Explain consciousness to the layman.

[dlorde]

Have a look at Hindu atman, Buddhism is not concerned which such an ontology.

OK - well, that's several minutes wasted. They seem quite unable to agree among themselves. I see:

'spirit', or 'individual spirit', or 'eternal soul', or 'non-material self', or 'universal self', or 'spiritual self' - no evidence, not necessary, mystical nonsense, non-material, therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
'animator of all organisms', 'universal life principle' - no evidence, demonstrably unnecessary.
'true self' - as opposed to what, 'false self'? - unexplained.
'the self', but not 'the living being' - unexplained.

I stopped at that point - it seemed pointless to continue. Most of the definitions were non-material, so irrelevant to this discussion. The rest were to vague or opaque or mystical to interpret or comment on.

The overall impression is that you can make it pretty much whatever you want, as long as it's related to some concept of self, suitably vague and mysterious, and preferably mystical. It's woo and it won't wash here.

If you have a more rational definition, I'd be mildly curious but sceptical to hear it.

 

[PixyMisa]

• "Physical theory" - a theory in the science of physics
• "Physical" - relating to the science of physics
• "Physics" - the science that studies the laws of nature

You're using those words wrong.

 

[punshhh]

OK - well, that's several minutes wasted. They seem quite unable to agree among themselves. I see:

'spirit', or 'individual spirit', or 'eternal soul', or 'non-material self', or 'universal self', or 'spiritual self' - no evidence, not necessary, mystical nonsense, non-material, therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
'animator of all organisms', 'universal life principle' - no evidence, demonstrably unnecessary.
'true self' - as opposed to what, 'false self'? - unexplained.
'the self', but not 'the living being' - unexplained.

I stopped at that point - it seemed pointless to continue. Most of the definitions were non-material, so irrelevant to this discussion. The rest were to vague or opaque or mystical to interpret or comment on.

The overall impression is that you can make it pretty much whatever you want, as long as it's related to some concept of self, suitably vague and mysterious, and preferably mystical. It's woo and it won't wash here.

If you have a more rational definition, I'd be mildly curious but sceptical to hear it.

Sorry about that, their sectarianism reminds me of western philosophers.

You see there is a language gap, to get a thorough understanding of what their on about it takes a few years of study.

However if one were to spend time talking with these folk after a while you would realise they are all talking about the same thing and it is similar to the western notion of idealism*.

An ontology based on atman is, as I have already stated, the idea that the primary form of existence is self or being and all else in existence is the clothing or expression of this being. In greater or lesser degrees of complexity or density.
Like the notion in idealism that physical matter is illusory and a necessary expression of the mind which is real. With atman physical matter along with mind is illusory and a necessary expression of atman when in manifestation.

In reference to the apparent immaterial nature of atman. I would point out that this is a common misconception and upon further enquiry it becomes apparent that all that exists is regarded as material in nature. Although this material may be more subtle than the recognised concrete physical matter known to science.
I was surprised when I came across idealism that there were people who thought about immaterial things. This is ridiculous maybe it was the Greeks who introduced such woo. Presumably this explains the origin of the concept of supernatural which is another woo.

 

[punshhh]

No.

ETA: I sense possible irony/humour fail on my part... It's been a long, hot day.

God could you pipe a bit of that heat up here? its been -4 celsius for the past two days.

 

[punshhh]

The entity is the the sum of the chemistry of the organism and its organisation.

In what way?

An emergent entity, rather like the idea that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. The chemistry of the organism only constitutes the building blocks of its body. The living organism as a unit is a distinct being.

Yes, as I have already described; so far it's only been done with bacterial cells - of course, they don't literally get up and walk, but the assembled ones do everything the natural version does.

All the evidence is that the 'spark of life' is entirely metaphorical. Venter's team did no more than insert their assembled genome into an empty bacterial cell capsule, and off it went - no sparks required.

Great, it will happen at some point. As I said when a scientist builds a living organism, I expect it will have the potential to be conscious.

Sorry to disappoint your mystical/romantic hopes.

What have we here, a caricature?

All the evidence we have points to it being a function solely of brain activity, not an emergent property of the organism as a whole - except in the sense that the brain needs a body for support and I/O.

All the evidence, so the evidence is not all in yet. I see no reason why a brain in a jar cannot be conscious, it would be alive though would it not?

