How is consciousness created?

[Solly]

RJ, I like your points, just one thing

"Consciousness can be proven in priciple. We could for example find the 'theory of everything' and have enough computer power to predict the firing of neurons in the human brain. Then observing a 'non-predictive' deviation from the prediction would consitute consciousness according to the previous definitions."

Can consciousness not exist in a thoroughly predictable model?

[Elok]

This seems to be one of those questions that's nearly impossible to answer just because it's too fundamentally present in our lives. Like defining the word "is." Or pretty much anything having to do with time travel...

[Whaleboy]

Can consciousness not exist in a thoroughly predictable model?

Very thorough.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Me: "Do you believe in God?"
Rene Descartes: "I think not"

*Poof* He disappears

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
1. Physically linked to the universe

[SNIP]

2. Consciousness is not describable by physical law.

Isn't this a contradiction?

[Jaguar]

Here's a question. Was Hal from 2001 A Space Odyssey conscious?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Can consciousness not exist in a thoroughly predictable model?

This of course depends on definition, but with the definitions I gave earlier, no it can't.

First of all, how can something be conscious if it cannot make decisions about even what it thinks in its own mind? Remember that there is no meaning in having a consciousness which is totally decoupled, so any thought must have the potential to affect the world in some way, and therefore a 'consciousness' in a pedictive model must also be predictive. If I can tell you what you are going to think and do for the rest of your life, can you be considered conscious?

Secondly, in QM we need an observer, which is essentially non-predictive. ie. we don't know when the eigenstate is the be collapse ahead of time - it is not predicted.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Isn't this a contradiction?

No. Something can be coupled to the physical objects and laws around us, but not fully decribed by a predictive law.

Hm... sorry but I can't think of any non-particle physics analogy, so excuse the jargon.

In the Standard Model of particle physics we have both electromagnetism and Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) (+ more forces). Things with charge feel electromagnetism while things with 'colour' feel QCD. Quarks have both colour and charge so they feel both, but the two forces and completely disconnected from each other. In the same way our physical bodies could be completely governed by physical law, as is everything else in the universe, but there could be a weak coupling with some other domain which is non-predictive. (The most obvious possibility would be that 'physical' objects are constrained to move in 4 dimensions (or the 11 dimensions of M-theory) while there are extra dimensions with non-predictive elements -- they would only be coupled to our 4 dimensions weakly by some sort of Randall-Sundrum model.)