Can ghosts be proven to exist or not?

[junglebeast]

No, a more convoluted, complicated evolutionary path. Envision non-artificial, natural, rock formations in the shape of humans, like Michelangelo sculptures: you'd have to have some pretty fancy, specific weather and erosion dynamics for that to occur. Zombie-like human mimics would have to be subjected to some incredibly weird environmental pressures to start writing books, inventing television, smoking pot, building pyramids, and forming organized religions.

Rock formations lack selective pressure and a means for reproduction and mutation. However, if we were to provide an artificial selective pressure (eg, a person living on Mars who goes around blasting every rock formation that doesn't look like Michelangelo), and introduce a means for reproduction and evolution (eg, a crazed artist with a sand blaster who randomly chooses 2 rock formations and then sculpts a third to resemble both of the originals), then given enough time, we would end up seeing sculptures that look like Michelangelo...even though the sculptor has no idea what Michelangelo looks like.

As for all the things we do...for entertainment, religion, etc...all of these behaviors can be explained as the result of behaviors that would have been promoted by natural selection among unconscious organisms in the same situation as the human race...I believe most of these explanations are standard fair anthropology. For example, early man probably evolved to walk on 2 feet to be able to see long distances over the plains. He then started to use his hands for things other than walking, such as using tools. This required him to evolve a larger and smarter brain so that he could use those tools in new ways for acquiring food. It then makes sense to form large packs where each person can collectively increase the well being of everyone else, by sharing tools, hunting together, etc. Reinforcement learning is already a basic instinct, so if one of the primitive humans was stealing food from everyone else, the other members of the pack would kick him out for their own mutual benefit. This provides a selective pressure for sharing. It's easy to see how these kinds of influences cause evolution to favor more advanced social interactions. As another example, consider the act of crying -- a primitive form of communication that indicates the need for help. A woman who needs help may cry, and there is a selective pressure for men to help a crying woman, because this will increase the man's favor with that woman, which will increase his chances of reproducing with her. Now consider religion. After the brain has evolved to the point where it is extremely good at recognizing patterns and making predictions, the primitive human would have a selective pressure for curiosity -- because curiosity leads to discoveries which can be beneficial to survival. Once the organism has evolved curiosity, he is likely to become curious as to the origin of the Earth and life itself...and the first most logical assumption he will come to is that, like everything else non-random (eg, man made) the only way for complex things to be created is for them to have a creator. This leads him to suppose there exists some form of "greater man" that made man to begin with (even though this is circular reasoning). There begins the concept of God. Why does man dream? A simple explanation is that it's an easy way to practice and get better at dealing with nerve racking situations in a safe environment before the individual is confronted with them in real life. Perhaps that's why we have so many "chase" dreams. Social interactions, although not life-threatening, can threaten an individual's ability to impress a potential mate -- and therefore they are equally important from an evolutionary standpoint, so we should have dreams involving social interactions, too.

I could go on...but the point is that none of these evolutionary pressures in any way necessitated self awareness. I would argue that there is not a single behavior characteristic of humans that cannot be explained as something that does not have a natural explanation through evolution of non-self aware organisms.

In any event, just because we do not know how the activity of neurons leads to consciousness, it is beyond dispute that their activity is necessary for it. That being the case there is no need to postulate external non-corporeal computing sources, or to propose that there is some entity, "consciousness," that can exist apart from the physical body.

Neurons are certainly necessary for maintaining an individual's consciousness, but one might argue that the conscious entity is a separate spiritual force, and then the physical neurons are simply creating a channel that allows communication with that "spiritual" force. I only use the word spiritual for lack of a better word. Discovery of this could someday be just as revolutionary as when we discovered the other spooky things such as electricity or electromagnetic waves or quantum entanglement.

The notion that a magnetic field can just exist by itself unconnected to any current flow is, I think, the basis for a lot of "ghost" explanations. I have often heard claims that the "energy" that arises from the "electrical activity of the brain and nerves" "can neither be created nor destroyed" (according to Einstein, no less) and this is the basis for their belief that physics supports the possibility of ghosts and life after death.

I think the concept that there is another form of energy associated with our brains, with its own conservation law, is a possibility.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Rock formations lack selective pressure and a means for reproduction and mutation. However, if we were to provide an artificial selective pressure (eg, a person living on Mars who goes around blasting every rock formation that doesn't look like Michelangelo)...

No, you miss the point of my saying "non-artificial". As with rocks, which are never in 10 billion years going to end up accidently carved into something resembling a human as specifically as a Michelangelo sculpture, zombie people are going to find no template in their genes for any behaviors so specific and peculiar as the ones we've seen arising from self-aware behavior, nothing from which to derive the instruction to ponder where they came from, etc. All the "natural" behaviors you list arise from self awareness + environment, not from mere existence in the environment alone. People who are not self-aware do not behave as if they were self aware. People having absence seizures stop what they're doing and stand unmoving staring at nothing. For two or three seconds, they simply stop being aware of anything, including themselves.

A machine constructed to mimic self-aware behavior requires a self-aware designer. Humans might make one, but it would never arise by itself in Nature.

One thing you're doing is saying "We evolved this (trait) in order to..." It absolutely does not happen like that. We can't will traits into being to serve a purpose. There is no drive behind evolution: things mutate randomly. Sometimes the mutations are better, sometimes not. If we're lucky, as a species, at any time the environment suddenly shifts on us there are enough people who have the traits to survive that shift who are "selected" by default, to keep humanity going.

Neurons are certainly necessary for maintaining an individual's consciousness, but one might argue that the conscious entity is a separate spiritual force...

