13 ms·

Ok. Can anyone explain how Consciousness could be a state of Matter in Plain English? Because quantum mechanics voodoo?

negamax 13y ago
Because we are ultimately matter? Some electrical signals in your brain is current you. That's state of matter which is collectively called you.
- samtimalsina 13y ago
  Undeniably, there is brain involved. But, How does some electrical signals in my brain turn out as an experience I have? Huge gap...
  - robmclarty 13y ago
    Agreed. I have yet to see a non-speculative argument for how mind and matter are connected. It's always explained as "Well, you know, there's just all these electrical signals going on in the brain. And, like, when the brain is damaged, or we prod it with electricity, weird things happen to the person's consciousness" (I'm oversimplifying). I understand that the brain and the mind are essentially connected, but that doesn't explain what consciousness is, where it comes from, or how it got there in the first place.
    - VLM 13y ago
      It gets queasy because its brains talking about brains, but analogies not involving the thinker thinking about itself never seem to cause any queasiness when an aggregate property establishes itself. So where is the strength of an iron I-beam? You can't cut it up and squeeze "strength juice" out of it. There's no little piece you can look at that says, "hey, I'm Euler's column law!". No individual atom decided, hey, I'm an I-beam now. But if you pile up an enormous number of iron (and other) atoms in the shape of an I-beam it inevitably behaves like a beam (or column) and suddenly "knows" its supposed to have angular momentum and collapse at a certain compression force and such. There's no particular magic to it, it just naturally happens to enormous numbers of iron atoms in a small place. About the same with stellar formation. There's no "essence of star" and no individual hydrogen atom decided to create a star. Just pile up a certain ridiculous number of hydrogen atoms and good luck not having it turn into a star. And not enough atoms, well no way it'll ignite, at least not naturally. It can kinda smolder at most. There are other analogies with grains of sand and landslides, water crystals and avalanches, etc. Any time you pile up a certain number of neurons at a certain complexity you get consciousness. We've run a couple billion experiments for quite a few centuries and every time you do it, aside from physical brain damage, it works. Now stuff like Jaynes "Origin of the bicameral mind" is a little controversial, but, perhaps, a great big pile of neurons can boot up in a peculiar mode, sort of. The specific hack of where it came from is only our species was able to add substantial amounts of fish to the diet, and fish oils and proteins seem to allow serious spectacular brain development in a positive feedback cycle until you get consciousness, then you overfish your ocean till all the fish die, then ... we're about to find out what comes after that.
      - robmclarty 13y ago
        Oh yeah, I'm very interested in historical circumstances and matter combinations that have seemingly given rise to consciousness. But saying "[when] you pile up a certain number of neurons at a certain complexity you get consciousness" is begging the question. What is consciousness. What is it in the neurons that makes it? What is it about the universe we're in that allows for the phenomenon to emerge from it? This has always been how science has explained it to date: it just emerges from the complexity. But that doesn't explain anything >:|
        VLM 13y ago
        You may want to look into physics and how a bulk property like "moment of inertia" kinda comes into being. Its a property of solid matter that kind of appears out of nothing. Here's another fun topic to google. There's an island and a population of predator and their prey. Now graph those populations and you get some interesting oscillators. Where do those waveforms come from? Well, nowhere. Its a system thing there are no waveform particles or whatever. Edited to add, maybe another way to say it is its not the emergence or "where" or "source" that doesn't exist, but the property itself that doesn't exist. There is no consciousness. There are just certain patterns that are really common among big piles of neurons. Like the big pile of neurons occasionally saying stuff like "I think therefore I am". There is no consciousness to measure, or you could give it a number. I've got 100 consciousness score, how bout you? This is very much like intelligence. I know it when I see it, but you really kick over an anthill when you claim you can give out an "intelligence number" like an IQ. Coincidentally both seem to be self organizational, again all you need is a big pile of neurons and some time and not only does consciousness pop out, but so does intelligence.
  - VLM 13y ago
    A direct analogy is that no one would argue against the current thru a FET transistor is more or less a constant times the square of ( 1 minus the ratio of the gate voltage to device pinchoff voltage) (plus or minus typos, etc) There is of course a huge gap between that basic EE lab transistor experiment and what the HN webserver does when I click "reply". It is a simple solution to fill that gap with souls separate from the hardware and spirits of port 80 and woo woo like that than to actually figure it out.
