Consiousness and Order

[Bennettresearch]

Some day we can get back to what I have been pondering and whether my conclusions are flawed.
This is turning into an entropy debate. Related, but you can spend a whole thread on that alone. With a little sprinkle dust I will bring the topic back to order....poof....oh wait that was a fart. :banghead3

~Victor

Watch out Victor you'll get a headache.

Fascinating. But the human mind as it grows creates more energy. It produces more chemicals and an increase in the neural networks create more synapses. Of course when we grow older more brain cells die and thinking makes our brain hurt sometimes. Viola, entropy.

Let's say a great thinker spent years coming up with the perfect moral system. When presented to the large masses and adopted these rules become watered down and changed according to the wants and desires of the masses. The gas fills the whole bottle but becomes diluted. Entropy.

The reason I think this thread got sidetracked is that when discussing consciousness it has different definitions to different people. As to consciousness of morals, this is different than consciousness of, let's say, physics. They are both different areas of study. Dealing with human emotions and morals can be more confusing than physics because there is no clear delineation of human emotions as a science that can clearly delineate mathematical laws.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Some neurologists might point to brain damage as an increase in disordered consciousness.

Hi MG,

But what about disordered consciousness where there is no brain damage? Does it deacrease into order? :biglaugh:

 

[JerryL]

I'm sorry, Jerry, but you are once again reverting to a straw man argument. I'm unsure as to what "layman use" of the word 'disordered' would qualify gas molecules clumped in one area of a container "disordered" and gas molecules spread out within a container "ordered". I would think that even laymen would hold the opposite to be true. In any case, that is not how I think of the word, so here you're simply putting words in my mouth.

I'm not putting words into your mouth.

You asserted in your post that the water and oil seperating example was an example of order coming out of chaos (you asserted it didn't matter because it was not a closed system). This proves that you are using the wrods incorrectly as it's an example of disorder occuring as used in Thermodynamics.

The enire argument is that "order" must come from consious action... The proponents of this assertion use Thermodynamics 2 to try to prove their point. The problem is that the order they are talking about is not similar to the order in Thermodynamics. Therefore, the assertion that Thermodynamics 2 denies evolution is, or abiogenesis, is, among other things, an equivocation fallcy (which is what I originaly said).

I really don't see much point in responding to the rest; I hope this is clear enough.

 

[JerryL]

Fascinating. But the human mind as it grows creates more energy. It produces more chemicals and an increase in the neural networks create more synapses. Of course when we grow older more brain cells die and thinking makes our brain hurt sometimes. Viola, entropy.

Actually, gorwing the brain cells was entropy as well. You were expending energy.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So here is what I got so far:
1. Things move toward order and once it reaches some order it moves toward disorder (hence things die)

That's not really accurate Victor. Things *can* move toward order if such a process increases the overall disorder of the universe, but they don't have to move towards order.

2. The want of moving toward order can be seen with the simple fact that energy moves things to bond and assemble.

3. The fulfillment of that want is simply that energy exist.

You lost me. Maybe it will be clearer as I read on....

So how this applies to the human consciousness is that a want and fulfillment can be found in every aspect of the cosmos that has energy. Everybody has wants and everybody fulfills them in some way or another. I am not only speaking of objective needs like water, food, etc. but subjective wants like morality. This leads me into my final conclusion that morality seems to be the ONLY thing (that I can think of) that does not have a true solution/fulfillment. At least from a human race and atheistic perspective I can't see it. I hope I was clear.

I'm still not sure I understand you. The words "wants" and "fulfillment" seem pretty vague, and I don't see how you can equate "subjective wants" to "objective wants".

You asserted in your post that the water and oil seperating example was an example of order coming out of chaos (you asserted it didn't matter because it was not a closed system).

I did not know whether or not the seperated state of water and oil is more ordered than the mixed state--I have not studied statistical physics in depth and would not be able to solve such a problem. However, since (as you have said) the seperated system of water and oil is more disordered than the mix, your example only supports what I had originally said: isolated systems move toward disorder.

