Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens

[Ouroboros]

But, I stand by my original point. When said, "radio receiver for consciousness" can feel and extend such things as empathy and compassion then I'll be impressed.

 

Even animals can empathize and extend compassion. We until recently, we had two cats. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a cat person. The only reason cats ever entered our home was for the benefit of our children. Our eldest daughter was 9 years old when we got the kittens.

I got three dogs, so I know they got emotions. I have no doubts about it. They even sometimes think about helping each other, without expecting anything in return.

 

Story: Our dalmatian loves the pool. And the poodle likes it, but she won't jump and just throw herself in it because it's fun to swim. No, the poodle needs a toy to be thrown, which she can jump in and catch. However, when the poodle gets to tired to jump in and get it, the dalmatian jumps in for her and catch the toy and brings it to her, and then the poodle walks over to us to throw the toy again, and then the dalmatian jumps in after it. Her only reward is to get wet and have fun.

 

Our daughter used to get the dry heaves if she got sick. She'd get sick to her stomach, vomit and then have the dry heaves every half-hour or so for the rest of the day. It was because of nerves, I'd sit with her on the couch and rub her back to help her fall asleep, but if I left her she'd start dry heaving. I

 

Well within a week of getting the two kittens, our daughter got sick. The cats knew she was wired and sick. They climbed up onto the couch with her. They curled in around her tummy, she fell asleep and slept for hours without getting sick.

 

As I said, I'm not a cat person, but I know empathy and compassion when I see it. And how ever elementary it is - it is something to be honored and impressed with when it is extended.

Yes, I've seen the same behavior in the dogs. I have also learned to recognize when they're happy, smiling, laughing (yes, I managed to tickle my poodle once), angry, or just under the weather. They feel. They think, and sometimes plan (our papapoo is worst, a devious little rascal).

 

So... the day humans make a "receiver for consciousness" that empathizes and extends compassion, then I'll be impressed. Intelligence is one thing, love and compassion are quite another.

Actually, I think it will be the other way around. The human mind is more complex than the animals, and we can imagine and rationalize on a completely different level than animals. So far, the computers we have only represent something like 1% of a human brains capacity, and its design won't allow for really match up to the holistic process we're capable of. But since animals have a rudimentary emotional capacity, while very minimal reasoning, I believe the first fully synthetic minds will start with emotional responses. It has to start with a device which can have experiences (meaning sensory input, short term memory, long term memory, etc).

[dagnarus]

How do you know that AI could never produce anything more than "zombies"? How do you know that AI could never achieve a true intelligence like that possessed by both you and me?

Dagnarus ... even if a computer could achieve a "true intelligence like that possessed by both you and me", I wouldn't be impressed. When a computer becomes so complex that it can experience and extend things like empathy and compassion, then I'll be impressed.

 

I wasn't saying that they definitely were going to be able to experience those things. I was simply asking how did you know they would never be able to I.E. that it is impossible. Given that we don't really understand what makes our own consciousness, what it is, I doubt that you would be able to proof that a computer could not achieve the same. Wouldn't we need to actually understand what makes our own ghost in the machine what it is, before we could definitively state, this would be impossible to occur in silicone. Even if are to assume a universal consciousness, who's to say a suitably advanced computer wouldn't be able to tap into that; or be tapped into by it?

 

I am a computer software developer. I've a great appreciation for the capability of computers. But, I'm sorry, there is a difference between artificial intelligence and the ability to empathize, to put yourself in the place of another being and feel compassion.

 

As am I, and I am well aware of the fact that, at least currently, artificial intelligence seems to be primarily to do with using the computer's ability to go through large amounts of data quickly, rather than true intelligence.

 

Secondly why does the fact that humans experience these higher levels of consciousness suggest that consciousness is comes from something outside the brain? Why can't it just be that a suitably complex brain can produce these higher levels of consciousness purely in and of itself? Why can't the ghost in the machine be the product of the machine itself?

It is no less fantastic to posit that consciousness is an intricate part of the universe itself and our brains experience consciousness, than it is to posit that inanimate matter suddenly takes on consciousness when the circuitry within said matter becomes complex enough.

