• 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.

Definition of Consciousness

Manopolus said:
My own definition of consciousness at a baser level would be the ability to experience qualia in some fashion. The ability to recognize the implications of said qualia or the memory to store it for future reference is not required. I would tend to say that this definition is not notably different than what we normally mean by the terms "consciousness" and "awareness" when used in regular speech.

Anyway, there's my two cents. I might just be weird though. If you should happen to hear someone talk about consciousness in a way that doesn't make sense to you, try this definition... it might work.

Can a rock (or an atom) experience qualia in some fashion? It's kind of hard to tell, actually. I do know that this notion does give a person a damn good excuse for anthropomorphizing everything in existence to a degree... which humans tend to do anyway.
Click to expand...

Sounds similar to the definition I gave. It also defines consciousness without the need for it to be some thing or substance. Ability is not exactly the same as state though. An ability can be a potential that may or may not be activated at any particular moment. Consciousness as a state is always active.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Sounds similar to the definition I gave. It also defines consciousness without the need for it to be some thing or substance. Ability is not exactly the same as state though. An ability can be a potential that may or may not be activated at any particular moment. Consciousness as a state is always active.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA!
 
Anders Lindman said:
I find the Integrated Information Theory interesting:

"Integrated information theory is a theoretical framework for attempting to understand and explain the nature of consciousness. It was developed by psychiatrist and neuroscientist Giulio Tononi of the University of Wisconsin–Madison.[1]" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
Click to expand...

It might be of use. But, I don't think it's sufficient, on its own. Telling us how "integrated" information is, is merely a property of the system, and not how consciousness is implemented, itself.

That's almost like trying to explain how a cars were built, by talking about only their fuel efficiency.


The ideas I've found most useful are those promoted by Antonio Damasio, in his book Self Comes to Mind; He talks about how consciousness is an emergent systems of self-referential "maps", sustained within our brain; with their roots in more primordial elements of the mind and body.

I don't know, yet, if the all of the answers are going to be found in that direction. But, they do go beyond the scope of Integrated Information Theory, at least.
 
Is a thought consciousness? No, a thought is information experienced by consciousness.

Can there be different levels of consciousness? No, consciousness is a state that is either present or not.

Is mind the same as consciousness? No, the mind is the content experienced by consciousness. There can be different levels of mind.
 
Wowbagger said:
It might be of use. But, I don't think it's sufficient, on its own. Telling us how "integrated" information is, is merely a property of the system, and not how consciousness is implemented, itself.

That's almost like trying to explain how a cars were built, by talking about only their fuel efficiency.


The ideas I've found most useful are those promoted by Antonio Damasio, in his book Self Comes to Mind; He talks about how consciousness is an emergent systems of self-referential "maps", sustained within our brain; with their roots in more primordial elements of the mind and body.

I don't know, yet, if the all of the answers are going to be found in that direction. But, they do go beyond the scope of Integrated Information Theory, at least.
Click to expand...

The information context in the integrated information theory is what makes consciousness possible. When for example a video camera is filming a red apple, then there is only the raw images, the pixel information, being detected. The video camera doesn't have any context within which to compare and interpret the image data. A human brain on the other hand has a huge information context about what a red apple is and about everything that is NOT a red apple. And it's the ability to simultaneously integrate all that information into a single experience that enables consciousness.
 
Manopolus said:
My own definition of consciousness at a baser level would be the ability to experience qualia in some fashion. The ability to recognize the implications of said qualia or the memory to store it for future reference is not required. I would tend to say that this definition is not notably different than what we normally mean by the terms "consciousness" and "awareness" when used in regular speech.

Anyway, there's my two cents. I might just be weird though. If you should happen to hear someone talk about consciousness in a way that doesn't make sense to you, try this definition... it might work.

Can a rock (or an atom) experience qualia in some fashion? It's kind of hard to tell, actually. I do know that this notion does give a person a damn good excuse for anthropomorphizing everything in existence to a degree... which humans tend to do anyway.
Click to expand...

I had a pennydrop moment reading your post here Manapolus.

I define consciousness to be 'that which I am.'

Consciousness is the anthropomorphizing of matter.

I understand consciousness as being like an ocean (metaphor) and like the water on this planet, it is all connected - though not always so obviously.

When you ask:

"Can a rock (or an atom) experience qualia in some fashion?" The answer has to be 'no'.

A rock is a rock.

If the question was 'Can Consciousness experience being and rock or atom or any other material thing, the answer might be 'yes', but how does a rock provide consciousness with data of experience?

If it were a grain of sand type rock, what would the experience be like and how are we defining 'experience' if not based upon our own? We are after all, individuate consciousnesses experiencing a a biological body we call human and that experience we refer to as life.

If the rock were a whole planet, how would that be for the consciousness experiencing that? Or a star system, or a galaxy?

Or a universe?


Human beings anthropomorphize because we can.

We understand the concept is real true and we can express that understanding into our world. We are that which anthropomorphizes the human form. We give it life but we also think that it is the human form which is what we are. We forget to understand that we are that which is doing the doing. We believe we are descendant of some kind of ape creature, the product of our conscienceless god, evolution - or a creation of some being/specie that 'created us' because we think of ourselves AS the body we are experiencing life though.

