Luc Turpin

1 and 2 - so, “intention”, “aim” and “meaning” suddenly appear when an nth neurone is added? What? A phase change? 3- please name some of the different patterns, laws and correlations that seem to arise at, I guess, a certain threshold of complexity? 4- i ask the question, but you and I have no answer for it. So, no grand teleological revelation to share. 5- let’s try another tactic. Radom as by chance, without purpose (no intention, aim, meaning), no pattern, no direction, it just happened without intervention from anything or anyone….. the general sense of the word. 6- it was in relation to another point that you made, so lets park it as I agree that I am not expressing myself clearly on this one 7- so, the universe is fine tuned for mind in the sense of a part of the univers trying to make sense of the whole universe? 8-you recognize no mind using your mind? Where is the sense in this? 9- the only thing that I am sure of at my current level of knowledge is that materialism does not satisfactorily explain all of reality, especially its subjective aspect. In fact, it wants nothing to do with it but still claims full understanding.. Patterns of behaviour in matter is a pretty weak expression to me of mind. 10- no one computes and earth goes where gravity takes it, but this is non living matter with no requirement to take some sort of decision…just follows the grove.very different from living matter needing to decide whether or not to take a path……

1- I beg to differ; a single neurone has purpose (to link up and communicate; to "feel" its environment and react accordingly). "Supposedly" as in main science thinks that way, but not I. My contention is that matter creating mind is still unproven. There are kinks in the armoury. 2- One neurone - one tiny sliver of mind. Billions upon billions of neurons - a very sizable amount of mind. No qualitative jump. Orders of magnitude matter as in a sizable increase in power output. Hundreds of ants do small ant mounds that become megalopolis when millions get involved. 3- In the beginning of it all, there was a single random quantum fluctuation - that is a contention from many cosmologists. Give me one miracle and I will explain all of the rest. Before special configurations, there was randomness, numb randomness as in a weighted die. Then came special configurations and we were on to something. But where did this special configuration come from? out of randomness or mind gave it a kick in the pants? 4- The point that I was trying to make, maybe erroneously, is if there was an equation for behaviour, it would have to abide by the same principles as equations for constants. Then it would apply but not be a substitute for it as for constants. 5- Did not imply the latter. The constants that are alluded to are representations of a material universe. They have nothing to do with living matter. Actually, that is why you cannot contend to a theory of everything with an amalgamation of such constants. A big part is forgotten; what to do with mind? 6- You did not reply to my comment that you are using your mind to negate mind, and dualism is not a personality fault, but a theory as any other. 7- When fungi mimics the Tokyo subway, who is doing all of the computing?

Part of a single neurone’s purpose is to connect and communicate. The whole map thing supposedly comes with the trillion connections. Neurones can give rise to purpose, but not inanimate objects, which was my original statement. It either began randomly or not randomly, no two ways about it. The “regularities of bumps” came after Do you get a universe from writing symbols on a chalk board? What turns equations into the real thing? That is the fire. I understood your qualifications; i just disagree with them Mischaracterization of my position. I am claiming that it is or has become an integral part of the universe Do you realize that you are using your mind to negate mind? Fastidiously clear, but I disagree. Some say in the neuroscience field that evoking emergence is a way of saying that we don’t know. A legitimate statement to propose.

1- mindless robots without self learning programs-algorithms bring about the illusion of purpose! Really? Two or more objects bumping randomly into each other give rise to the appearance of purpose? 2- the universe is made of matter and mind is apparently an emergent property of matter. So, Any equation for the universe or matter in the universe would be subject to the same conditions. What then breathes fire into them? 3- so, are you saying that mind is separate from the universe?

Brought to us by spontaneity……..I believe not as Stephen Hawking once said…..what breathes fire into the equations

Ascertained from a mechanistic point of view

Collective consciousness - Jung

I will try and do what is being suggested. If i am allowed, I will explain in my next post how things in the former thread were all related.

1- did not get 2- Please read the pst….I was se Then please cancel my account

1- matter of principle, not money 2- I have been arguing both scientific, philosophical with no mysticism since the get go. 3- I mentioned often times in the thread that it may very well be a field like the higg’s field 4- the casual- general definition of the word is what was intended why not just bring the whole former mind thread into the new one and that will be a good decision for all parties.

Entirely agree!

