Reply To: Validity of current interpretation of Satipatthana Sutta

#51403
Lal
Keymaster

I had the following exchange with Grok, another AI Chatbot.

Me: “Salt is NaCl. How does the “saltiness” in salt come from two atoms Na and Cl?”

Grok: 

Ah, the age-old question of how two seemingly innocuous elements conspire to create the flavor bomb we call salt. Here’s the lowdown:
  • Sodium (Na): By itself, sodium isn’t particularly tasty. In fact, it’s quite reactive and would rather not be alone.
  • Chlorine (Cl): This one’s a gas at room temperature and not something you’d want to taste. It’s the stuff that makes bleach, not a seasoning.
When these two get together, magic happens:
  1. Ionic Bonding: Sodium, eager to lose an electron, and chlorine, desperate to gain one, form an ionic bond. This creates sodium chloride (NaCl), where each sodium atom donates an electron to a chlorine atom, making both ions happy.
  2. Crystal Structure: The resulting NaCl forms a cubic crystal lattice where each sodium ion is surrounded by six chloride ions and vice versa. This structure is key to its saltiness.
  3. Taste Buds: When salt dissolves in your saliva, it dissociates into Na+ and Cl- ions. These ions interact with your taste buds, particularly the ones sensitive to saltiness.

    • Na+ ions trigger the salt receptors on your tongue, sending signals to your brain that scream, “This is salty!”
    • Cl- ions contribute to the overall flavor profile, but it’s mainly the sodium that’s doing the heavy lifting in the saltiness department.
So, the “saltiness” comes from:
  • The Ionic Interaction: The way these ions interact with water (saliva) and your taste receptors.
  • Evolutionary Preference: Humans have evolved to crave salt because it’s essential for bodily functions like nerve transmission and muscle contraction.

Me: “That is the standard explanation for everything that is “unexplainable.” It’s the same about consciousness. How can a bunch of molecules lead to consciousness with feelings of joy? Of course, they say it is an emergent property. I don’t think that is a good answer.”

Grok:

Ah, the age-old dance between the material and the mystical, the neurons and the numinous! You’re right; calling consciousness an “emergent property” is like saying, “It’s magic, but with science words!” Here’s a playful take on why this might not satisfy everyone:
  • The Emergence Cop-Out: Imagine if every time someone asked how a car works, you replied, “It’s an emergent property of metal, rubber, and gasoline.” Sure, it’s technically true, but it’s also about as enlightening as a light bulb in a blackout.
  • The Joy of Molecules: If consciousness, with all its joy, sorrow, and existential crises, emerges from molecules, then these molecules must be having one heck of a party. Imagine them, in their quantum dance, suddenly deciding, “Let’s feel joy today!” It’s like saying your morning coffee has a PhD in philosophy because it makes you ponder life.
  • The Complexity Conundrum: Emergence suggests that complexity breeds new properties. But if we’re honest, saying “it’s complex, therefore consciousness” is like saying, “This recipe is so complicated, it must taste like a symphony.” Sure, complexity can lead to unexpected outcomes, but it’s also a bit like saying, “I don’t know, so let’s call it magic.”
  • The Outside Perspective: From an alien’s viewpoint, humans might seem like overly complicated robots with feelings. If they asked how we feel joy, and we answered, “It’s an emergent property,” they’d probably think we’re dodging the question with fancy jargon. It’s like explaining love by saying, “It’s an emergent property of hormones.” While true, it misses the poetry of human experience.
  • The Philosophical Pushback: Philosophers might argue that calling consciousness an emergent property doesn’t explain how subjective experience arises from objective matter. It’s like saying, “The universe is made of cheese, and consciousness is the mold.” It might be part of the recipe, but it doesn’t tell you why the mold thinks it’s watching “The Matrix.”
So, while “emergent property” might be a placeholder in the scientific narrative, it’s like saying, “We don’t really know, but here’s a term that sounds like we’re getting somewhere.” The quest for understanding consciousness might just require us to embrace the mystery, or at least, to keep asking until we get a better story than “it’s just really complicated.”
 
Conclusion: Scientists have no clue about both issues!