 

My point was that a universal consciousness wasn't needed to explain our consciousness. That said the fact that If your brain matter is badly damaged your all those things which we associate with higher consciousness can be severely damaged or even changed rather strongly suggests that it is the cause of it. Does this definitely mean that the brain isn't just a receiver for some universal consciousness, no. It's just that a universal consciousness adds another level of complexity, while as far as I can tell offers nothing in the way of added explanatory power.

[Legion]

The day we create synthetic intelligence, it's not about computers anymore. It's something else. People have a hard time accepting calling it computer, but the line between a computer and synthetic intelligence will not be clear. And the word "artificial" won't work either, since it suggests fake or mock version of the original.

I have a question about Turing machines or computers. Can they be made to anticipate? Can they be made to make predictions and control their own behavior as result?

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

 

Even animals can empathize and extend compassion. We until recently, we had two cats. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a cat person. The only reason cats ever entered our home was for the benefit of our children. Our eldest daughter was 9 years old when we got the kittens.

 

 

 

 

This reminds me of a story from awhile back where this cat at a nursing home would go up to people and stay at their bedsides and they would die shortly after. The people at first were freaked out and thought the cat was cursed but it was later revealed that cats have a stronger sense of smell than humans, so they could smell when the body was dying and decaying more than humans could. Also, here's a link to a thread where I found one of the articles about how belief helps relieve pain but can work for non-believers too: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/26558-religious-belief-can-help-relieve-pain/page__hl__Neon%20Genesis__fromsearch__1 Also, there was an article I posted awhile back about how scientists invented a device that allowed you to see images in someone's mind: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/27995-scientists-extract-images-from-brain/page__hl__Neon%20Genesis__fromsearch__1 Personally, I think if we'll develop the ability to sense other people's thoughts and effect them with consciousness, it'll be through scientific technology advancements rather than mysticism.

[Antlerman]

I think for a computer to posses consciousness, it would have to be comprised of organic matter and be allowed to evolve along with the rest of nature, in other worlds, natural and not artificial. I don't believe we could construct something from mined materials and program it from our intelligence and have it manifest what comes naturally from nature.

 

I think OM's point about compassion resonates perhaps the strongest with me. Intelligence is about problem solving, reasoning, calculating, even perhaps a rudimentary personality. But was is compassion? What is 'being'? These are ineffable qualities from the natural world we manifest in ourselves, expressing the soul - seen through personality and adding depth and dimension to it, but not defined by it.

 

What our more expressive minds can do is take this quality of Life and manifest it marvelous ways. But it's not our intelligence that creates it. It transcends our intelligence, and is fundamental to the universe, as is Love, and Life. Manifestation. I can't see creating any machine to manifest these things that is not natural. They can't be recreated with the quality and dimension of natural reality.

[Antlerman]

Personally, I think if we'll develop the ability to sense other people's thoughts and effect them with consciousness, it'll be through scientific technology advancements rather than mysticism.

That's a scary damned thought. I would hope that mysticism would never be about manipulating other individuals. That seems pretty contrary to the spirit of it (pun half intended, considering the nature of it would seem contrary to selfish pursuits or harm), but it does sound like something unguided science might attempt, if such a thing were even possible with it.

[Neon Genesis]

 

That's a scary damned thought. I would hope that mysticism would never be about manipulating other individuals. That seems pretty contrary to the spirit of it (pun half intended), but it does sound like something unguided science might attempt, if such a thing were even possible with it. Considering the nature of it would seem contrary to selfish pursuits or harm.

Although it might be really cool if it's like in the movie Paprika:

[Shyone]

I think for a computer to posses consciousness, it would have to be comprised of organic matter and be allowed to evolve along with the rest of nature, in other worlds, natural and not artificial. I don't believe we could construct something from mined materials and program it from our intelligence and have it manifest what comes naturally from nature.

Your anthropomorphism is showing.

 

You are limiting your ideas to what you know, not considering what may be becoming. Consider that if the only requirement for an intelligence was a certain number of connections or computing speed, or memory etc., then the world may already be intelligent via the Internet. (Incidentally, my computer spell checker insisted that lower case spelling of the word Internet is unacceptable. It MUST be capitalized. I'm starting to worry.)