Unacceptable to me what just occurred! A voice that was contributing to defending the other side of the story has been nullified. The first part only of my post was taken, not the second which stated clearly that I was setting things up for science. An arbitrary-unilateral decision. Just waiting for the shoe to drop, then pounce. It was unconventional, but not-not science. I presented evidence like no one does on this forum. It was biased, but for reasons that I indicated. How many were not in agreement with my position, but turned up regularly anyways. some to scorn me, but others, maybe, to understand the position that I was defending. There were many very interesting conversations that occurred in this post. That too has been silenced. Even a discussion between amateur and professional science people is a worthwhile conversation to have. I do know that discoveries were made by many forum members, even if grudgingly so. Who can state that the discussions left them indifferent? At the very least, you know more about how the "man on the street" thinks about science. And you know much more about mind through brain than before, even if you disagree with it. Never, ever did I say that I was right. I stuck to the mind thread as required and rarely ventured elsewhere. It was also implied by you that I could present my point of view of mind in this thread, not elsewhere, and I complied. Is there a mechanism for contesting this decision? Or of transferring all of the existing mind posts into the speculations section? I believe in objectivity and plurality of opinions. A sad day indeed it is for me!

Proposing a hypothesis and have it bashed about by others is not part of the scientific process? Where I diverge with science is when I say that more than science (including it) will possibly be required to crack the mind nut. "A combination of top-down causal organization and bottom up chemical evolution appears to be necessary to understand life and consciousness." - Lieff and I. And I add that both objectivity and subjectivity will be required for a fuller understanding of mind as I am not sure that "causal organization" squarely touches upon the latter part (subjectivity) of the requirement. I admit to not always being coherent, but I am not always incoherent. I submit regular summaries to try and establish where we are at with and inject coherence in the discussion.

Good one! 😊 Illogical, I am not though; just trying to set things up for good science to occur. I contend that I might be wrong; does the other side do so as well ? Also, you are the only one on this forum that has provided information on both sides of the debate. So, you are less biased than others and me on this forum.

Relevant information, but I am not doing science. I am unabashedly and “biasly” presenting one facet of the mind-body conundrum. I do so for the following reasons: to present the version of the mind-brain conundrum that is being ignored by the scientific community (it needs attention); to ignore the other version as it is well represented (me against all of you) and purportedly the only game in town (none more attention needed); to ensure that the scientific community abides by the second commandment that "thou shalt always consider the full suite of relevant data when drawing conclusions." It will then be the responsibility of the scientific community to do good science in uncovering what is really going on with mind and brain. 1- With all of the evidence available, what would still make some scientists think that mind is contained to human brains? 2- We are starting to understand the language of the living... The Secret Language of Cells by Jon Lieff......whale communication....'Sperm whales communicate with each other using rhythmic sequences of clicks, called codas. It was previously thought that sperm whales had just 21 coda types. However, after studying almost 9,000 recordings, the Ceti researchers identified 156 distinct codas." We are slowly but surely decoding the languages of other living species as well. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240709-the-sperm-whale-phonetic-alphabet-revealed-by-ai

Humankind, and especially those that consider humankind special.

!- The brain is possibly the centre for consciousness, and yes sometimes there is no point to a centre, but, if there was one it would significantly bolster the mind from brain hypothesis; that is the point. And that is why neuroscientists are still trying to find it. 2- Brain knowledge comes from neuroscientists who are saying that there is no understanding of how the brain produces mind. I am not stating this, they are. 3- No google this time; Why are we still trying to place humankind at the centre of the universe? Why would mind suddenly burst out in the clear as we humans arrive at the scene? If mind is an emergent property, why would it not emerge in other living entities before doing so in humans? Why not the notion of mind evolving from simple organisms to more complex ones as for most other living things in nature? Are there any logical premises opposing the notion that mind could be everywhere in nature? Can all of the complexity found in nature be explained by singular autonomic-instinctual functions alone? Would Occam's razor not apply here? It is like the notion of the beginning of the universe from nothing, give me a miracle and I will explain all the rest of it. Mind emerging for the sole purview of mankind is a bit of a miracle. Stopped reading beyond that point 😊

Key points made so far in this thread: There is apparently no centre in the brain for consciousness. Having found one would have favoured the mind from brain hypothesis. There is no understanding on how the brain produces mind. Again, finding out how it works would have favoured the mind from brain hypothesis. There is a case to be made for mind existing in all living matter, which could possibly favour the mind through brain hypothesis. There are major issues with both panpsychism and materialism. The former suffers from a “combination” problem (how do particles combine to produce a more complex thing with its own conscious experience) while the latter has to contend with the “hard” problem (how does brain create mind). There is little evidence that non-living matter is conscious, but some evidence that prerequisites of mind may be present, which could favour the “emergence” of mind from brain hypothesis. There may be a demarcation line between the living and non-living, which could be mind. It is not known whether there can be life without consciousness or consciousness without life. A combination of top down causal organization and bottom up chemical evolution appears to be necessary to understand life and consciousness. There is no sense of direction in evolution; therefore, no purpose in the living. Not all occurrences are random.

I have been mulling this one ever since you posted it, but honestly, I have no answer to give!

