"The universe is rather bigger and more complicated than any given set of brains." (pp. 656-657)
The universe is vastly bigger than any set of brains but is it also more complicated? My understanding is that brains are more complicated than anything else.
But how does cerebral complexity generate consciousness and intelligence? Neurons fire electrically and interact electrochemically but how do such processes generate consciousness? Organismic sensitivity to environmental alterations was naturally selected but how did unconscious sensitivity become conscious sensation? Pleasure and pain have survival value and both require consciousness. It follows that, if consciousness is possible, then it will be selected but how is the qualitative transformation from unconsciousness to consciousness possible?
Consciousness involves a distinction between objective and subjective. That my body is cold is objective whereas that I feel cold is subjective. We can observe and measure that someone else is cold but only he can feel that he is cold. But to say that he feels cold is just to say that he is directly conscious of his coldness. We can observe two causally related objective events, e.g., application of heat to water and the water boiling, but, when an effect is subjective, we can observe only its cause. So is the transition from objective to subjective, i.e., the emergence of consciousness, inherently incomprehensible just as a fourth dimension is inherently unvisualizable?
These are philosophical questions. To me they are implicit in any reference to the complexity of brains and especially to any apparent assumption that cerebral complexity is sufficient to explain consciousness or intelligence.
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I think you are missing an obvious point: it takes effort, work, for a single brain to understand any part of the universe. It takes years of study for an astronomer to become an expert in what is known in that science. And I don't think any astronomer claims to know the answers to all the mysteries to be found in astronomy. And I think will be true of all the sciences: chemistry, medicine, physics, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there are two questions here.
Does any scientist have the answers to all the mysteries in his science? Obviously not.
Are human brains the most complex parts of the universe? Possibly yes.
Paul.
Paul: or possibly, no. We don't know enough about the universe to say.
Sure. I should have said in the known universe.
Note also that 'subjective' sensations are physical events themselves -- electrochemical signals in your brain.
Well, that is the philosophical question. We attest that we have subjective experiences. A psychologist studies them. A neurologist informs us of electrochemical signals. A philosopher points out the qualitative differences between a description of a subjective experience and a description of electrochemical signals. The signals accompany/cause/coexist with/are necessary and sufficient conditions for a subjective experience but are not simply identical with the experience in the way that the morning and evening stars are identical with each other or the way in which "man" and "human male" are identical in meaning. We can without inconsistency imagine disembodied consciousnesses or electrochemical signals that do not cause experiences. A causal relationship is contingent, not logically necessary.
But the electrochemical signals can be demonstrated to -produce- the subjective experience. So they must be causally related, if not deterministically so.
Incidentally, originally "man" in English -didn't- mean "male human being". It meant human being in general, without distinctions of gender.
"Wer" meant "male human being".
Likewise "woman" comes from "wif" + "man" -- it was a redundant doubling, "female human being human being", effectively.
I agree electrochemical interactions between neurons cause experiences but this does not mean that the interactions ARE the experiences (which was how it was put). First, they are qualitatively different. Secondly, cause and effect are not identical and are only contingently related. There is something mysterious about how objectivity generates subjectivity.
Kaor, to Both!
While I agree much of what Anderson wrote can be almost indefinitely analysed, sometimes the obvious, surface meaning of a text was what he meant. I understood the bit quoted by Paul from "Lodestar" referring simply to how vast and complex the cosmos is. Any "x" number of brains is not likely to know everything about the universe.
Ad astra! Sean
A cause-effect relationship can be between two objects or between two properties of a single object. Thus, molecular motion causes fluidity, molecular cohesion causes solidity, organismic sensitivity and neuronic interactions cause sensation. Consciousness is a property of an organism, not an independent substance or entity, any more than fluidity or solidity are independent of molecules.
Paul: consciousness is a system of interacting information -- running on the neurons of an organism.
That doesn't mean it couldn't be 'run' on something else that -mimicked- the properties of those neurons.
Agreed.
Post a Comment