3 ms·

From the abstract it sounds like the author here is drawing a false equivalence between consciousness and intelligence. Reading more into the article, it really

From the abstract it sounds like the author here is drawing a false equivalence between consciousness and intelligence. Reading more into the article, it really sounds like this is the case. More specifically, it sounds like the only connection between intelligence and consciousness comes out of some pretty strained definition usage. Digging deeper, the issue I see with this essay is that to accept the end conclusion, you have to say "I'll allow it" to a lot of tenuous conjectures. I think it's totally fine to say that the USA may have some form of emergent intelligence, however to make it out to be an organism is strained. This essay would have been a lot stronger if the author had tried to argue that the USA has emergent intelligence.

zwkrt 6y ago
I think it’s even more complicated than you lay out. There are so many ways to exist on this earth and many of those ways approach consciousness or intelligence “but different”. We could say the brain is conscious but what about all the unconscious influences it apparently receives from gut flora? And gut flora are affected by what we eat and our culture. So where do we draw the line? Are you sad today because of brain chemistry, gut chemistry, a feud with a family member, cultural artifacts, the weather, or the machinations of the stars themselves? Slime molds have a kind of intelligence that lots of people know about, but did you know that the vast majority of the mold lifecycle is spent as microscopic spores that permeate most of the world’s atmosphere? They exist in Antarctica, in deserts, and in underground caves. There are likely mold spores in your blood, certainly in your lungs. Any time conditions are right the spores in an area will activate and begin forming “intelligent” creeping sheets. There’s evidence that the cells in a sheet transfer “learned behavior” through as-of-yet not understood mechanisms to other cells. So is the entire atmosphere one giant hydra of fungal intelligence, with heads popping in and out of existence as the need arises? The sheet could be assigned a kind of consciousness as it seems to be self-modifying—-there is certainly something “like being” slime mold, but is there something “like being” the entire earth-spanning mold computer, with spores emitted from old sheets carrying memories of previous conquests in past lives? I think any dichotomous distinction between conscious and non-conscious (or even living and non-living) systems on Earth falls apart upon closer inspection. The whole planet is a single interconnected system. So sure, the US is intelligent, what isn’t!?
- x86ARMsRace 6y ago
  You've made a lot of interesting points, but I disagree with you, let me try to explain why. I'm generally of the understanding that consciousness is marked by being with reflexivity. That can definitely be applied to non-biological, not classically living entities. That being said, I deeply disagree with your idea that "any dichotomous distinction between conscious and non-conscious [...] systems on Earth falls apart upon closer inspection". I don't think there's any compelling way to argue this in a way which is coherent, and does not involve breaking down the meanings of words to the point where they become meaningless. This is mostly why I disagree with the author. I find that on close inspection, their argument becomes nonsense in a lot of places. The way the definitions are strained render a lot of them meaningless, and as a result we can't reason with them anymore. That being said, a lot of these words are then used to infer other conclusions. Your argument, to me, really implies that intelligence necessitates reflexive being, or another interpretation: is synonymous with consciousness. "The sheet could be assigned a kind of consciousness as it seems to be self-modifying" is one example where I see this inference. Simply because something is self modifying does not mean that it is conscious, this to me comes off as a false equivalency. Further, saying that "there is certainly something “like being” slime mold" does not mean that that being also has reflexivity. I see the points you're making, and you've got a lot of interesting ideas for sure. That being said, I think you've fallen into a similar trap as the author in drawing a false equivalency in a few places.
- somehnrdr14726 6y ago
  My intuition is that consciousness, as an a priori concept, is not useful. Like the four humours in the medical world, it's a metaphor that captures just enough truth to be a blunt instrument. However it's a local maxima. And a honeypot in the neuroscience domain. So much effort is spent trying to pin down a definition of consciousness. Ask five people and you'll get five definitions. And yet everyone is so sure they know who has it and who doesn't. Slugs don't have it, dogs don't have it, maybe elephants do? Apparently they can talk to each other and mourn the dead. One possible motive behind humanity's fascination with consciousness, and our speed at assigning or withholding it, is that it gatekeeps the belief in an anthropocentric universe. The human experience is the one we understand, and if you don't have it you are not conscious. Consciousness then, is a Turing test for how passibly human you are. Slugs could get some of the consciousness table scraps if they'd only mourn their dead. As we learn more about other species; and coming from the other end too as computers (big data really) reveal new sightlines on human determinism; consciousness as a metaphor is strained and loses adherence.

