Ultimately consciousness needs to be explained in practical rather than purely philosophical terms. — Gary Enfield

I question that. Whatever is fundamental can't be explained in terms of anything else. That's what makes it fundamental.

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. — Max Planck

In accordance with complexity theory:

The qualia ( or quality ) of disparate elements, when combined, may form a synergy. The synergy is an emergent quality not found in any of the elements individually.. The form of the synergy is a random property, depending upon the qualities of the elements combined.

1.The synergy of atoms combined forms molecules
2. The synergy of molecules combined forms amino acids
3. the synergy of amino acids combined forms proteins: (100% confidence level)
4. the synergy of proteins combined forms cells: 100%
5. The synergy of cells combined forms organs: 100%
6. The synergy of organs combined forms bodies: 100%
7. The synergy of bodies combined forms families, communities, a nation, etc

Each layer of the system is caused by self organization, which is a "fundamental" universal quality, in a universe biased to self organize. Or put another way; the synergy is a function of self organization.

Each layer of the system is its own idiomatic milieu, where the problems of the milieu are cognized and resolved collectively.

Every moment of human consciousness is a moment of self organization. Many people can relate to this assertion intuitively in that consciousness is in some way self organization, but I mean it absolutely! :smile:

. Awareness is not consciousness and at best is just one of several factors in achieving consciousness. — Gary Enfield

This just begs another can of worms to be opened: Is awareness possible without self-awareness, or conciusness? You say it is only one factor, but do you deny it's one factor that can't be lacked? I.e. do you deny that this factor, thta is, awareness, is a must-have for the conscious being to have?

A plant will turn its leaves to the sun; but this is not due to awareness, it is due to non-chlorophyll producing parts growing faster than the chlorophyll-producing ones.

For communication to be present, is there any requirement for awareness? Yes, but only if it is biological communication of abstract values. For instance, a tic may give out a signal that it is looking for a mate to produce offspring. This is a random sound, and only meaningful to other tics. Whereas the magnetic pull of a piece of iron is "calling" or "recruiting" pieces of irons, but it's not symbolic, it is not communicating abstract values. It is not biological communication.

Can a single molecule communicate? In the sense that it says something DIFFERENT from its chemical valences? I hardly think so. It can't communicate more more in chemical discourse aside from it wants to join or disjoin electron paths with another atom or molecule. Or it wants to disintegrate into component parts. "Wants" is a misnomer, of course, it is anthropomorphizing them. But aside from valent attraction and repulsion, there is not much else a molecule can do. It can't choose between two different molecules, for instance, that are equally attractive to it. ("Attractive": likely to share electron paths.) Whereas a human can choose from many-many potential partners.

So my conclusion is that recruitment of enzymes does not happen, it is a misnomer; nobody and nothing attracts enzymes, only chemical aptitude to fit the task. It is not told anything or suggested anything or asked to do anything. It only obeys laws of chemistry.

1.The synergy of atoms combined forms molecules
2. The synergy of molecules combined forms amino acids
3. the synergy of amino acids combined forms proteins: (100% confidence level) — Pop

An amino acid is a molecule. A protein is a molecule. So your so-called synergy is not a matter of combining molecules, it's a matter of creating more complex molecules.

We might ask why. What purpose does it serve to have a more complicated molecule? The answer might be that it allows for a greater variety of possibilities, those being possible chemical reactions.

We might ask why. What purpose does it serve to have a more complicated molecule? The answer might be that it allows for a greater variety of possibilities, those being possible chemical reactions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes the synergy at all of those levels creates an emergent property not found at lower levels of complexity. Such as in a school of fish:



What do you mean by chemical reactions?

Fritjof Capra defines the basic unit of cognition as a reaction to a disturbance in a state. Such as a chemical reaction.

What do you mean by chemical reactions? — Pop

If I'm not mistaken, a chemical reaction is a change in substance, where substance is determined by the molecules. So a chemical reaction would change a bunch of molecules into other molecules. This usually is associated with the various types of bonding between atoms, through the positioning of electrons.

If I'm not mistaken, a chemical reaction is a change in substance, where substance is determined by the molecules. So a chemical reaction would change a bunch of molecules into other molecules. This usually is associated with the various types of bonding between atoms, through the positioning of electrons. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes , you are correct, and so is Capra. The whole cascade is effected as below, and then it self organizes .

1.The synergy of atoms combined forms molecules
2. The synergy of molecules combined forms amino acids
3. the synergy of amino acids combined forms proteins: (100% confidence level)
— Pop[/quote]
(Yes these are all molecules, but in this case they form specific emergent properties, amino acids, and proteins.)

From a systems perspective, we are an amalgam of elements, very much like a school of fish. It is organization that creates a self ( self organization ). The school of fish becomes a self. The synergy of the school forms a self. The self of the school of fish is an emergent self driven property.

