• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Consciousness question

What exactly makes you think that information processing generates conscious awareness? How does it work? By what mechanism? What experiments demonstrate this?

I just did an experiment not too long ago. I asked my computer, by way of Norton, if it was clean of viruses. I confirmed that it had none. A while ago, it let me know RIGHT AWAY that it had eliminated adware that was potentially harmful to the system.

It did what it was programmed to do, and we do what we're programmed to do. Which is to not only to observe and react, as all "programmed" things are to some extent (living or not), but also to hypothesize and assume, and to take THAT a step further and to test our assumptions and self-correct our information.
 
Isn't "awareness" just another word for the "information processing" of all of your senses, combined with, shall we say, "recorded data", from previously processed information? Isn't that what "consciousness" is?
I don't see why.

If conscious awareness is information processing and if information processing is physical/chemical reactions then how haven't you eneded up with panpsychism?

If you're arguing that the thing in mind is physical then there is no difference between phenomena and noumena, since the phenomena in mind IS the noumena in the brain.

If not, then how does conscious awareness arise from information processing?
_
HypnoPsi
 
Of course in the smallest interaction beween one particle and the next, there exists some form of awareness. So what should that tell us then, except that the whole environment is conscious ... or, a by-product thereof.
Yup, see my recent responses on panpsychism.

I just love it when the skeptics talk about consciousness. Having them pronounce that my toilet cistern is conscious will make my day.

:-)
_
HypnoPsi
 
What is the mechanism by which information processing produces conscious awareness of that information processing and/or the result of such information processing?

In essesence, how does a human think to itself: "I am thinking"

First, there's the internal dialogue, generated in the temporal cortex, that allows us to reflect on something, basically separating our "selves" from the thing we are contemplating.

http://cogprints.org/3784/

Now, take the statement in parts:

"I" is something we learn about over time. Think of the first time a child sees a mirror, how long before they realize that the image of a person they see is themselves. They've identified other simliar looking figures as entities that provide food, nurturing, entertainment, etc. The child realizes they are a similar entity, quite different from a chew toy or that stupid hard coffee table. Overtime, they understand how to communicate with the other entities, and realize that the other entities must be quite like themselves. They understand that they are separate from walls, their clothes, and everything else. They can see their own body and understand that they have control over some parts of the body (hands, feet, head). Self is defined relative to what is not self, and the nature of self is learned as the child learns about other humans and how those humans compare to self.

"am" is a word that is learned to mean "being" in a passive sense.

"thinking" is a word attributed to when people use what they experience or learn to give better understanding of some aspect of themselves or the world around them.

"I am thinking" is understanding self through life experiences as doing the act of using experiences and knowledge to formulate a new experience or new knowledge.

Atoms don't do this. Plants don't do this. Animals have only shown the ability to understand self in a rudimentary fashion (dog's know their name and probably realize they are a dog and not a tree). Gorillas with language skills might have the realization that they think as they learn the words humans endeavour to teach them, but we don't know yet.

How does a brain come to realize it is thinking? Storing information and processing that information to make new information that it can use to process with more additional information obtained through sensory perception. Artificial intelligence has not accomplished this feat as of yet. The human brain has.
 
I don't see why.

If conscious awareness is information processing and if information processing is physical/chemical reactions then how haven't you eneded up with panpsychism?

If you're arguing that the thing in mind is physical then there is no difference between phenomena and noumena, since the phenomena in mind IS the noumena in the brain.

If not, then how does conscious awareness arise from information processing?
_
HypnoPsi

Nobody said "mind". Stay on track, here.
 
I don't see why.

If conscious awareness is information processing and if information processing is physical/chemical reactions then how haven't you eneded up with panpsychism?

If you're arguing that the thing in mind is physical then there is no difference between phenomena and noumena, since the phenomena in mind IS the noumena in the brain.

If not, then how does conscious awareness arise from information processing?
_
HypnoPsi

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking.

Why would processing information gathered by using my natural senses lead to psychicism of any kind? I do not see what the two have in common, since "psychic" abillities are achieved by processessing information beyond the capabilities of the 5 senses.

I'm not sure what you're refering to when you write, "the thing in the mind". If you are talking about the thing in your head, that is your brain. It processes information from your senses and gives you a perception of the outside world, which allows you to react based on previously retained information, while subconsciously retaining information regarding internal functions that are not necessary to your interaction to the outside world, such as blood flowing through your veins.

Please clarify your question, and I will do the same with my response.

