Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;90895 wrote:

no, I'm saying there is a line, but it's not a brick wall like rich is suggesting, more like a semipermeable lipid bilayer with channel proteins ...

This line is THE LINE. It is the whole mystery or miracle, however you want to call it. When I cross it, I cross the boundary between science and metaphysics. I don't mind crossing it because I understand the difference between predictive science and wild speculation. I do both because it is fun and I try to use one side to understand the other. But I know the line and when I am crossing it and I never in my wildest dreams or speculation ever suggest that I know how life began.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;90939 wrote:

This line is THE LINE.

so are you saying that the entire field of synthetic biology hasn't produced anything and isn't going anywhere

I think I've already told you that three of the most important building blocks of cellular life have already been synthesized: the membrane that keeps things some things in and others out; the ribosomes, protein synthesis machinery; and of course a genome from M. genitalium

they should be put together shortly

rich it's not hard to understand: if you look at individual cells they are automata made of things which are not intrinsically alive, but become parts of living things when they act in concert. we're just made of billions of them

richrf;90939 wrote:

I never in my wildest dreams or speculation ever suggest that I know how life began.

there is no falsification before emergence of a better theory

the theory that fits facts best at this time is abiogenesis

0 Replies

@ACB,

ACB;90820 wrote:

I don't know how you can say this, when the Wikipedia article clearly states: "The concept is not accepted by the scientific community".

I am glad to hear that science still distinguishes living stuff from non-living stuff.

Now, back to the question at hand. What is it that makes living stuff living, if it is not non-living stuff. That is what is Consciousness. It is the difference between Life and No-Life.

Now, it is OK if scientists say they don't know. In fact, it is more than OK, it is the only thing that science can say. And since science doesn't have a clue, then we can safely say that consciousness has nothing to do with biology, unless biology has crossed that magical line that separates it from metaphysics and religion.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;90945 wrote:

Now, back to the question at hand. What is it that makes living stuff living, if it is not non-living stuff.

here's a definition of life I find to be well thought out:

New Scientist Space Blog: Life defined - New Scientist[INDENT]Life is a thermodynamically open chemical system with a semi-permeable boundary. It contains an information-based complex system with emergent properties, part of which drives a metabolism based on a proton gradient. The said gradient generates the necessary potential difference across the semi-permeable boundary. The information is heritable and coded in such a way as to allow variation and thus evolution.[/INDENT]here is a prokaryote

the individual components of this system ... nucleoid, ribosomes, cell membrane, etc. are not living in themselves

what happens when they are introduced one at a time?

start with chemicals of any kind

"Life is a thermodynamically open chemical system ..."

that's too broad, add cell membrane, capsule and cell wall

"... with a semi-permeable boundary ..."

so far so good bring in the nucleoid

"... It contains an information-based complex system with emergent properties ..."

then add metabolism, there are a lot of ways this can happen

Diversity of Microbial Metabolism

"... part of which drives a metabolism based on a proton gradient. The said gradient generates the necessary potential difference across the semi-permeable boundary ..."

now return to the nucleoid

"... The information is heritable and coded in such a way as to allow variation and thus evolution"

and there's life out of non-life

richrf;90945 wrote:

That is what is Consciousness. It is the difference between Life and No-Life.

not all life is conscious

in fact most of it isn't

richrf;90945 wrote:

And since science doesn't have a clue, then we can safely say that consciousness has nothing to do with biology

argumentum ad ignorantiam

this is like saying "we don't know who the murderer is, therefore a ghost did it"

2 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;90948 wrote:

and there's life out of non-life

I think from here on after, I'll just treat your metaphysical musings for what they are.

Are you telling me that you know how to create life from non-life? You know who to put Life into No-Life?

odenskrigare;90948 wrote:

not all life is conscious in fact most of it isn't

Nice metaphysical musing. Thanks.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;90956 wrote:

I think from here on after, I'll just treat your metaphysical musings for what they are

are ribosomes alive in themselves rich? DNA? lipids? (is chicken grease intrinsically alive?)

