raftpeople,
I looked at your list of prerequisites for memory, but to me it seems like you might be jumping the gun. The methods/stimuli would be the second step…IE starting with the opportunity to utilize a superheated dense medium chemical and energy rich, if there are no physical limitations to storage and transfer of information of some kind, then we can start to extrapolate the methods of input, stimuli and output, which, I believe, are much easier to contemplate than the existence to begin with.
Useful previous threads:#1: The physicality of memory, #2: A conversation with Gyan.
I’d suggest that the distinction “conscious memory” is a rather unhelpful red herring: I, along with almost every cognitive scientist and philosopher of mind in the world, believe that memory is a crucial element of “consciousness” and so fundamentally distinguishing, say, standard computer RAM from “conscious” memory is rather like trying to separate the cells from the life. If we are to assume that consciousness cannot be explained by reference to computational processes (whether that computer is sand-based or meat-based), then sadly we must close down every cognitive science department in the world as redundant.
So, speaking solely of computational memory for now (which we understand pretty much perfectly for these purposes, I’m sure we’d all agree), I’m not sure how oceans or crusts access their previous states in any kind of “buffer”, which I would suggest is essential to any form of working memory.
I misphrased my earlier response. My point was, how are you aware that there has been some change? Ignore the ‘synapse strengthening’ part, which is the result of your adopting a neurocognitive model.
I can’t claim that consciousness is required to have memory, only that our notions of memory are derived from our conscious ability. Boichemical explanations of memory aren’t really explanations of how memory exists, just signs of the change in memory.
Sorry for the drive-by question, but suppose I found an unfamiliar digital camera and could not work out the protocol whereby I could retrieve the images from the basic electrostatic states in the Flash memory card. When I take a picture, all I see are microscopic changes in those memory states.
Even though I cannot decode those memories, their formation can still be explained, yes?
Your best bet wuld be to read a few of the other treatments of similar topics in other works, like the Pattern Jugglers of Alastair Reynolds, the vegetable planet in ‘Vaster than empires and more slow’ by LeGuin, and so on. There are plenty of these examples around, just find a sci-fi geek with a big library and you would be well away. This would also help avoid accidentally paralleling a hugo-winning storyline by mistake.
Most of the examples that I can recall consist of lots of small interconnected entities, be they nanomachines, genetically engineered blood cells, algae, hyper-evolved microbes, and so on. Having such things spontaneously occur seems a bit of a stretch for most authors.
Bear in mind that even on earth there are bacteria living kilometres underground - a distributed organism permeating the surface, hydrosphere and upper lithosphere* would be vast, in the order of megatonnes, even if not totally planet-size.
[* terminology made up by me after a 3-hour meeting discussing saving models. Brain no work good now]
First, if you can explain it, you can decode it. But, in general, you can trace out a cascade of changes from light exposure to film grain interaction, yes. Why that film corresponds to a similar visual image when developed & viewed, is a matter of conscious recall.
Sounds like you are saying we must first determine how information can be stored before we can determine how it will be used. I agree.
But, assuming we can think of some physical method of storing information, without the ability to utilize memory while initiating action, then memory would never develop in a natural setting. There must be a reason for memory to exist, and with biological organisms it’s purpose is to increase the likelihood of survival. So I still think an important challenge is to figure out how can whatever information that may be stored in this distributed mass influence actions. What is the mechanical method the various molecules can alter the environment?
But back to your point about figuring out how it might store something in the first place, I would offer the following:
The molecules in question are very fluid, but we need some method to create constants.
In our brain, the connections between cells are the constant that can be adjusted/created to account for new memories.
We need something that retains state despite the physical motion of the molecules.
Maybe, despite the individual molecules movement, the pressure in any given cubic centimeter remains constant unless altered by the entity.
Or same thing but electrical charge, or magnetic field.
Yep, that would be the title I put in a spoiler box earlier.
Did you check with Gaia?