One might argue this, but it's a violation of Occam's Razor. One might argue that all our behaviors are dictated by an invisible, unsensable weird, purple jellyfish we all have sitting on our heads. Another might argue elves inhabiting the sulci of the brain are the root cause of consciousness. One might argue that consciousness rains from the heavens in the form of hitherto undiscovered subatomic particles called "consciousons". I could spend the rest of my life inventing a list of the things one might argue.

I think the concept that there is another form of energy associated with our brains, with its own conservation law, is a possibility.

The concept is a possibility, it's possible to construct any outlandish concept, but let us first exhaust known quantities before proposing and speculating about things we haven't detected by any means whatever.

 

[atyy]

I could go on...but the point is that none of these evolutionary pressures in any way necessitated self awareness. I would argue that there is not a single behavior characteristic of humans that cannot be explained as something that does not have a natural explanation through evolution of non-self aware organisms.

How about efference copy? Isn't that a form of self awareness?

 

[zoobyshoe]

How about efference copy? Isn't that a form of self awareness?

What is "efference copy"?

 

[atyy]

The brain sends itself a copy of what it tells the muscles to do. This copy may be used to by the animal to model the muscles (ie. a part of the itself) to predict what will happen as a result of what the brain is telling the muscles to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efference_copy

 

[zoobyshoe]

The brain sends itself a copy of what it tells the muscles to do. This copy may be used to by the animal to model the muscles (ie. a part of the itself) to predict what will happen as a result of what the brain is telling the muscles to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efference_copy

Well, something like sending itself a copy must, of course be happening, but I find that to be a funny way of expressing it. I would have said the brain remembers what instructions it sends.

 

[junglebeast]

All the "natural" behaviors you list arise from self awareness + environment, not from mere existence in the environment alone.

Self awareness is completely unnecessary for the behaviors I listed to evolve..I'll respond more to that in detail lower down.

People who are not self-aware do not behave as if they were self aware. People having absence seizures stop what they're doing and stand unmoving staring at nothing. For two or three seconds, they simply stop being aware of anything, including themselves.

There are two possible explanations for that: (1) due to the way we have evolved, self-awareness is necessary for normal function (I think this is likely); (2) we simply do not know a means to shut off the self-awareness component without also shutting off components necessary for normal function. Either way, that does not prove that self-awareness is necessary to have a person walking around and acting self-aware. Clearly, it is possible to have a non-self aware organism that does more than simply stand unmoving. Even a mechanical robot is proof of that.

A machine constructed to mimic self-aware behavior requires a self-aware designer. Humans might make one, but it would never arise by itself in Nature.

That sounds like something a proponent of Intelligent Design would say. I never suggested that evolution would favor organisms that mimic self-awareness. I merely pointed out that, the behaviors we associate with self-awareness increase the likelihood of reproduction, and therefore would have been selected for through the natural process of evolution.

One thing you're doing is saying "We evolved this (trait) in order to..." It absolutely does not happen like that. We can't will traits into being to serve a purpose. There is no drive behind evolution: things mutate randomly. Sometimes the mutations are better, sometimes not.

That was merely a figure of speech I was using to shorten the explanation, because I assumed that you know how evolution works. I know how evolution works, and I assume you do too, so I won't waste either of our time by going into detail there. Suffice it to say that, if you know how evolution works, you should be able to accept the fact that through the random process of evolution, any trait that increases the likelihood of the organism reproducing will be selected for.

For each trait that I listed, I specifically pointed out a way in which that trait increases the likelihood of reproduction. Therefore, these traits could have just as easily evolved if the human race did not have self awareness.

The concept is a possibility, it's possible to construct any outlandish concept, but let us first exhaust known quantities before proposing and speculating about things we haven't detected by any means whatever.

Yes, of course...the simplest plausible explanation has the highest probability of being correct. But the fact that current understanding of physics does not predict an awareness state means that the model is incomplete, and there aren't any theories which have been proposed that I've ever heard of which could predict an awareness state (except for crackpot theories). If someone does present a simple and elegant generative model for awareness, I'd be all for it...

 

[Count Iblis]

I have posted all the answers on my blog:

http://countiblis.blogspot.com

 

[atyy]

Well, something like sending itself a copy must, of course be happening, but I find that to be a funny way of expressing it. I would have said the brain remembers what instructions it sends.

Well, the way I'm using "efference copy" is not just that it remembers, but also uses that as input to a model of itself. Self awareness means I have a model of "myself", so efference copy is a form of self-awareness.

 

[junglebeast]

Well, the way I'm using "efference copy" is not just that it remembers, but also uses that as input to a model of itself. Self awareness means I have a model of "myself", so efference copy is a form of self-awareness.

An entity that is self aware (A) implies that it has a model of itself (B) (eg, A implies B), but an entity that has a model of itself is not necessarily self aware (B does not imply A). Therefore it is illogical to conclude that the efference copy is a form of self awareness.

As a prime example of this, it's common for roboticists to program the robot to use a model of itself, which is useful because it can be used to predict it's own dynamics. This has been used in feedback learning so that the robot can adapt and re-learn how to walk if one of it's legs is removed, for example, by hopping around...but the robot is not self aware just because it has a model of itself.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Self awareness is completely unnecessary for the behaviors I listed to evolve..I'll respond more to that in detail lower down.

For each trait that I listed, I specifically pointed out a way in which that trait increases the likelihood of reproduction. Therefore, these traits could have just as easily evolved if the human race did not have self awareness.

