# Minds: Death, anaesthetic, babies, animals and Sonic the Camcorder-Doom player. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2005, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033 "2005-05-09T10:10:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/41 "2005-06-01T23:09:07Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > How does this explain the utter lack of any _response_ to stimulus which a fully conscious person shows, If the connection of the consciousness to the memory is broken, and also the connection from the senses to the consciousness is also broken, then this would be expected behaviour. > [@](#): > > or indeed the lack of _activity_ in the cognitive modules which light up like a veritable Christmas tree when we dream in REM sleep? Surely the obvious conclusion is that anaesthetised people are _unconscious_? But are they cognative modules, or are they the connection lines between consciousness and memory? (P.S. Do you have any link to studies of mental activity and scans during REM) (P.P.S. I’m mostly just devil’s advocating here, but until we can show complete processes congruent to consciesness occuring within brain neurons, it is hard to dismiss the possibility that we are only seeing the activity within brain material that contacts or interfaces with a metaphysical consciousness. ) ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/42 "2005-06-01T23:09:57Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Heck, _I’d_ agree with that! Otherwise, universities could close all of their science departments because there would be nothing left to research. That’s pretty much where I was going, but, as **Gyan** pointed out, I’m not sure you understood what I meant. As a physicalist, I (and I would guess **SentientMeat** would agree) think it’s possible to describe all of reality purely through physical description. To get to the heart of this thread–which, if I’m not mistaken, is “What is the difference between **SentientMeat’s** (and my) supervenience physicalism, **Gyan’s** panpsychism, and **Aeschines’s** pantheism”–this is what I’m seeing. Please correct me if I’m wrong. [ul] [li]Supervenience physicalists (like **SentientMeat** and myself, I think) believe it’s likely that all of reality can be described purely through physical description (ie, using physics).[/li][li]Panpsychists (or at least **Gyan** ) think it’s _likely_ that it takes more than just physics to describe all of reality, although Gyan isn’t certain.[/li][li]Pantheists like **Aeschines** haven’t had time to way in on this thread yet :)[/li][/ul] Am I wrong about anything in that list? A more specific question for **Gyan** : Do you believe photons have consciousness, do you think it’s likely that photons have consciousness, do you think it’s not likely that photons have consciousness, or would you characterize your position on photonic consciousness in some other way (if so, please explain). I think **SentientMeat** and I fall into the “not likely” camp, with a strong not likely, but not absolute certainty. To put it another way, I think the difference between at least supervenience physicalism and panpsychism, at least the versions accepted by those on this board, is a degree of openness to the idea of consciousness of things that do not specifically exhibit evidence of consciousness. As I said in my first reply, I don’t _know_ that cyanobacteria lack consciousness, but I see no reason to believe that they do. It seems a bit similar to an agnostic/weak atheist/strong atheist discussion. I don’t personally think there’s much difference between agnosticism (as the term is normally used, if not the strict literal definition of “a belief that it is impossible to answer the question of the existance of a deity”) and weak atheism; either you believe in something or you don’t. But I know that many people who describe themselves as “agnostic” likely don’t share the exact belief as me; I have no belief in a deity, because I’ve seen no evidence of a deity; they think it’s entirely possible that a deity exists, and often wonder if maybe one does, but they just don’t have the complete faith in a deity’s existance that they think someone who believes in a deity should. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/43 "2005-06-01T23:31:42Z")
> [@Jon the Geek](#): > > A more specific question for **Gyan** : Do you believe photons have consciousness, do you think it’s likely that photons have consciousness, do you think it’s not likely that photons have consciousness, or would you characterize your position on photonic consciousness in some other way (if so, please explain). Depends on whether photons really exist. They are the physical interpretations given to mathematical models. Are the entities at quantum levels “distinct particles”? My position is if other consciousnesses exist, consciousness is universal. > [@](#): > > a degree of openness to the idea of consciousness of things that do not specifically exhibit evidence of consciousness. This is the logical error in physicalism. Let C = consciousness, B = behaviour, H - humans, A =amoebas, R = rocks and L - life, S = self I am conscious and alive [S -> LC]. I exhibit behaviour [S -> B]. Other alive humans exhibit similar behaviour [LH -\> B]. **Assume** behaviour is indicative of consciousness [B -> C]. Hence, other humans are conscious [LH -\> C]. Amoebas exhibit simple and unsimilar behaviour [LA -\> B] So do rocks, but not lively behaviour [(~L)R -\> ~B] The physicalists claim that [C -\> B], which does not follow from the above. And [~C -\> ~B] is valid but unsound (atleast unknown), since [B -> C] is an assumption dependent on [C -\> B] being true. [B -> C] is an assumption since consciousness is not observable. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/44 "2005-06-01T23:36:33Z")
It would be better to express Amoebas exhibit simple and unsimilar behaviour [LA -\> B[sub]1[/sub]] to indicate unsimilar behaviour. The physicalists further assert [B[sub]1[/sub] -\> ~C], which would mean [C -\> ~B[sub]1[/sub]] which just begs the question. ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/45 "2005-06-01T23:45:05Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > My position is if other consciousnesses exist, consciousness is universal. What are “other consciousnesses”? Consciousnesses other than your own? I’m not sure I can parse your logic argument (why didn’t Logic count toward my biology degree, and why didn’t I take it anyway???), so I won’t reply to that just yet. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/46 "2005-06-01T23:51:23Z")
> [@Jon the Geek](#): > > What are “other consciousnesses”? Consciousnesses other than your own? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/47 "2005-06-01T23:54:06Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Yes. Why is it _necessary_ that consciousness is universal if other consciousnesses exist, rather than merely _possible_? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2005, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/48 "2005-06-02T00:29:20Z")
> [@Jon the Geek](#): > > Why is it _necessary_ that consciousness is universal if other consciousnesses exist, rather than merely _possible_? It’s not necessary. Consciousness may ultimately be an emergent phenomenon exclusive to a list of entities coincident with our intuitions. But given that fact that consciousness itself is not physical (what physical attributes does it possess?), it is _less arbitrary_ to assume that consciousness is a distinct phenomenon. Hence, if I make the further (pragmatic) assumption that other minds exist, less arbitrary to assume consciousness is a non-privileged universal aspect of matter rather than pick some cutoff threshold like primates or rats, mainly based on some intuition. Intuition, which is primarily grounded on the [B -> C] assumption, where similarity of behaviour required is some fuzzy notion of “humanlike” behaviour. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2005, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/49 "2005-06-02T01:30:45Z")
From Zeno of Citium, a physicalist pantheist, a few words . . > [@](#): > > Zeno began by asserting the existence of the real world. ‘What do you mean by real?’ asked the Sceptic.‘I mean solid and material. I mean that this table is solid matter.’ ‘And God,’ asked the Sceptic, ‘and the Soul.’ ‘Perfectly solid,’ said Zeno, ‘more solid, if anything, than the table.’ ‘And virtue or justice or the Rule of Three, also solid matter?’ 'Of course, said Zeno, ‘quite solid.’ I cannot express the delight I felt upon reading this passage. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2005, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/50 "2005-06-02T09:49:33Z")
> [@Gyan](#): > > Unless you define life as a characteristic exclusive to conscious entities, life is just motion. What?? You surely don’t think that ‘unmathematically moving’ things like _kites_ or _coupled pendulums_ or _robots_ are **alive**? > [@](#): > > Should be clear now. No, it isn’t at all. Motion is just an _observed activity_ of living things, just as synapse fire or witty conversation is an observed activity of waking humans. Why do you say that observing motion=observing _life_ but observing synapse fire or witty conversation\*\* != \*\*observing _consciousness_? To borrow from a later post of yours, why do you **Assume** behaviour is indicative of life [B -> L]? > [@](#): > > I don’t assertively believe that gases do or can encode memory. I just don’t rule it out. Neither do I. Why _do_ you assertively believe that rocks and corpses have consciousness? > [@](#): > > I can entertain the motion but it doesn’t hold up. Why this particular process? Why this threshold of complexity? Why only in certain arrangements? Because _working memory_ requires _access to past states_: only certain processes and arrangements of certain complexity can **remember** things, just as only certain arrangements and processes of certain