Well…one thing that is constant is attributes of the chemical elements, the speed of light, wavelengths of radiation at varying frequencies, eddies where a consistent temperature could be maintained. Im sure there are thousands of ways to store information for a longer period of time. In my mind, I suppose that the possibility has to be at least proven possible, then you start to try and ascertain the why. I have all kinds of ideas on that one, but I want to make sure that there is at least a shred of plausability before I even go down the next part of the journey.
So encryption is inexplicable?
So a digital camera consciously remembers the image when it is reactivated, but does not do so when destroyed, wiped or left switched off?
mrrealtime, there are all sorts of minerals which are (meta)stable in the mantle that could act as *distributed * memory systems, organelles, and possibly sites of conciousness. Just be aware that the mantle is not actually molten because of the enormous pressures, more like a really slow silly putty. This does not preclude the passage of signals rapidly by e.g. induced phase changes in minerals.
Also, the major current driver of mantle heating (therefore life, IMHO) is probably nuclear decay, so there’s a built-in impetus for a self-aware mantle to acquire more material from off-planet to drive its own life processes. For example, all life evolution being focussed on space travel, with the subconcious goal of bringing radioactive material back to the planet? Or “seeding” suitable planets with its own sentience, being the driving force behind the current planet-discovery type missions.
In cases where you can’t decode, of course. You’re just attacking using the notion that encoding and decoding aren’t symmetrical mirror processes. But in order to know how something gets embedded, you have to interact with it i.e. decode it. So, in practical terms, you can only explain the exact encoding process by figuring out how to decode it.
Of course not. When you carry out the development/decoding & then view the image, you recognize it a facsimile by virtue of your conscious memory. An ant won’t recognize the similarity between a scene and its display on a monitor. The assignment of Meaning requires the observer.
Thanks Gyan: those are interesting points for some future conversation!
Why do you think an ant would not recognize the similarity of an image to what it represents? I would think there is a spectrum, on one end is a reproduction so perfect the ant can be fooled, and on the other end is a reproduction such that the ant can’t tell that it is supposed to be similar to something in it’s memory.
That’s missing the point. I used the ‘ant’ as an example since I wanted a conscious agent, but you can substitute the ‘ant’ with a camera lens.
Forgive me for continually bothering you like this, but you’re saying that the ant does “consciously recognise” but the camera doesn’t?
(Incidentally, cameras can and do effectively output a judgement of how ‘familiar’ an image is to something in its memory: that is mathematically what a two-dimensional correlation function yields, as used in eg. real-time traffic sign recognition systems (PDF).)
As a physicalist, you believe that a camera isn’t conscious, so the latter part is uncontroversial. Let’s say the visual percept within an ant A of a scene S is V(S). Then presumably, if the ant’s nervous system forms something close to V(S) upon seeing the display of the scene on a monitor, then the potential to recognize exists. But this would depend on whether the ant’s brain can encode V(S) in memory for sufficient time to get a ‘hit’ upon seeing it on the monitor.
Wonder how it was decided whether the software works well enough.
Incidentally, did you read David Chalmers’ latest blog post?
I didn’t ask what I believe (which, incidentally, is that cameras can be as conscious as ants, if not more so, with complex enough physical circuitry), but what you do: are you saying that the ant consciously remembers but the camera doesn’t?
By another biological computer, like the one talking to you. 
O happy day, David has found a non-imaginary friend! 
I suspect he is stretching the interpretation of the book like a philosophical bungee - of the entire tome he can only point to the last couple of pages, in which any worthy author will ‘soft-pedal’ their position a little! And I have reservation myself about how absolute one can be when declaring oneself, well, anything really. But one single obscure philosopher changes his position? That’s it? Dave’s marvellous hair (which is, of course, itself conscious according to his panpsychic dualism) may be standing on end, but mine certainly isn’t.
The ant might, and so might the camera if it’s conscious. Not otherwise.
A conscious computer.
Not at all. There’s an somewhat old interview of Kim that I read where he says that physicalism, strictly speaking, is false.
Kim may not write popular tomes like Dennett or Chalmers but is serious enough to be tackled among the pages of Behavioural and Brain Science, ranked within the top 3 among neuroscience journals in terms of impact. Read the linked paper brought up in the comments.