- yongjik 13y ago
  Well, computers are ultimately matter, but nobody calls, say, a microkernel architecture a "state of matter". Granted my knowledge of physics is nil compared to that paper's writer, but as far as I know, a "state of matter" doesn't mean "Duh, it's made of matters." It has a (more or less) well-defined meaning. Liquid or plasma is a state of matter. "Having a pleasant smell", "moving on its own", or "with a rounded edge" isn't. So, you can't just say it's made of matter. You need to justify that "being conscious" is more like the former than the latter.
  - negamax 13y ago
    That's why I used the word collective. Computers are not conscious. But let's go a step further. What is being conscious? Sensory input, electrical signals working on memories and imagination pushing the unknown. I don't think there's any magic in being conscious. Having said that, I do accept my knowledge and understanding of this subject is limited. But I am not going to fall to 'if it can't be explained it must be divine' trap.
    - yongjik 13y ago
      I think you misunderstood. I'm not objecting to the idea that mind is ultimately made of matter. I'm objecting to labeling it as a "state of matter", which has an entirely different meaning. (It does NOT mean "here's a bunch of matter that interacts in an interesting way.") The paper's abstract even explicitly states: > We explore five basic principles that may distinguish conscious matter from other physical systems such as solids, liquids and gases: ... So it seems clear that the author argues "being conscious" is parallel to "being liquid", but this better have a really solid (no pun intended) justification.
      - robmclarty 13y ago
        I agree with you. And I don't think "being conscious" is like "being liquid". Liquidity is a description of physical attributes. Consciousness is an existential state of being (whatever that means). I think it would be nice if we could explain everything we observe in the universe in terms of physical laws and mathematical formulae. But I don't think we're there yet. And why not a possible divine explanation? Last I checked, we haven't completely ruled it out. It's not a trap. At the very least, materialists should be able to counter divine arguments, not just ignore them.
simonh 13y ago
Are you made of matter? Are you concious? If so then the matter you are made of is concious; it is matter that is in a state of conciousness.
- samtimalsina 13y ago
  So a cup of coffee on my desk is conscious? I mean, come on! It is the complex neural activity in the brain that brings about consciousness. We just don't understand why that neural activity translates into consciousness.
  - MarkPNeyer 13y ago
    gottfiend leibniz developed a theory called 'monadology' which suggested that consciousness is the fundamental basis of everything, including matter. if consciousness is being "aware" of yourself, then at a very, very, very low level, the coffee cup is "aware" of itself because it is a perfect analog computer simulating "a cup of coffee on a desk" - which is what it is.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      gottfiend leibniz... That's an interesting misspelling of "Gottfried". A universal genius, indeed.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  That's an odd statement. Is there precedent for attributing emergent phenomenon to the pieces? Because that is what seems to be happening here. To my eyes, if a system is conscious, that does not mean the pieces that make the system are conscious. Consciousness is an emergent property of the system. Snowflakes are pretty. The water molecules in the snowflake do not inherent this; they are not themselves pretty as a result of being in the pretty snowflake. (Although you could consider them beautiful for other reasons. From a life-sciences and/or chemistry point of view, water is pretty beautiful) But then again, I'm an engineer with a passing interest in chemistry, not a quantum physicist, so of course I see everything as systems. To me nothing they talk about makes sense anyway.
VLM 13y ago
last desperate dying gasp of mind body dualism.
- wfn 13y ago
  First of all, that would be property dualism, not substance dualism; property dualism is less controversial (in the sense that Descartes went with full-blown substance dualism, and screwed things up.) And second of all, I don't think this is dualism. It's maybe some or other kind of functionalism[1], or something else, or whatever; but not dualism. And it's not Penrose-style "something something consciousness and quantum mechanics" voodoo. [1]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/
- VLM 13y ago
  Lost edit perms on this old post. I withdraw any implication he's writing about dualism. He has peculiar definitions of consciousness and "state of matter". Dualism is still toast. However I no longer think he's proposing dualism. It seems to be a multi-disciplinary collection of boundary conditions.
panzi 13y ago
Because "quantum". It's the new "god did it". See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmdJtSwH9O4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmdJtSwH9O4

