Will the Web Become Conscious?

January 19th, 2010

“All reality is virtual” — Terrence McKenna

This is Part II of my article “The Global Brain is About to Wake Up” — about the  realtime Web and how it relates to the emerging Global Brain.

Here I focus mainly on thorny philosophical and scientific speculations about the nature of consciousness, the role it plays in the universe, and whether or not the Web can ever be said to be conscious in its own right. Beware — this content may not be of interest to most of my readers. It’s certainly in the “wild speculation” category.

Will the Web Become Conscious?

As the realtime Web gets faster and richer, it will begin to appear to be more cohesive and collectively intelligent. It will begin to appear like an actual, unified Global Brain, rather than just a crowd. Instead of being just a collection of interacting parts we will be able to see it as a functioning whole — a kind of entity in its own right. We will also be able to see this collective “entitiness” emerge for subsets of the whole Web? For example will nations, organizations, markets, industries, enterprises, workgroups and teams start to seem more intelligent? The Web will get smarter and faster, at every level of collective cognition but will it ever actually become conscious?

Yes and no.

It will become collectively more intelligent, and the consciousnesses of individuals around the Web will be more connected and potentially synchronized. But the Web itself won’t actually have it’s own new consciousness, unique from the consciousnesses of the people who participate in it. Still it will seem more conscious than it was before, simply by virtue of the human consciousnesses within it being more connected and focused.

I don’t think the Web will actually develop or have its own meta-level consciousness however. It won’t evolve some new form of Web-scale consciousness that is totally separate from the individual consciousness of the people on the Web.  A Web-scale sentient entity that is unique and separate from the humans minds on the Web will never exist. That will never happen. Instead, the Web as a whole will evolve to better utilize the human consciousness that is already present within it — the consciousness that we human beings already have.

The Irreplaceable Role of Humans in the Web

As conscious entities, we humans play a unique and irreplaceable role in the realtime Web and the Global Brain.  We provide the only consciousness the Web will ever have. Machines may be able to sense and measure what is going on, and even make sense of it for us in ways that transcend the abilities of the individual human brain, but they won’t be able to be conscious of what is going on the way that we humans can be.

We human beings are the consciousness of the Web — that is our special role. No machine or set of machines can replicate consciousness, not even the entire Web as a single machine. However there is a distinction to be made between consciousness and intelligence.

Machines can certainly be made to be intelligent, and that applies even to the entire Web as a machine as well. The Web is getting more intelligent, and as this happens it is becoming our Global Brain. But it’s not becoming more conscious.  Rather, we humans are becoming more conscious of the Web and what is going on within it. Humans are becoming able to be more conscious of the Web, but the Web itself is not becoming conscious at all, let alone more conscious. This is a key point to keep in mind.

Until recently humans have been watching the Web in slow motion. We can only see small glimpses at a time. The individual human brain cannot comprehend the vast patterns that are taking place on the Web, and there are few software tools that can make sense of them for us either. It’s just too big and complex a system, and the patterns which comprise its collective thoughts — the thoughts of the Global Brain — are too spread out in time and space.

We humans are barely able to be lucidly conscious in our little nows — which are really just spans of a few square meters, and a few minutes, at a time — but the collectively intelligent processes and patterns out on the Web cover thousands of miles and can span days, weeks, months or even years. They just don’t fit in our little human nows. The solution is to find a way to visualize them so we can digest them in our little nows. That’s the only practical approach — unless someone figures out how to expand the individual human now.

Fortunately, there are several trends that are going help with this process. As the Web gets faster, processes that used to take too long for us to follow them will become short enough for individuals to watch them play out in reasonable timespans, without getting lost or overwhelmed. The collective thoughts of the Web are starting to happen fast enough for our human minds to see them emerge, change, and interact on our human timescale of minutes and hours. Instead of watching memes develop and spread on the Web as if in slow-motion, we are starting to see and measure them in our timescale, at our speed.

In addition as the Web gets more computationally powerful — computers and software will be able to help us see what is going on beyond the limits of our human nows — larger volumes of data changing over larger spans of time than we can grasp on our own. This too will help to compress and visualize patterns and processes that were previously beyond our comprehension in ways that we can make sense of as individual human observers with our small brains and short nows.

Both of these trends will enable individual human minds to comprehend larger and more complex processes and patterns within the Web. And as individuals become able to be conscious of larger and more complex patterns taking place within the Web, they will be able to react and adapt to those patterns in their own individual behavior. This feedback loop will give rise to increasingly intelligent collective adaptation and behavior. And thus the Web as a whole — the Global Brain that includes humans, machines, software, and all our infrastructure — will appear to become increasingly smart.

Humans drive this process by simply being conscious observers of the Web, and by making intelligent decisions, adding content and taking actions online. But we’re not the only ones. Software will also play a role in this — adding intelligence and content, but not consciousness, to the process.

How Important is Consciousness Anyway?

