> Now we have eight Wild [Ass] Guesses or "WAGs" as Michael Rogers call
> them. Note that Walter Fritz and Sascha Ignjatovic have submitted
> revised versions of their WAGs about the nature of the zone between the
> physical and the non physical.
>
> 1. Walter Fritz thinks that we can get a computer to produce these so
> called "non physical" effects (thought and meaning) and that it can all
> be reduced to physical, chemical and biological objects and processes.
>
> > 2. Don Mikulecky suggests we use Rosen's catagory theory that deals with
> > objects and their models as relational.
> >
> > 3. John Kineman proposes that existence and experience are one and that
> > the becoming experience may be quantum related.
> >
> > 4. Norm McPhail submits that the qualities of non physical data somehow
> > transpose into effecting physical differences.
> >
> > 5. Alexei Sharov considers it possible that physical existance is a
> > condition or expression of meaning.
>
> 6. Sascha Ignjatovic postulates a meta mathematical system of the
> absolute wich represents the concept of the sum and origin of all
> energy/world. To understand this system, we have to start theoretical
> research into the concept and structure of the highest possible system,
> the absolute.
>
> > 7. Mario Vaneechoutte writes that the key to grasping the non physical
> > may be to understand the nature of experience, but he feels that our
> > brains may not be capable of doing this.
>
> 8. Michael Rogers claims that there may not be a provable distinction
> between the physical and non physical, hence, even though it may be of
> critical importance, it may not be possible to bridge between our inside
> non physical realms of awareness and mind and the outside physical
> universe.
>
> Does anyone else want to add a WAG or edit their WAG summary?
>
> If not, those who are so inclined can go ahead and take a stab at
> combining these WAGs into a short all inclusive statement. What we're
> trying to do is come up with a set of approaches we can use to help us
> learn more about what's going on in the hypothetical physical/non
> physical zone.
>
> Norm McPhail
Dear all,
here is some clarification of what I mean (the original ideas were sent to
Norman only). It is the abstract of a manuscript I am preparing. I consider
experience as a general characteristic of pattern matching events. Awareness
and consciousness then, which I argue should not be used as synonyms, are
experiences which emerge from the combination of more simpler experiences.
It is important here to explain what I mean with emergence:
Emergence is not "The sum is greater than the parts" (a quantitative try to
describe it).
A much
better description is obtained in qualitative terms: the combination is
different from the parts. The former definition is counterintuitive (how
can the sum of 2 + 4 be more than 6?) and therefore evokes some mystical
thoughts in many people. The latter description best describes how eggs,
wheat, sugar, ... and adding of kinetic energy (stirring) and heat (baking)
recombine into cake.
The cake emerges, but is not more than the sum of the parts, only a
combination of the parts from which different qualitative characteristics
emerge.
Unless we find baking cakes mysterious, there is nothing mysterious about
emergence when defined in a qualitative manner.
(Likewise the metal-like Sodium and the green-coloured gas Chloride combine
into kitchen salt)
ABSTRACT
I want to suggest approaching the concept of consciousness from a dynamic
evolutionary point of view. This may allow us to make more appropriate
distinctions between experience, awareness and consciousness. I will define
experience as a characteristic linked closely to specific pattern recognition,
a characteristic which is already apparent at the molecular level at least.
E.g., one can speak of enzymatic experience.
Awareness then is about the special experience of one or more central, final
modules in the animal neuronal brain, an experience which emerges from the
combination of cellular and enzymatic experiences. From evolutionary
considerations, awareness can be understood functionally and physiologically.
As such, awareness is what experience is to animals.
Finally, consciousness could be defined as reflexive awareness, instead of
using the term as a synonym for awareness. The ability for reflexive awareness
is distinctly different from animal and human awareness. Consciousness sensu
stricto might be ascribed to humans only, i.e. to animals who have developed
additional means for independent storage and transmission of specific patterns
under the form of symbolic language. Words have made reflexive awareness - a
specific and infrequent form of awareness - possible. Conciousness might be
defined as the experience evoked by considering experience.
Explaining and understanding awareness and consciousness as evolved biological
characteristics of the functioning of animals and later humans, seems to pose
no philosophical problems. The hard problem of awareness and consciousness is
that they are experiences. The nature of experience itself remains elusive,
but this is not a problem specific to awareness or consciousness. While the
definition of experience could be broadened to include all molecular and
biological pattern specific recognition events, the true nature of
consciousness might be better understood when considering it as a very
specific form of awareness, reflexive awareness.
(From these definitions it follows that we can speak of experience, awareness
and eventually consciousness of artificial processors. Only, since they start
from different experiences (e.g. those of electronic on/off transistors
instead of electrochemical on/off enzymes), their awareness will be different
from ours.)
Mario.Vaneechoutte
Department Clinical Chemistry, Microbiology & Immunology
University Hospital
De Pintelaan 185
9000 GENT
Belgium
Phone: +32 9 240 36 92
Fax: +32 9 240 36 59
E-mail: Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be
J. Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission:
http://jom-emit.cfpm.org/