zwkrt 6y ago

I think it’s even more complicated than you lay out. There are so many ways to exist on this earth and many of those ways approach consciousness or intelligence “but different”. We could say the brain is conscious but what about all the unconscious influences it apparently receives from gut flora? And gut flora are affected by what we eat and our culture. So where do we draw the line? Are you sad today because of brain chemistry, gut chemistry, a feud with a family member, cultural artifacts, the weather, or the machinations of the stars themselves? Slime molds have a kind of intelligence that lots of people know about, but did you know that the vast majority of the mold lifecycle is spent as microscopic spores that permeate most of the world’s atmosphere? They exist in Antarctica, in deserts, and in underground caves. There are likely mold spores in your blood, certainly in your lungs. Any time conditions are right the spores in an area will activate and begin forming “intelligent” creeping sheets. There’s evidence that the cells in a sheet transfer “learned behavior” through as-of-yet not understood mechanisms to other cells. So is the entire atmosphere one giant hydra of fungal intelligence, with heads popping in and out of existence as the need arises? The sheet could be assigned a kind of consciousness as it seems to be self-modifying—-there is certainly something “like being” slime mold, but is there something “like being” the entire earth-spanning mold computer, with spores emitted from old sheets carrying memories of previous conquests in past lives? I think any dichotomous distinction between conscious and non-conscious (or even living and non-living) systems on Earth falls apart upon closer inspection. The whole planet is a single interconnected system. So sure, the US is intelligent, what isn’t!?

x86ARMsRace 6y ago
You've made a lot of interesting points, but I disagree with you, let me try to explain why. I'm generally of the understanding that consciousness is marked by being with reflexivity. That can definitely be applied to non-biological, not classically living entities. That being said, I deeply disagree with your idea that "any dichotomous distinction between conscious and non-conscious [...] systems on Earth falls apart upon closer inspection". I don't think there's any compelling way to argue this in a way which is coherent, and does not involve breaking down the meanings of words to the point where they become meaningless. This is mostly why I disagree with the author. I find that on close inspection, their argument becomes nonsense in a lot of places. The way the definitions are strained render a lot of them meaningless, and as a result we can't reason with them anymore. That being said, a lot of these words are then used to infer other conclusions. Your argument, to me, really implies that intelligence necessitates reflexive being, or another interpretation: is synonymous with consciousness. "The sheet could be assigned a kind of consciousness as it seems to be self-modifying" is one example where I see this inference. Simply because something is self modifying does not mean that it is conscious, this to me comes off as a false equivalency. Further, saying that "there is certainly something “like being” slime mold" does not mean that that being also has reflexivity. I see the points you're making, and you've got a lot of interesting ideas for sure. That being said, I think you've fallen into a similar trap as the author in drawing a false equivalency in a few places.
somehnrdr14726 6y ago
My intuition is that consciousness, as an a priori concept, is not useful. Like the four humours in the medical world, it's a metaphor that captures just enough truth to be a blunt instrument. However it's a local maxima. And a honeypot in the neuroscience domain. So much effort is spent trying to pin down a definition of consciousness. Ask five people and you'll get five definitions. And yet everyone is so sure they know who has it and who doesn't. Slugs don't have it, dogs don't have it, maybe elephants do? Apparently they can talk to each other and mourn the dead. One possible motive behind humanity's fascination with consciousness, and our speed at assigning or withholding it, is that it gatekeeps the belief in an anthropocentric universe. The human experience is the one we understand, and if you don't have it you are not conscious. Consciousness then, is a Turing test for how passibly human you are. Slugs could get some of the consciousness table scraps if they'd only mourn their dead. As we learn more about other species; and coming from the other end too as computers (big data really) reveal new sightlines on human determinism; consciousness as a metaphor is strained and loses adherence.