But how important is human consciousness to the Web, and the Global Brain? One might wonder whether human consciousness really matters in all this, or whether it’s enough just to have non-conscious but intelligent machines?

Would the Global Brain be different without humans there to witness it? If there were no humans in it, but just non-conscious artificially intelligent software that simply follows rules or uses statistics and algorithms — would the Global Brain be more or less conscious or intelligent?

This is actually an absurd question. Without humans there would not be a Web, let alone a Global Brain. But let’s just suspend that for a moment and ask the question in a different way. Suppose that at some time in the distant future, all humans die, but the Web remains. Would the Web still contain any consciousness on it’s own?

I think the answer is no. This ultimately goes back to John Searle’s concept of Qualia. In a nutshell, there is nothing on the Web, apart from humans, that is capable of experiencing qualia — the actual knowing of any experience. So there is nothing on the Web that is capable of being conscious, apart from the humans who participate in it. Without the humans, there could be no consciousness in or on the Web.

There  is a difference between being conscious of the qualia of something, and simply measuring data about something. Qualia is special — as strange and potentially hocus-pocus at that may sound. I just don’t believe qualia is something that can be synthesized in a machine or by any algorithm. Being conscious of the Web is not the same as simply measuring data flows. I believe there is a distinct quality of “knowing” or “being aware” that is the hallmark of actual consciousness and which simply cannot be synthesized in a computer.

From what I can tell, qualia is something unique to being sentient, in other words, aware. And awareness is something special as far as I can tell — I think it might be fundamental like space and time, not something we can create or synthesize, and not something emergent. Again this just my opinion — but I think it’s a defensible one.

The Unexplainableness of Consciousness

I’ve spent decades thinking about the question of consciousness, and whether machines can ever be conscious, and I have never found it plausible to make conscious machines.

Quite the contrary — the more I have examined this question, the more clear it has become to me that consciousness is special — it is something that simply cannot even be described, and literally cannot be found — yet it is undeniably taking place. Ontologically consciousness is similar to space and time — we cannot find space or time, we cannot isolate them or grasp their substance, yet they are undeniably taking place. Consciousness seems to be just like that. Unexplainable, yet undeniable.

I’m something of a mystic with regard to consciousness — but not in a blind way. I’ve come to this view only after really trying to avoid it — through very thorough and painstaking investigation from just about every perspective on it — neuroscience, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, linguistics, philosophy, physics, cosmology, and religion and spirituality.

Consciousness appears finally to be something we just cannot explain, let alone synthesize, and I’d be willing to bet that it’s always going to be beyond our reach. In fact I have made such a bet at the Long Bets project: You can read more about this in my article, “Why Machines Will Never be Conscious.”

Given that I view consciousness as something primordial and beyond physics, from my perspective at least, I don’t think we can manufacture it. I also doubt it will simply magically emerge on the Web, apart from individual human minds.

Consciousness is Neither Emergent Nor Reducible.

But wait. Certainly there is a case to be made that if consciousness can emerge within the human brain, then why not within the Web? The human brain is essentially a more complex Web after all. Why is one kind of Web any more or less qualified to be conscious?

My present answer to this is that I don’t think consciousness ever emerges through some physical process — it’s never created or destroyed, and even when said to be present it’s not “there” like other kinds of things. It doesn’t appear as something, it has no form, shape, color, etc. It cannot be found or grasped at all. It is similar to space in these respects.

Space is never created or destroyed — at least as far as we can tell from within this universe. Similarly, consciousness is never created or destroyed as far as we can tell as conscious observers. That’s just how the universe is — it’s a mystery that is bigger than us. We’ll never be able to comprehend it fully from inside it. Consciousness seems to have the same ontological status as space. The difference is that while space is inert, incapable of observing or knowing, consciousness seems to have a quality of knowing that is quite unique.

My point is actually that the human brain is NOT special. I don’t actually think consciousness comes from the brain or is inside the brain, or running like some kind of software on the hardware of the brain.

If consciousness were merely some physical phenomenon that depended on the brain, then it would be no problem to synthesize it, not just for AI but for the Web as a whole as well. But that’s not the case, in my opinion.

I don’t think consciousness is a material thing, nor is it an emergent phenomena. I think it’s fundamental to the nature of the universe — like space and time — or perhaps even more fundamental than space and time. We can’t create it. We’ll probably never fully understand it. It just is there from the start. It’s the very basis of the entire phenomena of the universe, it’s not merely something that evolves and emerges within the universe. Indeed, I would venture to state that without consciousness — at least in primordial form — no universes would even be possible or would ever arise.

In my view, material things like the physical universe and the human body and brain, emerge from consciousness, rather than consciousness emerging from material things. Consciousness, whatever it is, is primordial and fundamental. Whether or not you reify it as a fundamental first-cause or ultimate thing, or you take the Buddhist view that it is also empty of any entity or nature and therefore not a thing, it is still at least totally primordial.

