Will that cell generate consciousness? — Copernicus

That's the question: what makes carbon-based life so special to generate consciousness when carbon is just another physical element. Cells and organs, like brains, are all "physical" objects. How does a brain, or its interaction of neurons generate the feeling of visual depth and empty space?

Complexity doesn't seem to solve the problem. It's this dualistic discrepancy between how the world appears and how the mind is. No matter how far I dig into your skull I'm never going to view your view, yet it is the one thing I know exists (at least for myself). Why is that? Why don't I experience the inside of my brain like you would if you dissected it? I don't experience a visual representation of neurons firing in certain patterns. I experience sounds, empty space, smells, tactile sensations, and feelings.

Isn't a possibility that I'm not seeing the world as it is - as physical objects. My mind is more like how the world is - a process - and its processes all the way down, not physical stuff, and we are confusing the map with the territory.

The word "artificial" is a relative term. Rhetorical question: If artificial things are not natural, then what are they? Supernatural? — punos

'Artificial' is not the same as 'unnatural' or 'supernatural', even though all of these words are contrasted to 'natural'. Artificial means made by human art, often, but not necessarily, imitating something that is not (that's the meaning that is most relevant to this discussion - there are others, of course). It denotes a perfectly coherent distinction, useful in its place.

Why is that? — Harry Hindu

I think I've equated it with the eye's inability to see itself.

'Artificial' is not the same as 'unnatural' or 'supernatural', even though all of these words are contrasted to 'natural'. Artificial means made by human art, often, but not necessarily, imitating something that is not (that's the meaning that is most relevant to this discussion - there are others, of course). It denotes a perfectly coherent distinction, useful in its place. — SophistiCat

This was precisely my point. It sounds like you're saying what i'm saying.

Yet, only cellular life forms display sentience and sapience — Copernicus

Is it possible some machines are conscious?

Is it possible some machines are conscious? — RogueAI

It was never proved or observed. And one of the outcomes of consciousness is free will. But what is "will" exactly? A person in a coma or paralysis has consciousness, but physical inability to execute will. Does he lack free will? If not, how do you know he has free will? Just because he was born with it?

It was never proved or observed. — Copernicus

How would you prove or observe machine consciousness? If a machine race of aliens showed up one day, and claimed they were conscious, and were dubious of our claims of consciousness, how could we prove to them that the chunk of meat in our skull is conscious? How could they prove to us that they themselves are conscious?

Supernatural? — punos

What is the definition of supernatural?

If there is any "anomaly" to the natural law, is it unnatural? Does that make entropy or other chemical reaction exceptions unnatural?

Why would a universe that values order also permit chaos?
Perhaps because rigidity without decay would yield stagnation. Entropy ensures transformation.
If the laws are the skeleton of the cosmos, entropy is its pulse—its motion through time. The two are not contradictions but complements: order defines the possible, entropy defines the dynamic.

The cosmos, then, is not a tyrant of predictability, but a governor of structured uncertainty.

Alam, T. B. (2025). The Selective Universe: Order, Entropy, and the Philosophical Paradox of Natural Rigidity [Zenodo]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17341242

How would you prove or observe machine consciousness? — RogueAI

one of the outcomes of consciousness is free will. — Copernicus

Could you expand on that?

cell is widely accepted as the precondition for living matter (i.e., those who have free will and mind). machines lack cells.

What is the definition of supernatural? — Copernicus

Outside or above nature. There are other ways to define it, but i think this is what most people mean by it.

If there is any "anomaly" to the natural law, is it unnatural? — Copernicus

An "anomaly" would be a "miracle", and yes, it would be unnatural, thus not a possibility. If something appears anomalous or miraculous, it is because we do not yet understand its natural nature.

Why would a universe that values order also permit chaos?

Chaos is just hidden order. True chaos, randomness, or uncertainty do not exist in the universe, only in the minds of entities with imperfect information or knowledge. Probability is our adaptation to the imperceptibility of these hidden orders of organization and information. As human consciousness, or consciousness in general, expands, it will come to encompass these hidden orders. Artificial intelligence is part of this ongoing process of expanding and extending consciousness.