Without self awareness there is no spontaneous thinking, questioning, exploration of alternative models. There's no crying: one must have an image of oneself, and the emotional reaction of self pity, to cry. There are no "sympathizers" either: no self image with an emotional reaction, no sympathetic response to others in distress. If a neural network can 'learn" it is because it was programmed to mimic the act of learning by self aware beings.

There are two possible explanations for that: (1) due to the way we have evolved, self-awareness is necessary for normal function (I think this is likely); (2) we simply do not know a means to shut off the self-awareness component without also shutting off components necessary for normal function. Either way, that does not prove that self-awareness is necessary to have a person walking around and acting self-aware. Clearly, it is possible to have a non-self aware organism that does more than simply stand unmoving. Even a mechanical robot is proof of that.

Famous case in Epilepsy Literature: Doctor X. During Complex-Partial seizures he was able to diagnose and accurately treat patients on occasion though he appeared, at these times, to be somewhat spaced out. After the fact he had complete amnesia for the events. His apparently deliberate behavior, despite the gross defect of consciousness, was possible due to his having so solidly established his medical knowledge in his procedural memory. Though he was not, himself, conscious of what he was doing, running on "auto-pilot" so to speak, the procedures were so familiar to him he could perform them, just about literally, in his sleep.

However, the learning of those procedures had to take place previously during self-aware periods of consciousness. Had Doctor X been in such a state all his life from birth he would have had to be institutionalized and would never have learned how to feed himself, dress, or walk.

That sounds like something a proponent of Intelligent Design would say.

Then you probably misread it.

I never suggested that evolution would favor organisms that mimic self-awareness. I merely pointed out that, the behaviors we associate with self-awareness increase the likelihood of reproduction, and therefore would have been selected for through the natural process of evolution.

But your original bewilderment seemed to be about the perceived (by you) non-necessity for self-awareness, which implies you think it hard to explain why we didn't evolve without it. Which implies you suppose Natural Selection would favor non-self-awareness.

That was merely a figure of speech I was using to shorten the explanation, because I assumed that you know how evolution works. I know how evolution works, and I assume you do too, so I won't waste either of our time by going into detail there. Suffice it to say that, if you know how evolution works, you should be able to accept the fact that through the random process of evolution, any trait that increases the likelihood of the organism reproducing will be selected for.

OK

Yes, of course...the simplest plausible explanation has the highest probability of being correct.

This is not the understanding of Occam's Razor I like, that the simplest explanation is probably the right one. Merriam-Webster's defines it with a broader range:

"a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities"

It's not that simplicity = higher probability, because some things end up being vastly more complex than ever was suspected. The point of Occam's Razor is that entities should not be unnecessarily multiplied.

But the fact that current understanding of physics does not predict an awareness state means that the model is incomplete, and there aren't any theories which have been proposed that I've ever heard of which could predict an awareness state (except for crackpot theories). If someone does present a simple and elegant generative model for awareness, I'd be all for it...

Given the acknowledgment that our current understanding is quite limited it is unnecessary to multiply the possibilities to include yet more even less comprehensible mechanisms for consciousness, such as external, non-corporeal computing power, or undetected energies with their own conservation laws.

If we simply proceed from the assumption that awareness arises from the activity of brain cells we can then start describing that activity, and the elements that comprise it, and start asking what is salient and what isn't. What's the importance of cations? Why positive charge? Why soft metals? Is that pertinent. Won't this work with electrons? Are neurons "aware" or is it the nearby glial cells that actually experience the "awareness"? As far as we know consciousness does not exist anywhere in nature except in a very specific configuration of organic matter, and that is what we have to study to learn what might be causing consciousness. There's no reason to expect that quanta, per se, would reveal anything about it.

In all, it has to be remembered that experimentation is highly limited in human subjects, restricted to non-invasive, non-destructive experiments. Huge amounts of information have been collected from people with pre-existing pathologies (Neurologist Wilder Penfield called Epilepsy "the great teacher") but we aren't allowed, and rightly so, to do any harm. We'll have to be patient with a much slower, more round about exploration.

 

[atyy]

An entity that is self aware (A) implies that it has a model of itself (B) (eg, A implies B), but an entity that has a model of itself is not necessarily self aware (B does not imply A). Therefore it is illogical to conclude that the efference copy is a form of self awareness.

As a prime example of this, it's common for roboticists to program the robot to use a model of itself, which is useful because it can be used to predict it's own dynamics. This has been used in feedback learning so that the robot can adapt and re-learn how to walk if one of it's legs is removed, for example, by hopping around...but the robot is not self aware just because it has a model of itself.

So what are the additional requirements?

 

[atyy]

Maybe that it has a model of a model of itself?

Infinite regression - needed or not?

 

[junglebeast]

Without self awareness there is no spontaneous thinking, questioning, exploration of alternative models. There's no crying: one must have an image of oneself, and the emotional reaction of self pity, to cry. There are no "sympathizers" either: no self image with an emotional reaction, no sympathetic response to others in distress.

Just because humans only do these things while we are conscious doesn't mean that these things couldn't have evolved without consciousness. It's very possible that the component of our brain which is responsible for consciousness is inextricably connected to the components which control logical thought, simply meaning that when we lose consciousness, the component that handles logical thought can no longer function. But that does not mean that consciousness is fundamentally necessary for logical thought. That would be like asserting that brake lights are necessary for starting a car just because whenever you cut a wire under the dashboard that turned off the brake lights, the car refused to start.

"Thinking" can be a few different things; it can be actively considering the aspects of a problem and how they can be rearranged in order to achieve a certain goal, it can be analyzing a sequence of events in order to determine causality and make future predictions, etc. But all of these components of thinking can be broken down into mathematical / statistical problems that could be solved by an unconscious machine.