complexity can **live** , be _alive_. Why _don’t_ you ask the same question about _life_, or _computation_, or any number of other processes which can only occur in certain arrangements of a given complexity? > [@](#): > > The production of phenomenon of consciousness itself. I gave a physical mechanism of memory and memory formation, which I suggested was the basis of consciousness. What is the **non-Pythonesque** flaw in this science? > [@](#): > > Doesn’t make a difference. Scientific theories have privileged positions only if the object of inquiry is amenable to a scientific method. And physicalism _is_, as you agreed regarding the ‘perfect’ detector finding _no_ physical change in the brain upon formation of a new memory. This would _falsify_ the physicalist position (unfortunately, we _haven’t_ got perfect detectors yet and so this test cannot yet be carried out - we can only point to the physical changes we **do** observe when new memories are formed). > [@](#): > > If consciousness in all its aspect can’t be dissected empirically by a third-party, it’s relegated to philosophy rather than science. But it _can_, just as well as other phenomena such as “life” and “computation”. We agree that you cannot _experience the consciousness of_ someone or something else. But neither can you **live the life of** another organism. You cannot **process the processing of** another computer. Does this relegate biology and computer science to philosophy? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2005, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/51 "2005-06-02T09:51:27Z")
> [@Bippy](#): > > If the connection of the consciousness to the memory is broken, and also the connection from the senses to the consciousness is also broken, then this would be expected behaviour. Then in what way could that person be “fully conscious” _at all_? Would a _rock_ not be just as “fully conscious”, merely having its “connections broken”? > [@](#): > > But are they cognitive modules, or are they the connection lines between consciousness and memory? Well, if you’re asking me, their activity **is** what consciousness **is**. You sound like you want to remove all of the different levels of memory, sensory processing, emotional moderation and every other function in the brain and be left with this “consciousness” (perhaps even in a _dead_ brain!). To me, that sounds like you want to disconnect all of the chips, RAM, ROM and other modules in your Playstation and still play Doom. REM activity: [Heavy](http://psych.ucsc.edu/dreams/TSSOD/sample.html). [Light](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontine_tegmentum). ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2005, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/52 "2005-06-02T10:44:30Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > What?? You surely don’t think that ‘unmathematically moving’ things like _kites_ or _coupled pendulums_ or _robots_ are **alive**? Depends on what you consider life is. Besides, life is motion doesn’t mean all motion is life. After all, you, the physicalist, should agree. If all is physical, then a human being, is ultimately entirely a product of the same physical laws as the kite. Or am I in the company of a closet vitalist? > [@](#): > > Motion is just an _observed activity_ of living things, just as synapse fire or witty conversation is an observed activity of waking humans. Behaviour is the defining characteristic of life, i.e. patterns of motion. Unless you couple life with consciousness, life is entirely a third-party observable event, even if we don’t agree what the threshold is. [quote] Why do you say that observing motion=observing _life_ but observing synapse fire or witty conversation\*\* != \*\*observing _consciousness_? To borrow from a later post of yours, why do you **Assume** behaviour is indicative of life [B -> L]? What other phenomenon would life include? If consciousness is a requirement, then yes, the same restrictions apply to life as well. > [@](#): > > Neither do I. Why _do_ you assertively believe that rocks and corpses have consciousness? Less arbitrary belief, given my belief of the nature of consciousness. > [@](#): > > Because _working memory_ requires _access to past states_: only certain processes and arrangements of certain complexity can **remember** things, A retread. Begs the question. Reread earlier post > [@](#): > > just as only certain arrangements and processes of certain complexity can **live** , be _alive_. Why _don’t_ you ask the same question about _life_, or _computation_, or any number of other processes which can only occur in certain arrangements of a given complexity? Life and non-life are both visible to the same observer. Agreed? So the demarcation line is among phenomenon of the same type, in the same realm. The **only reason** I know about consciousness is because **I am conscious** , and yet I can’t observe other consciousnesses and others can’t observe mine (if they can, everyone’s done an