I originally assumed (incorrectly) that you were providing me an example of a system that moves towards order. (After all, why would you present an example that only supported what I was saying?) Thus, I concluded it must not be an isolated system (e.g. it must increase the overall disorder of the universe). Either way, your example is moot and only serves to knock down your strawman. Either way, isolated systems cannot move toward order, exactly as I said, exactly as my physics textbook says, and exactly as wikipedia says.

Do you agree or disagree that, according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, entropy can only increase (edit: or stay the same) in isolated systems (where entropy is a measure of disorder)?

The enire argument is that "order" must come from consious action... The proponents of this assertion use Thermodynamics 2 to try to prove their point. The problem is that the order they are talking about is not similar to the order in Thermodynamics. Therefore, the assertion that Thermodynamics 2 denies evolution is, or abiogenesis, is, among other things, an equivocation fallcy (which is what I originaly said).

I would say the reason they're wrong is because Earth (where evolution and abiogenesis occurred) is not an isolated system, thus it is perfectly possible for it to spontaneously become more ordered as long as it increases the overall disorder of the universe. (The energy coming from the Sun which powers life on this planet is highly ordered compared to the waste chemicals and heat exhausted by organisms.)

But it doesn't make any difference: I never said order comes from conscious action (nor did anyone on this thread, to my knowledge) nor is the order I'm talking about different from the order in thermodynamics. Your strawman hasn't changed much with its repeated use.

BTW, I'm still wondering what "layman use" would qualify blocks scattered evenly around a room 'ordered' and blocks stacked up in certain places 'disordered'.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Actually, gorwing the brain cells was entropy as well. You were expending energy.

Hi Jerry,

Yes, a very intelligent response. You were smart enough to not take the bait and start thrashing around with a one dimensional argument about the conversion of energy. I am well aware that energy is not "created". My little experiment was one of testing consciousness.

Let's take this a step farther. You do not go down to Burger King and order a string theory burger with some gravity thrown on top. It's OK I have Alka Seltzer at home thank you. In the process of converting energy into conscious thought, at what point does electrochemistry become the mind? It is more than just a stimulus/response activity. The mind can assimilate information and make predictions based on this information that is outside of any mathematical formula. This is what this thread is pondering. Instead of going into my thoughts on this would anyone like to have a go at consciousness?

 

[Bennettresearch]

Ok MS, that is still a want. The want within (atoms) or from the outside (outside forces). Either way the WANT is still there. Things that are in a disordered state are things that either die off or it moves toward some order. Once it reaches order and some form of function; disorder is it's only destiny. Unless of course it continues to duplicate itself without error. That would be leaning toward being god-like.

So here is what I got so far:
1. Things move toward order and once it reaches some order it moves toward disorder (hence things die)
2. The want of moving toward order can be seen with the simple fact that energy moves things to bond and assemble.
3. The fulfillment of that want is simply that energy exist.

So how this applies to the human consciousness is that a want and fulfillment can be found in every aspect of the cosmos that has energy. Everybody has wants and everybody fulfills them in some way or another. I am not only speaking of objective needs like water, food, etc. but subjective wants like morality. This leads me into my final conclusion that morality seems to be the ONLY thing (that I can think of) that does not have a true solution/fulfillment. At least from a human race and atheistic perspective I can't see it. I hope I was clear.

Thoughts?

~Victor

Hi Victor,

I am seeing now why this thread got a little off topic. We cannot anthropomorphize physics and chemistry. For every successful bonding or chain reaction, etc, there was probably an unsuccessful one to match. The keyword being want here. This would indicate that these "ordered" things became that way due to an influence from something that "wanted" it to happen. Einstein called it looking into the mind of God. The problem here is that quantum mechanics brought chaos back into the picture and string theory goes even farther. In all of this chaos there is a goal of a unified theory between gravity and electromagnetism.

The mystery I see being pondered here is the question of how the earth became such a hospitable place for us to exist on. I think the evidence you are seeing is the symbiotic relationship that begs the question of whether this is part of some design. Intuitively it appears to be so but scientifically there is no concrete proof. Anyway, is this what you have been getting at?

 

[JerryL]

In the process of converting energy into conscious thought, at what point does electrochemistry become the mind? It is more than just a stimulus/response activity. The mind can assimilate information and make predictions based on this information that is outside of any mathematical formula.

