The consciouness paradox

Let's face it, deep down at the nano level we are all made up of the same hundred atoms that comprise all living and non living things on Earth. At the nano level, there is no way to tell if the substance being tested is a living or a non living thing. That's so because everything on Earth is made out of the hundred or so atoms found in the Mendeleev table.
Now, if we look at it in another way, a carefully chosen pack of atoms(me for example) takes a look at some of its atoms(my hand for instance) and I start to think what I can do with my hand(i.e. at the very nano level, we have atoms using other atoms to perform tasks). I am perplexed at the idea that my eyes, made only of atoms are looking at other atoms(my hand) and some of my other atoms(my brain) are aware that there are atoms in the form of a hand. I am aware we are not just a pile of atoms, but a carefully selected and sequenced pile of atoms, but at the nano level, that is what's happening. There is no life at all at this level, and at the smallest scale of things, everytime you have a look at yourself - some of your atoms(the building blocks of all matter) are looking at other atoms and they know of their existence(aka consciouness). Isn't that a paradox and a conundrum that some atoms combined in such a way that different substances could be created that would be the building stones of living organisms and those atoms would be self-aware that they exist and that they are just atoms?PP. English is my second language, please bear with me if I have not been able to convey very explicitly my thoughts.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

God exists lol.duh

There is nothing paradoxical about it, seems to me. You are imparting consciousness to something that has no conceivable or discernible conscience -- atoms. Atoms are the building blocks of matter, that is true. But they are not living, and there is nothing that would insinuate that they communicate with one another. The atoms in your eyes are not looking at the atoms in your hand. As you stated, we are not merely a pile of atoms. There are many other things at play here. And if we are going to keep it on the nano level, then cells, which are living, mean a whole lot more in the sense of your eye looking at your hand.

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

It's a huge conundrum. This "hard problem" of consciousness is so problematic that scientists don't know where to begin answering it. Some say consciousness merely emerges from complex interactions of neurons. Others speculate that a supernatural force is involved. Consciousness could even be the result of a phenomenon that isn't explainable by current science. We just don't know right now. I wouldn't assume anything paradoxical is going on, however.Edited by Binary, : No reason given.

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "Life is how the universe knows itself".

Aren't you basically asking how can consciousness spring from natural structures?Being a fanboi of wikipedia, I'd suggest you look at the wiki page on consciousness and find out exaclty where your "problem" with consciousness emerging takes place, and then expand on that and bring your new-found problems to the table.To me it seems that, in general (like your OP is expressed), there really isn't a "paradox".Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Consciousness is a paradox all by itself. We are made purely of atoms found everywhere on Earth, just like a house or a complex machine built by us or an animal. At the nano level we are all the same. If it's not a paradox, explain to me how a machine, a pile of bricks, or whatever creation of chance and nature or the human will(that will still be a pile of atoms) could be self-aware of its existence? It seems to me the only way for us to create any kind of artificial consciousness is through programming, but that would not really constitute a conscious being/thing but a puppet on strings(which we pull with our pre-programming). So basically, for more than 4 billion years, there have been both non living and living stuff(although not yet self-aware). Then, just a few millions years ago we develop self-awareness and suddenly we know of our existence and we start looking for a reason why we exist in the form we do and the reason why we've developed this self-awareness. If it's not a paradox, can you suggest a way in which we create a machine that would be self-aware of its existence? Can you propose a way for a computer to become aware that it's made of atoms(besides pre-programming it- that wouldn't really be consciousness)? Even in the very distant future - how would we accomplish this? Just a rough idea would be OK.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Exactly. It seems we are the cognitive aparatus of the universe, with all the absurd implications of this statement. The 109 elements in the Mendeleev table combined in such a way that a carefully selected bunch of atoms/us/ could develop consciouness towards the other atoms found elsewhere in the Universe.

Why put the onus on me to prove to you that its not? You should prove to me that it is (a simple analogy doesn't cut it). There's enough science on the emergence of consciousness (did you look at the wiki page I linked you too?), that I don't know where to begin. Look into it and educate yourself on the current science, and then come back with specific problems that you have found.Basically, you're arguing from incredulity. You can't simply hand-wave away artificial intelligence like that... If it was truely artificial consciousness then it would not be a puppet on strings, by definition. But this isn't really the topic. Do you think that humans are the only species that are self aware? The emergence of consciousness wasn't "sudden", like you say. Again, you're arguing from incredulity and expecting others to prove to you that it could happen. Again, I'd suggest you'd read the the wiki page on A.I. and come back with the specific problems you see.This general approach of you saying that you don't think it could happen so others should explain it to you isn't the best way, you should do your own homework on the subject and then come back with specific questions.

What homework are you talking about? Artificial intelligence entails heavy, intensive pre-programming. Comparing our consciousness to artificial intelligence pretty much says that we are pre-programmed. Are you saying we are puppets on strings or was it a bad example?

Reading the current science behind the emergnece of consciousness and the development of artificial intelligence and then writing a post about specific problems you have found rather than making a general argument from incredulity and having others prove it to you.

Agobot, Yup, we call it "evolution". The evidence that it occurred is multidisciplinary & extremely strong. Ergo conciousnes evolved.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I agree. Because we are more than a collocation of atoms. It's like saying a house is concrete. While its structure is made of concrete, that is not all that comprises a house. There is obviously more to humans than just atoms in the same way there is more to a house than just concrete. Deductive reasoning would then tell you that atoms are not responsible, at least not solely, for consciousness. That should be a tip off to you to look elsewhere.Besides, when talking about consciousness, why would we be so certain that anything material could explain it? Our thoughts are not material. Our emotions are not material. The way they are expressed is through material objects such as the brain, and the atoms that compose the brain, but that is not thought or emotion itself. The physiological response should not be confused as the medium it passes through, seems to me.For instance, if I asked you to prove to me what love is, you might devise a test. You might take me to an MRI and show me pictures of loved ones. You would clearly see a physiological response where portions of my brain would light up. But is that itself love, or is that merely you recognizing my physiological response to the love I feel?Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typoEdited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add

---

“Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito"

Could it be that there is no difference?Love is a word, a symbol, we give to certain feelings that well up within us. If there is a substance called “love” we have not been able to identify it, though not from a lack of trying.What then are these feelings? May they be a cascade of electro-chemical stimulation of neurons that result in a warm and fuzzy feeling brought on by external stimuli, by memory, by a linked cascade of neurons?We might call that “love” if it happened often enough and common enough through a population. A symbol to convey to others.All of the emotions may be the same type of physical response to the world around us. Hate, greed, empathy, wonder, envy, ego.It may be that such responses conveyed some survival advantage to the species and evolved ever more powerful as our brains grew allowing more interactions among more disparate neurons and neuronal paths.One fact to keep in mind. Humans have a history of ascribing metaphysical meaning to things we do not fully understand. The sad part of that history is that we have been proven wrong so often and been proven right . well . never.With this in mind, consciousness, like love, may be nothing more than the complex inter-play of electro-chemistry and cascades of neuronal activity . on steroids so to speak.Does this view make consciousness any less amazing? Does it “detract” from our humanity, our “place” in the universe, the grand wonder? Not at all.To paraphrase myself from another thread: The real wonder, the miracle of existence, is that atoms, obeying only the laws of physics, can coalesce into mega-structures that can contemplate themselves and the stars from which they came. And atoms do this all by themselves without any need for magic. Amazing!