This isn’t just speculation — it’s something that can both be observed and is entirely logical as well. For example, if you really look closely at what you or anyone can possibly ever observe, it appears this is the only tenable answer we can find. Why? Because we cannot observe anything prior to being conscious ourselves — consciousness is necessary to be an observer. We can’t even ask such questions if we are not conscious in the first place. Consciousness is assumed, and must already be there, as soon as we even start looking for it.

Furthermore, the example of dreams proves that incredibly real virtual worlds, entire universes, can indeed appear and take place within the sphere of an individual dreaming consciousness — and they are indistinguishable (while they occur) from waking experience. Dreaming illustrates the power and scope of consciousness — it shows that it is not absurd to think that the our own so-called waking experience could be appearing like a dream within our own fields of consciousness. Waking experience, like dreaming, happens within the sphere of consciousness. It’s impossible to have waking experience without being conscious.

We have no evidence of there being anything beyond the sphere of consciousness and we cannot possibly observe anything without resorting to consciousness in the process to make the observation. There is no way to logically establish that there exists anything beyond or before the scope of consciousness. Anything we attempt to prove or observer is mediated by our own observing consciousness.

For this reason, as far as I or anyone can ever discern, it is reasonable to posit that each of our unique perspectives — each of our minds — contains the universe from one perspective. It’s similar to a hologram — where each piece of the picture contains the whole picture from a different angle. In the case of consciousness, each individual consciousness is one unique perspective on the universe. And the universe itself cannot be found apart from all these conscious perspectives on it. It’s not “out there” as some separate physical thing that these consciousnesses are simply watching from afar — it is literally a manifestation of these consciousnesses, there is no duality between observer and what is observed at the quantum level.

All the evidence points to consciousness being prior to everything else. There is in fact no evidence that indicates otherwise. As a result I don’t believe consciousness is emergent or reducible. I don’t think it is created or destroyed. And even when present it is not actually findable, because it is basically an axiom of the system we are in. It’s primordial and so we cannot sense it or detect it, other than with consciousness itself. There’s nothing more fundamental to break it down into, or to compare or contrast it against.

Consciousness and the Quantum Substrate

From what I can discern so far, I believe that human consciousness — actual sentience, not simulated sentience — is fundamentally related to the fabric of space-time. It is woven right into the quantum substrate of reality.

At that level of reality there is not clear distinction between mind and matter, it’s some kind of whole that we barely understand. While computers may be able to simulate aspects of this, they do not actually interact directly with the quantum substrate the way that human consciousness does.

This is a big difference between machine minds and human minds: Human consciousness is directly connected to the fundamental quantum nature of the universe, and quite probably plays a role in creating or at least conditioning observed reality. Computer programs — no matter how sophisticated — are not connected to the quantum substrate in the same way — they are not capable of being true quantum observers.

There is at least some evidence for my view of consciousness: On a quantum level, observation and measurement seem to have an impact on what is actually found to occur. The observer affects the experiment. All forms of observation eventually seem to require a human — or equivalently conscious — observer at some point in the process — there’s no escaping that. Without such an observer, the universe remains in an indeterminate quantum state. So it appears that human consciousness — or at least authentic actual consciousness whether human or not — is required to cause the quantum field to actually crystallize into particular events.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that computers can ever be conscious; no evidence that synthetic sentient observers can be created, and even if we created them, there would be no way to prove that their powers of observation were equivalent to our own. Any observations they made of them would ultimately be observed by us humans, and so we would always be the final conscious observers in the chain.

On a quantum level, our observation of our machines, would cascade downwards, causing their observations of reality to have an effect. Without our observing them, machines would not be able to actually affect the quantum level of reality. And indeed it would be difficult to try to prove otherwise, because a human observer is necessary to observe any such proof or system we can devise (and in fact, quantum observer effects have been shown even to propagate backwards in time from a later act of observation to an earlier experiment). So there’s just no way to take human consciousness out of the loop.

We cannot prove that human consciousness isn’t necessary for our universe to appear. We cannot prove that machines can function as independent quantum observers, separate from human observation, and we probably cannot devise any experiment or device which could prove that therefore. There’ s really no evidence to suggest that machines could synthesize this function — all the evidence in fact says otherwise. And this applies by extension to the Web as a whole, and thus to the Global Brain.

As a result, I think human consciousnesses play an absolutely crucial role in the universe, the  Web, and in any eventual Global Brain or form of collective intelligence. Our consciousness is the only actual authentic consciousness in the system. And it plays an important and necessary role at a quantum level in shaping reality through quantum level acts of observation.

By the way, it’s worth noting that consciousness is not exclusively the domain of human beings — animals are also conscious for example. But human beings are at least the most intelligent conscious things that we know of, so I’m limiting this discussion of the Global Brain to humans. In any case, there is no substitute for actual consciousness. It can’t be synthesized. It comes only from humans. At best it can perhaps be aimed, funneled or maybe amplified.