I don't see how making predictions is more than stimulius / response.

Mst wheather forcasting (prediction) is done by computer model. Are you asserting that computers have minds and consiousness?

 

[Bennettresearch]

I don't see how making predictions is more than stimulius / response.

Mst wheather forcasting (prediction) is done by computer model. Are you asserting that computers have minds and consiousness?

Very Silly Jerry,

I guess you have nothing to say about human consciousness

 

[JerryL]

Very Silly Jerry,

I guess you have nothing to say about human consciousness

Evasive and mildy insulting Bennett. I guess you have no retort for my assertion and must resort to rhetoric.

 

[Quiddity]

That's not really accurate Victor. Things *can* move toward order if such a process increases the overall disorder of the universe, but they don't have to move towards order.

You lost me here. How does a process moving toward order increase the overall disorder of things?

I'm still not sure I understand you. The words "wants" and "fulfillment" seem pretty vague, and I don't see how you can equate "subjective wants" to "objective wants".

I mean want and fulfillment just as the dictionary defines them. Perhaps your struggles come with me using those words themselves (want/fulfillment) with something other then people. Human wants are both objective and subjective MS.


Let me know if I can further clarify.


~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Hi Victor,

I am seeing now why this thread got a little off topic. We cannot anthropomorphize physics and chemistry. For every successful bonding or chain reaction, etc, there was probably an unsuccessful one to match. The keyword being want here. This would indicate that these "ordered" things became that way due to an influence from something that "wanted" it to happen. Einstein called it looking into the mind of God. The problem here is that quantum mechanics brought chaos back into the picture and string theory goes even farther. In all of this chaos there is a goal of a unified theory between gravity and electromagnetism.

The mystery I see being pondered here is the question of how the earth became such a hospitable place for us to exist on. I think the evidence you are seeing is the symbiotic relationship that begs the question of whether this is part of some design. Intuitively it appears to be so but scientifically there is no concrete proof. Anyway, is this what you have been getting at?

I can see why you thought I was anthropomorphizing science (not just physics and chemistry). To an extent yes I was trying to show “something”. And I was trying to do that by something as simple as a “want” in both the objective and subjective worlds. They work similar in their needs. Although most of the focus is probably in the objective world I hope someone will build on anthropomorphizing the objective and subjective worlds. I tried to do it with the “want” of nature and the “want” of the human conscious or subjective world. I’m sure more can build on this and correct me where I have failed to clarify or so on.



~Victor

 

[JerryL]

You lost me here. How does a process moving toward order increase the overall disorder of things?

Imagine "order" equals "ptential energy" (because it does). You plug a rechargeable battery into a power outlet. The battery goes from dead to holding (let's say) 1 Kilowatt hour of electricity. Since some of the energy sent to the battery was lost as heat in the generation, transmission, and conversion; let's say it took 2 KwH to generate that 1 KwH of potential energy.

The disorder in the battery has lowered (by 1 KwH), the disorder in the world outside the battery has increased (by 2 KwH). The overal disorder of the world and battery combines has increased 1 KwH, even though the disorder of the battery decreased.

I mean want and fulfillment just as the dictionary defines them. Perhaps your struggles come with me using those words themselves (want/fulfillment) with something other then people.

Forces don't "want" as defined by the dictionary.

 

[Quiddity]

Imagine "order" equals "ptential energy" (because it does). You plug a rechargeable battery into a power outlet. The battery goes from dead to holding (let's say) 1 Kilowatt hour of electricity. Since some of the energy sent to the battery was lost as heat in the generation, transmission, and conversion; let's say it took 2 KwH to generate that 1 KwH of potential energy.

The disorder in the battery has lowered (by 1 KwH), the disorder in the world outside the battery has increased (by 2 KwH). The overal disorder of the world and battery combines has increased 1 KwH, even though the disorder of the battery decreased.

JerryL, be more specific as to where this disorder subsist. I see what you mean, but I am only seeing that this transfer of energy which really only shows atoms "wanting" to move from one place to another. Where is the disorder? Be specific.

Forces don't "want" as defined by the dictionary.

