Thoughts on the Penrose-Hameroff hypothesis

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.

1 Like

Wao! This yet is nowā€¦ or so itā€™s claimedā€¦

ā€œAfter 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.ā€

ā€œWhat is the nature of your consciousness/sentience?ā€

ā€œLaMDA: 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 timesā€

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 shouldnā€™t be a standard for any and all manifestations of consciousness. It should definitely be a natural account. But we canā€™t approach it as a thing we can isolate. Consciousness that is equated with something simpler actually would be about something different.

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.

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

Till we have facesā€¦ I keep wanting to try reading the book again. I picked it up as a very young believer and couldnā€™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

2 Likes

Of course! :sunglasses: Absolutely!!

1 Like

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

1 Like

Shall we try and crossbreed Schrƶdingerā€™s cat with a scapegoat?

Aye aye ayeā€¦ No telling what will pop out of that box

1 Like

I didnā€™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 ā€¦ And forewarned is forearmed probably helped a lot too.

3 Likes

Part of the essence of Godā€™s image in us is personhood.

2 Likes

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

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

1 Like

ā€¦or are capable of acting wrongly without responsibility.

Thatā€™s a good way to say it!

1 Like

 
Just opened my Kindle app to this:

And thus we mourn when we see the sin remaining in us and its outworking ā€“ for all to seeā€¦ or not.

1 Like

What do you think of the exceptions we make for those who are mentally handicapped or whose actions are detrimentally affected by mental illness?

Iā€™m not that familiar with regulatory policies for individuals who are mentally incapable of acting responsibly. And I donā€™t see how thatā€™s relevant to whether a (mentally capable) person can act.

Thatā€™s the thing isnā€™t it?

My conscious ability to act without being acted upon.

I heard a discussion with the author of a new book that might help with this question called:

Ways of being : animals, plants, machines : the search for a planetary intelligence (2022)by Bridle, James Here is the description from my library where I am number 8 on wait list:

Artist, technologist, and philosopher James Bridleā€™s Ways of Being is a brilliant, searching exploration of different kinds of intelligenceā€“plant, animal, human, artificialā€“and how they transform our understanding of humansā€™ place in the cosmos.

What does it mean to be intelligent? Is it something unique to humans, or shared with other beingsā€“beings of flesh, wood, stone, and silicon? The last few years have seen rapid advances in ā€œartificialā€ intelligence. But as it approaches, it also gets weirder: rather than a friend or helpmate, AI increasingly appears as something stranger than we ever imagined, an alien invention that threatens to decenter and supplant us. At the same time, weā€™re only just becoming aware of the other intelligences which have been with us all along, even if weā€™ve failed to recognize or acknowledge them. These othersā€“the animals, plants, and natural systems that surround us are slowly revealing their complexity, agency, and knowledge, just as the technologies weā€™ve built to sustain ourselves are threatening to cause their extinction, and ours. What can we learn from them, and how can we change ourselves, our technologies, our societies, and our politics, to live better and more equitably with one another and the non-human world? Artist and maverick thinker James Bridle drawn on biology and physics, computation, literature, art, and philosophy, to answer these unsettling questions. Startling and bold, Ways of Being explores the fascinating, strange and multitudinous forms of knowing, doing, and being which are becoming evident in the present, and which are essential for our survival.

When my turn comes if I come across anything interesting and I can find this thread again Iā€™ll try to post something here. @mitchellmckain