If I am hungry and decide to go to the fridge to get some food, that decision doesn't require me to be aware of myself. All it required was for my stomach nerves to send an electrochemical signal to my brain saying that food is needed, then for my brain to enumerate known locations of food. The closest known location of food being the refrigerator. Then some motor controls are issued to cause me to walk over and get the food out of the fridge. I think you'll agree with me on this one, but perhaps only because people are known to get food while sleep walking.

However, this non-conscious analysis can be applied to any problem. For example, let's say that I am reading a research paper. Reading the text could be accomplished without consciousness -- as evidenced by the field of Computational Linguistics. This allows the words on the page to be translated into an abstract series of relationships that encode virtual world events. Knowing that the paper is describing a method for achieving a certain goal, the brain can then simulate the action of following the sequence of instructions described in the paper, and flag any potential problems that were encountered in the simulation. Perhaps one of those problems was previously encountered before and a solution had been saved. This solution can then be applied to the problem at hand, voila, original research can be done by an unthinking machine.

Plants are unthinking organism and they have evolved some complex mechanisms for "communication". This is not conscious communication, it's just a series of hormonal effects that evolution has devised that cause them to work together for mutually increased chances of reproduction --and that's all crying really is.

If each organism is programmed to secrete moisture from the eyes when their individual frustration becomes high, and each organism is likewise programmed to want to help another organism that emits the tears, then there is mutual benefit for the species because frustration is an internal indicator of personal goals not being met...and all personal goals are hierarchically related to the main goal of reproduction. Thus, if frustrations can be reduced through this behavior, then reproduction can be increased.

Why should the response be a secretion of liquid from around the eyes?
1) People look at the eyes, so it is a noticeable location
2) The eyes need moisture already, so it doesn't take much to put a tear duct there
3) The secretion can only be controlled involuntarily based on the individuals emotional levels. It's necessary that the indicator be controlled by involuntary means only because if it could be voluntarily made (eg, if it was a hand signal), then organisms would learn to just make the hand signal to get what they wanted, and this would abuse the system so that it was no longer beneficial to the whole.

If a neural network can 'learn" it is because it was programmed to mimic the act of learning by self aware beings.

Contradiction: the brain is a neural network which can learn, but it was not programmed by human beings.

However, the learning of those procedures had to take place previously during self-aware periods of consciousness. Had Doctor X been in such a state all his life from birth he would have had to be institutionalized and would never have learned how to feed himself, dress, or walk.

That's an interesting story, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make

But your original bewilderment seemed to be about the perceived (by you) non-necessity for self-awareness, which implies you think it hard to explain why we didn't evolve without it. Which implies you suppose Natural Selection would favor non-self-awareness.

I think that the fact that we did evolve self awareness, which I see as neither a benefit nor a burden, indicates that it was a side effect that came along with something that was beneficial. Specifically, I think that somehow the structure that was evolved to give us such good cognitive abilities incidentally also gave us self awareness.

Given the acknowledgment that our current understanding is quite limited it is unnecessary to multiply the possibilities to include yet more even less comprehensible mechanisms for consciousness, such as external, non-corporeal computing power, or undetected energies with their own conservation laws.

If we simply proceed from the assumption that awareness arises from the activity of brain cells we can then start describing that activity, and the elements that comprise it, and start asking what is salient and what isn't.

An atom is not aware of itself. A photon is not aware of itself. Why would a collection of atoms be aware of itself? The question is completely baffling because we can't even represent the question properly -- I mean, what is awareness? We can't even define it. If the question could be defined, then I might accept that our current theories were only wrong in a small way...but the fact that we can't even define it causes me to think that our model is just massively off-base.

So what are the additional requirements?

That's like asking, how do you mix the color white out of black paint? There's no way to define it, imo, given our current misunderstanding of the universe.

 

[atyy]

That's like asking, how do you mix the color white out of black paint? There's no way to define it, imo, given our current misunderstanding of the universe.

But if you don't know the additional requirements, then how do you know the definition I gave isn't sufficient? ie. maybe some robots and insects also have self-awareness?

 

[junglebeast]

Self awareness means I have a model of "myself", so efference copy is a form of self-awareness.

Because "having a model of itself" doesn't mean anything. A robot with 4 legs could have a CPU storing a virtual model of itself represented by some virtual representation of vertices, edges, and velocities. Or that model of itself could be represented more simply by a vector of 3 values representing the position of the robot. Or it could be a single boolean value indicating when the robot is turned on or not. It's meaningless.

Surely, adding a piece of code as simple as:

bool turned_on;

does not endow a robot with self awareness.

 

[Anticitizen]

Those are the words used because we don't have any others to offer.

How does a word carry any significance at all here? What matters are the claimed phenomena.

Because if they exist, they are part of the natural world.

'Nothing unreal exists.'

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Because if they exist, they are part of the natural world.

'Nothing unreal exists.'

That is precisesly the point that I was making. "Supernatural" and "paranormal" are merely words used to describe claimed phenomena that seemingly can't be explained.

 

[Count Iblis]

Just because humans only do these things while we are conscious doesn't mean that these things couldn't have evolved without consciousness.

It could also be that humans indeed evolved without consciousness and that you are the only being in the whole universe who is conscious. Perhaps some cosmic ray particle hit your brain while you were a baby and caused a very exotic reaction leading to consciousness.

So, while we all act as if we are conscious, in reality we aren't. But we do behave in exactly the same way as you would expect a conscious person to behave. Almost no conscious person would deny that he/she is conscious. Therefore almost all real persons who, except you, are all unconscious, would insist that they are conscious. I'm the rare exception.