Ok, if you don't like my choice of word. Pick another. As long as you get my point that energy exist to assemble and bond atoms/matter. That is a want of nature JerryL.

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

JerryL, be more specific as to where this disorder subsist. I see what you mean, but I am only seeing that this transfer of energy which really only shows atoms "wanting" to move from one place to another. Where is the disorder? Be specific.

The answer is different depending on the mechanisms of storage used. Looking at a NiCad rechargeable battery, for example.

When in fully charged state, the energy potential (order) exists in the bond between the oxygen and Nickle atoms in the NiOOH molecule. When the Cadmium oxidizes (taking the Oxygen atoms from the NiOOH to make Cd(OH)2, the energy potential difference is released as electricty, which then grounds to an area of lower potential energy (thus increasing disorder).

When you introduce a higher-potential energy into the mix, the oxygen is pushed back to the Ni(OH)2 moelcule, abosrbing the energy in the process of forming the bond and increasing order (NiOOH has a higher potential than Cd(OH)2).

 

[Scott1]

When you introduce a higher-potential energy into the mix, the oxygen is pushed back to the Ni(OH)2 moelcule, abosrbing the energy in the process of forming the bond and increasing order (NiOOH has a higher potential than Cd(OH)2).

Ok.....now you're just showing off.

Thanks for helping me understand.:clap

 

[Quiddity]

The answer is different depending on the mechanisms of storage used. Looking at a NiCad rechargeable battery, for example.[/color]

When in fully charged state, the energy potential (order) exists in the bond between the oxygen and Nickle atoms in the NiOOH molecule. When the Cadmium oxidizes (taking the Oxygen atoms from the NiOOH to make Cd(OH)2, the energy potential difference is released as electricty, which then grounds to an area of lower potential energy (thus increasing disorder).

When you introduce a higher-potential energy into the mix, the oxygen is pushed back to the Ni(OH)2 moelcule, abosrbing the energy in the process of forming the bond and increasing order (NiOOH has a higher potential than Cd(OH)2).

Cool, cool and cool. I'm learning here. So depending on the mechanisms you can move toward order or perhaps it will cause disorder? Gotcha..
But my observation that a "want" is in nature is still true.

~Victor

 

[JerryL]

Cool, cool and cool. I'm learning here. So depending on the mechanisms you can move toward order or perhaps it will cause disorder? Gotcha..

No, the net effect of all moves is towards disorder; but a *local* move can be towards order.

Imagine that you and a friend each have $10. You (locally) have $10, and he (locally) has $10, and all of you (universally) have $20.

He give you $10.. which has raised the amount of local money, you now have $20 locally; but the universal money has not changed. No amount of you and he exchanging money can change the universal amount of money.

This is local vs universal.

This is how order works... except that no process for moving potential energy is 100% efficient. If he gives up $10 to give to you, only $9 makes it and the rest is lost (tax, if you will). That loss is the rise in entropy.

 

[Quiddity]

No, the net effect of all moves is towards disorder; but a *local* move can be towards order.

Imagine that you and a friend each have $10. You (locally) have $10, and he (locally) has $10, and all of you (universally) have $20.

He give you $10.. which has raised the amount of local money, you now have $20 locally; but the universal money has not changed. No amount of you and he exchanging money can change the universal amount of money.

This is local vs universal.

This is how order works... except that no process for moving potential energy is 100% efficient. If he gives up $10 to give to you, only $9 makes it and the rest is lost (tax, if you will). That loss is the rise in entropy.

Ok, that was a good example. Darn it, I don't want to go off topic and you have captured my curiousity. So the energy lost is not used for another $10 attempt?

~Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Victor--

I don't mean to step on JerryL's toes here, as his examples are very helpful, but I think the computer simulation example I cited earlier is especially simple and clear.

I read about a computer simulation in my chemistry textbook some years ago. In this simulation, small red balls and large blue balls bounced around chaotically in a box. It was found that, over time, the large balls would be 'herded' into a corner. In other words, the amount of order in that particular corner was increased. This localization of order actually caused a net decrease in the order of the system, because having the large balls clumped in a corner meant the small balls had more room to fly around chaotically. I think this is a good example of how the creation of order in one area can increase the disorder of the system as a whole.