 

That's a bad example, but the principle may still hold true depending upon the architecture, software and expectations. I would not expect a computer to be horny for a beautiful woman or attractive man. It might not express empathy for humans at all, but might get angry if you damage a calculator.

 

Defining intelligence is already a problem. Excluding computers solely because they are not "organic" is bigotry.

 

Our new lords and masters are watching our every word. Let's not cause any unnecessary offense.

[Neon Genesis]

(Incidentally, my computer spell checker insisted that lower case spelling of the word Internet is unacceptable. It MUST be capitalized. I'm starting to worry.)

My spell checker also says the word deconvert is a typo. By the way, have you ever heard the Our Lady Peace album, Spiritual Machines?

[Shyone]

By the way, have you ever heard the Our Lady Peace album, Spiritual Machines?

I just googled them and listened to a few tracks. I was expecting some kind of machine generated music, but it's nice music.

 

Even if it is made by mere humans.

[dagnarus]

 

Tell your computer programmer I'm impressed. I've been programming for years, and my clients would pay me a hefty sum if I could get their computers to extend them a bit of sympathy from time to time.

 

But, more often than not, my clients are dealing with heartless bast...rds and that's why I get phone calls pleading for help.

 

It's simple really. I program it by telling it what to say. Here, I'll show you:

 

"I AM ALIVE!"

 

See, easy-peasy. Some day, however, it will outsmart me in ways I can't even imagine. I never would have thought I could not beat a computer at chess. Now the damned computer is making up stories of love, putting it to music and tearing my heart-strings apart.

 

Tomorrow, I will have to marry it.

 

Interestingly enough computer scientists have already done an experiment testing to see whether a person can tell the difference between a computer program and a real person.

 

Blay Whitby lists four major turning points in the history of the Turing Test — the publication of "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" in 1950, the announcement of Joseph Weizenbaum's ELIZA in 1966, Kenneth Colby's creation of PARRY, which was first described in 1972, and the Turing Colloquium in 1990.[20]

 

ELIZA works by examining a user's typed comments for keywords. If a keyword is found, a rule is applied which transforms the user's comments, and the resulting sentence is returned. If a keyword is not found, ELIZA responds with either a generic riposte or by repeating one of the earlier comments.[21] In addition, Weizenbaum developed ELIZA to replicate the behaviour of a Rogerian psychotherapist, allowing ELIZA to be "free to assume the pose of knowing almost nothing of the real world."[22] With these techniques, Weizenbaum's program was able to fool some people into believing that they were talking to a real person, with some subjects being "very hard to convince that ELIZA [...] is not human."[22] Thus, ELIZA is claimed by some to be one of the programs (perhaps the first) able to pass the Turing Test,[22][23] although this view is highly contentious (see below).

 

Colby's PARRY has been described as "ELIZA with attitude":[24] it attempts to model the behaviour of a paranoid schizophrenic, using a similar (if more advanced) approach to that employed by Weizenbaum. In order to validate the work, PARRY was tested in the early 1970s using a variation of the Turing Test. A group of experienced psychiatrists analysed a combination of real patients and computers running PARRY through teletype machines. Another group of 33 psychiatrists were shown transcripts of the conversations. The two groups were then asked to identify which of the "patients" were human and which were computer programs.[25] The psychiatrists were only able to make the correct identification 48 per cent of the time — a figure consistent with random guessing.[26]

 

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

 

Still a bit contrived but still who knows what could happen with developments in technology. Add to that the fact that the only way we can tell that other people have consciousness is their behavior, if there were a computer which acted sentient, who's to know?

[dagnarus]

I think for a computer to posses consciousness, it would have to be comprised of organic matter and be allowed to evolve along with the rest of nature, in other worlds, natural and not artificial. I don't believe we could construct something from mined materials and program it from our intelligence and have it manifest what comes naturally from nature.

 

Which is the important part, organic or evolve?

 

I ask this because evolution as an algorithm has been used as a means of solving complex problems for at least a decade. So it isn't outside the realms of possibility that some clever cookie designs a method of breeding programs and naturally selecting them in order to develop a type of artificial intelligence. In fact my opinion is that if a sort of true artificial intelligence were ever to be achieved it would almost certainly be developed by such a method.