excellent job of hiding it). Now, if you believe that life involves some extra hidden elements, then the same objections apply as with consciousness. > [@](#): > > I gave a physical mechanism of memory and memory formation, which I suggested was the basis of consciousness. You gave the description of what happens in the brain that corresponds to memory formation, **given** that consciousness already is present. You haven’t shown why and how sodium and serotonin zipping around neurons and glia **should give rise** to **any experience** in the first place. I can’t put this any simpler. If you can’t see the point here, this is a lost cause. > [@](#): > > And physicalism _is_, as you agreed regarding the ‘perfect’ detector finding _no_ physical change in the brain upon formation of a new memory. The object of inquiry in that sentence is ‘consciousness’, not physicalism. If all aspects of consciousness are amenable to scientific method, then the burden should be shouldered by the scientific method, else it’s masturbation material for philosophers. > [@](#): > > But neither can you **live the life of** another organism. That’s a stretch of the term ‘life’. I cannot assume the identity of any other object other than me. That’s ownership. But consciousness is also private. Life is observable, only a putative proxy is visible for consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2005, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/53 "2005-06-02T11:36:02Z")
> [@Gyan](#): > > Depends on what you consider life is. Do **you** consider that kites and pendulums constitute life? > [@](#): > > Besides, life is motion doesn’t mean all motion is life. After all, you, the physicalist, should agree. I do, which is why I am asking what _your_ position is regarding what is _alive_ and what merely displays _some observed_ characteristics of living things. Kites _aren’t_ alive, agreed? > [@](#): > > If all is physical, then a human being, is ultimately entirely a product of the same physical laws as the kite. Or am I in the company of a closet vitalist? I’ll give you the reasons why I don’t call kites “alive” upon request, just as I have given you reasons I don’t think kites are “conscious”. What do _you_ say about the life and consciousness of kites, and why? > [@](#): > > Behaviour is the defining characteristic of life, i.e. patterns of motion. And yet, when I suggest that behaviour is the defining characteristic of consciousness, _ie._ patterns of _computational activity_, I am told that I am making unsound assumptions. What is the difference between your assumption and mine? > [@](#): > > Unless you couple life with consciousness, life is entirely a third-party observable event, even if we don’t agree what the threshold is. Again, in what way are the observable events of consciousness (by which _you_, a third party, demarcate my living _consciousness_ from my dead _consciousness_) different from the observable events we use to demarcate my _life_ from my _death_? > [@](#): > > What other phenomenon would life include? All kinds of observable **activity** : growth, replication, stimulus response \*etc.[/i.] But this is just _observable activity_, not the life _itself_ if we follow your approach, agreed? > [@](#): > > If consciousness is a requirement, then yes, the same restrictions apply to life as well. I am keepin life and consciousness separate for now, since we agree (so far) that some things are **not** alive but disagree that some things are not conscious. I am asking you why you say that some things are not alive, since we _could_ simply call kites, rocks and photons alive, thus neatly requiring no scientific explanation of how life **emerges** from complex arrangements of physical matter. > [@](#): > > A retread. Begs the question. Reread earlier post No it isn’t. Python Sketch. Hum Sousa’s “Liberty Bell” march. > [@](#): > > Life and non-life are both visible to the same observer. Agreed? Not if they call kites _alive_, no. The observers can only agree on **observable criteria** by which to determine whether the particular arrangement is _alive_ rather than _non-alive_. If one of them refuses on the basis that _all_ things are alive and that life _cannot_ emerge from specific complex arrangements of matter, the visible characteristics become irrelevant. > [@](#): > > The only reason I know about consciousness is because I am conscious, and yet I can’t observe other consciousnesses and others can’t observe mine Is the only reason you know about life because you are alive? > [@](#): > > You haven’t shown why and how sodium and serotonin zipping around neurons and glia should give rise to any experience in the first place. I could show how activity in cells “should” give rise to _life_, yes? I could show how activity in chips and RAM “should” give rise to _computation_, yes? I can show how activity in neurons and glia “should” give rise to _memory_, yes? I’m using the word “should” in these sentences correctly, am I not? If so, are you