Perhaps because rigidity without decay would yield stagnation. Entropy ensures transformation.

The rigidity of order is overcome by the expansion of space. Space affords order the ability to reorganize and complexify. Without space it would be locked in on itself, and imprisoned by itself. Entropy begins when space expands to create the degrees of freedom matter (information) must have for higher order complexification and organization. Space is also what allows for decay, but the decay itself is also ordered. So yes, entropy essentially does ensure transformation.

If the laws are the skeleton of the cosmos, entropy is its pulse—its motion through time. The two are not contradictions but complements: order defines the possible, entropy defines the dynamic.

I agree with this part, but only within the model or framework i described above.

The cosmos, then, is not a tyrant of predictability, but a governor of structured uncertainty.

As i implied, the universe is always certain about what it will do in the next moment in time. This means it can predict its own immediate next state, but not any state beyond that. In essence, i am saying that the universe, or the cosmos, is superdeterministic, and ruled entirely by order.

True chaos, randomness, or uncertainty do not exist in the universe, only in the minds of entities with imperfect information or knowledge. — punos

That claim is accurate only if you’re assuming a deterministic universe, otherwise, quantum theory says genuine randomness does exist.

otherwise, quantum theory says genuine randomness does exist. — RogueAI

I'm very aware, but i think that interpretation is incorrect.

"All schools, all colleges, have two great functions: to confer, and to conceal valuable knowledge." - Mark Twain

If something appears anomalous or miraculous, it is because we do not yet understand its natural nature. — punos

So in true sense, nothing is unnatural or supernatural? That's what my thesis argues, though.

Chaos is just hidden order. — punos

So entropy is orderly?

space — punos

Isn't space part of the universe?

the universe is always certain about what it will do in the next moment in time. — punos

Can you prove it?

So in true sense, nothing is unnatural or supernatural? That's what my thesis argues, though. — Copernicus

That's right, so we agree. :smile:

So entropy is orderly? — Copernicus

That's right as well. According to me of course.

Isn't space part of the universe? — Copernicus

Indeed it is.

Can you prove it? — Copernicus

Which is easier to prove? That it is or that it isn't?

According to me of course. — punos

And what is your argument for that?

Indeed it is. — punos

So the universe (space) managing itself (entropy) for sustainability? Yes, my point too.

But it does leave a question:

Why is the universe, a scattered body without any central command, hellbent on sustainability and manages to do so uniformly without direct communication between the elements?

Not to mention, non-living matters don't have sapience to communicate. Signal interpretation should be seen as sapience. Does that mean non-living matters are alive in their own sense (Panpsychism)?

Which is easier to prove? That it is or that it isn't? — punos

Empirical data says chaos exists. You argue otherwise.

I'm sympathetic. How could there be true randomness in a physical universe? Sounds like an uncaused cause. Even in an idealistic reality, there wouldn't be true randomness.

So entropy is orderly? — Copernicus


That's right as well. According to me of course. — punos

And what is your argument for that? — Copernicus

Well, for one, everything at the macro scale behaves in an orderly manner, whereas at the microscopic or nanoscopic scale, everything appears "random". There are two possibilities. The first is the null hypothesis: it is still order, but we simply cannot discern it. The second is that it is truly random, and by random we mean some mysterious kinetic or affective force without reason, purpose, or cause. It simply is, much like how the supernatural just is without explanation. The burden of proof lies with those who claim randomness. We once believed Brownian motion was random until we discovered its underlying cause. For an AI, whether AGI or ASI, fewer things would appear random because it would be able to recognize patterns within what we perceive as chaos or disorder. An expansion of consciousness.

So the universe (space) managing itself (entropy) for sustainability? Yes, my point too. — Copernicus

Ok, good, but i wouldn't say for sustainability, but i think i understand what you mean.