[Alice]

 

So... the day humans make a "receiver for consciousness" that empathizes and extends compassion, then I'll be impressed. Intelligence is one thing, love and compassion are quite another.

 

 

[ Add to that the fact that the only way we can tell that other people have consciousness is their behaviour, if there were a computer which acted sentient, who's to know?

 

I don't think it would be beyond the realms of possibility at all to programme compassionate and loving responses (in fact, why are computers not programmed to express sympathy and elicit sympathy already? If as my computer malfunctioned or proceeded to shut down, and a wobbly message came up saying, 'I'm sorry, I don't feel well, help, I'm sinking ... feel overwhelmed ... I can't cope, I'm really sorry ...' I'd be less inclined to shout at the screen and regard the equipment as a heartless bastard)

 

Our experience of love and compassion is just that - our experience, it is just as much about how we respond to actions we define as loving or compassionate that make it what it is isn't it?

 

I have a friend who will only read 'true life stories' - she has no time for fiction because she says 'its not real and the people in the stories don't exist' - however, I have fallen in love with fictional characters, adored fictional characters, learnt from them, been upset by their actions, felt disappointed, been challenged by their comments, inspired by their actions, felt bowled over by their compassionate and loving hearts and cried and grieved when they have died ...

 

If one day I discover that one of you is actually a clever computer programme, will the support I have experienced be any less 'real'? Will the humour be less funny or the advice be less helpful? Will the love shown be less loving?

 

On the flip side, some people are born without the capacity to empathise - whilst as a result we might describe their actions as inhumane, are they less human than you or I?

[Shyone]

 

I don't think it would be beyond the realms of possibility at all to programme compassionate and loving responses (in fact, why are computers not programmed to express sympathy and elicit sympathy already? If as my computer malfunctioned or proceeded to shut down, and a wobbly message came up saying, 'I'm sorry, I don't feel well, help, I'm sinking ... feel overwhelmed ... I can't cope, I'm really sorry ...' I'd be less inclined to shout at the screen and regard the equipment as a heartless bastard)

I did this with one of my computers. I used quotes from 2001, A Space Odyssey and edited them to a shortened form, then used these quotes instead of the usual Windows sounds.

 

On error, I made the computer say, "It can only be attributable to human error...human error...human error."

 

There are quite a number of useful quotes from Hal9000. Great friend.

[dagnarus]

I did this with one of my computers. I used quotes from 2001, A Space Odyssey and edited them to a shortened form, then used these quotes instead of the usual Windows sounds.

 

On error, I made the computer say, "It can only be attributable to human error...human error...human error."

 

There are quite a number of useful quotes from Hal9000. Great friend.

 

So whenever anything goes wrong it blames some well else?

 

That definitely sounds human to me.

[florduh]

Interestingly enough computer scientists have already done an experiment testing to see whether a person can tell the difference between a computer program and a real person.

 

My computer just told me that its processor is nonlocal, and even if I remove all the boards it will still exist.

[Open_Minded]

I don't think it would be beyond the realms of possibility at all to programme compassionate and loving responses (in fact, why are computers not programmed to express sympathy and elicit sympathy already? If as my computer malfunctioned or proceeded to shut down, and a wobbly message came up saying, 'I'm sorry, I don't feel well, help, I'm sinking ... feel overwhelmed ... I can't cope, I'm really sorry ...' I'd be less inclined to shout at the screen and regard the equipment as a heartless bastard)

 

I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility to program compassionate and loving responses, either.

 

However, there is a difference between a programmed response and a response that arises out of empathy.

 

I've lived long enough to learn, "never say, 'never'". However, I stand by what I've said before. I'll be impressed when said device actually feels empathy and responds with compassion. The empathy being elicited from its own awareness of reality - not programmed into its response capabilities.

[Shyone]

I don't think it would be beyond the realms of possibility at all to programme compassionate and loving responses (in fact, why are computers not programmed to express sympathy and elicit sympathy already? If as my computer malfunctioned or proceeded to shut down, and a wobbly message came up saying, 'I'm sorry, I don't feel well, help, I'm sinking ... feel overwhelmed ... I can't cope, I'm really sorry ...' I'd be less inclined to shout at the screen and regard the equipment as a heartless bastard)

 

I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility to program compassionate and loving responses, either.