Along these lines an understanding can form, in my opinion. It is the broad thrust of complexity theory, as I understand it.

From a systems perspective, we are an amalgam of elements, very much like a school of fish. It is organization that creates a self ( self organization ). The school of fish becomes a self. The synergy of the school forms a self. The self of the school of fish is an emergent self driven property. — Pop

Sure, the organization is a "self", but the question is what causes the elements to organize in this way. You cannot say that the "self" is the cause, because you've already said that the "self" is the effect. It doesn't seem like an understanding to me.

Sure, the organization is a "self", but the question is what causes the elements to organize in this way. You cannot say that the "self" is the cause, because you've already said that the "self" is the effect. It doesn't seem like an understanding to me. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is a very good argument. I would like to add that someone can possibly still imagine being a fish, but no one can imagine being a school of fish.

To being or not to being. :)

Why is it harder to imagine oneself as a school of fish than just as a fish. To imagine being a fish requires imagining oneself to be in water, breathing through gills, and swimming. That itself is a difficult task. How is that less difficult then imagining that each one of my cells, or each one of my molecules is a fish?

How is that less difficult then imagining that each one of my cells, or each one of my molecules is a fish? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't get it.

Let's make it simple. I think you can imagine (roughly) being another person (e.g. John Malkovich). Can you also imagine being all actors at the same time?

Let's make it simple. I think you can imagine (roughly) being another person (e.g. John Malkovich). Can you also imagine being all actors at the same time? — SolarWind

Sorry, I find it very difficult to imagine being another person. I find it logically insignificant as to whether I am me, or you, or John Malkovich, but i find it impossible to imagine actually being another person. Logic can take me places where imagination can't go.

Sorry, I find it very difficult to imagine being another person. I find it logically insignificant as to whether I am me, or you, or John Malkovich, but i find it impossible to imagine actually being another person. Logic can take me places where imagination can't go. — Metaphysician Undercover

Let's make it even simpler. Let's say you have an identical twin brother who is almost always around you. Then you can't imagine being him either?

Is it the same for you as imagining being a stone?

Imagining being a stone is easier. It just requires imagining being dead. Imagining being another person requires annihilating this person then creating a new person that is different. But all I have to draw on, in creating that new person, is this person, so it wouldn't really be a different person. If I try to imagine being a different person, all I get is this same person in a different location.

but the question is what causes the elements to organize in this way. — Metaphysician Undercover

When the qualities of disparate elements are combined, they may form a synergy. When they do form a synergy then the disparate elements start acting as a unit as a consequence of the synergy they share.

What causes the elements to organize in this way is the self organizing universe that we are in. Gravity forces elements together and they must self organize. At the higher levels of organizational complexity, such as amino acids forming cellular proteins animate matter emerges. Different combinations of amino acids give rise to different functioning proteins. It might be said that different patterns of amino acids forming proteins are synergized differently, resulting in different function.

The point relevant to this thread is that at the cellular level there is knowledge of this. The probability of randomly creating functional proteins is astronomically low.


A school of fish or a flock of birds is a good illustration of this phenomenon. But for something easy to relate to, think of a couple in love - how they are synergized, or a family, or perhaps a team of footballers, or a crowd of people ( if you have ever been to a demonstration and been swept along with the crowd ).

The crowd, the mob, can take on a life of its own.

Again, since my last post, there seems to be an avoidance of the points that I made.

You have not provided any examples which challenge my assertion that : any natural self organisation would only build structure, and not do anything to resolve dynamic conceptual problems.

Somebody also said that awareness was only necessary to communicate abstract values - and presumably be a factor in helping to resolve them too? The examples I gave were exactly the type of problem that requires abstract concept if a complex objective is to be achieved by these molecules. So is that an admission that it does exist?

The increasing complexity/length of catalyst molecules and proteins, as I understand it, is to form more elaborate shapes that enable one discreet reaction to take place in a particular location - the shape acting like a unique key. This has nothing to do with problem solving... and rarely if ever does the extra length achieve more than one chemical reaction.

And POP - I cannot see where I made any reference to prions, yet you launched into a diatribe on this matter claiming that it was a point that I made. Can you please explain?

And POP - I cannot see where I made any reference to prions, yet you launched into a diatribe on this matter claiming that it was a point that I made. Can you please explain? — Gary Enfield

I did not claim that it was a point that you made. I stated it was a variation on the theme.

You have not provided any examples which challenge my assertion that : any natural self organization would only build structure, and not do anything to resolve dynamic conceptual problems — Gary Enfield

You have provided such an example yourself. Reverse transcription in a DNA virus like HIV would be another example. A newly infecting virus must navigate an unexperienced environment

self organisation builds structures over time. It is not a factor that resolves dynamic problems quickly in the moment. — Gary Enfield

Do you have proof or is this an unfounded assumption?


