Dear Banjo,

Thank you for your response. However, I fail to see how it is relevant to Penrose’s (or other scientist’s) approach to the complicated (and rather ambiguous in scientific terms) concept of human consciousness (and awareness). In particular, how the “elementary biological function” that you associate with all sorts of living organisms (apparently including carnivorous plants) can be identified with what is referred to as “awareness of being aware” that you rightfully associate with the Latin cogitare, an activity - leading to all sorts of philosophical, artistic and scientific achievements, i.e. reactions to the environment - that only humans (human animals if you like) are known to be capable of.

.

Dear George,

.

Thanks for your input. I appreciate it.

You indicate :

« I fail to see how … the “elementary biological function” that you associate with all sorts of living organisms … can be identified with what is referred to as “awareness of being aware” … that only humans … are known to be capable of »
.

I understand that the first form of life to appear on earth was the simplest, the smallest and also the most abundant of all life forms: the single cell bacterium. The biologists classify bacteria taxonomically as neither animals nor plants.

They have the ability to survive in extreme conditions by adapting to the environment and interacting with it. Like all living organisms, they need to eat for energy, for their development and for their reproduction. They can feed on a wide range of matter, especially starches and sugar, but also fungi, numerous waste products and even oil.

For the simplest living organism, the bacterium, to adapt itself appropriately to a particular environment, it has to be able to react to the characteristics of that environment. It can only adapt to them if it is “sensitive to” and “aware of” their presence. It is this “awareness” that we call “consciousness”.

At the other end of the spectrum, human cells have developed into considerably larger, more complex and far more sophisticated living organisms. The enhanced cognitive form of consciousness of human beings (which some authors refer to as “awareness of being aware”) has logically been produced as a result of the evolutionary development of the unicellular organisms of the earlier life forms from which our species derived.

This natural process of cellular evolution concerns all life forms and, as all life forms, without exception, interact with their environment, they may all be said to dispose of some form of mechanism whose function plays a role similar to that of so-called “consciousness” in human beings, even if it is quite rudimentary.

The examples of earth worms and carnivorous plants cited in my second last post illustrate this general principle.

.

Dear Banjo,

According to your definition, a self-driving car is probably aware of more things than a human driver, or would otherwise become so in the near future, yet there is no mystery about it, let alone "deep mystery".

If you kill your baby, and in some countries even your unborn baby who is generally asleep and not aware of anything, then you will spend the rest of your life in jail, whereas if you dismantle a self-driving car and sell the metal to the wreckers, no charges would be laid against you.

If it were useful, a car could even be programmed to be "aware that it is aware", and like the HAL computer in 2001: Space Odyssey, if you try to dismantle it, it would protest and resist and scream "don't kill me", yet if you proceed anyway, nobody suggests that you should be punished even like you killed a possum in your backyard.

This article is about consciousness rather than about functionality. Indeed, why would you need or promote functionality if no-one was ever conscious about it?

Dear Banjo,

>>It can only adapt to them if it is “sensitive to” and “aware of” their presence. It is this “awareness” that we call “consciousness”.<<

“Artificially intelligent” computers can also react to their environment, as Yuyutsu points out. Being aware of it, is something different, much more sophisticated, found only in advanced organisms. And being aware of this awareness - leading to cultural achievements of the mind listed above - is something even more sophisticated, of a "higher quality", found only in humans. I do not know who is the “we” who calls “ability to adapt to the environment” consciousness. So I could only repeat what I wrote before.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As I wrote, I do not think a computer can be made aware of its awareness, i.e. become conscious of itself in a manner humans are. That conviction is after all the gist of Penrose’s book that I quoted from. And I do not think he is the only one who thinks so, certainly most theists do as well. And I would suspect also oriental mystics etc. HAL 2001 is not a real computer but science fiction.

My belief is that humans will be able to create more and more sophisticated computers (quantum computing?), approximating more and more human intelligence but never reaching it on the level of consciousness, thoiugh others have other beliefs on this. Like a brave doctor might be able to perform all kinds of operations on himself but not a brain surgery or a heart transplant. Or the inability to escape from a swamp by pulling yourself up by your own hair, as mentioned earlier.

Dear George,

Like you, I hope that HAL-like computers remain in the realm of science-fiction, but unlike you I cannot be sure of it.

In theory - and I hope that it always remains just "in theory", I could envisage computers that are even more intelligent than humans.
This would not make them any more conscious than a log of wood, a rock or a feather, only more intelligent.

Banjo's sense of "awareness" is of a functional nature - I rather call this property "appears to be aware". While neither HAL, nor any other computer, nor any physical object including the human body and its brain, can truly be aware of anything, the human brain does "appear to be aware" and thus I cannot exclude the dreadful possibility that computers might as well.

All I can do is to pray for divine intervention to stop this folly.

.

Dear George, Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you both for your comments and observations.

There are two thoughts that come to mind on reading your posts, but I am not sure of their pertinence :

The first is that you both indicate points of reference in the “hard” sciences, particular physics, whereas the topic in hand falls within the discipline of biology which is considered an “intermediate” science between the “hard” and “soft” sciences.

This troubles me a little because I am not sure of the pertinence of the rigid and limited possibilities of fixed, pre-conceived, pre-programmed mechanical and electronic systems as points of reference for living organisms that are self-sustaining, self-motivating, evolutive, and reproductive, with a large degree of autonomy, adaptability, flexibility and versatility. The two systems are so different, not just in their concepts, but even in their nature, structure, material composition, organisation, mode of functioning, complexity, sophistication and performance - that I wonder if we are not trying to compare apples with oranges.

The second thought that comes to my mind is of a more subtle and insidious in nature. There is nothing I can pinpoint in your writings to suggest it. It just seems to rise up from the tram of your texts like a waft of perfume that is barely perceptible.

For no apparent reason, I found myself trying to imagine as many objective factors as I could to justify the hierarchisation of different life forms - until I finally realised that I had unconsciously detected a vague perfume of anthropocentrism embedded in the tram of your texts.

You both make a clear, distinct separation between mankind and all other forms of life as though they constitute two totally different categories, completely independent of each other, with little in common. The presumption of human supremacy is evident. This also disturbs me. It evokes the spectre of racism and speciesism.

Happily, I subsequently discovered that, in reality, I share most of my genes with such sympathetic life companions as cows, chickens and bananas, along with many others.

.

.