Wednesday, October 07, 2009

It is happening, again

It is happening, again

Over coffee and delicious breakfast foods consumed at Single Origin, talk happened, and I want to talk more about emergence. So here, i'll wend through some stuff about emergence and consciousness and climatology and how they relate (sort of).

Simply put, emergence is how complexity could arise out of simplicity: how complex systems and patterns can arise through a series of relatively simple inter/intrasystem actions. One example of this could be consciousness.

Human consciousness as emergence - consciousness as a byproduct of the homo sapien brain, which has certain evolved features and traits i.e. highly plastic, massively modular, relative large sizes of neo-cortices, composed of various systems and sub-systems regulating various functions (hippocampus, limbic systems. frontal/rear lobes, amygdalas, etc etc). This is a relatively non-controversial position - In the same way that one ant on its own is stupid, one neuron is stupid, but many (interacting neurons) are not. While we don't understand the workings of the brain overall, we have (some) decentish ideas about what parts of the brains can do: neo-cortex responsible for social relations, hippocampus for short term memory, brain stem for regulating bodily functions, etc etc. What we don't we know much at all is the interactions between various systems (and in some cases, even within systems); we have a vagueish idea of what the underlying processes are (in some cases), but no idea of how all this makes consciousness, or the brain work the way it does. However, one feasible method of simulating consciousness could be through building networks upon networks of 'dumb' neurons; the play and interplay between the networks could possibly give rise to some form of 'consciousness'.

Climatology (specifically in relation to climate change, cf. global warming) could work in the same way. We understand some of the underlying processes, albeit in some limited way: we know albedo does...shit, we have a vague idea of hydrological systems, sunspot activites, volcanic eruptions, etc etc. But we have no idea, not even really the faintestest clue, on how all these various processes interact. We don't even know whether we know all the processes that affect climate (which is actually a pretty serious dent in the whole emergence idea of climate). Even so, we may be able to make rudimentary guesses; through inputting huge amounts of statistical data (ice cores, temperature histories, carbon histories, etc etc) in teh GIANT COMPUTORS (like this NEC one) we can hope to simulate, even if don't understand per se, what the hell is going on.

Btw, this is all me, bullshit-theorising. This wiki article does a pretty decent job w/r/t the whole attribution of climate change business, if you're looking something specific. Otherwise, wiki/google anything and everything you want to find out more on.

4 comments:

Wojit said...

Arrrrgh Explantory gap, hard problem of consciousness, consciousness as a fundamental concept arrrgh...

Been reading Chalmers for my Philosophy of Mind course for the last week, and was distraught to find him convincing. I'm really terrible at Philosophy of Mind. And I should start thinking of starting my essay soon, too...

Wojit said...

(Not that Chalmers contradicts anything in your post. Well, except for your implication that by understanding the interactions between the systems, we will thereby understand how it makes consciousness.)

rishimon said...

Oh yeah, fo' def. Nothing of what I've said in any way actually explains the hard problem of consciousness, or even what consciousness 'is', in a fundamental sense. It's more of a 'hey, this is one way to think about this thing called consciousness'.

And as for the implication, yeah, implication. I think the implication only goes so far as to say that we could create something like consciousness using emergent systems. But that could also be not true, and i'm sure Chalmers has something to say on it.

Philosophy of mind = way not my forte. I presume i've told you my incredible didactical problems with it already.

Wojit said...

Maaan, I'm shitehouse at philosophy of mind. Always have been, probably will continue to be. Though this course has helped... But anyway, I got to write an essay on it anyway! It'll probably be on Davidson, just so I can shove Quine into it.