Spend it on more complete knowledge of mind, consciousness, cognition, intelligence and life in general

1- Intention, problem-solving, decision making, modulating one's environment Ants Ingenious Survival Method During Flood | Superswarm | BBC Earth (youtube.com) Ant Colony IQ: Just How Smart is an Ant? (youtube.com) 2- A bottom-up and objective method is needed to explore one side of the coin, and a top-down more subjective approach is required for the other side.

What is life? No one really knows! - "No definition of life has been satisfactory. Most include a cell with compartments, self-copying, metabolism, energy production or capture, adaptation to the environment and evolution. Another criterion is the transmission of information". - Lieff Where does life come from? No one is really sure! The origin of life remains unknown. Can life and consciousness be separated? - "It is not known whether there can be life without consciousness or consciousness without life?" - Lieff "Consciousness and life are qualities of living cells showing unusual complexity, organization and information flows. A combination of top down causal organization and bottom up chemical evolution appears to be necessary to understand life and consciousness." - Lieff For me, they share an inseparable kindship. To advance our discussion on the matter. Absolutely, more is required if we conclude that wax is not intelligent. I gave 'intention' as a possible test for intelligence. Others would be problem-solving, decision making, modulating one's environment. Others contend that intelligence in matter would need to show self-deterministic decisions, patterns and actions, which is closely related to my "intention' test.

1- Indeed it is! The prerequisite claim is mine while the molecular intelligence one is not. 2- I submitted the article for discussion as it was the only one that I could find where the authors were advocating for intelligence at the chemical level. I do not share all of their opinions on the subject matter. If the article asserts that wax is intelligent in the manner that I described it, then this is wrong. "the network’s ability to learn, to capture and integrate information about an environment that ensures the network’s future response to similar conditions" - This would begin to be a sign of intelligence. "A population of simple molecules, storing and copying information to ensure their own survival prebiotically, argues that intelligent behavior is not restricted to complex genomes but is an inherent property of matter." - Storing/copying information would be insufficient in claiming intelligence and then stating "that intelligent behaviour is not restricted to complex genomes but is an inherent property of matter" "The origins of life on Earth, the remarkable result of chemical evolution through emerging self-assembly into ever-increasing hierarchical complexity in structure and function, remains one of the greatest research challenges of our time." - Unrelated to what is needed for intelligence, but the claim is correct. I may be wrong, but possible litmus tests for conscioussness would be "awareness" and for intelligence "intention".

Objectivity dictates investigating before declaring null and void. Yes, science puts the psychological or subjective aside, but, again, our world is comprised of both the objective and subjective. So, only one side of the coin is being explored, which results in an incomplete understanding of our surrounding world. My sincerest condolences Dim. Can intelligent behaviour exist without acquisition, storage and use of information? It is not intelligent behaviour, but probably needed for intelligent behaviour. A prerequisite of intelligence. My understranding is that molecules would have to do more than that to demonstrate intelligent behaviour. Physically pressing a shape on wax is not a sign of wax intelligence, but of a sign of intelligence on the part of the one pressing a shape upon the wax.

I committed to a search on consciousness-cognition in non living matter. I did so and have not found very much evidence that would support this contention. I did however stumble upon this interesting article on the origins of chemical evolution by David Lynn, Cynthia Burrow, Jay Goodwin and Anil Mehta “A dynamic exchange of network component structures and assemblies, via both covalent and noncovalent associations, is fundamental for the network’s ability to learn, to capture and integrate information about an environment that ensures the network’s future response to similar conditions, as an inherent part of chemical evolution. In considering the origins of chemical evolution or discovering the simplest molecular systems capable of promulgating intelligent behavior, we acknowledge that merely defining the terms learning, intelligence, and evolution at a molecular level remains a significant part of our challenge in this Accounts of Chemical Research issue." "The origins of life on Earth, the remarkable result of chemical evolution through emerging self-assembly into ever-increasing hierarchical complexity in structure and function, remains one of the greatest research challenges of our time." "The Darwinian threshold required for appearance of the biological cell underscores the development of “self” versus “non-self” in these chemical networks. The barriers that define dynamic chemical systems as uniquely self must be physically and kinetically selective to permeability, primarily of nutrient molecules that maintain network viability." "These diverse approaches to deconvolution and reintegration of the origins of the cell, projected in collaboration through the lens of chemical evolution, suggest a remarkable degree of intrinsic molecular intelligence that guide the bottom-up emergence of living matter. However, this idea of molecular intelligence is certainly not new. Charles Darwin imagined a chemically rich “warm pond” from which evolution originated, and his idea was published almost 100 years before the duplex structure of DNA was proposed. A population of simple molecules, storing and copying information to ensure their own survival prebiotically, argues that intelligent behavior is not restricted to complex genomes but is an inherent property of matter. Darwin’s hypothesis further predicts the emergence of new intelligent materials, ones not limited to what can be deduced from biology’s “archeological” remnants but even more diverse and exotic realms of dynamic chemical systems that might never have been explored by extant biochemistry." https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ar300266q