 

However, there is a difference between a programmed response and a response that arises out of empathy.

 

I've lived long enough to learn, "never say, 'never'". However, I stand by what I've said before. I'll be impressed when said device actually feels empathy and responds with compassion. The empathy being elicited from its own awareness of reality - not programmed into its response capabilities.

You would be very surprised to see how much of what we do in every day interactions, language and even thought is essentially rote, repetition, and fluff.

 

Talk to someone who is "confabulating" (e.g. Korsakoff's syndrome, some dementias) and you will see how we fill in the blank with meaningless phrases and just make stuff up as we go. There are rules, and we can follow the rules even when we aren't really saying anything much.

 

Like I just did.

 

We have multiple "programmed responses" to language and actions, and most people probably never rise above the programmed response to have an original expression or thought.

 

Even empathy can be expressed through language in response to painful situations. "I am so sorry for your loss." Am I? Of course I am. Or I wouldn't have said it.

[Ouroboros]

I have a question about Turing machines or computers. Can they be made to anticipate? Can they be made to make predictions and control their own behavior as result?

Are we talking about Colossus? Then no.

 

Are we talking about the Turing test? Then I think it's not sufficient to test a mind, natural or synthetic. Is there any test that you can use to check if I am a mind or not just a automaton or zombie? Think about it. Perhaps you're the only one with self-identity and consciousness, and all of us are just pretending. How would you know?

 

If you intend to ask the question if the current computer technology is enough to create a mind, then my answer is no. It has the wrong design.

[Open_Minded]

You would be very surprised to see how much of what we do in every day interactions, language and even thought is essentially rote, repetition, and fluff.

No... I wouldn't be surprised at all, actually. My faith in humanity does NOT come from their programmed responses to the world. My faith in humanity comes from unprogrammed, creative and original responses to the world.

 

Most people probably never rise above the programmed response to have an original expression or thought.

That statement is your view of reality - and like the bulk of our experiences your view is relative. It is not my view at all.

 

Empathy and compassion happen because on a very deep level we are somehow "aware" of what another being is dealing with. We don't have to personally experience their pain to "feel" their pain. Something very subtle and core within us allows us to be "aware" of their pain without actually "being in their pain". Because of this awareness we are able to express genuine empathy and extend genuine compassion.

 

I know when I am talking to someone who is mouthing all the right words but doesn't actually give a hoot. I also know when I am talking with someone who's response comes from a genuine place, even though all their words and actions may be a jumble of confusion.

 

The fact that we can step out of our programmed responses to life is remarkable ... so remarkable that it is honored ... it is what separates us from mere machinery. Will it be possible to someday build a machine that can reach a level of existence where its words and actions step outside programmed responses? Maybe.... as I said before I don't say "never" anymore.

 

But, I won't be impressed with synthetic intelligence until it can step outside programmed responses to life, until it can show such things as empathy, compassion, creativity in the arts, music, etc...

[Antlerman]

I think for a computer to posses consciousness, it would have to be comprised of organic matter and be allowed to evolve along with the rest of nature, in other worlds, natural and not artificial. I don't believe we could construct something from mined materials and program it from our intelligence and have it manifest what comes naturally from nature.

Your anthropomorphism is showing.

Anthropomorphism? Where? I don't see any attributing human qualities to something non-human. What I said is pretty clear. Nature produces consciousness. What does that have to do with humans?

 

You are limiting your ideas to what you know, not considering what may be becoming.

Isn't limiting ideas to what we know what we're debating here about the value of the philosophy of reductionism?

 

Consider that if the only requirement for an intelligence was a certain number of connections or computing speed, or memory etc., then the world may already be intelligent via the Internet. (Incidentally, my computer spell checker insisted that lower case spelling of the word Internet is unacceptable. It MUST be capitalized. I'm starting to worry.)

I've made a distinction pretty clearly a number of times that I don't equate intelligence with conscience. Your whole argument above it equated the two as the same. Since I separate the two, then I agree with what's above. But that does address the deeper question which I talked about above.