Kinesin and dynein bypass synthetic obstacles in their path. When an obstacle is encountered they have several choices. They can recruit more motors, they can move to a neighboring filament, they can move to the opposite side of the microtubule. Who / what makes the choice? :smile: They do.

**There is more to it. In order to move say a mitochondria, they have to estimate how many motors to use, as one motor may not be enough. They can use 1 to n number of motors and the choice they make has to correspond to the distance travelled. So there is calculation going on, not only dynamic immediate problem solving, but also anticipation, dare we say reasoning? As far as I know there are thousands of such dynein and kinesin motors operating simultaneously in a cell.


That something is moved from one place to another - is that not intention? Why would a mitochondria be moved from one part of the cell to another? The obvious answer would be to create more ATP in a particular part of the cell. However that assumes an understanding that a part of a cell is lacking in ATP, which means sensing and communication is occurring.

So, how can molecules correctly work out each complex step without some crude form of awareness? — Gary Enfield

Firstly, it's evident that the particular DNA chemical phenomenon that interests you has been described comprehensively. If not, you wouldn't be so amazed by its intricacy[/i] and also wouldn't have sought an alternative explanation which led you to entertain the possibility of consciousness at the molecular level. In fact you seem to have made up your mind that molecules are conscious.

Secondly, you're coming at this from a position that grounds consciousness in intricacy/complexity i.e., if I'm not mistaken, you're under the impression that intricate/complex phenomena can only mean, over and above the actual processes involved, one thing - consciousness.

Thirdly, take into consideration human consciousness, something that we actually have some data on. The recieved opinion among neuroscientists seems to be the consciousness, in keeping with materialism, is reducible to the level of neuronal function and not to lower tiers of organization like the chemical reactions taking place inside the neurons themselves (cells in their own right) which includes the DNA repair mechanism you mention in your OP.

I'm not 100% sure about this but neuronal interactions which are basically electrical signals being exchanged between neurons seem simpler i.e. less intricate than the DNA repair mechanism you refer to. As an analogy, an electric current which is the flow of electrons in a wire is much much simpler than the actual motions the electrons go through inside a wire. Ergo, contrary to your idea that complexity is bound to consciousness, human consciousness seems to exist at a less complex level of organization.

Pop
I am now confused. Your early posts seemed to be saying that there was no awareness needed and that everything could be achieved by 'self-organisation' - whatever that may be.

My interpretation, as I indicated, was that self organisation was just that - an organisation or structuring of components/elements as we might see in molecules and crystals etc, - ie. an organisation achieved through chemical action. That is how it is normally interpreted.

The point is that such structures might then achieve chemical/mechanical things, which then have to be explained from their structure - but that has not been possible for the level of reasoning which we see in Homologous Recombination. The structures of a single molecule do not provide any capability for reasoning.

So when discussing these points we need to hone-in on examples of activity which which evade explanation by the organised structures that we see - ie. we seek examples to demonstrate what should not be possible.

I think the other examples that you gave (of motor proteins etc) are less strong on the reasoning side of things, because for instance, changes of direction onto different pathways, (and the associated swapping of motor protein driver), might possibly be triggered simply by chemical or mechanical means when encountering a different type of path, (filament or microtubule).

The 'reasoning' element of the transport puzzle is in how the motor proteins know where to deliver their cargo to. It is not a random distribution but effective 'direct' routes, that stop atthe correct destination.

Dear MadFool

I think you ought to research more.

Consciousness has not been explained, and while we do see that neurons receive and transmit electrical signals, these are not clockwork activities where the signals bounce around forever. The neurons somehow filter the signals and focus them as part of a narrowing assessment. But whether such assessments are done by individual neurons or a small group of them (somehow liaising with each other) assessment and decision-making is occurring - but we don't know how.

Yet each neuron is a full cell, with all of its internal workings. I am talking about activity within every cell - not even all of the components of a single cell working together. These are also functions which also happen in every cell, not just those in the brain.

If you actually read my posts you will see that I have not 'made up my mind that molecules are conscious' - as you have suggested. I have only referred to awareness (rather than consciousness which you seem to confuse), and also clearly stated that I would be happy with a chemical explanation if one were to emerge - which it isn't even close to doing.

Furthermore, you seem to confuse a description with an explanation. If there were explanations, we would not be having this conversation. The point about the phenomena I describe is that they achieve things which should go well beyond any chemical/mechanical activity - and yet these things are observed.

Recognising the observation, is a recognition of why things pose such a particular puzzle - ie. why it seems to challenge the existing laws of physics and chemistry. Once you see the points of principle that make these things difficult you might then try to resolve them in your way, but the fact that skilled scientists in their field have tried to do precisely that for almost 20 years means that this is a real issue.

The announcement today from CERN about the discovery of a new, previously undetected, force in nature, exerting a mysterious influence of unknown origin - could be the first evidence of the missing factor that could explain everything we have been talking about!