I just love it when the skeptics talk about consciousness. Having them pronounce that my toilet cistern is conscious will make my day.

I believe you are confused about the subject at hand. Your toilet has as much consciousness as it was built to have. When the handle it pulled, a mechanism is triggered which flushes the toilet and refills your tank, and another mechanism stops the refill so that it doesn't overflow. If the mechanisms fail, you end up with a mess. My stomach works in a similar way, because that's how it was designed to work.

Does it have the same consiousness as a human? No. We have more senses, and a better ability to perceive our world beyond, "The tank is empty, now it's full."
 
Last edited:
Yup, see my recent responses on panpsychism.
I personally think this is the best explanation, although there are different levels of awareness, dependent upon the structures that maintain them.

I just love it when the skeptics talk about consciousness. Having them pronounce that my toilet cistern is conscious will make my day.
Albeit one would like to think this is not so. :D
 
Yet consciousness is contingent upon the ability to process the information and present it in such a way that "the observer" can understand and/or utilize it.
I'm not so sure about that. I'd say this is an important factor in cognition, but consciousness is the screen upon which all appears and dissapears. But then, Illumination/Enlightenment is... hard to fathom, so you might be right.
_
HypnoPsi
 
Your computer is processing information in the exact same manner that you are - more thoroughly, actually. It is self-diagnosing, and depending on the programs, self-correcting.

However, it does not have a sense of smell and is not "aware" of your foot odor. It does not have a sense of "touch" and cannot feel you carressing the mouse and tapping the keyboard. Most likely, it is not programmed to respond to any sense of "vision" other than basics such as screen reading for the visually impaired. Speech recognition is only capable of recognizing words, not pallate - it cannot distinguish between "pleasant" and "grating" voices. Since it cannot sense these things, it cannot react to them.

Since you have all of those senses, you have a greater "awareness" of your surroundings.
So, do you think that the cock and ball in my toilet cistern has a very, very, rudiementary "awareness" of the water level in the tank?

Where do you stand on the therometer versus thermostat issue? Are only closed systems conscious or do open systems count?

If it's only closed systems, then how exactly do you know they are conscious (or generating consciousness) while open systems aren't consciouse (and/or don't generate conscious)? How has this been determined?

Since, when we talk about open and closed systems, we're only talking about monovariate and multivariate systems, I think this warrants an explanation. I thought you guys believed that more complexity led to more consciousness? So please explain your reasoning and logic here?
_
HypnoPsi
 
I'm sorry, but why is cognition irrelevant to the discussion of consciousness (awareness) since the definition of cognition is: the act or process of knowing including both awareness and judgment?
I don't have time to check all my posts, but I don't recall ever saying that cognition is irrelevant to the discussion of consciousness.

To me, cognition is the conscious awareness of neural activity. Skeptics seem to think that information processing is the cause of this awareness. Can you explain why?
_
HypnoPsi
 
If conscious awareness is information processing and if information processing is physical/chemical reactions then how haven't you eneded up with panpsychism?

Consciousness, awareness, consciousness awareness.

Consciousness can be level of awareness.

Consciousness can be awareness of self.

Consciousness can be sentience.

Consciousness can be sapience.

Conciousness can be sapience, sentience, and awareness of self all combined.

The problem with this thread is we're taking consciousness all over the place.

And by throwing the word "mind" around, then yeah, we can start to get into panpsychism even though I don't know why we need to bring another abstract, philosophical concept to the discussion.

The thread is about consciousness, not mind. What freaking definition of consciousness are we using here?

To clarify myself, I've been using the "sapience, sentience, and awareness of self" definition.
 
I'm not so sure about that. I'd say this is an important factor in cognition, but consciousness is the screen upon which all appears and dissapears. But then, Illumination/Enlightenment is... hard to fathom, so you might be right.
No, consciousness still, is "the viewer" watching the screen. Yet, for anything to appear on the screen, it requires the processing of information. Now, as for what constitutes the observer, who knows? One would have to conclude it were some other form of information.
 
And by throwing the word "mind" around, then yeah, we can start to get into panpsychism even though I don't know why we need to bring another abstract, philosophical concept to the discussion.
Perhaps because this is the very thing we're talking about?
 
Again, it is the system that is the actual conciousness. Do you demand that a house be made up of smaller houses? No, it is made up of bricks and such. At no point when that stuff is strewn about can it be called "house". Once it is put together, it gets closer and closer to being a house, but it isn't a house yet. Once the entire structure is complete, it can be called a house.