But that doesn’t mean that machine intelligence won’t play a very important enabling and catalyzing role in making the Global Brain smarter. There’s a difference between consciousness and intelligence. In fact, machine intelligence is critical to the Global Brain waking up — because it makes the vast complexity of the Global Brain (in both space and time) comprehensible, digestible, and accessible to the individual human consciousnesses that observe it.

Although humans posses consciousness, our minds are limited in scope — we simply cannot see or make sense of patterns that are above a certain level of scale or complexity in space and time. We need help with that — and that’s where computers enter the story, with their vast abilities to calculate, sort, collate, correlate, and organize masses of data.

Computers essentially increase the scope of human consciousness, by enabling us to observe things and do computations that are beyond the abilities of the individual human brain. It is by making the vast patterns within the complex whole — the entire Web –  more visible and understandable to the observers within it — the human consciousnesses within it — that the Global Brain actually becomes smarter, more reflexively-aware, and more collectively conscious.

By connecting individual human consciousnesses to the vast intelligence and knowledge of the growing global computing network, we will get the best of both: a Global Brain that gets increasingly collectively aware and intelligent.

Consciousness vs. Intelligence

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Related posts:

  1. How to Build the Global Mind Kevin Kelly recently wrote another fascinating article about evidence of...
  2. Why Machines Will Never be Conscious Below is the text of my bet on Long Bets....
  3. The Global Brain is About to Wake Up The emerging realtime Web is not only going to speed...
  4. Video: My Talk on the Evolution of the Global Brain at the Singularity Summit If you are interested in collective intelligence, consciousness, the global...
  5. Intelligence is in the Connections Google’s Larry Page recently gave a talk to the AAAS...
  • http://www.novaspivack.com/uncategorized/the-global-brain-is-about-to-wake-up The Global Brain is About to Wake Up « Nova Spivack – Minding the Planet

    [...] Part II: “Will The Web Become Conscious?” if you want to dig further into the thorny philosophical and scientific issues that this [...]

  • http://www.facebook.com/grahamglass Graham Glass

    Hi Nova,

    With all due respect, I think you're making the same mistake that humans have made time and time again throughout history; inventing ways to make themselves special.

    We used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth because we couldn't imagine that our planet would be subservient to something larger than us. Then we thought that the our Sun was at the center of the galaxy, but it's just in one of the arms. And still a majority of the human race thinks we're god's ultimate creation. And so forth.

    I don't see any evidence that the human brain has any kind of special powers, and even if it did get some kind of property from quantum effects (which I personally don't believe), any computer could also benefit from the same effects since it's made of the same stuff.

    Cheers,
    Graham

  • http://www.facebook.com/grahamglass Graham Glass

    Hi Nova,

    With all due respect, I think you're making the same mistake that humans have made time and time again throughout history; inventing ways to make themselves special.

    We used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth because we couldn't imagine that our planet would be subservient to something larger than us. Then we thought that the our Sun was at the center of the galaxy, but it's just in one of the arms. And still a majority of the human race thinks we're god's ultimate creation. And so forth.

    I don't see any evidence that the human brain has any kind of special powers, and even if it did get some kind of property from quantum effects (which I personally don't believe), any computer could also benefit from the same effects since it's made of the same stuff.

    Cheers,
    Graham

  • mindingtheplanet

    Graham — hi thanks for the comment. My point is actually that the human brain is NOT special. I don't actually think consciousness comes fro the brain. If it did, then it would be no problem to synthesize it, not just for AI but for the Web as a whole as well. I don't think consciousness is a material thing, nor is it an emergent phenomena. I think it's fundamental to the nature of the universe — just like space and time. We can't create it. We'll probably never fully understand it. It just is there from the start.

    This means that material things like the physical universe and the human body and brain, emerge from consciousness, rather than consciousness emerging from material things. Consciousness, whatever it is, is primordial and fundamental. Whether or not you reify it as a fundamental first-thing, or you take the Buddhist view that it is empty of any entity or nature and therefore not a thing, it is still primordial.

    If you really look closely at what we can possibly ever observe, it appears this is the only answer we can find. We cannot observe anything prior to being conscious ourselves — consciousness is necessary to be an observer. Furthermore, the example of dreams proves that incredibly real virtual worlds, entire universes, can indeed appear and take place within the sphere of an individual dreaming consciousness — and they are indistinguishable (while they occur) from waking experience.

    Waking experience, like dreaming, in fact also happens within the sphere of consciousness. We have no evidence of there being anything beyond the sphere of consciousness and we cannot possibly observe anything without resorting to consciousness in the process to make the observation. There is no way to logically establish that there exists anything beyond the scope of consciousness. Anything we prove or observer is mediated by our own observing consciousness.

    For this reason, the entire universe is contained within each of our individual consciousnesses, from each of our unique perspectives. It's similar to a hologram — each piece contains the whole from a different angle.

    All the evidence points to consciousness being prior to everything else. There is in fact no evidence that indicates otherwise.