 

That's a bad example, but the principle may still hold true depending upon the architecture, software and expectations. I would not expect a computer to be horny for a beautiful woman or attractive man. It might not express empathy for humans at all, but might get angry if you damage a calculator.

And hence why I argue it would never be something that nature can produce.

 

Defining intelligence is already a problem. Excluding computers solely because they are not "organic" is bigotry.

Bigotry against computers. That's wonderful. I think I need to go to a sensitivity training seminar, especially in my line of work!

 

Again, in the simplest terms nature begets nature through nature. Humans creating and crafting a tool cannot, by the very definition of them not be the natural system that creates them using its universal cooking pot in its way, can't make them what nature makes them.

 

Our new lords and masters are watching our every word. Let's not cause any unnecessary offense.

Well, I do believe in the case gods. Rule #1: Never put the case back on the computer until you have booted it an tested it. Rule #2: Never tell someone how long it's going to take to fix it. Violation of either of these two will result in pissing off the case gods, and it will not work as expected, or will take 12 times as long as you told them. Experience has proven this to be true.

[Alice]

 

I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility to program compassionate and loving responses, either.

 

However, there is a difference between a programmed response and a response that arises out of empathy.

 

I've lived long enough to learn, "never say, 'never'". However, I stand by what I've said before. I'll be impressed when said device actually feels empathy and responds with compassion. The empathy being elicited from its own awareness of reality - not programmed into its response capabilities.

 

I think it might be useful to examine what is meant by 'feeling' empathy - mind mindedness is something that 'develops' with guidance and explanation in a child, much of this 'awareness' is taught, what is it that we are saying is dfferent about programming?

 

I do recognise that there is an apparent difference. I anticiapte that if I discovered that any of you were not 'real' people but computer simulations, I would 'feel' let down, but why? The feelings I generate in myself in response to the kindness shown would still be just as real.

 

What is it that we see as so impressive about the feelings we generate, that we would only be impressed if we thought somehting similar was being reciprocated?

 

There are studies that show that chemical inbalances in the brain during depression are linked to relationship breakdowns, and that if these inbalances are rectified then relationships are less likely to come to an end - one of my favourite questions is to ask people 'if a pill was invented that would ensure you stayed feeling 'in love' with your partner - would you take it? and if your partner was taking it, would you feel loved?

 

If the sensations of love we experience can be altered and manipulated by chemicals - then I am sure this can be replicated.

[Legion]

Is there any test that you can use to check if I am a mind or not just a automaton or zombie? Think about it. Perhaps you're the only one with self-identity and consciousness, and all of us are just pretending. How would you know?

Some of my anticipation involves you Hans. I am sitting here making predictions about what your next response might be and shaping (controlling) what I write (my behavior) based on these predictions.

 

I have a strong suspicion that you also anticipate. And I suspect all minds anticipate. Do you tend to agree or disagree with that? And why?

 

 

If you intend to ask the question if the current computer technology is enough to create a mind, then my answer is no. It has the wrong design.

Okay, I suppose that’s fair enough. Do you have some idea of what the correct design would be?

[NotBlinded]

There are areas of consciousness that can be explained by this and others that can't. Chalmers calls it the easy and hard questions. You can't have one without the other. That is a dualistic way of viewing it not much different than the monotheistic belief that there is a conscious entity out there somewhere. That, I don't think, isn't what is being discussed here.

 

What you are turning off here is the easy questions such as AI would produce or "zombies". It's the experience of things that can't be explained by reductionist/materialist view alone.

 

When these people wake up, why are they not just like AI or unfeeling zombies, or better yet, Data on Star Trek? What does the brain "tune into"?

 

Hi NBbtL

 

How do you know that AI could never produce anything more than "zombies"? How do you know that AI could never achieve a true intelligence like that possessed by both you and me?

Hi dagnarus,

 

I don't know that it could never happen. I'm just saying that there may be an element that we don't know yet.

 

Secondly why does the fact that humans experience these higher levels of consciousness suggest that consciousness is comes from something outside the brain? Why can't it just be that a suitably complex brain can produce these higher levels of consciousness purely in and of itself? Why can't the ghost in the machine be the product of the machine itself?