 

[atyy]

It could also be that humans indeed evolved without consciousness and that you are the only being in the whole universe who is conscious. Perhaps some cosmic ray particle hit your brain while you were a baby and caused a very exotic reaction leading to consciousness.

So, while we all act as if we are conscious, in reality we aren't. But we do behave in exactly the same way as you would expect a conscious person to behave. Almost no conscious person would deny that he/she is conscious. Therefore almost all real persons who, except you, are all unconscious, would insist that they are conscious. I'm the rare exception.

But how do you know you are not conscious? By introspection?

 

[junglebeast]

So, while we all act as if we are conscious, in reality we aren't. But we do behave in exactly the same way as you would expect a conscious person to behave. Almost no conscious person would deny that he/she is conscious. Therefore almost all real persons who, except you, are all unconscious, would insist that they are conscious. I'm the rare exception.

Ok, I admit that not all behaviors could be explained by an unconscious organism -- specifically those behaviors which are a result of being curious about one's own consciousness.

When I said that evolution could explain all human actions, I was thinking about actions that are useful to survival and reproduction, as well as a lot of other stuff like emotions and religion.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Just because humans only do these things while we are conscious doesn't mean that these things couldn't have evolved...

... this would abuse the system so that it was no longer beneficial to the whole.

All entities that survive for very long obviously act in their own favor whether they are conscious or not, yes, but the question is: would self preserving behaviors in non-self-aware humans take the same form they do in self-aware humans? Your argument is that they probably would, based on the fact that our behaviors seem to serve us pretty well. However, I think self awareness has lead to a lot of completely unnecessary and circuitous behaviors that require self awareness to sustain and which would, in reality, not be selected in zombie people. The necessary baseline for survival of the species is probably represented by primate groups, and I can't imagine any mutations more sophisticated than that happening for the zombies, given their lack of awareness. Take religion: where on Earth would a mutation come from that instructed the zombie to refrain from work every seventh day and engage in appeals and supplications to an entity it could not sense in any way? You have to have awareness for something that peculiar and specific to happen.

All the examples you give of things that might perform complex, human-like thinking, are machines, which have been designed and programmed by self aware humans to mimic self aware humans. A computer can be programmed to do this, a computer can be programmed to do that, all without self awareness. That is a meaningless example when it is self-aware beings who are creating the instructions for it based on their own self-aware behaviors. The mutation or series of mutations that would cause untaught, spontaneous imitation of self-aware behaviors with all its extraneous pyramid building, crop circle hoaxing, pop music, wars, foot binding, surfing, gladiator contests, romance novels, gambling, drinking and pot smoking, schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorders, organized crime, flagpole sitting and bungee jumping, etc in the absence of a model for those behaviors are beyond my imagining. You're suggesting something impossibly byzantine and convoluted.

Contradiction: the brain is a neural network which can learn, but it was not programmed by human beings.

By "neural network" I was referring to one of the various computer programs in that category which are, of course, unaware, but are alleged to mimic various learning and thought processes of the human brain.

The human brain is, in fact, 'programmed' by human beings: parents, teachers, peers. You didn't, for example, arrive at the English language accidentally on your own.

That's an interesting story, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make

Doctor X entered, occasionally, into a zombie-like state where most of his self awareness was non-operational. He was, as you predict, able to perform complex tasks, BUT only because those had been learned during periods of self awareness and were stored in his procedural memory.

I think that the fact that we did evolve self awareness, which I see as neither a benefit nor a burden,...

You don't see it as a benefit? Would you give it up without a second thought? What difference would there be between an unconscious life, and death?

indicates that it was a side effect that came along with something that was beneficial. Specifically, I think that somehow the structure that was evolved to give us such good cognitive abilities incidentally also gave us self awareness.

I disagree because self awareness is an obvious extension of awareness of the environment and things in it, and greater awareness of the environment, and of yourself as an element in it, would constitute an obvious advantage that would get selected.

An atom is not aware of itself. A photon is not aware of itself. Why would a collection of atoms be aware of itself? The question is completely baffling because we can't even represent the question properly -- I mean, what is awareness? We can't even define it. If the question could be defined, then I might accept that our current theories were only wrong in a small way...but the fact that we can't even define it causes me to think that our model is just massively off-base.

All good questions.

I think that awareness is probably suspected to be a dynamic process. It's not the particular atoms present, per se, but about the more macroscopic behavior of a very specific kind of cell. I don't remember the thread, or who said it, but someone here raised the point that quantum physics doesn't predict any organic life, much less consciousness.

In a gross way the answer is already there: it is simply a property of the things involved that when they interact with each other in this way, under these circumstances, awareness results. We don't know which elements and aspects of these interactions are the salient ones, the ones that might be abstracted to create an artificial awareness, but obviously they are present in whatever is happening in the brain:

The study of the causes of things must be preceded by the study of things caused.

http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/2766.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

It could also be that humans indeed evolved without consciousness and that you are the only being in the whole universe who is conscious. Perhaps some cosmic ray particle hit your brain while you were a baby and caused a very exotic reaction leading to consciousness.

So, while we all act as if we are conscious, in reality we aren't. But we do behave in exactly the same way as you would expect a conscious person to behave. Almost no conscious person would deny that he/she is conscious. Therefore almost all real persons who, except you, are all unconscious, would insist that they are conscious. I'm the rare exception.

It's been clear to me for some time that junglebeast is a neural network someone programmed to argue matters of consciousness and set loose here for kicks.

