Thinking about the mind - [review of John Searle's latest book]

SFGate.com ^ | December 19, 2004 | Troy Jollimore

[snarks_when_bored]

Thinking about the mind
Cal philosopher takes a stab at explaining why we have consciousness
- Reviewed by Troy Jollimore
Sunday, December 19, 2004

Mind

A Brief Introduction

By John R. Searle

OXFORD UNIVERSITY; 326 PAGES; $26

---

Self-knowledge is difficult, as Socrates and virtually every philosopher since Socrates has pointed out. Of all the subjects into which human beings have chosen to inquire, the most resistant to understanding has turned out to be human beings themselves. Indeed, that we researchers have turned out to be our own most recalcitrant subjects must surely constitute one of the leading ironies of post-Enlightenment thought.

Human beings just don't seem to fit very well into the scientific picture we have developed of our world. It is hard to comprehend how a universe governed by physical laws could give rise to or contain beings that are conscious, make free decisions, suffer and love -- or, for that matter, beings that are capable of being puzzled at the existence of such beings.

Considered as bodies, we are fairly easy to understand.

[snip]

[traviskicks]

I believe Searle is famous for his 'chinese room analogy'.

I've been interested in teh phenomena of consiousness for some time and have read a few books/papers on it.

One of the best ones I've read was 'The Conscious Mind' by David Chamlmers. This claimed that consciousness was resulted from ANY information exchange and that it had it's own laws and subcategories (which were largely unknown). Thus, a thermometer is 'conscious' as it measures temperature, but just not in the same sense as a human - he postulates it might just be a brief flash at a very, very low level that probably wouldn't register as active consicousness, just a flash of a subcompenet of it.

Also there are some people, including I believe, Roger Penrose, and a anesthesiologist here in teh US who believe that consciousness lies in microtubules. Unfortunately, I haven't had this explained to me so I fully understand it. Apparently a lot of math mumbo jumbo in it...

I'd be interested if anyone found this book worth reading. The review doesn't tell all that much.

[snarks_when_bored]

I found the review of Searle's book interesting, but I haven't read the book itself.

You're right that Searle's best known for his 'Chinese room' critique of computational accounts of consciousness.

As for the view that microtubules are the source of consciousness, I've not heard much about that in recent years. As I recall, there was some question about whether the quantum superpositions being claimed to take place within the microtubules could actually take place at the temperatures found within the brain, forcing one to conclude that such states would decohere almost immediately. But my recollection might be mistaken.

Hmmmm, I see that Stuart Hameroff (the originator of the suggestion that microtubules might underlie consciousness) has a long paper posted on his website:

Ultimate Computing - Biomolecular Consciousness and NanoTechnology

A cum grano salis approach might be prudent.

[D-fendr]

It is hard to comprehend how a universe governed by physical laws could give rise to or contain beings that are conscious…

Which is how science looks a the world: The greater is derived from the lesser.

However, if you see it as the lesser is derived from the greater, it makes more sense.

IMHO of course.

[D-fendr]

FWIW:

I've read there's a fundamental flaw to robotic "humans" or conscious robots or AI in the grander goal.

It's the underlying assumption that humans are "thinking machines" which is false.

[snarks_when_bored]

FWIW:

I've read there's a fundamental flaw to robotic "humans" or conscious robots or AI in the grander goal.

It's the underlying assumption that humans are "thinking machines" which is false.

I don't know what you mean.
I don't know what you mean.
I don't know what you mean.
I don't know what you mean.
I don't know what you mean.
I don't know what you mean.
I don't know what you mean.
I don't know what you mean.
I don't know what you mean.
I don't know what you mean.

[traviskicks]

thanks for those links! I didn't know he (Hameroff) had a website. I'll have to go through it.

One other thing that might be of interest (sry forgot the source), or at least which I found interesting, is a theory of computing which states that computers computing power is limited by it's predictability. Human computing is exponentially more powerful, but also unpredictable (ex - what will I do today?). Various theories arise as to how this occurs, quantum theories, spatial theory (computing with shapes and molecules), parallel processing etc...

If consciousness and volition are linked (which one assumes to be true) and consciousness arises from this human computing power (also seems to follow), then it will be impossible to construct a computer like a human, without it being 1. unpredictable 2. conscious.

So a computer that needs to be told what to do, (in a specific manner via programming etc..) will be incapable, by definition, of abstract thought, volition, and human type consciousness no matter how powerful it may be. It puts a bit of a limit on the power of conventional computing.

A human like computer that is intelligent enough to actually do things that a human can do will be very difficult to control and hard to get it to do what you want. (reminds of me of the heisenberg uncertainty princp a little)

So if we can imagine a super human with the greatest possible computing power - ability to conceive of the most abstract concepts, thoughts, strategies, etc... that person might, by definition, have a higher consciousness level and greater volition and be harder to predict his/her actions.

Taking this to a higher level, one can even construct a theory of God.