    As a result I don't believe consciousness is emergent or reducible. I don't think it is created or destroyed. And even when present it is not actually findable, because it is basically an axiom of the system we are in. It's primordial and so we cannot sense it or detect it, other than with consciousness itself. There's nothing more fundamental to break it down into, or to compare or contrast it against.

    – Nova

  • http://www.novaspivack.com/ Nova Spivack

    Graham — hi thanks for the comment. My point is actually that the human brain is NOT special. I don't actually think consciousness comes fro the brain. If it did, then it would be no problem to synthesize it, not just for AI but for the Web as a whole as well. I don't think consciousness is a material thing, nor is it an emergent phenomena. I think it's fundamental to the nature of the universe — just like space and time. We can't create it. We'll probably never fully understand it. It just is there from the start.

    This means that material things like the physical universe and the human body and brain, emerge from consciousness, rather than consciousness emerging from material things. Consciousness, whatever it is, is primordial and fundamental. Whether or not you reify it as a fundamental first-thing, or you take the Buddhist view that it is empty of any entity or nature and therefore not a thing, it is still primordial.

    If you really look closely at what we can possibly ever observe, it appears this is the only answer we can find. We cannot observe anything prior to being conscious ourselves — consciousness is necessary to be an observer. Furthermore, the example of dreams proves that incredibly real virtual worlds, entire universes, can indeed appear and take place within the sphere of an individual dreaming consciousness — and they are indistinguishable (while they occur) from waking experience.

    Waking experience, like dreaming, in fact also happens within the sphere of consciousness. We have no evidence of there being anything beyond the sphere of consciousness and we cannot possibly observe anything without resorting to consciousness in the process to make the observation. There is no way to logically establish that there exists anything beyond the scope of consciousness. Anything we prove or observer is mediated by our own observing consciousness.

    For this reason, the entire universe is contained within each of our individual consciousnesses, from each of our unique perspectives. It's similar to a hologram — each piece contains the whole from a different angle.

    All the evidence points to consciousness being prior to everything else. There is in fact no evidence that indicates otherwise.

    As a result I don't believe consciousness is emergent or reducible. I don't think it is created or destroyed. And even when present it is not actually findable, because it is basically an axiom of the system we are in. It's primordial and so we cannot sense it or detect it, other than with consciousness itself. There's nothing more fundamental to break it down into, or to compare or contrast it against.

    – Nova

  • http://www.facebook.com/grahamglass Graham Glass

    Hi Nova,

    Since brains are essentially manufactured in the womb from biological materials, why can't computers that are also manufactured be conscious? You write that you don't think that computers can be conscious, and yet brains can. What is the intrinsic difference between them? You seem to indicate that there's something about brains that are connected to the “quantum substrate”. What law of physics do brains have access to that computers don't?

    Cheers,
    Graham

  • http://www.facebook.com/grahamglass Graham Glass

    Hi Nova,

    Since brains are essentially manufactured in the womb from biological materials, why can't computers that are also manufactured be conscious? You write that you don't think that computers can be conscious, and yet brains can. What is the intrinsic difference between them? You seem to indicate that there's something about brains that are connected to the “quantum substrate”. What law of physics do brains have access to that computers don't?

    Cheers,
    Graham

  • mindingtheplanet

    Graham — My approach to consciousness is exactly the inverse of the approach you are citing. Consciousness does not emerge from the brain — the brain emerges from consciousness. Consciousness is not emergent and not manufactured, it's primordial, like spacetime. The various logical arguments in my article provide several reasons why this is the case. The brain is an organ of consciousness — not vice-versa.

    If consciousness merely emerged from a suitable brain, then any suitable brain should be conscious, but in fact, dead brains for example are not conscious. So what is it about a live brain that makes it conscious? And does that mean that babies are not conscious until their brains develop sophisticated brainstates later in life? Furthermore, if we take a dead person's brain and hook it up to pumps that provide it with blood and other necessary nutrients, it doesn't 't suddenly reanimate and become conscious again. Consciousness is not merely a particular brainstate or matter of keeping a brain oxygenated. It can't be found anywhere in the brain either.

    While the brain and brainstates may be correlated with sensory experience and cognition, that says nothing about bare consciousness. It is possible for example to be conscious without any particular sensory object or thought — a bare empty state of consciousness that for example, Buddhist monks cultivate. Similarly there are many documented reports of near-death experiences where clinically brain-dead medical patients have been revived and then reported being conscious and even seeing the operating room, even while their brainstates were flatlining.

    The brain and brainstates are perhaps the most advanced expressions of consciousness, but not necessary to it. In the end consciousness is prior to the brain, just like spacetime is prior to the brain. Without spacetime you can't have a brain. Similarly without consciousness, nothing knows the brain's experience.