 

[junglebeast]

would self preserving behaviors in non-self-aware humans take the same form they do in self-aware humans? Your argument is that they probably would, based on the fact that our behaviors seem to serve us pretty well. However, I think self awareness has lead to a lot of completely unnecessary and circuitous behaviors that require self awareness to sustain and which would, in reality, not be selected in zombie people.

You're probably right that some circuitous behaviors would not have been selected for without self awareness. I'm not going to count "going to church" because this is a social custom not an evolved trait, but social customs do have the potential to induce natural selection. However, are any of those circuitous behaviors actually beneficial to survival or reproduction? It seems the answer is no, and that would confirm my point -- if all the characteristics essential to reproduction could have evolved without self awareness, and self awareness itself only caused additional circuitous behaviors to be selected for, then what was the selective pressure for self awareness?

quote]All the examples you give of things that might perform complex, human-like thinking, are machines, which have been designed and programmed by self aware humans to mimic self aware humans. ...You're suggesting something impossibly byzantine and convoluted. [/quote]

You completely missed the point I was making: if we can create a machine that is not self aware and is capable of performing certain actions which have obvious benefit to survival (such as planning or "thinking" ahead in order to act in a seemingly intelligent way), then it must be possible for those actions to evolve in a non-self aware organism, because they have a selective pressure and can be achieved without self awareness. It is completely irrelevant to the point that they were designed by a human...

You have swayed me on the point that some actions are a consequence of self-awareness, so I'm not going to argue that "all" human behaviors can be explained by natural selection of non-self aware beings -- but it still seems that the ones which are important to survival can be explained that way.

Doctor X entered, occasionally, into a zombie-like state where most of his self awareness was non-operational. He was, as you predict, able to perform complex tasks, BUT only because those had been learned during periods of self awareness and were stored in his procedural memory.

We've already discussed that point, and I've pointed out that assuming that complex tasks cannot be performed without consciousness in an arbitrary life form just because that appears to be the case in humans is to make the err of "affirming the consequent." Furthermore I've pointed out abstract methodologies which could be used to program a machine with the abilities to perform complex learning and thinking tasks so this does not seem like a great mystery.

You don't see it as a benefit? Would you give it up without a second thought? What difference would there be between an unconscious life, and death?

For us, "death" is equal to permanent loss of consciousness. It also appears to be the case that humans are not capable of the same level of complex thought while we are unconscious -- but this does not prove that consciousness is necessary for complex thought in general! It only proves that our brains evolved to depend on consciousness for complex thought.

I disagree because self awareness is an obvious extension of awareness of the environment and things in it, and greater awareness of the environment, and of yourself as an element in it, would constitute an obvious advantage that would get selected.

There are two definitions for "awareness" -- on the one hand, we have a completely elusive definition for our mental awareness which I have trouble defining. It seems something magical. On the other hand, we have a very easy to define practical side of awareness: simply having knowledge relating to one's surroundings. A non-self-aware being could still have senses that detect the environment, it could still have a virtual model of itself in relation to the environment, and it could still react in a way that uses all that information to its advantage. It seems that all of the definably useful characteristics of self-awareness could easily be given to something non-self-aware. The only difference is that while it was doing these things, it would lack that certain "magical" aspect that humans have. So in other words, a non "self-aware" being could still have all the same knowledge (accessible data) pertaining to itself and its surroundings.

I think that awareness is probably suspected to be a dynamic process. It's not the particular atoms present, per se, but about the more macroscopic behavior of a very specific kind of cell. I don't remember the thread, or who said it, but someone here raised the point that quantum physics doesn't predict any organic life, much less consciousness.

The existence and proliferation of organic life is certainly representable and explainable within the quantum physics model. Perhaps this person was referring to the ambiguous origin of the first life forms on Earth. On that subject, I have read Kauffman's "At Home in the Universe", and the auto catalytic set theory that he proposes gives very straight forward logical explanations for how DNA itself would have evolved with high probability.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Basically everything you are saying boils down to expressions of awe:

An atom is not aware of itself. A photon is not aware of itself. Why would a collection of atoms be aware of itself? The question is completely baffling because we can't even represent the question properly -- I mean, what is awareness? We can't even define it. If the question could be defined, then I might accept that our current theories were only wrong in a small way...but the fact that we can't even define it causes me to think that our model is just massively off-base.

...on the one hand, we have a completely elusive definition for our mental awareness which I have trouble defining. It seems something magical.

Everyone who thinks about it is equally awed: There is no ready, apparent explanation. At this time.

However, and regardless, and back to the topic of ghosts, from my extensive reading about the selective deficits caused by brain pathologies, and the sometimes concomitant disinhibitions, it is beyond doubt that consciousness arises from the activities of brain cells. When that activity is suppressed, altered, or hyperactivated so are the aspects of consciousness arising from those activities. I don't see any suggestion of any new form of energy with its own conservation laws that would survive death. And I don't see any need to propose mystical mechanisms for consciousness.

On that subject, I have read Kauffman's "At Home in the Universe", and the auto catalytic set theory that he proposes gives very straight forward logical explanations for how DNA itself would have evolved with high probability.

What is relevant here is that he didn't predict DNA before it was discovered, he found a math to explain it after the fact of discovery. The math and physics that explain consciousness won't happen until after we pinpoint those aspects of brain activity that can't be done away with, which we're sure are the sine qua non of consciousness.

 

[WhoWee]

If one priest reported seeing an angel, and another reported seeing a ghost...which report would be considered more creditable?

Likewise, if two aethiests made the same reports...which report would be considered more creditable?

My guess is one priest would be dismissed as promoting an agenda regarding the angel...and the ghost story would be debated. The aethiests would experience the opposite reaction.