not suddenly _switching_ the use of the word “should” when I ask “Could I show how sensory input processed in working memory _should_ be the basis of consciousness?” > [@](#): > > If all aspects of consciousness are amenable to scientific method, then the burden should be shouldered by the scientific method But **all** aspects of _life_ or even silicon computation are not necessarily amenable to scientific method, agreed? > [@](#): > > I cannot assume the identity of any other object other than me. And that still does not fundamentally **impugn** the thesis that life emerges from a complex arrangement of matter, agreed? > [@](#): > > Life is observable, only a putative proxy is visible for consciousness. _In what way_ is a putative proxy not all we can observe of _ilfe_? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2005, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/54 "2005-06-02T18:00:19Z")
> [@SM](#): > > For the purposes of this thread I am not distinguishing between the words mind, consciousness, sentience, awareness, subjective experience, first person perspective, Point Of View or any other nominally similar term, unless there is some fundamental distinction anyone wishes to establish. Did you say this specifically to avoid dealing with the so-called ['hard problem"](http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html)? If so, you’ve failed. Perhaps you and Gyan should face up to the fact that you are talking about what Chalmers calls awareness and he is talking about what Chalmers calls consciousness. You are definitely talking past one another. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/55 "2005-06-02T22:21:27Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Do **you** consider that kites and pendulums constitute life? I don’t care. The untied floating kite is on the fuzzy threshold for ‘life’. > [@](#): > > I do, which is why I am asking what _your_ position is regarding what is _alive_ and what merely displays _some observed_ characteristics of living things. Kites _aren’t_ alive, agreed? Not agreed. There’s no objective boundary to life/nonlife, so I won’t answer that one. > [@](#): > > And yet, when I suggest that behaviour is the defining characteristic of consciousness, _ie._ patterns of _computational activity_, I am told that I am making unsound assumptions. What is the difference between your assumption and mine? Behaviour is externally manifested phenomena, consciousness is a privately-accessible owned phenomena. > [@](#): > > Again, in what way are the observable events of consciousness (by which _you_, a third party, demarcate my living _consciousness_ from my dead _consciousness_) different from the observable events we use to demarcate my _life_ from my _death_? There are no observable events of consciousness. If there were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Re: life, read below. > [@](#): > > All kinds of observable **activity** : growth, replication, stimulus response \*etc.[/i.] But this is just _observable activity_, not the life _itself_ if we follow your approach, agreed? No. Life is just motion. I don’t see any aspect that needs extra elements to be posited. > [@](#): > > I am asking you why you say that some things are not alive, since we _could_ simply call kites, rocks and photons alive, It’s an arbitrary distinction, not an objective one. But generally, we regard life as that which exhibits certain characteristics, similar to ours, such as growth, seemingly unmathematical motion …etc. > [@](#): > > No it isn’t. Python Sketch. Hum Sousa’s “Liberty Bell” march. Now, it’s your assertion. I said earlier, " Putting the cart before the horse. You have already assumed that gases can’t encode memory, hence the a priori defining of criteria for memory, in terms that processes, non-analogous to life, don’t satisfy. " > [@](#): > > Not if they call kites _alive_, no. I’m not a vitalist, nor are you, seemingly. Not sure why ‘they’ are brought into the picture. I’ve noticed that your entire (or most of) interrogation is based on analogy . I suggest starting with first principles. > [@](#): > > Is the only reason you know about life because you are alive? If I could be conscious without being “alive”, then No. > [@](#): > > I could show how activity in cells “should” give rise to _life_, yes? I could show how activity in chips and RAM “should” give rise to _computation_, yes? The result and the process are contained in the same realm. Emergence is not problematic there. The analogy does NOT extend. > [@](#): > > I can show how activity in neurons and glia “should” give rise to _memory_, yes? Only if consciousness is already present. > [@](#): > > But **all** aspects of _life_ or even silicon computation are not necessarily amenable to scientific method, agreed? Like which? > [@](#): > > And that still does not fundamentally **impugn** the thesis that life emerges from a complex arrangement of matter, agreed? But the emergence of life does not give arise to any non-physical phenomena, unless you assume that something alive must be conscious. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2005, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/56 "2005-06-03T08:47:28Z")