    It's important to make a distinction between bare consciousness and any form of conceptuality or cognition. Conceptuality and cognition are perhaps emergent from the brain. When I speak of consciousness, I'm not speaking of thoughts, I'm speaking of that which simply knows thoughts and experiences. The knowing capacity of the mind is not a thought, and independent of brainstates too.

  • http://www.novaspivack.com/ Nova Spivack

    Graham — My approach to consciousness is exactly the inverse of the approach you are citing. Consciousness does not emerge from the brain — the brain emerges from consciousness. Consciousness is not emergent and not manufactured, it's primordial, like spacetime. The various logical arguments in my article provide several reasons why this is the case. The brain is an organ of consciousness — not vice-versa.

    If consciousness merely emerged from a suitable brain, then any suitable brain should be conscious, but in fact, dead brains for example are not conscious. So what is it about a live brain that makes it conscious? And does that mean that babies are not conscious until their brains develop sophisticated brainstates later in life? Furthermore, if we take a dead person's brain and hook it up to pumps that provide it with blood and other necessary nutrients, it doesn't 't suddenly reanimate and become conscious again. Consciousness is not merely a particular brainstate or matter of keeping a brain oxygenated. It can't be found anywhere in the brain either.

    While the brain and brainstates may be correlated with sensory experience and cognition, that says nothing about bare consciousness. It is possible for example to be conscious without any particular sensory object or thought — a bare empty state of consciousness that for example, Buddhist monks cultivate. Similarly there are many documented reports of near-death experiences where clinically brain-dead medical patients have been revived and then reported being conscious and even seeing the operating room, even while their brainstates were flatlining.

    The brain and brainstates are perhaps the most advanced expressions of consciousness, but not necessary to it. In the end consciousness is prior to the brain, just like spacetime is prior to the brain. Without spacetime you can't have a brain. Similarly without consciousness, nothing knows the brain's experience.

    It's important to make a distinction between bare consciousness and any form of conceptuality or cognition. Conceptuality and cognition are perhaps emergent from the brain. When I speak of consciousness, I'm not speaking of thoughts, I'm speaking of that which simply knows thoughts and experiences. The knowing capacity of the mind is not a thought, and independent of brainstates too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/grahamglass Graham Glass

    Well, dead brains aren't conscious because they lose their cells and therefore their ability to think. Similarly, sleeping brains aren't conscious because their cells temporarily stop working as they normally do. So these are both easy to explain. I think that the consciousness of a larger mind emerges from the interactions of the smaller minds that make it up, all the way down to the neurons. If they stop talking, the large mind essentially goes away and all you're left with is the smaller minds.

    I'm not aware of any near-death experiences that have been scientifically validated.

    Even in a so-called “bare” state of consciousness, trillions of signals are flowing through a brain. I agree that consciousness does not imply any particular high-level thought. In general, consciousness of a particular “thing” (even color, the wind, etc.) seems to be proportionate to the number of neurons engaged in representing the thing. If your eyes are open and you're not concentrating, hundreds of millions of neurons are still processing the visual information which is why it's hard not to be conscious of basic visual stimulus.

    When I speak of consciousness, I'm not talking about thoughts either (at least not in the usual sense which are things that we hear in our head). I think more in terms of structures and their power within the mind. The mind is composed of billions of micro structures which continually assemble and disassemble into more complex and powerful structures. The more powerful a structure is, the greater influence it has over the other structures.

    To me, the process of assembly and disassembly of structures in a mind is true thinking. What we hear in our head (the usual interpretation of what a though is) is the verbal after-the-fact interpretation of the deeper “thought structures” that are the real movers and shakers. What we hear in our head is therefore just a trace of what has already happened.

    Out of interest, why do you think we lose consciousness when we go to sleep?

    Cheers,
    Graham

  • http://www.facebook.com/grahamglass Graham Glass

    Well, dead brains aren't conscious because they lose their cells and therefore their ability to think. Similarly, sleeping brains aren't conscious because their cells temporarily stop working as they normally do. So these are both easy to explain. I think that the consciousness of a larger mind emerges from the interactions of the smaller minds that make it up, all the way down to the neurons. If they stop talking, the large mind essentially goes away and all you're left with is the smaller minds.

    I'm not aware of any near-death experiences that have been scientifically validated.

    Even in a so-called “bare” state of consciousness, trillions of signals are flowing through a brain. I agree that consciousness does not imply any particular high-level thought. In general, consciousness of a particular “thing” (even color, the wind, etc.) seems to be proportionate to the number of neurons engaged in representing the thing. If your eyes are open and you're not concentrating, hundreds of millions of neurons are still processing the visual information which is why it's hard not to be conscious of basic visual stimulus.

    When I speak of consciousness, I'm not talking about thoughts either (at least not in the usual sense which are things that we hear in our head). I think more in terms of structures and their power within the mind. The mind is composed of billions of micro structures which continually assemble and disassemble into more complex and powerful structures. The more powerful a structure is, the greater influence it has over the other structures.