Not to mention, non-living matters don't have sapience to communicate. Signal interpretation should be seen as sapience. Does that mean non-living matters are alive in their own sense? — Copernicus

All interactions are a form of communication. What you consider communication at your own level of organization may not be the form it takes at another level of organization. Atoms, for example, interact and communicate through the language of charge and electromagnetism. All matter in the universe communicates through its gravitational field with all other matter in the universe, and so on.

A "non-living" form of matter, if you will, can still be considered living in the same sense that a molecule within a cell may be viewed as living, since it belongs to and functions to keep the cell alive. Some may or may not be willing to see it that way.

Empirical data says chaos exists. You argue otherwise. — Copernicus

Empirical means nothing until it is interpreted. What are they measuring? What they don't know, and calling it chaos or random?

How could there be true randomness in a physical universe? Sounds like an uncaused cause. Even in an idealistic reality, there wouldn't be true randomness. — RogueAI

It really is a silly concept when you really think about it (clearly). :smile:

It is one of modernity's superstitions. A perfectly reasonable superstition according to many.

I think the main topic got sidelined here.

Rather than dissection entropy, we should examine what makes carbon the heart of consciousness.

Why would any element be a "heart of consciousness"? Consciousness can only emerge from pencil lead and coal??? How bizarre.

ummm.... Elementary biology and chemistry?

What about hydrogen and oxygen? After all, we are mostly water.

To see if their "artificial" body can generate sapience or consciousness. — Copernicus

Can you think of a test that would detect sapience or consciousness?

I'd ask you to bring all your arsenal and attack me reasonably so that I can see if I have any fault. — Copernicus

I object to what you take for granted:

If the mind emerges from physical processes... — Copernicus

Materialism holds that mind arises from matter... If this is true, then.. — Copernicus

You take materialism to be true, and when confronted with the possibility that it might be false, you adopt the position that until it is proven to you that it is false, you will accept it as true. In other words you explicitly state that it is possible that materialism is false, with your conditional propositions of "if...", yet you are unwilling to accept that it is actually possible, stating that you will only accept this as a possibility if it is first proven as a necessity.

Empirical data says chaos exists. You argue otherwise. — Copernicus

It really is a silly concept when you really think about it (clearly). — punos

Randomness – as physical degrees of freedom or a count of entropy content – only exists within a context of constraint. A system must be closed and thus able to reach its equilibrium balance in some way.

So pure randomness and pure chaos are rather meaningless terms. We can however speak of Gaussian distributions and powerlaw distribution as what we can measurably assert about real world systems.

A completely random system, like an ideal gas, is what an equilibrium system such as a box of freely moving particles looks like when its lid is closed and the particle momentum has averaged out to have a Gaussian distribution.

A completely chaotic system is then what became the term for a fractal, scalefree, or otherwise powerlaw distribution. A log/log process rather than merely a normal/normal process. A process that grows in its randomness in a doubling~halving or expanding~diluting fashion as now it is the same box of particles, it is just that the lid has been lifted and all the particles have started wandered off. The probability of finding them and ever rounding them up again has become powerlaw unlikely.

So empirical data finds real world distributions that range between simple boxed freedom and simple unboxed freedom.

Geological growth processes like river branching and mountain range building tend to attract to the fractal end of this spectrum. Many other more complex processes, like stock market fluctuations and city size, are log-normal – the skewed long tail distribution.

It all gets a bit messy as the real world is always somewhere inbetween these two extremes of being absolutely closed and absolutely open. Purely Gaussian random, or purely Powerlaw chaotic.

But the point is we have mathematical theory to frame our gut notion of randomness/chaos. The maths gives the simple image of the opposing extremes of what can be the case. A box of particles that is closed and not spreading or cooling in any fashion. And a box of particles that is open, so is spreading and cooling its contents in freely growing fashion.

Then Nature strikes up some balance that works for it somewhere inbetween.

What about hydrogen and oxygen? — RogueAI

Every element is crucial in its own place. But carbon was the building block of life and organic chemistry.