To ask how information processing gives rise to conciousness is silly. Conciousness IS information processing. To say that a terlet systern is akin to a computer program is silly. At most it can be said to be a variable, which is a PART of a computer program. If you want to make a FULL one, you better arrange a long series of this into a cohesive system.

You really don't understand the difference between a mere light switch and a complete computer program? If you can't comprehend THAT, I doubt you'll be able to see the difference between a thermometer and awareness. The thermometer does not have a mechanism to do internal calculations. There is no chain reaction occuring inside it aside from a very "direct" heat transfer through the medium. In no way is it a computer program.

I think it will be very amusing when you say that a terlet is a computer.
 
Again, it is the system that is the actual conciousness. Do you demand that a house be made up of smaller houses? No, it is made up of bricks and such. At no point when that stuff is strewn about can it be called "house". Once it is put together, it gets closer and closer to being a house, but it isn't a house yet. Once the entire structure is complete, it can be called a house.
What are atoms and molecules then, and the nature of the infomation that is passed between them? What about the Universe as a system as a whole?
 
I don't have time to check all my posts, but I don't recall ever saying that cognition is irrelevant to the discussion of consciousness.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1462612&postcount=855

To me, cognition is the conscious awareness of neural activity. Skeptics seem to think that information processing is the cause of this awareness. Can you explain why?
_
HypnoPsi

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1463146&postcount=884
 
So, do you think that the cock and ball in my toilet cistern has a very, very, rudiementary "awareness" of the water level in the tank?

Yes. When it is full, it has a mechanism that stops the water, if it is working properly. The mechanism does not stop it when it is half full, and it does not stop it when it is three-quarters full, it stops it at the point where it was made to stop it, and it does this consistently.

Is it aware of "existence"? Only of the level of water in the tank. Since it does not have life, concepts of "life", "death", "injury", etc. do not exist to it.

Since those things have meaning to our existense, they are a part of our individual consciousness.

I think you are trying to give "consciousness" a more philosphical meaning than what it literally has. If it helps you cope with your existence, then yes, you are without a doubt a much more complex structure than your toilet.
 
You're processing the fact that you're processing. That's awareness. That's consciousness. Humans are really good processors of new information.

Catch up.
The cock-and-ball in my toilet cistern processes one unit of information - whether or not the tank is full of water. Is that one unit of information then exactly equal to one unit of consiousness?

What about a mousetrap? Ulike a cock-and-ball cistern, a mousetrap only has a one-way variance when it "senses" a mouse depressing the lever. It can't reset itself - unlike a cock-and-ball cistern. Do you think both contain a unit of consciousness or only the cock-and-ball cistern? Whatever your answer, how have you determined this?
_
HypnoPsi
 
We have belief based on evidence. We trust scientific evidence because we can question it, it is peer reviewed, it is testable, and the findings are quite consistent regarding neurological activity in the brain and consciousness.

So far, you've mentioned eastern and western religions, personal accounts of non-reliable claims of paranormal activity, and the insistence that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to back up your personal belief.
Eastern and Western religions exist - nobody would deny that. Is anyone right? Is everyone wrong? I have no way of knowing. Have people really seen ghosts, had OBE's and NDE's? I have absolutely no way of verifying that either.

I am presenting no special knowledge or understanding of consciousness and will happily state that I do not know the real answer. The skeptics in this thread, however, are making the clear claim that consciousness is physical in origin. So don't bother trying to jockey over the burden of proof.

You are claiming neurological activity creates consciousness. Prove it.
_
HypnoPsi
 
The cock-and-ball in my toilet cistern processes one unit of information - whether or not the tank is full of water. Is that one unit of information then exactly equal to one unit of consiousness?

What about a mousetrap? Ulike a cock-and-ball cistern, a mousetrap only has a one-way variance when it "senses" a mouse depressing the lever. It can't reset itself - unlike a cock-and-ball cistern. Do you think both contain a unit of consciousness or only the cock-and-ball cistern? Whatever your answer, how have you determined this?
_
HypnoPsi

Your toilet does not "refill itself" just as you do not eat and crap in one fluid motion. There is one mechanism that takes in and a separate mechanism that flushes out. If you construct the mouse trap so the it would reset itself, then it would do so. The mechanism would "sense" the presence of an object, and snap shut; another mechanism will "sense" that it is shut, and it will open back up.
 

Back
Top Bottom