4 ms·

The author's dismissal of the "emergent property" argument on the grounds that it is a convenient explanation without proof is intellectually dishonest. We have

The author's dismissal of the "emergent property" argument on the grounds that it is a convenient explanation without proof is intellectually dishonest. We have no universally accepted, measurable definition of consciousness - how can this solution be dismissed for simplicity? I think about a hard drive with a fresh version of Ubuntu installed to it. If an alien civilization found the hard drive, perhaps they'd be able to measure all of the physical properties of it. But they'd have no idea that an operating system was an emergent property of the drive because they didn't have an understanding of, at minimum, the following: - Binary representation - Processor architecture (including the specific processor for which this was compiled) - Big-endian / little-endian representation - Disk formats - File systems (hell, the concept of files in general) It's entirely possible that we could observe and measure consciousness if we knew what to look for.

tomhoward 11y ago
An operating system isn't an emergent property of a hard drive. An operating system emerges out of the minds of the many programmers who work on it, out of the interactions these programmers have with each other and with their users, and out of the society in which they live. It then gets installed on a hard drive by a human, after which it can function by interacting with the computer's hardware. This is really the point the author is making. There is no reason to be certain that consciousness (the reflective, emotional, inner experience that is distinct from logical intelligence) emerges out of the hardware of human (and other animal) bodies and brains, as no empirical evidence for such a process has yet been found, after several decades and vast sums of money invested looking for it. Just as an operating system is a separate entity that needs to be installed onto the computer for it to be able to work, it (in the view of the author) is plausible that consciousness is something distinct from the physical matter of the body and brain. It's entirely possible that we could observe and measure consciousness if we knew what to look for. Well yes, exactly, and Kastrup's point is that the conventional fixation on matter (which to date has proven fruitless) is a distraction from other possible answers.
- rybosome 11y ago
  > An operating system isn't an emergent property of a hard drive. An operating system emerges out of the minds of the many programmers who work on it, out of the interactions these programmers have with each other and with their users, and out of the society in which they live. It then gets installed on a hard drive by a human, after which it can function by interacting with the computer's hardware. Perhaps I am using the term "emergent property" incorrectly, but your argument does not seem to contradict my point. That the operating system exists because many programmers intentionally developed it while interacting with one another and society at large, and that the OS only functions when the drive is connected to a functioning computer is immaterial. Intelligent consciousness was crafted by evolution rather than human hands, and it requires the hardware of a human body to function (as far as we know) rather than a computer, but the result is the same, is it not? That is, under the right conditions, a unique property appears that was not readily apparent from the existing components. Incidentally: I should have said, "...an emergent property of the particular arrangement of bits on a hard drive" to be more precise, but I think you knew what I meant. > Just as an operating system is a separate entity that needs to be installed onto the computer for it to be able to work, it (in the view of the author) is plausible that consciousness is something distinct from the physical matter of the body and brain. Ok, consider the example of just the core components of a computer; CPU and RAM, and the hardware for them to communicate. This can be thought of as a very complex circuit from which the emergent property of computation arises when interpreted correctly. Without an understanding of clock timing, the CPU's instruction set architecture, binary and many other concepts, the ability to measure the voltages of various components does not make the large operation or organization apparent. Ultimately my point was that the author was incorrect in stating, "We can deduce the characteristics of all known emergent properties by examining their constituent elements", and I wanted to give an example of a system for which we would likely not understand the emergent property had we not built it ourselves. Although I agree with the author's point that we cannot be certain of the origin of consciousness, I disagree strongly with his certainty that it is not an emergent property.

tomhoward 11y ago

An operating system isn't an emergent property of a hard drive. An operating system emerges out of the minds of the many programmers who work on it, out of the interactions these programmers have with each other and with their users, and out of the society in which they live. It then gets installed on a hard drive by a human, after which it can function by interacting with the computer's hardware. This is really the point the author is making. There is no reason to be certain that consciousness (the reflective, emotional, inner experience that is distinct from logical intelligence) emerges out of the hardware of human (and other animal) bodies and brains, as no empirical evidence for such a process has yet been found, after several decades and vast sums of money invested looking for it. Just as an operating system is a separate entity that needs to be installed onto the computer for it to be able to work, it (in the view of the author) is plausible that consciousness is something distinct from the physical matter of the body and brain. It's entirely possible that we could observe and measure consciousness if we knew what to look for. Well yes, exactly, and Kastrup's point is that the conventional fixation on matter (which to date has proven fruitless) is a distraction from other possible answers.

rybosome 11y ago
> An operating system isn't an emergent property of a hard drive. An operating system emerges out of the minds of the many programmers who work on it, out of the interactions these programmers have with each other and with their users, and out of the society in which they live. It then gets installed on a hard drive by a human, after which it can function by interacting with the computer's hardware. Perhaps I am using the term "emergent property" incorrectly, but your argument does not seem to contradict my point. That the operating system exists because many programmers intentionally developed it while interacting with one another and society at large, and that the OS only functions when the drive is connected to a functioning computer is immaterial. Intelligent consciousness was crafted by evolution rather than human hands, and it requires the hardware of a human body to function (as far as we know) rather than a computer, but the result is the same, is it not? That is, under the right conditions, a unique property appears that was not readily apparent from the existing components. Incidentally: I should have said, "...an emergent property of the particular arrangement of bits on a hard drive" to be more precise, but I think you knew what I meant. > Just as an operating system is a separate entity that needs to be installed onto the computer for it to be able to work, it (in the view of the author) is plausible that consciousness is something distinct from the physical matter of the body and brain. Ok, consider the example of just the core components of a computer; CPU and RAM, and the hardware for them to communicate. This can be thought of as a very complex circuit from which the emergent property of computation arises when interpreted correctly. Without an understanding of clock timing, the CPU's instruction set architecture, binary and many other concepts, the ability to measure the voltages of various components does not make the large operation or organization apparent. Ultimately my point was that the author was incorrect in stating, "We can deduce the characteristics of all known emergent properties by examining their constituent elements", and I wanted to give an example of a system for which we would likely not understand the emergent property had we not built it ourselves. Although I agree with the author's point that we cannot be certain of the origin of consciousness, I disagree strongly with his certainty that it is not an emergent property.