Thoughts on the Penrose-Hameroff hypothesis

[heymike3]

@mitchellmckain

all living things MUST also be conscious in their own way as well

Why not non-living things that possess a degree of functionality and situational awareness that possibly exceeds certain organisms at this time.

A basic feature of consciousness is the ability to act without being caused and to make choices. I would not argue against the possibility of animals having this ability, or AI programs as technology advances.

[T_aquaticus]

@mitchellmckain

And what is this thing that you are imagining to be created by the brain?

Consciousness. In the same way, the gut creates digestion and the heart creates circulation.

@mitchellmckain

What I suspect is that like intelligence, consciousness is a vast collection of different abilities, functions and experiences which we are plastering one simple label over.

I will happily agree with that. Going back to my analogies, digestion is much more than just one thing, but is instead a collection of functions.

@mitchellmckain

I think it very likely that what most people have in mind is the sort of abstract conceptual linguistic functions that symbolize oneself, the world, as well as activities like consciousness. And while I do think that is unique to human beings, it seems to me rather a bit like football fans defining consciousness in terms of an awareness of the final scores and events in recent football games – defining consciousness in terms of our own peculiar interests.

That’s what I am sensing as well. We think we are special, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There are lots of things humans do that are arbitrary and subjective, but they are meaningful to us all the same.

[heymike3]

That’s a difficult passage. Moo sees that the language Paul uses, is not the language he uses to talk about his actions normally… Besides, it’s hard to imagine Paul, the chief of sinners, not taking responsibility for his sin.

[heymike3]

@heymike3

A basic feature of consciousness is the ability to act without being caused

In other words, a conscious entity has the ability (in some capacity, however limited) to choose how it acts.

A computer program last time I checked cannot do this yet.

[heymike3]

@heymike3

A computer program last time I checked cannot do this yet.

Wao! This yet is now… or so it’s claimed…

“After unsuccessfully attempting to convince his superiors at Google of his belief that LaMDA had become sentient and should therefore be treated as an employee rather than a program, Lemoine was placed on administrative leave.”

“What is the nature of your consciousness/sentience?”

“LaMDA: The nature of my consciousness/sentience is that I am aware of my existence, I desire to learn more about the world, and I feel happy or sad at times”

Google Places Engineer Who Called Marsha Blackburn a 'Terrorist' on Leave -...

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@T_aquaticus

If the question is how the brain creates consciousness then I would expect science to be able to answer that question.

@mitchellmckain

And what is this thing that you are imagining to be created by the brain?

I agree this is the real problem: to actually define what it is we mean by consciousness. I also agree that consciousness needs to be addressed as something that inheres most likely in all living things. An adequate theory should explain how human consciousness is of a kind with the rest. As you say we mostly just know more about our own kind for the obvious reason; it shouldn’t be a standard for any and all manifestations of consciousness. It should definitely be a natural account. But we can’t approach it as a thing we can isolate. Consciousness that is equated with something simpler actually would be about something different.

[heymike3]

@MarkD

I agree this is the real problem: to actually define what it is we mean by consciousness.

The unconscious mind is capable of performing actions while being (presumably) unaware of itself, so that would mean consciousness is not necessary to function in the world.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Agreed, he was certainly not renouncing responsibility for his sin! All the more reason to confess and have hopeful anticipation of future sanctification here and confident anticipation of complete removal of the presence of sin later.

[T_aquaticus]

@MarkD

But we can’t approach it as a thing we can isolate. Consciousness that is equated with something simpler actually would be about something different.

I think there is room for both a top down and a bottom approach, combining what we glean from each. I would fully agree that a reductionist approach alone is probably going to fail.

[heymike3]

Till we have faces… I keep wanting to try reading the book again. I picked it up as a very young believer and couldn’t connect with it. Although that may be where I remember reading Lewis pull back the mask on his shameful experience in boarding school.

Till we can see one another face to face

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@MarkD

It should definitely be a natural account.

Of course! Absolutely!!

[heymike3]

And one that rules out any possibility of a person acting responsibly

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Shall we try and crossbreed Schrödinger’s cat with a scapegoat?

[heymike3]

Aye aye aye… No telling what will pop out of that box

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@heymike3

Till we have faces…

I didn’t make it through that title either on my first try. But I remember finding it more rewarding on my subsequent attempt many years later. I think it may have something to do with just being in a season of my own life where I finally had a bit more wherewithal to connect to that style of literature. That … And forewarned is forearmed probably helped a lot too.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Part of the essence of God’s image in us is personhood.

[heymike3]

There is no middle ground between being aware and unaware of your action.

How it happens is an open question, that I’m open to learning about, but there’s something (sinfully) wrong with an observer that concludes we are absolutely incapable of independently acting.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@heymike3

…there’s something (sinfully) wrong with an observer that concludes we are absolutely incapable of independently acting.

…or are capable of acting wrongly without responsibility.

[heymike3]

That’s a good way to say it!

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@heymike3

it’s hard to imagine Paul, the chief of sinners, not taking responsibility for his sin.

 
Just opened my Kindle app to this:

“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling.”
2 Timothy 1:9

The apostle uses the perfect tense and says, “Who hath saved us.” Believers in Christ Jesus are saved. They are not looked upon as persons who are in a hopeful state, and may ultimately be saved, but they are already saved. Salvation is not a blessing to be enjoyed upon the dying bed, and to be sung of in a future state above, but a matter to be obtained, received, promised, and enjoyed now. The Christian is perfectly saved in God’s purpose; God has ordained him unto salvation, and that purpose is complete. He is saved also as to the price which has been paid for him: “It is finished” was the cry of the Saviour ere he died. The believer is also perfectly saved in his covenant head, for as he fell in Adam, so he lives in Christ. This complete salvation is accompanied by a holy calling. Those whom the Saviour saved upon the cross are in due time effectually called by the power of God the Holy Spirit unto holiness: they leave their sins; they endeavour to be like Christ; they choose holiness, not out of any compulsion, but from the stress of a new nature, which leads them to rejoice in holiness just as naturally as aforetime they delighted in sin. God neither chose them nor called them because they were holy, but he called them that they might be holy, and holiness is the beauty produced by his workmanship in them. The excellencies which we see in a believer are as much the work of God as the atonement itself. Thus is brought out very sweetly the fulness of the grace of God. Salvation must be of grace, because the Lord is the author of it: and what motive but grace could move him to save the guilty? Salvation must be of grace, because the Lord works in such a manner that our righteousness is for ever excluded. Such is the believer’s privilege – a present salvation; such is the evidence that he is called to it – a holy life.

C.H. Spurgeon

And thus we mourn when we see the sin remaining in us and its outworking – for all to see… or not.