I know an accountant who bought a log cabin outside of Nashville, on the edge of a famous Civil War battlefield. The cabin was reportedly owned by Andrew Jackson and was very well constructed...thick walls, dark and a little damp. There is an southern plantation type home alongside and the local women reportedly watched the Civil War battle from the second story balcony.

I visited the cabin, but wasn't eager to spend a night The accountant (and his family) absolutely swear there is a ghost of a woman that lives there. They claim she visits quite often. Apparently they aren't afraid and as far as I know they still live there.

Who knows?

 

[NWH]

One thing I would question would by why my conscious decision to learn a piece of information about a particle, would coincidentally cause it to manifest in that form. Why when I observe the particle/wave, does it decide to react in a specific way? Acording to the maths (from what I've learned anyway), the particle take all possible actions until observed by someone. If no-one looks to see what it did, it did everything. It's only once you look at it, that it takes a particular form.

It doesn't really explain anything, but it does make me heavilly question the impact that interpretation of information has on the universe. Who knows, maybe conciousness and the universe around us are more connected than we could ever imagine.

 

[zoobyshoe]

One thing I would question would by why my conscious decision to learn a piece of information about a particle, would coincidentally cause it to manifest in that form. Why when I observe the particle/wave, does it decide to react in a specific way? Acording to the maths (from what I've learned anyway), the particle take all possible actions until observed by someone. If no-one looks to see what it did, it did everything. It's only once you look at it, that it takes a particular form.

It doesn't really explain anything, but it does make me heavilly question the impact that interpretation of information has on the universe. Who knows, maybe conciousness and the universe around us are more connected than we could ever imagine.

Quantum Physics is the new Magic. In less than a century people will be chanting incantations and dancing around statues of Niels Bohr.

 

[c12_z]

When I said that evolution could explain all human actions, I was thinking about actions that are useful to survival and reproduction, as well as a lot of other stuff like emotions and religion.

It could be said that self-awareness is an actively beneficial trait: it tends to imbue an elevated sense of importance to yourself and your species, and, I'd say give any previously present curiosity a far greater potency than before. I'd think the effect on looking after oneself on the individual level would remain basically unaffected, but I'd think an overall positive effect on species survival could be considered possible. This elevated sense of importance of species is going to cause a greater working together to look after each other, combined with an increased to desire to gain explanations for why things are how they are.

This is speculative, of course, but I think it has a bit more to it than the idea that self-awareness is just there and hasn't had any noticeable impact on our behaviours and developments. To be frank, I find the idea that self-awareness has no impact at all on our development as species, in terms of reproduction, and all that, is tremendously hard to credit much.

Ok, I admit that not all behaviors could be explained by an unconscious organism -- specifically those behaviors which are a result of being curious about one's own consciousness.

So, all our behaviours can be explained explained outwith self-awareness except for those which can't? I'd agree, but I'd figure it kinda screws your argument over (big time).

 

[sepfield]

hi all - ah been down this road a few times - some interesting points been raised - as tangents to the OP

so let's look at the whole question of proof , and you will have to bare with me on this ( before pouncing on me .lol )

what ,first of all constitutes PROOF ?? - is proof a general agreement that something does or does not exist ? , - ( science has been mentioned a lot by posters - but does science TRULY have all the answers ?? and has science not been proven wrong before ?? - also what gives "science" the seeming right to say "we are right , and everyone else is wrong , mistaken, delusional, seeing things , etc etc )

try this - because you are reading this post from me - can you PROVE , that I am actually posting it ?? - no you can't , someone else using my name COULD be posting it - or conversely you COULD be imagining that your are reading a post by me .

now if we base this on "probability " then the probability is that NEITHER of the above scenarios are true and in fact you would be right

BUT you CAN NOT prove that I ACTUALLY typed this post - as you where not here to witness the act of ME ( sepfield ) doing this - what you SEE is the result of SOMEONE posting this post BUT YOU CAN NOT prove it was me - you can reasonably ASSUME this to be the case - but IS this proof ??

so how do we PROVE that a person DID NOT see a ghost ( basing his report on the commonly ACCEPTED definition of such phenomena ) - WE CAN NOT we are not he /her - we can not honestly say that that particular person did not witness something - because we can not see through their eyes - and receive the stimulus that they perceive from THEIR brain , they COULD be the only person in the whole world WHO CAN see ghosts , SCIENCE can not dismiss this POSSIBILITY , for if it dismisses this POSSIBILITY ,however remote , then it is setting itself up as the ULTIMATE arbiter of ALL THINGS - vis PLAYING GOD ( but we won't get int a debate about his or her existence just yet )

so in my view PROOF is at BEST a common CONSENSIS that something is so - it however is not however the begin all and end all

so to sum up - we can NOT prove that ghosts ( whatever they may or may not be - but accepting the commonly accepted definition that they are NOT mortal/human etc , )DO NOT exist - and NEITHER can we prove they DO exist either !

we base a LOT of what we do or don't "believe " to be true on mass consensus - and also what others teach us or "proclaim " to be the truth because they have PhD, or some such , or they are alleged "experts " in the field

but ARE THEY ?? - after all most of what we are taught is only "perceived wisdom " - passed down by others who "perceive " it to be the truth or fact or whatever you want to call it

as the old song go's "it AIN'T necessarily so ! "

right you may attack sepfield as you see fit - i am well used to that

 

[zoobyshoe]

hi all - ah been down this road a few times...

...as you see fit - i am well used to that

Do you believe in ghosts?

 

[DaveC426913]

so let's look at the whole question of proof , and you will have to bare with me on this ( before pouncing on me .lol )

what ,first of all constitutes PROOF ??

