From: Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> Date: 5/18/20, 10:43 AM To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com>
For the past three or four years I've been seriously considering the question of how far does consciousness extend and — as ridiculous as it may sound, — have concluded that there is nothing in the universe that doesn't possess at least a very, very tiny degree of consciousness.
I would like consciousness to be something a little complicated and specific-- more complicated than a Universal Turing Machine, say. So for sure something simpler than the simplest physical UTM couldn't have it. And I think it would need some extra blank tape to write its diary on... which reminds me of Douglas Adams' whale whose thoughts we tune into as he comes to consciousness for the first time while on a crash course with a planet. My favorite take on consciousness is Michael Graziano's. Basically, that we are wired to be able to observe, model and control, in a low-res way, what we're paying attention to and relate that to the rest of what's going on. Like proprioceptive senses. One of Graziano's examples I like is *talking* about attention: What are you thinking about? Birds, I guess. Do you see what's just behind that bush? Oh, you mean the bluejay-- yes, I've been watching it too-- what is it doing? That's what *I* can't figure out. The point of talking-about-attention is that we're a species that teach each other how to direct our attention, how to catch our attention getting caught by things and either meta-think about that, or realize we're "getting distracted," etc. And also coordinate who's going to be paying attention to what. So how do we do this around an activity going on silently invisibly inside our heads? By being wired so that attention "is a thing." Anyway, compared to other ideas, it's a plausible subset of equipment and/or skills, not an infinite regress; it fills actual needs; and it makes sense of the way it feels if you ask me whether I'm conscious, and I look around and say "yes, it seems like it." (Which before always struck me as logically empty boasting.) By analogy, if you ask me whether I can grip things, with my eyes closed I could find something to grip, squeeze it, and say, "seems like it." I have nerves to tell my hand to grip, and nerves to tell what's going on there, and memories of gripping things. Likewise, wiring to control and monitor attention, and a familiarity with what it *feels like* to attend--it's not just an empty self-opinion. https://www.aeonmagazine.com/being-human/how-consciousness-works https://grazianolab.princeton.edu/publications/consciousness-engineered I have to admit I think about the Max Tegmark-style radical anthropic multiverse a lot. The universe must have one of the simplest sets of laws that admits of a scientist--somebody wondering about it. But that seems to build the laws of physics around, e.g., *my* awareness, or that plus "simplicity," what does it mean!?! Aargh! --Steve
My main reasoning has been based on continuity and my belief that consciousness could not possibly have suddenly sprung into existence at time t = t_0 after not existing whatsoever for time t < t_0.