    To me, the process of assembly and disassembly of structures in a mind is true thinking. What we hear in our head (the usual interpretation of what a though is) is the verbal after-the-fact interpretation of the deeper “thought structures” that are the real movers and shakers. What we hear in our head is therefore just a trace of what has already happened.

    Out of interest, why do you think we lose consciousness when we go to sleep?

    Cheers,
    Graham

  • seanctaylor1

    Wow dude you spout an impressive volume of silicon valley cubicle-utopian dot-commie gibberish. Meanwhile, the real world is falling apart on every front — the economy is failing, global guerrillas are spreading, energy supplies are tightening, ecosystems are dying and the climate is spinning out of control. Your writing sounds to me like the desperate utopian rhetoric of a civilization on the verge of total collapse. Have a nice day though, and be sure to say hi to the Global Brain for me.

  • seanctaylor1

    Wow dude you spout an impressive volume of silicon valley cubicle-utopian dot-commie gibberish. Meanwhile, the real world is falling apart on every front — the economy is failing, global guerrillas are spreading, energy supplies are tightening, ecosystems are dying and the climate is spinning out of control. Your writing sounds to me like the desperate utopian rhetoric of a civilization on the verge of total collapse. Have a nice day though, and be sure to say hi to the Global Brain for me.

  • marianasoffer

    I was wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining in more detail what consciousness means/represents/seems to be according to you. Thanks!

  • marianasoffer

    I was wondering if you wouldn't mind explaining in more detail what consciousness means/represents/seems to be according to you. Thanks!

  • deanpomerleau

    Wow Nova, This is quite a post. I enjoyed, it and your discussion with Graham. I'll just probe one point you make, using a thought experiment. You said:

    I would venture to state that without consciousness — at least in primordial form — no universes would even be possible or would ever arise.

    So suppose a moon-sized asteroid were to crash into earth and destroy all life on our planet, including every single human. It seems to me the universe would keep right on ticking, without missing a beat.

    Do you disagree? If so, HUMAN consciousness must not be as fundamental as you seem to be suggesting.

    Suppose further there is no other intelligent life in the universe (a premise I hope is false, but seems tenable given the evidence).

    Would consciousness still exist in some primordial form, even if no living creatures exist in the universe anymore? If so where would it be residing? If it remains, why couldn't it reside in what we would consider non-living entities?

    Buddhism appeals to my sensibilities a lot. I too believe in the doctrine of emptiness and interconnectedness. But the way this idea makes sense for me is that everything we consider 'nuggets' of distinct identity are actually the result of the complex interplay of simpler components. From this perspective objects, as well as consciousness, are an emergent property, and don't have an inherent independent existence of their own.

    I appears to me that you view consciousness differently, as 'primordial' and fundamental, the raw material that grounds all existence.

    That seems a little to convenient and self serving for humanity to ring true for me. Consciousness is what makes humans special (at least so far), so it is not surprising that to feed human ego we would come to believe it to be of paramount importance in grounding the universe.

    If there is a consciousness that undergirds the universe, it is likely to be on an such an entirely different plane from that which we possess as to be irrelevant to the question of whether the web (or intelligent individual machines) will ever achieve consciousness.

    –Dean

  • deanpomerleau

    Wow Nova, This is quite a post. I enjoyed it and your discussion with Graham. I'll just probe one point you make, using a thought experiment. You said:

    I would venture to state that without consciousness — at least in primordial form — no universes would even be possible or would ever arise.

    So suppose a moon-sized asteroid were to crash into earth and destroy all life on our planet, including every single human. It seems to me the universe would keep right on ticking, without missing a beat.

    Do you disagree? If so, HUMAN consciousness must not be as fundamental as you seem to be suggesting.

    Suppose further there is no other intelligent life in the universe (a premise I hope is false, but seems tenable given the evidence).

    Would consciousness still exist in some primordial form, even if no living creatures exist in the universe anymore? If so where would it be residing? If it remains, why couldn't it reside in what we would consider non-living entities?

    Buddhism appeals to my sensibilities a lot. I too believe in the doctrine of emptiness and interconnectedness. But the way this idea makes sense for me is that everything we consider 'nuggets' of distinct identity are actually the result of the complex interplay of simpler components. From this perspective objects, as well as consciousness, are an emergent property, and don't have an inherent independent existence of their own.

    I appears to me that you view consciousness differently, as 'primordial' and fundamental, the raw material that grounds all existence.

    That seems a little to convenient and self serving for humanity to ring true for me. Consciousness is what makes humans special (at least so far), so it is not surprising that to feed human ego we would come to believe it to be of paramount importance in grounding the universe.

    If there is a consciousness that undergirds the universe, it is likely to be on an such an entirely different plane from that which we possess as to be irrelevant to the question of whether the web (or intelligent individual machines) will ever achieve consciousness.