Scientifically: there is no proof. What there is, is a preponderance of evidence that the proposed model explains better and more elegantly than any other competing model.

- is proof a general agreement that something does or does not exist ? , - ( science has been mentioned a lot by posters - but does science TRULY have all the answers ?? and has science not been proven wrong before ?? - also what gives "science" the seeming right to say "we are right , and everyone else is wrong , mistaken, delusional, seeing things , etc etc )

You really might want to read up on the scientific method. The definition above sounds like the beliefs of someone who has never been exposed to it.

Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER claimed to know all the answers.
Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER said "we are right and the rest of you are wrong".

try this - because you are reading this post from me - can you PROVE , that I am actually posting it ?? - no you can't , someone else using my name COULD be posting it - or conversely you COULD be imagining that your are reading a post by me .

Based on the evidence at-hand, it is the most likely model of how this post got here. There are other models, but there's no reason to suppose them since this one explains the evidence nicely.

It's not a question of whether it's the "right" answer, it's a question of whether we can proceed intelligently with that theory. We can. (We respond to it.) If evidence presents itself to suggest that it is not you, we will fold that evidence into our model (which may or may not change it).

That's science.



But one thing you said is true: you cannot prove someone did NOT see a ghost.

(Okay, well, actually you could. For example: If you set up a hoax, and then the victim fell for it, you could certainly say they saw your sock puppet rather than a real ghost.)

 

[sepfield]

Scientifically: there is no proof. What there is, is a preponderance of evidence that the proposed model explains better and more elegantly than any other competing model.

fine words - er but what "evidence " ?? as you say the proposed "model" explains better and more elegantly - but we are talking proof here - not models



You really might want to read up on the scientific method. The definition above sounds like the beliefs of someone who has never been exposed to it.

Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER claimed to know all the answers.
Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER said "we are right and the rest of you are wrong".


oh please - don't start insulting me - ( i am not some dewy eyed grad student you know ) i am fully AWARE of the scientific method - i am also aware of a lot of "proponents " who claim to use it and also claim they are right and i and others are wrong - frequently ,



Based on the evidence at-hand, it is the most likely model of how this post got here. There are other models, but there's no reason to suppose them since this one explains the evidence nicely.

oh occam's razor - the simplest solution's always the best ( and yes i do deliberately misquote ) - because something seems to fit - don't always assume that it IS the answer - assumption as it is said "is the mother of all c**k ups ! - and i know this through practical experience out in the real world - and assumptions can cost lives


It's not a question of whether it's the "right" answer, it's a question of whether we can proceed intelligently with that theory. We can. (We respond to it.) If evidence presents itself to suggest that it is not you, we will fold that evidence into our model (which may or may not change it).

That's science.


i prefer "right" answers - theories are fine - but proof positive is what stands up in a court of law . ( unless you have a good lawyer )

that's life



But one thing you said is true: you cannot prove someone did NOT see a ghost.

(Okay, well, actually you could. For example: If you set up a hoax, and then the victim fell for it, you could certainly say they saw your sock puppet rather than a real ghost.)

oh gosh though i had won one then -and now you gone and spoilt it :rofl:

OK being a bit mean to you here - yes i do appreciate what you are saying and i have had these arguments many times - and in many ways you are right - BUT what i am saying to you is this , NEVER let science blind you to possibilities , i have seen some very weird and inexplicable stuff in my time ,with causes and outcomes that defy logic ,let alone the scientific method , but never the less they HAVE happened - and even a couple of very skilled forensic scientists have been baffled

that's why we have a little thing called a verdict of "misadventure" in our legal system here in the UK - in layman's terms it means "despite all the experts - they don't know what killed them "

( i used to be in the fire and rescue game - just so's you know )

 

[junglebeast]

NEVER let science blind you to possibilities , i have seen some very weird and inexplicable stuff in my time ,with causes and outcomes that defy logic ,let alone the scientific method ,

I think you should NEVER make the mistake of forgetting ALL the lessons we've learned about what is and is not physically possible, because what you THINK you see is not always what really happened...vision is largely an active hallucination in which your brain interprets often unreliable signals that you then perceive with confidence. It's much more likely that a person just interpreted evidence in the wrong way. So in summary, you should ALWAYS trust that scientifically proven things are correct, and NEVER put your full trust into hearsay, perception, or improbable things that you just want to believe because they would make life more interesting.

 

[sepfield]

Do you believe in ghosts?

naughty , that's like asking do i believe in god ??

to answer that i will say this :

i have never SEEN an actual fully materialised ghost - i have seen what i THINK was a partly materialised animal "ghost" ,phantom, shade , or whatever on a couple of occasions - basing this on the fact that my old cat has been deceased for some time , i do not have any other cats here , and i don't "think" i am loosing the plot ( this of course is always open to conjecture )

and i have seen other things that remain "inexplicable "

but do I "believe" in ghosts ?? - i don't have any evidence to suggest they DON'T EXIST ,in some form - and neither do i have any cast iron ,stand up in court evidence to say they do -so i have an open mind on the subject ,biased by experiential factors

but as i have said to many others in the past - define what you mean by ghost ?? it is easy to use the term loosely to describe what if you have studied the phenomena , of the "paranormal" what is a VERY broad spectrum of " possibilities "

let me state for the record here that i "believe " that 99% of what is "reported" as paranormal phenomena is little more than class 1A BS , driven by in part , motive , ( money , fame, etc ) and more so by the c**p put out on TV about the subject

BUT i do NOT dismiss ALL cases - as there are some that do still need answers - but they are as RARE as hens teeth ( imho)