Consciousness as machine

[Guest guest]

A little something on robots, free will, and determinism that I wrote to

another group. For those of you who may find it of interest. Gary

 

Realizers,

 

Concerning the recent discussion about the machine-like characteristics of

human consciousness, please note that comparisons to a machine are now

obsolete, since a machine operates linearly and the brain non-linearly. The

half-truth in comparing consciousness to a machine is that all our behavior

is caused; the half-false is that the causality is linear.

 

Linear causality is what we see in a falling body, whose path can be

described by simple continuous equations. A new science has arisen called

non-linear dynamic systems theory (DST), which can explain movements as

different as the growth of plants, the movement of horses or of a baseball

pitcher's arm, or the dynamics of sense perception. Roughly, the idea is

that one kind of movement reaches a critical level and then shifts into

another movement. Thus, a horse goes from a walk to a trot to a full gallop,

each having its distinctive movement and physiological dynamic. The critical

level and the shift can be predicted mathematically. Because our brains are

non-linear dynamic systems they do unexpected things; they shift and take on

new characteristics. Machines don't do unexpected things, because they

operate linearly, so that we can see clearly what they're going to do the

next second and project on forever until they break down. They do only what

we tell them to.

 

Early experiments in robotics didn't get very far, since they were linear

robots, which means that they did only what we told them to do. We tried to

foresee all the we wanted them to do and then program rules that would tell

them to do it. Present-day computers are like that. That's find for

computers, but proved impossible for robots that were expected to interact

with the real world. Newer robotics are based on non-linear dynamics, which

makes the robots self-organizing systems ‹ that is, systems that can set

objectives for themselves and then respond appropriately to their

environment. We are self-organizing systems.

 

For an excellent introduction to dynamic systems theory by one of its

primary creators, see: Kelso, J. A. Scott (1997), Dynamic Patterns: The

Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

 

The upshot of all this for the Hindu notion that we are merely puppets in

Brahman's hands is that that metaphor makes us too machine-like. Yes, we are

caused, in the sense that we did not create ourselves. But we are

self-organizing systems, which is the half-truth behind the illusion that we

have free will. We are certainly not free in the sense that our behavior is

uncaused. Neither are we determined in the sense that we act out what

Brahman has linearly planned for us, like the early robots. We are

self-organizing systems that respond to our environment, sometimes in very

creative ways (hence, evolution and human history). Notice, BTW, that to say

we are self-organizing systems does away with the illusion that there is

some self in there that is pulling all the strings. But it does leave the

self-organizing system called Gary responsible for writing this email. It

also, unfortunately, leaves him clinging to all-too-many things even though

he knows that self is an illusion. Pace a long tradition, clinging is not

caused by the illusion of self in the trivial sense that the tradition likes

to debunk. It is caused by a self-organizing system's not quickly

re-organizing in the face of a changing environment.

 

Gary

 

Gary Schouborg

Performance Consulting

Walnut Creek, CA

garyscho

 

Publications and professional services:

http://home.att.net/~garyscho