I'm sure you know the answer is "no"

but they interact to make something that is patently alive, i.e., the billions and billions of microbes living all over the place, including on and inside you

richrf;90956 wrote:

Are you telling me that you know how to create life from non-life? You know who to put Life into No-Life?

me, personally? no I'm not a biochemist. but I am aware of synthetic/artificial life endeavors, notice that they're moving along quickly, and would want to involve myself in an interdisciplinary effort if the opportunity came up ... like in neuromimetics

Synthetic Life - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com[INDENT]The rate at which this technology is now improving puts silicon to shame. Dr. Church noted that between 1970 and 2005 gene sequencing had taken place on a Moore's Law pace, improving at about 1.5 times per year. Since then it has improved at the rate of an order of magnitude, or ten times annually

In the process the cost of sequencing the human genome has plunged from $3 billion to $5 thousand and continues to fall. Dr. Church identified 17 companies and one "open source" project all pursuing different technologies to further push down cost and speed up the pace of sequencing.

As a consequence, the structure of the emerging synthetic genetics industry is beginning to mirror that of the semiconductor and computer industries, which are based on modular components and design tools.[/INDENT]

richrf;90956 wrote:

Nice metaphysical musing

I'm sure you like telling yourself that, like you, I am only indulging in idle metaphysical speculation which cannot lead to any results

well keep telling yourself that

but bear in mind that emerging technology does not need to bear the Notarized Rich Seal of Approval to become a reality

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;90957 wrote:

but bear in mind that emerging technology does not need to bear the Notarized Rich Seal of Approval to become a reality

Just as long we don't lose sight of what is metaphysical musings a la Dawkins and what is science. Other than that, I enjoy hearing all kinds of creative thoughts.

So, to answer the thread's question, since biology is a science and consciousness is a metaphysical musing at this time, then consciousness is not biological. Now we can bring the discussion about consciousness back into metaphysics where it belongs.

When science is able to create life with consciousness we can of course revisit the question. Biology has been saved from metaphysical musings.

Rich

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

neurophilosophy

also what defines life isn't "metaphysical"

and no some thoughts clearly distress you

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;90968 wrote:

neurophilosophy

Nice new word for metaphysical musings. Is this something like Scientology or something?

odenskrigare;90968 wrote:

and no some thoughts clearly distress you

Not at all. Just doing detective work.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;90974 wrote:

Nice new word for metaphysical musings. Is this something like Scientology or something?

Neurophilosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[INDENT]... with empirical information from the neurosciences ...[/INDENT]"empirical" pretty much rules out any similarity to scientology

so willing to rip into what is actually borne out by facts, so unwilling to criticize your own pet woowoo

richrf;90974 wrote:

Not at all. Just doing detective work.

the idea that all living things are automata of varying degrees of complexity, that the brain is essentially a living computer, and the fact that technologies based on these ideas are starting to become successful ... all of things dismay you greatly

site:darpa.mil cognitive OR neuroscience OR neural OR brain - Google Search

one wonders what use DARPA would have for "all is in flux" and "everything evolves" and "nature likes to hide"

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;90979 wrote:

Neurophilosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it is neuroscience then just call it that. If not, then it is metaphysics.

Rich

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Human Systems: Neural Computation
[INDENT]This program unit fosters research to elucidate the organization, structural bases, and operational algorithms characterizing information-processing networks within neural systems. The goal is the development of biological neural networks that incorporate the organizational principles and operational rules of real nervous systems that provide demonstrable enhancements in the capability of information processing systems. Research supported includes neural microcircuitry, in particular from cortical networks, and sensorimotor systems composed of multiple networks. The interest in microcircuitry is aimed at elucidating the principles of neural structure-function relationships, and identifying those aspects of connectivity, neural biophysics, and network dynamics that enable [scalable] (sic), powerful and efficient neural computation. The current priority for this program is development of large-scale cortical models, possibly embedded within larger neural systems, with demonstrable computational ability. The goal is to develop large-scale neocortical models with capabilities extending beyond pattern recognition into the domain of cognitive skills.[/INDENT]do you have positive feelings towards the development of such artifices rich

"possibly embedded within larger neural systems"

what could this mean pray tell?

