• retrieval4558
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Thank you for that elaboration.

    I definitely believe in point 1 (emergent property). As a bit of an asterisk though I don’t think that it’s a property that necessarily must emerge from a sufficiently complex system. More of an evolutionary accident than anything else.

    However, as far as larger and more complex entities developing consciousness, I think that should is probably an overstatement. I’m open to could develop an emergent property similar to consciousness but then the question becomes what evidence do we have for what? What predictions could we use to test that idea?

    Edit: on second thought I’m probably being a little imprecise with “could develop…”. I don’t know whether those systems could or could not develop consciousness because to the best of my knowledge there isn’t any significant evidence about their ability, in one way or another.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your appeal to evidence presumes we have the context to comprehend or evaluate a cosmic consciousness. Clearly individual cells have some rudimentary, bio-chemical-instinctual proto-consciousness which compels them to avoid chemical threats and seek chemical nourishment, but it would be ridiculous to expect them to understand the complex thoughts of multicellular organisms.

      Extrapolate that to the relationship between humans and a cosmic consciousness. If such a consciousness exists, it would be so alien as to be inscrutable to us. The “physiology” of such a mind might take the form of the interplay of fundamental forces, the “psychology” might manifest as the mathematical laws of nature.

      As to should vs. could, what is the hidden factor that decides? Where does it come from?