    –Dean

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/L3NGVLBS2N2T4KLY5T5XPIE2ZU Peta-de-Aztlan

    I believe in the spiritual realm that the web can have its own consciousness though not as we ordinarily understand consciousness. There are matters in the cosmos that rightly belong to the invisible world we can call space. Most of what makes up the cosmos is space. Consciousness is an elaboration of being conscious. It has a sense of self-awareness. Can my dog have a consciousness? To him or to us?

    Mortals tend to get lost in their own mental masturbations. There are different kinds of conscious awareness, different kinds and degree of consciousness. I believe it is closer to the true of consciousness being a basic primordial force in the cosmos.

    For me, I am interested in advancing and developing a truly liberated conscious awareness that grows in upward spirals exhibited in liberating consciousness.

    I am more concerned with feeding consciousness, thus feeding people, esp. our innocent children. Namaste, Peta ~ http://twitter.com/Peta_de_Aztlan
    c/s

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/L3NGVLBS2N2T4KLY5T5XPIE2ZU Peta-de-Aztlan

    I believe in the spiritual realm that the web can have its own consciousness though not as we ordinarily understand consciousness. There are matters in the cosmos that rightly belong to the invisible world we can call space. Most of what makes up the cosmos is space. Consciousness is an elaboration of being conscious. It has a sense of self-awareness. Can my dog have a consciousness? To him or to us?

    Mortals tend to get lost in their own mental masturbations. There are different kinds of conscious awareness, different kinds and degree of consciousness. I believe it is closer to the true of consciousness being a basic primordial force in the cosmos.

    For me, I am interested in advancing and developing a truly liberated conscious awareness that grows in upward spirals exhibited in liberating consciousness.

    I am more concerned with feeding consciousness, thus feeding people, esp. our innocent children. Namaste, Peta ~ http://twitter.com/Peta_de_Aztlan
    c/s

  • http://haleyai.com/wordpress/2010/01/26/google-follows-microsofts-lead-towards-intelligence/ Google follows Microsoft’s lead towards intelligence – Commercial Intelligence

    [...] bright minds are looking forward to in this regard, see Nova Spivak’s recent blogging and his post on “will the web become [...]

  • http://www.soaguru.com/google-follows-microsoft%e2%80%99s-lead-towards-intelligence Google follows Microsoft’s lead towards intelligence | SOA Governance – Service Oriented Architecture – SOA Business – SOA Design – SOA Services – SOA Software – SOA Solutions – SOA Security – SOA Web Service

    [...] bright minds are looking forward to in this regard, see Nova Spivak’s recent blogging and his post on “will the web become [...]

  • http://twitter.com/JWilfong Jeff Wilfong

    From over 9 years of meditation, I have come to realize that my thoughts are not completely in my control. They just sort of happen. In this way, I do not think I am any more special than a housefly, or an ant, or an elephant (yes, this list happened spontaneously and without my control).

    I do think that intelligence, consciousness, and feelings is highly subjective and open to interpretation. If a computer were to independently think outside its own algorithms, that would be amazing. However, from an explanatory angle, I do not know how this would be possible. It may be that a computer does not need to think independently for consciousness, as I do not think independently. I have been conditioned to think the way that I do from years of experience and inputs.

  • http://twitter.com/JWilfong Jeff Wilfong

    From over 9 years of meditation, I have come to realize that my thoughts are not completely in my control. They just sort of happen. In this way, I do not think I am any more special than a housefly, or an ant, or an elephant (yes, this list happened spontaneously and without my control).

    I do think that intelligence, consciousness, and feelings is highly subjective and open to interpretation. If a computer were to independently think outside its own algorithms, that would be amazing. However, from an explanatory angle, I do not know how this would be possible. It may be that a computer does not need to think independently for consciousness, as I do not think independently. I have been conditioned to think the way that I do from years of experience and inputs.

  • http://twitter.com/chrisdollard Chris Dollard

    For a while now I've thought of the web as a precursor, a pattern, of a shift in the global consciousness into a fully interconnected one. Before Joseph Campbell died (well before the internet), he speculated that the greatest evolutionary leap ever for humankind was just around the corner. He didn't know what this new mythology would be, but he knew it would have to connect all humanity on a global scale: all races, religions, geographies. So maybe the web is a form of training wheels that allows us to bridge the gap between homo sapiens and 'homo posterus', which, when we become/reach it, will consign the old silicon and electron-based web to the scrap heap of old technologies.

  • http://twitter.com/chrisdollard Chris Dollard

    For a while now I've thought of the web as a precursor, a pattern, of a shift in the global consciousness into a fully interconnected one. Before Joseph Campbell died (well before the internet), he speculated that the greatest evolutionary leap ever for humankind was just around the corner. He didn't know what this new mythology would be, but he knew it would have to connect all humanity on a global scale: all races, religions, geographies. So maybe the web is a form of training wheels that allows us to bridge the gap between homo sapiens and 'homo posterus', which, when we become/reach it, will consign the old silicon and electron-based web to the scrap heap of old technologies.

blog comments powered by Disqus