---------- Post added 09-17-2009 at 02:59 PM ----------

richrf;90981 wrote:

If it is neuroscience then just call it that

"philosophy of neuroscience"

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;90948 wrote:

here's a definition of life I find to be well thought out:

New Scientist Space Blog: Life defined - New Scientist[INDENT]Life is a thermodynamically open chemical system with a semi-permeable boundary. It contains an information-based complex system with emergent properties, part of which drives a metabolism based on a proton gradient. The said gradient generates the necessary potential difference across the semi-permeable boundary. The information is heritable and coded in such a way as to allow variation and thus evolution.[/INDENT]here is a prokaryote

the individual components of this system ... nucleoid, ribosomes, cell membrane, etc. are not living in themselves

what happens when they are introduced one at a time?

start with chemicals of any kind

"Life is a thermodynamically open chemical system ..."

that's too broad, add cell membrane, capsule and cell wall

"... with a semi-permeable boundary ..."

so far so good bring in the nucleoid

"... It contains an information-based complex system with emergent properties ..."

then add metabolism, there are a lot of ways this can happen

Diversity of Microbial Metabolism

"... part of which drives a metabolism based on a proton gradient. The said gradient generates the necessary potential difference across the semi-permeable boundary ..."

now return to the nucleoid

"... The information is heritable and coded in such a way as to allow variation and thus evolution"

and there's life out of non-life

not all life is conscious

in fact most of it isn't

argumentum ad ignorantiam

this is like saying "we don't know who the murderer is, therefore a ghost did it"

hey oden-
all of this research, what does it mean as far as practical application? will it eventually hope to lead to repairing genetic deformities in human beings? i mean if it were understood and controllable, could it cure someone who is born with sickle cell anemia for instance? (sorry for my ignorance if that isnt a genetic problem, then substitute any one you are aware of in its place)

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

yeah probably but that's kind of besides the point

but here's one that interested me recently:

http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/yield/yield.html

genetic engineering and environmental conditions can be used to increase algal oil yields. the brilliant part is that algae recycle carbon dioxide to do so, and therefore generate more sustainable carbon-based fuels

on the other hand, it won't end the blight of suburban sprawl, but it's not a bad idea

lately I have gotten very interested in the idea of "living technology" at both the microscopic and macroscopic scale. nature has solved a lot of problems over billions of years. why reinvent the wheel entirely when you can tweak it instead?

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Hey Oden I just tweeted your post.
Twitter
Tweet tweet. Smile

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;90959 wrote:

So, to answer the thread's question, since biology is a science and consciousness is a metaphysical musing at this time, then consciousness is not biological.

What is concerning you, I think, is the so-called "hard problem of consciousness". First of all, let me say that even if it is accepted that consciousness (in the sense you are using it) is not itself biological, there seems no doubt that it is very closely related to biology. As has often been pointed out in this and other threads, conscious states are very sensitive to biological changes. Before we embark on any metaphysical speculation, therefore, we must take on board the detailed biological facts. The metaphysics must be consistent with the science; there must be no contradictions.

That said, however, the subjective first-personal aspect of consciousness (let's call this aspect "Consciousness" with a capital C) is something that biology cannot really explain as yet. The following extract from the Wikipedia article on the "hard problem of consciousness" is interesting:

"Some philosophers, including [David] Chalmers....argue that consciousness is a fundamental constituent of the universe, a form of panpsychism sometimes referred to as Hylopathism. Thomas Nagel has posited that we can, in principle, never have an objective account of consciousness. New mysterianism, such as that of Colin McGinn, proposes that the human mind, in its current form, will not be able to explain consciousness."

So I think that metaphysical speculation is in order. But this must connect smoothly with the biology, because we are seeking a single overall explanation of "the way things are". If the speculation is too "wild", it is liable to be quickly falsified by new (or even current) scientific knowledge.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Rich,

We both know that they all know what the dynamics of our argument really are. These guys aren't morons and know exactly what the dilemma is. The fact that they are dodging around us just shows the truth of what we are saying about science's determination to be one step ahead of themselves.

Accepting their delusion is their choice and they will wallow in it with great satisfaction.

The questions remain unanswered however regardless of their glorious victory party.

What is the mystery that drives the sperm to the egg?

What is the mystery that makes a cell want to divide?

If my brain is exactly the same as Oden's than why does he respond with crude and vulgar display while others at least attempt to show some courtesy? What is it about our brains that cause us ot be so different if everything is merely brain function?

Mix whatever components you want in a petrie dish, but nothing you put in there is going to do anything without that mysterious force moving it first.

No egg will ever be fertilized without that driving nature of the sperm to find it and penetrate it. You can dissect as many sperm cells as you want to, but not one will seek out an egg and fertilize it because of anything that you have put into it.