Because we are ultimately matter? Some electrical signals in your brain is current you. That's state of matter which is collectively called you.

samtimalsina 13y ago
Undeniably, there is brain involved. But, How does some electrical signals in my brain turn out as an experience I have? Huge gap...
- robmclarty 13y ago
  Agreed. I have yet to see a non-speculative argument for how mind and matter are connected. It's always explained as "Well, you know, there's just all these electrical signals going on in the brain. And, like, when the brain is damaged, or we prod it with electricity, weird things happen to the person's consciousness" (I'm oversimplifying). I understand that the brain and the mind are essentially connected, but that doesn't explain what consciousness is, where it comes from, or how it got there in the first place.
  - VLM 13y ago
    It gets queasy because its brains talking about brains, but analogies not involving the thinker thinking about itself never seem to cause any queasiness when an aggregate property establishes itself. So where is the strength of an iron I-beam? You can't cut it up and squeeze "strength juice" out of it. There's no little piece you can look at that says, "hey, I'm Euler's column law!". No individual atom decided, hey, I'm an I-beam now. But if you pile up an enormous number of iron (and other) atoms in the shape of an I-beam it inevitably behaves like a beam (or column) and suddenly "knows" its supposed to have angular momentum and collapse at a certain compression force and such. There's no particular magic to it, it just naturally happens to enormous numbers of iron atoms in a small place. About the same with stellar formation. There's no "essence of star" and no individual hydrogen atom decided to create a star. Just pile up a certain ridiculous number of hydrogen atoms and good luck not having it turn into a star. And not enough atoms, well no way it'll ignite, at least not naturally. It can kinda smolder at most. There are other analogies with grains of sand and landslides, water crystals and avalanches, etc. Any time you pile up a certain number of neurons at a certain complexity you get consciousness. We've run a couple billion experiments for quite a few centuries and every time you do it, aside from physical brain damage, it works. Now stuff like Jaynes "Origin of the bicameral mind" is a little controversial, but, perhaps, a great big pile of neurons can boot up in a peculiar mode, sort of. The specific hack of where it came from is only our species was able to add substantial amounts of fish to the diet, and fish oils and proteins seem to allow serious spectacular brain development in a positive feedback cycle until you get consciousness, then you overfish your ocean till all the fish die, then ... we're about to find out what comes after that.
    - robmclarty 13y ago
      Oh yeah, I'm very interested in historical circumstances and matter combinations that have seemingly given rise to consciousness. But saying "[when] you pile up a certain number of neurons at a certain complexity you get consciousness" is begging the question. What is consciousness. What is it in the neurons that makes it? What is it about the universe we're in that allows for the phenomenon to emerge from it? This has always been how science has explained it to date: it just emerges from the complexity. But that doesn't explain anything >:|
      - VLM 13y ago
        You may want to look into physics and how a bulk property like "moment of inertia" kinda comes into being. Its a property of solid matter that kind of appears out of nothing. Here's another fun topic to google. There's an island and a population of predator and their prey. Now graph those populations and you get some interesting oscillators. Where do those waveforms come from? Well, nowhere. Its a system thing there are no waveform particles or whatever. Edited to add, maybe another way to say it is its not the emergence or "where" or "source" that doesn't exist, but the property itself that doesn't exist. There is no consciousness. There are just certain patterns that are really common among big piles of neurons. Like the big pile of neurons occasionally saying stuff like "I think therefore I am". There is no consciousness to measure, or you could give it a number. I've got 100 consciousness score, how bout you? This is very much like intelligence. I know it when I see it, but you really kick over an anthill when you claim you can give out an "intelligence number" like an IQ. Coincidentally both seem to be self organizational, again all you need is a big pile of neurons and some time and not only does consciousness pop out, but so does intelligence.
- VLM 13y ago
  A direct analogy is that no one would argue against the current thru a FET transistor is more or less a constant times the square of ( 1 minus the ratio of the gate voltage to device pinchoff voltage) (plus or minus typos, etc) There is of course a huge gap between that basic EE lab transistor experiment and what the HN webserver does when I click "reply". It is a simple solution to fill that gap with souls separate from the hardware and spirits of port 80 and woo woo like that than to actually figure it out.
yongjik 13y ago
Well, computers are ultimately matter, but nobody calls, say, a microkernel architecture a "state of matter". Granted my knowledge of physics is nil compared to that paper's writer, but as far as I know, a "state of matter" doesn't mean "Duh, it's made of matters." It has a (more or less) well-defined meaning. Liquid or plasma is a state of matter. "Having a pleasant smell", "moving on its own", or "with a rounded edge" isn't. So, you can't just say it's made of matter. You need to justify that "being conscious" is more like the former than the latter.
- negamax 13y ago
  That's why I used the word collective. Computers are not conscious. But let's go a step further. What is being conscious? Sensory input, electrical signals working on memories and imagination pushing the unknown. I don't think there's any magic in being conscious. Having said that, I do accept my knowledge and understanding of this subject is limited. But I am not going to fall to 'if it can't be explained it must be divine' trap.
  - yongjik 13y ago
    I think you misunderstood. I'm not objecting to the idea that mind is ultimately made of matter. I'm objecting to labeling it as a "state of matter", which has an entirely different meaning. (It does NOT mean "here's a bunch of matter that interacts in an interesting way.") The paper's abstract even explicitly states: > We explore five basic principles that may distinguish conscious matter from other physical systems such as solids, liquids and gases: ... So it seems clear that the author argues "being conscious" is parallel to "being liquid", but this better have a really solid (no pun intended) justification.
    - robmclarty 13y ago
      I agree with you. And I don't think "being conscious" is like "being liquid". Liquidity is a description of physical attributes. Consciousness is an existential state of being (whatever that means). I think it would be nice if we could explain everything we observe in the universe in terms of physical laws and mathematical formulae. But I don't think we're there yet. And why not a possible divine explanation? Last I checked, we haven't completely ruled it out. It's not a trap. At the very least, materialists should be able to counter divine arguments, not just ignore them.

