Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
From: Ian@ianj.demon.co.uk (Ian Johnson)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!ianj.demon.co.uk!Ian
Subject: Re: Thought Question
References: <3f5nuu$mks@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <1995Jan14.153326.20818@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se> <D2K93p.706@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <vlsi_libD2KKMr.M4G@netcom.com>
Organization: Home
Reply-To: Ian@ianj.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 41
X-Posting-Host: ianj.demon.co.uk
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 09:58:01 +0000
Message-ID: <790509481snz@ianj.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:1849 comp.ai.philosophy:24788 comp.ai:26614

In article <vlsi_libD2KKMr.M4G@netcom.com>
           vlsi_lib@netcom.com "Gerard Malecki" writes:
> However in the final analysis, consciousness doesn't seem to be necessary
> for coming up with sophisticated schemes for survival. Witness how plants,
> with no consciousness or sight or feel whatsoever, came up with a
> brilliant idea to make use of insects for pollination by enticing them
> with attractive colors and liquids some 300 million years ago.
On what basis do we assume that plants are not conscious? Agreed their
consciousness would be somewhat alien to our own, but I would be 
uncomfortable to dismiss them out of hand.

> But consciousness does seem to make the purpose of evolution complete,
> in a philosophical sense. Otherwise evolution is nothing but an 
> endless rearrangement of atoms. A tiger that eats a goat with relish
> perhaps is a better triumph for evolution than an amoeba that
> assimilates algae.  The paradigm of evolution, at least in the case
> of higher animals, may be hedonism.
There's two things I want to drop into this discussion. The first is the
view of the universe that says that the universe 'exists' becuase there
is consciousness to observe it. If you look at Quantum Mechanics there is 
this strange world where two opposing ideas can both be true, until 
somebody (a counsciousness) looks at the experiment to see which outcome
is true. At this point the possibilities collapse to a single 'truth'(if
there are any serious physics people out there that can expand on this 
thought please do; I'm just an enthusiastic amateur). Take a look at the
Schrodingers Cat thought experiment.

The second is that perhaps consciousness is a by product of a complex 
system. We have seen complex computer systems able to achieve demonstrate 
behaviour that has not been programmed directly into it. Perhaps when
the complexity of such a system goes beyond some point it starts to
manifest self determinism etc. as a bug in a program?

Comments anyone?

-- 
.........................  ..............................................
Ian Johnson, Windsor, UK   "What I am now is the price I paid
Net: ian@ianj.demon.co.uk   for what I used to want to be".
Tel: +44 (0)1753 862775    "I think I think, therefore I think I am"
.........................  ............................................