Self-awareness is normally considered a feature of only the highest level consciousness, and associated with sophisticated socialization by people who study such things, which puts you in direct opposition to the people best informed on the subject.

By embryonic I am referring to the precursors of consciousness.

That wasn't the question. Do you think Synthia is an automaton or not? This goes to the heart of your position - is that why you're reluctant to answer?

Synthia is not an automaton because she is alive.

So you'll only accept an unspecified demonstration as evidence of consciousness in non-biological entities. Yet you'll accept consciousness in non-human creatures without such a demonstration. How do you know they are conscious - what criteria do you apply?

What are you harping on about here? I am talking about these entities in theory. I am not discussing testing procedures for determining if synthetic intelligence is conscious or not.

OK, so as you say you will only accept biological cellular live as capable of life, you presumably don't believe a non-biological entity can be conscious.

Yes, unless there are other kinds of life which are not biological. We have no reason to consider that such novel things exist or can be constructed as yet.

There are plenty of ideas and conceptions out there. Look for 'xenobiology'.

I'll take a look.

Interesting choice of words - hoodwinking is generally taken to be a knowing deception; knowing deception is generally taken to be a behaviour of conscious entities...

A robot can be programmed to perform sleight of hand.

So you said you would need an unspecified demonstration to accept non-biological consciousness; but now it appears that even if you did accept it (presumably via the unspecified demonstration), you would reverse your acceptance once you knew it was non-biological? I think we'd be entitled to call that illogical, or at least, unreasonable bias.

Is this waffle? I said living did I not? its not complicated.

Well you claim to understand the ontology you're using, and you're here on a forum where the lingua franca is that of science, so the burden of translation lies with you. If you understand it well enough, you should be able to translate it.

I can explain it and have tried on occassion. It tends to be lack of concentration or deviation by the other posters which renders it ineffective.

 

[Belz...]

• "Physical theory" - a theory in the science of physics
• "Physical" - relating to the science of physics
• "Physics" - the science that studies the laws of nature

The rule of thumb that I would use to determine whether a theory qualifies as a physical theory is if I could imagine it having a chapter in a physics textbook.

We're running in circles, here. I still have no idea what's a physical theory to you. Who cares if YOU can imagine having it in a science textbook ?

I think you just don't want to answer the question, but I'm sure you'll henceforth claim that you've explained yourself very clearly.

I would rather not wrangle about irrelevant details of precise meaning which aren't relevant here. We aren't discussing esoteric definitions of what is and isn't science. At least I'm not.

Since you're the one claiming that it isn't scientific, I think we should.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry about that, their sectarianism reminds me of western philosophers.

You see there is a language gap, to get a thorough understanding of what their on about it takes a few years of study.

Nope. It's easy: They're talking complete nonsense.

However if one were to spend time talking with these folk after a while you would realise they are all talking about the same thing and it is similar to the western notion of idealism*.

There. That wasn't hard at all.

 

[punshhh]

Nope. It's easy: They're talking complete nonsense.


There. That wasn't hard at all.

I didn't expect you to understand. I am making a distinction between self and mind, Can you conceive of that?

Of course to you these are both effects generated by the brain.

 

[dlorde]

The living organism as a unit is a distinct being.

Of organised structured chemistry. Living entities are mostly distinct units like most other objects in our experience (only mostly because some normally independent creatures will sometimes aggregate together and behave as a single super-organism). The fact that they are self-regulating and self-maintaining reproductive units is interesting, but doesn't imply any mysterious 'spark of life' - assemble the chemical components in the right way, and they will function.

Great, it will happen at some point. As I said when a scientist builds a living organism, I expect it will have the potential to be conscious.

It's already happened - you say you think Synthia is a living organism. Synthia was built by Venter's team.

All the evidence, so the evidence is not all in yet.

We can never know whether all the evidence is in. The more consistent evidence we have, the more certain we can be.

I see no reason why a brain in a jar cannot be conscious, it would be alive though would it not?

Without physiological support it would be dead.

Synthia is not an automaton because she is alive.

OK, so being manufactured (artificial) does not, in your view, disqualify a product from being alive. I suppose that's progress.

What are you harping on about here?

Just probing the inconsistencies in your statements.

I am not discussing testing procedures for determining if synthetic intelligence is conscious or not.

I wonder why. It is relevant to this thread, though.

Is this waffle? I said living did I not? its not complicated.

I've been trying to get you to explain exactly why you feel only living things can be conscious; all I've had in response is evasion, distraction, and religious woo.

