else?

If no, everything is the same, you go on to fabricate a few big chips that integrate my entire neural network so you can get rid of all those individual components. My head is now mainly fresh air (no change there then) and I set off airport alarms, but does my mind stop working/lose subjective experience now?

What if anything is lost, when and why?

PS: ronnie, once all the carbon is replaced, is my mind now a Turing machine, and if not why?

inocente I haven’t stated that the subjective experience of consciousness is unique to humans, I’m pretty sure dogs and other animals have it too, (though guys like David Chalmers will probably tell you that will that a computer will never have it). My position if that true intelligence and understanding, the ability for abstract thinking, is unique to human beings. The Problem of Universals as presented over the millenias by men from Plato to Mortimer Alter, as well as Godellian problem (sorry Touchstone, while it is an accepted fact of Godel’s second incompleteness theorem that a inconsistent formal system will prove anything true, Douglas Hofstadter’s fix to this problem is just an unproven proposal of his), leave me doubting whether a solely material system will ever be capable of abstract thinking and true understanding. btw, I’m pretty sure a brain would not function the same with silicon neurons and silver axons and synapses, so the thought experiment isn’t even realistic.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

I see no evidence for a designer. But I can’t prove a universal negative. There might be such a being, and it just is extraordinarily good at hiding all markers of its existence, or creative influence. That’s not begging the question at all. That’s remaining open to the central question. It’s not settled. There’s nothing to convince me, but it still could be true.

Or you could just be extraordinarily good at denying the markers of its existence.

 

[inocente]

inocente I haven’t stated that the subjective experience of consciousness is unique to humans, I’m pretty sure dogs and other animals have it too, (though guys like David Chalmers will probably tell you that will that a computer will never have it). My position if that true intelligence and understanding, the ability for abstract thinking, is unique to human beings.

No problem (as of 2011 ).

btw, I’m pretty sure a brain would not function the same with silicon neurons and silver axons and synapses, so the thought experiment isn’t even realistic.

Well it’s not realistic to hope any surgeon could achieve such accuracy, granted, but assuming we’re real careful to mimic the exact same timings and signaling why couldn’t it function?

 

[Spock]

Well it’s not realistic to hope any surgeon could achieve such accuracy, granted, but assuming we’re real careful to mimic the exact same timings and signaling why couldn’t it function?

A human surgeon might be too clumsy, but a robotic surgeon is not. By the way, did you see the careful avoidance of your final and most pertinent question about the Turing machine?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

No problem (as of 2011 ).

Well it’s not realistic to hope any surgeon could achieve such accuracy, granted, but assuming we’re real careful to mimic the exact same timings and signaling why couldn’t it function?

inocente mind if I ask you a question? You often take what appears to be strong materialist positions here on the forum that are nearly indistinguishable from the materialist atheists here. And you have Baptist in your profile as religion, do you still believe in the basics of Christianity, such as that man is a composite of body and soul, matter and spirit? Or are you a Materialist Christian, if there even is such a thing?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

A human surgeon might be too clumsy, but a robotic surgeon is not. By the way, did you see the careful avoidance of your final and most pertinent question about the Turing machine?

avoidance? LOL, I think we’re seeing the psychological condition known as "projection’ here. From the guy who totally refused to acknowledge he stepped in it when I brought up his error in thinking in post #75 in the Catholics and William Lane Craig thread. I notice humility and atheisim tend not to go together