simonh 13y ago

Are you made of matter? Are you concious? If so then the matter you are made of is concious; it is matter that is in a state of conciousness.

samtimalsina 13y ago
So a cup of coffee on my desk is conscious? I mean, come on! It is the complex neural activity in the brain that brings about consciousness. We just don't understand why that neural activity translates into consciousness.
- MarkPNeyer 13y ago
  gottfiend leibniz developed a theory called 'monadology' which suggested that consciousness is the fundamental basis of everything, including matter. if consciousness is being "aware" of yourself, then at a very, very, very low level, the coffee cup is "aware" of itself because it is a perfect analog computer simulating "a cup of coffee on a desk" - which is what it is.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    gottfiend leibniz... That's an interesting misspelling of "Gottfried". A universal genius, indeed.
sliverstorm 13y ago
That's an odd statement. Is there precedent for attributing emergent phenomenon to the pieces? Because that is what seems to be happening here. To my eyes, if a system is conscious, that does not mean the pieces that make the system are conscious. Consciousness is an emergent property of the system. Snowflakes are pretty. The water molecules in the snowflake do not inherent this; they are not themselves pretty as a result of being in the pretty snowflake. (Although you could consider them beautiful for other reasons. From a life-sciences and/or chemistry point of view, water is pretty beautiful) But then again, I'm an engineer with a passing interest in chemistry, not a quantum physicist, so of course I see everything as systems. To me nothing they talk about makes sense anyway.

VLM 13y ago

last desperate dying gasp of mind body dualism.

wfn 13y ago
First of all, that would be property dualism, not substance dualism; property dualism is less controversial (in the sense that Descartes went with full-blown substance dualism, and screwed things up.) And second of all, I don't think this is dualism. It's maybe some or other kind of functionalism[1], or something else, or whatever; but not dualism. And it's not Penrose-style "something something consciousness and quantum mechanics" voodoo. [1]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/
VLM 13y ago
Lost edit perms on this old post. I withdraw any implication he's writing about dualism. He has peculiar definitions of consciousness and "state of matter". Dualism is still toast. However I no longer think he's proposing dualism. It seems to be a multi-disciplinary collection of boundary conditions.

panzi 13y ago

Because "quantum". It's the new "god did it". See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmdJtSwH9O4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmdJtSwH9O4