OK, point taken, **Hoodoo** … **Gyan** , many thanks for your patience and input thus far, but I won’t respond to your last post just yet. I’d like, if I may, to back up a step. I’m still not sure what kind of answers you, a panpsychic, want from consciousness-emergentist _me_ in order to address the questions you ask. You invited me to defend cognitive scientific models of consciousness, and I’m trying to do so in a way you might find convincing, but we don’t seem to be discussing the scientific results and models _at all_. So, I’d briefly like to **play the role** of a pan_vitalist_ asking you, a **life** -emergentist, those same questions, OK? If you could (briefly) defend the biological scientific models of life (as vaguely as you like - we needn’t get technical), I might see a more useful approach. Here goes:[ul][li]It seems like you are assuming that observable behaviour is indicative of life. _Of course_ I can see all this observable activity in these furry or leafy things, like motion and replication and whatever, but are you going further and saying that this observable activity **is** the life, _ie._ the _cause of_ the life?[/li][li]Why _should_ these seemingly arbitrary complex arrangements give rise to something so enigmatic as _life_, this mysterious energy force which we cannot touch or see?[/li][li]Surely it is _less_ arbitrary to consider that those things we think of as “dead” simply have a _different_ life, perhaps a kind of life having _no_ observable characteristics -why not simply ascribe life to particles, rocks, or indeed anything in the universe?[/li]Even biologists and life scientists agree the emergence of life from physical matter is full of gaps. How can you cling to life-emergentism in the face of such glaringly insufficient explanations?[/ul]Again, I’m not trying to mess you about here and I promise I won’t continue in this role any longer than absolutely necessary (and, again, I’m extremely grateful for your contributions here). I’m only trying to work out how I might _explain_ those elements of cognitive science to you most effectively. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2005, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/57 "2005-06-03T09:03:38Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > It seems like you are assuming that observable behaviour is indicative of life. _Of course_ I can see all this observable activity in these furry or leafy things, like motion and replication and whatever, but are you going further and saying that this observable activity **is** the life, _ie._ the _cause of_ the life? Life doesn’t have a separate cause. Life is the umbrella term used for agglomerations of matter that exhibit certain types of behaviours. There’s no privilieged phenomena at which we have to guess. Assuming that life and consciousness aren’t _necessarily_ copaired, there’s nothing extra to explain about life. All we observe is all there is. > [@](#): > > Why _should_ these seemingly arbitrary complex arrangements give rise to something so enigmatic as _life_, this mysterious energy force which we cannot touch or see? I don’t associate a mysterious “elan vital” with life, so no issues for me. > [@](#): > > Surely it is _less_ arbitrary to consider that those things we think of as “dead” simply have a _different_ life, perhaps a kind of life having _no_ observable characteristics -why not simply ascribe life to particles, rocks, or indeed anything in the universe? If I believed in a ‘force’, then Yes, else No. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2005, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/58 "2005-06-03T09:19:39Z")
> [@](#): > > All we observe is all there is. I say the same of computation and, ultimately, consciousness: we observe the consciousness of conscious things only by their behaviour just as we observe the life of living things only by their behaviour. > [@](#): > > I don’t associate a mysterious “elan vital” with life, so no issues for me. _Why not_? I don’t associate a mysterious disembodied soul with consciousness, since cognitive science sets forth an explanation based on sensory processing in working memory, so there are no issues for _me_ in that case either. > [@](#): > > If I believed in a ‘force’, then Yes, else No. _Why **don’t** you_, since you for some reason _do_ for consciousness? (And could you give the final question a shot, if possible?) ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2005, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/59 "2005-06-03T10:04:10Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I say the same of computation and, ultimately, consciousness: we observe the consciousness of conscious things only by their behaviour just as we observe the life of living things only by their behaviour. Consciousness is a real, **private** & owned phenomenon, unlike life, barring a posited life “force”. I assume consciousness of other humans, because, within my consciousness, I observe my owned physical embodiment and notice that other humans are similar. Hence I “complete the picture” and assume that other human apparitions must be like me. From this _assumption_ [B --> C], you have derived another assumption [C → B] via some bizarre, and unknown to me, logic. In order for you to assume that consciousness does translate to behaviour, you have a sample size of **1** , just you. At least, we can agree, that’s bad science. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you, since you for some reason do for consciousness? Umm, the “some reason” being, _I_ (a mental concept of consciousness) _experience_ (the primary predicate of consciousness) _consciousness_ (the phenomenon). Within your consciousness, You experience the vision, smell, sound…etc of me, not my consciousness. No offence, but this should be clear as sky. Maybe, someone lurking, can put this in better words than me. > [@](#): > > Even biologists and life scientists agree the emergence of life from physical matter is full of gaps. How can you cling to life-emergentism in the face of such glaringly insufficient explanations? If life does require a ‘force’, then there’s a problem. If not, the “gap” is just the result of the “wonder” with the phenomena of life. The “wonder” exists because we are of such a state (‘alive’), lot of the environment around us, isn’t. That discrepancy and the failure of deliberate human action to completely manufacture it in a lab, leads to that “awe”, which will relegate life to be a “precious mysterious gift”, with no actual theoretical deficiency in physical explanation. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2005, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033/60 "2005-06-03T10:36:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Consciousness is a real, **private** & owned phenomenon, unlike life, barring a posited life “force”. But the life of an organism (or the computations of a computer) are _also_ private to that organism (or computer), yes? I cannot _live the life_ (or _compute the computations_) of those things, I can only _observe_ those things. > [@](#): > > From this assumption [B --> C], you have derived another assumption [C --\> B] via some bizarre, and unknown to me, logic. Exactly the same logic as you derive the assumption that Life–\>Behaviour, surely? > [@](#): > > _I_ (a mental concept of consciousness) _experience_ (the primary predicate of consciousness) _consciousness_ (the phenomenon). And _I_ (a computer) _process_ (what computers do) _sensory input in working memory_ (the phenomenon). If _you_ are simply _asserting_ what your position is, I may surely do the same? I had hoped we could talk about _cognitive science_ just as I had hoped you might at least allude to _biological_ science in your answers. > [@](#): > > Within your consciousness, You experience the vision, smell, sound…etc of me, not my consciousness. The sensory input to my working memory is not of _life_ **or** consciousness, but of the _behaviour_ of you, a living, conscious entity. > [@](#): > > No offence, but this should be clear as sky. Maybe, someone lurking, can put this in better words than me. Again, if we can get into the _science_ (be it biological or cognitive), things might become clearer. At the moment I am merely mirroring your _assertions_. > [@](#): > > If life does require a ‘force’, then there’s a problem. If not, the “gap” is just the result of the “wonder” with the phenomena of life. The “wonder” exists because we are of such a state (‘alive’), lot of the environment around us, isn’t. That discrepancy and the failure of deliberate human action to completely manufacture it in a lab, leads to that “awe”, which will relegate life to be a “precious mysterious gift”, with no actual theoretical deficiency in physical explanation. A _beautiful_ answer, and thanks for putting in the extra time to provide a paragraph rather than a single line - such effort really helps these debates along. Could it not be that _consciousness_ is such a wondrous _process_, despite having a physical _computational_ explanation, that our “awe” elevates it to the level of a “precious mystery”? _We_ are conscious, but so much of the rest of our environment seems not to be, nor can we manufacture it in a lab (at least, not anything like what _humans_ have). You say that life has no _theoretical_ deficiency in physical explanation, despite biologists and life scientists pointing out the blatantly obvious _real, practical_ deficiencies in reducing life to matter. Could a _cognitive_ scientist not similarly dismiss you “theoretical” deficienceis just as you do those of the vitalist? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minds-death-anaesthetic-babies-animals-and-sonic-the-camcorder-doom-player/303033.md?page=4)