Dr. Frankenstein here would like us all to believe that science is close to this ability, but we all know that you guys dont really believe that.

There is a theory out there that states that because everything is in a state of decay, therefore the universe should have burned itself out long ago. Some thermodynamic law I think, I am sure Oden will tell us.

Science and physics have a way of pondering these hard questions with great sensitivity. The real minds are interested in proving theories. They do not give up the race before the finish line to declare themselves winners.

0 Replies

@ACB,

ACB;91044 wrote:

So I think that metaphysical speculation is in order. But this must connect smoothly with the biology, because we are seeking a single overall explanation of "the way things are". If the speculation is too "wild", it is liable to be quickly falsified by new (or even current) scientific knowledge.

I agree. That at the end it Is what it IS, what ever it Is and biology is certainly part of what IS. So, I have my metaphysical view of life and consciousness which I am quite comfortable calling metaphysical, because I am quite aware that this is what it is. And I enjoy talking about it, presenting it, hearing different viewpoints etc. There is nothing wrong or unpalatable with metaphysics. It is part of a branch of human philosophical musings.

However, when scientists start mixing metaphysics into science, and try to inject it into classrooms, I begin to see the Creationist viewpoint. If metaphysics is being mixed into science then why not theirs also. For me, this is a fair objection, and only now, on this philosophy forum do I begin to fully understand why Creationists are crying foul.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-17-2009 at 07:01 PM ----------

Pathfinder;91063 wrote:

Science and physics have a way of pondering these hard questions with great sensitivity. The real minds are interested in proving theories. They do not give up the race before the finish line to declare themselves winners.

I agree. But I always keep in mind that people have to make a living by coming up with new ideas that might attract funding, so if someone can make some money proclaiming that they are this close to creating life or curing cancer, then why not? It's an alternative to designing new weaponry. Interestingly, theoretical quantum physics was getting very little funding up until recently when they discovered that it might have invaluable application in cryptography. We are all experimenting in life and trying to make a living while doing it.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

Pathfinder;91063 wrote:

What is the mystery that drives the sperm to the egg?

if you are confused about how this happens at the macro level, I recommend redtube

Pathfinder;91063 wrote:

If my brain is exactly the same as Oden's

it isn't

Pathfinder;91063 wrote:

What is it about our brains that cause us ot be so different if everything is merely brain function?

different synaptic configuration and probably some fairly substantial morphological differences as well

to begin with, I am not neurotypical, I assume you are, and learning may have also promoted morphological changes in neurons in both our cases

Pathfinder;91063 wrote:

Mix whatever components you want in a petrie dish, but nothing you put in there is going to do anything without that mysterious force moving it first

what mysterious force

you can't explain it, therefore you can explain it? huh?

Pathfinder;91063 wrote:

No egg will ever be fertilized without that driving nature of the sperm to find it and penetrate it

it's called a "flagellum," Latin for "whip"

Pathfinder;91063 wrote:

You can dissect as many sperm cells as you want to, but not one will seek out an egg and fertilize it because of anything that you have put into it.

of course not. it does that on its own. with a flagellum. otherwise we wouldn't be here

Pathfinder;91063 wrote:

Dr. Frankenstein here would like us all to believe that science is close to this ability, but we all know that you guys dont really believe that.

well I take stock in the future of synthetic biology, I can't speak for anyone else

Pathfinder;91063 wrote:

There is a theory out there that states that because everything is in a state of decay, therefore the universe should have burned itself out long ago.

lol no

Pathfinder;91063 wrote:

Some thermodynamic law I think, I am sure Oden will tell us.

thermodynamics doesn't have anything to do with "decay" or "disorder". it's all about how heat affects systems overall, hence the name

Pathfinder;91063 wrote:

They do not give up the race before the finish line to declare themselves winners.

no one's doing that

richrf;91073 wrote:

However, when scientists start mixing metaphysics into science, and try to inject it into classrooms

mutation and natural selection aren't metaphysical

richrf;91073 wrote:

Interestingly, theoretical quantum physics was getting very little funding up until recently

really? there were honking big particle accelerators before the present time

1 Reply

@odenskrigare,

odenskrigare;91098 wrote:

if you are confused about how this happens at the macro level, I recommend redtube

lmfao!

I applaud thee...

1 Reply

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know