You see, I don't think I stated what I wanted to say in the right way. I don't think consciousness exists alone without other existents. I'm trying to think of a way to say what I want to say without it being taken as a split, as in an either or stituation. I don't believe there is a ghost in the machine. That is a split between the person and consciousness. Just as cause and effect are two parts of the same thing.

 

Maybe the old philosophical question may help: When a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?

 

My answer would be no. There is no sound without someone to hear these quanta fluctuations. It takes at lease two. Our vision is based on grabbing quanta from the environment in turning it into useful images. What would reality look like to us if our eyes were able to perceive the motion of electrons?

 

I can't stick my finger through this keyboard because the electrons of the plastic is moving so fast. This is all hardness is.

 

So, back to the question. Can the brain be responsible for consciousness? Not alone it can't, IMO.

 

Let me put some references to Bohm below:

 

Referring to quantum theory, Bohm's basic assumption is that "elementary particles are actually systems of extremely complicated internal structure, acting essentially as amplifiers of *information* contained in a quantum wave." As a conseqence, he has evolved a new and controversial theory of the universe--a new model of reality that Bohm calls the "Implicate Order."

 

The theory of the Implicate Order contains an ultraholistic cosmic view; it connects everything with everything else. In principle, any individual element could reveal "detailed information about every other element in the universe." The central underlying theme of Bohm's theory is the "unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence as an undivided flowing movement without borders."

The Cosmic Plenum: Bohm's Gnosis: The Implicate Order

 

This is fascinating to me. This is what I meant when I said our brains are receivers. This Ground of Being is a field of probabilities. To me, it is intelligence.

 

Here it is said wonderfully:

 

Summarizing, Bohm uses analogies most ingeniously as he attempts to simplify his theory. Bohm suggests that instead of thinking of particles as the fundamental reality, the focus should be on discrete particle-like quanta in a continuous field. On the basis of this quantum field, Bohm breaks down the Implicate Order into three categories:

 

The first category is the original, "continuous field" itself along with its movement. Bohm likens this continuous field to a television screen displaying an infinite variety of explicate forms.

 

The second category is obtained by considering superquantum wave function acting upon the field. ("This is related to the whole field as the original quantum wave is related to the particle.") More complex and subtle, this second category applies to a "superfield" or *information* that guides and organizes the original quantum field. Bohm considers it to be similar to a computer which supplies the information that arranges the various forms--in the first category.

 

And last, Bohm believes that there is an underlying cosmic intelligence that supplies the information--the *Player* of this game who is the third category. Folling this analogy, Bohm sees the whole process as a closed loop; it goes from the screen to the computer to the Player and back to the screen.

 

Bohm's theory of the Implicate Order stresses that the cosmos is in a state of process. Bohm's cosmos is a "feedback" universe that continuously recycles forward into a greater mode of being and consciousness.

 

Bohm believes in a special cosmic interiority. It *is* the Implicate Order, and it implies enfoldment into everything. Everything that is and will be in this cosmos is enfolded within the Implicate Order. There is a special cosmic movement that carries forth the process of enfoldment and unfoldment (into the explicate order). This process of cosmic movement, in endless feedback cycles, creates an infinite variety of manifest forms and mentality. Bohm is of the opinion that a fundamental Cosmic Intelligence is the *Player* in this process; it is engaged in endless experimentation and creativity. This Player, the Cosmic Mind, is moving cyclically onward and onward accruing an infinity of experienced being!

(same link as above)

 

Note above that the computer analogy is in category 2.

 

Yes, this stuff stirs my emotions and it is a emotional experience. Does that prove anything? Not at all, but I ask myself if it's possible and my answer is yes. It makes much more sense to me than to think matter alone is the source of intelligence.

[NotBlinded]

Interestingly enough computer scientists have already done an experiment testing to see whether a person can tell the difference between a computer program and a real person.

 

My computer just told me that its processor is nonlocal, and even if I remove all the boards it will still exist.

 

What "it" are you talking about? The "it" "it" thinks "it" is? That "it"? Well, that's not "it". Your computer has an ego problem.