I can explain it and have tried on occassion. It tends to be lack of concentration or deviation by the other posters which renders it ineffective.

Ah, so it's everyone else's fault that your attempts to explain fail...

Meh.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I didn't expect you to understand.

Why do you assume that if someone disagrees with you, then they don't understand you?

 

[tsig]

Why do you assume that if someone disagrees with you, then they don't understand you?

The alternative would be to actually answer the argument and that is not the way of the woo.

 

[westprog]

We're running in circles, here. I still have no idea what's a physical theory to you. Who cares if YOU can imagine having it in a science textbook ?

I think you just don't want to answer the question, but I'm sure you'll henceforth claim that you've explained yourself very clearly.

I really don't know what else you want. I didn't make up the science of physics, you know, or the concept of a theory in that science. I'm not trying to redefine meanings in any way that would stretch them out of common acceptance. You want to know what I mean by these words, and then you object that it's just my definition. I don't want to use my own private definition. I want to refer to the science of physics, and theories in that science, as commonly understood. And yet, it appears a mystery to you. "Physics? Scientific theory? What do you mean? What are you saying? Stop obfuscating."

 

[tsig]

I really don't know what else you want. I didn't make up the science of physics, you know, or the concept of a theory in that science. I'm not trying to redefine meanings in any way that would stretch them out of common acceptance. You want to know what I mean by these words, and then you object that it's just my definition. I don't want to use my own private definition. I want to refer to the science of physics, and theories in that science, as commonly understood. And yet, it appears a mystery to you. "Physics? Scientific theory? What do you mean? What are you saying? Stop obfuscating."

You just made up your version of physics where consciousness is more that matter.

 

[Mr. Scott]

So why did you say "It seems that some people believe that if an entity seems conscious then it is conscious." if "seems conscious" is the only way we have to determine whether something is conscious ?

Because I'm cursed with the tendency to see both sides of the issue. How are we to distinguish between two things that both seem conscious but only one is?

 

[westprog]

You just made up your version of physics where consciousness is more that matter.

You've made up that assertion. I haven't even provided a definition of consciousness.

 

[westprog]

Because I'm cursed with the tendency to see both sides of the issue. How are we to distinguish between two things that both seem conscious but only one is?

There are two alternatives. We can say that we know something for sure when we don't, or we can admit that we don't know.

The claim seems to be "We don't know what this thing is, we don't have a clear definition of it, but if we were to encounter something that seems like it in the future, we can be 100% sure that it's there".

 

[Mr. Scott]

Seriously? (I know there's a smiley, but...).

Is Dennet conscious?

Yes, Dennett seems conscious

How does one make the transition from mystic, dualist, qualiaphile to physicalist?

PS: Can we stop playing "out the woo" and talk about consciousness? Pleeeese?

PPS: I am a huge Dennett fan. Have you seen his YouTube debate with that dickhead Robert Wright? Nice bickering there about consciousness. Still laughing about the gremlinometer.

 

[yy2bggggs]

What other metric do you have to determine it ?

Well, we don't have a metric per se. It's one of those "I know it when I see it" things.*

Besides testimony from internal subjective experience, I'm not aware of any criteria.

So why did you say "It seems that some people believe that if an entity seems conscious then it is conscious." if "seems conscious" is the only way we have to determine whether something is conscious ?

Because I'm cursed with the tendency to see both sides of the issue. How are we to distinguish between two things that both seem conscious but only one is?

What both sides? You're asking the same question he asked you, and in the middle, you listed the very metric you're complaining about people using as a metric, and as the only one we have.

Maybe that's the answer you want to hear? People assume that something that seems conscious is conscious because that's a metric, and because it's the only metric we have. Both of these things you presumably agree with. Now what is the problem again?

 

[punshhh]

I really don't know what else you want. I didn't make up the science of physics, you know, or the concept of a theory in that science. I'm not trying to redefine meanings in any way that would stretch them out of common acceptance. You want to know what I mean by these words, and then you object that it's just my definition. I don't want to use my own private definition. I want to refer to the science of physics, and theories in that science, as commonly understood. And yet, it appears a mystery to you. "Physics? Scientific theory? What do you mean? What are you saying? Stop obfuscating."

Its like wrestling greased piglets

And when you actually pin something down they just deny all knowledge of it or of what the hell your talking about.

 

[westprog]

Now what is the problem again?

It's an inadequate metric.