And thus we delegate 'consciousness' to being so much less than what it darn well just might be.

Consciousness decides what it is while it is having the experience. It also decides what that experience is.
 
Hey! Information is separate! There may not be any truly isolated systems when looking at the most fundamental level, but information is clearly separate states.

So instead of the messy non-isolated physical systems, consciousness may emerge purely as a consequence of information. :cool:
 
Anders Lindman said:
1: Is a thought consciousness? No, a thought is information experienced by consciousness.

2: Can there be different levels of consciousness? No, consciousness is a state that is either present or not.

3: Is mind the same as consciousness? No, the mind is the content experienced by consciousness. There can be different levels of mind.
Click to expand...

1: Data is data. Data of experience is processed by consciousness. Part of the experience is in the processing.

2: Would depend on what is being experienced. Consciousness as a 'state' would be experiencing itself free from the experience of "external" data.
The 'present' bit seems unnecessary. How can consciousness not be present to itself?

In human form we can experience 'not being present to ourselves' and we call this being 'unconscious'

3: In this you are saying that the mind is 'the data of experience' as far as I can tell Anders. There can be different levels of DoE.
 
IBM's Watson is a strictly separate information system. Watson is an isolated information system, with moments of input and output. When Watson receives or transmits data, then it's not an isolated information system, but when doing the internal processing it is.
 
Navigator said:
Consciousness as a 'state' would be experiencing itself free from the experience of "external" data.
Click to expand...

My interpretation is that the information experienced by consciousness is also what enables consciousness! That they are two sides of the same coin.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Hey! Information is separate! There may not be any truly isolated systems when looking at the most fundamental level, but information is clearly separate states.

So instead of the messy non-isolated physical systems, consciousness may emerge purely as a consequence of information. :cool:
Click to expand...

That would be the approach of understanding the universe as a product of what is called 'evolution'.

Consciousness in form wondering how it got here and deciding that there was no consciousness existing prior to that.

Consciousness can understand this in human terms and as consciousness investigates the data of experience consciousness understands the sheer size of the thing consciousness is engaged with and from this can deduct that in relation to consciousness being the product of the physical universe there will be many types of experience within that framework by which can produce consciousness through biological form which produce 'brains'

Since consciousness is the only representation of "I Am" throughout the universe (notwithstanding what the I Am experiences all differently are) and based on the sheer age of the universe it could be seen that consciousness has gathered an extreme amount of data from which to understand itself as the creation of something otherwise mindless...otherwise unable to say "I Am".

We do not know that Consciousness in that time was able to transcend the death of its creator, but we do comprehend that if it could and thus has (even if it were simply a natural occurrence rather than something consciousness had to work out in the long process of self discovery).

The thing about brains and consciousness is that if the individual brain is solely responsible for each consciousness produced, this is done in conjunction with that brains own development, rather than through the painstakingly slow methodology of evolution.

Which is to say that consciousness is not a product of evolution but of the individual brain. The individual brain in its present form is the product of evolution and took a long time to get to its present form and function.
 
Well done Anders you've switched from posting lame and inept attempts at spamming to legitimate threads. KUTGW
 
Anders Lindman said:
My interpretation is that the information experienced by consciousness is also what enables consciousness! That they are two sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...

I can definitely appreciate that Anders.

However I can see a slight 'flaw'.

One side of the 'coin' is mindless. Consciousness, even as a product of that mindless matter is nonetheless an mindful entity.

In that way it is separate from the thing which birthed it into existence. I think the separation is not really 'the same coin'

We do not know if consciousness transcends the death of its creator.

If it does then it will eventually become 'god' in the sense that it will be around when the physical universe transpires, and it will know everything because it has all the data of experience from the experience it had with that physical universe.

The 'coin' no longer existing, Consciousness continues...
 
Anders Lindman said:
Is a thought consciousness? No, a thought is information experienced by consciousness.

Can there be different levels of consciousness? No, consciousness is a state that is either present or not.

Is mind the same as consciousness? No, the mind is the content experienced by consciousness. There can be different levels of mind.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the above.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The information context in the integrated information theory is what makes consciousness possible. When for example a video camera is filming a red apple, then there is only the raw images, the pixel information, being detected. The video camera doesn't have any context within which to compare and interpret the image data. A human brain on the other hand has a huge information context about what a red apple is and about everything that is NOT a red apple. And it's the ability to simultaneously integrate all that information into a single experience that enables consciousness.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect.
 
Navigator said:
I can definitely appreciate that Anders.

However I can see a slight 'flaw'.

One side of the 'coin' is mindless. Consciousness, even as a product of that mindless matter is nonetheless an mindful entity.

In that way it is separate from the thing which birthed it into existence. I think the separation is not really 'the same coin'

We do not know if consciousness transcends the death of its creator.

If it does then it will eventually become 'god' in the sense that it will be around when the physical universe transpires, and it will know everything because it has all the data of experience from the experience it had with that physical universe.

The 'coin' no longer existing, Consciousness continues...
Click to expand...

Yep. One side is mind-less: consciousness. The mind is the information. There can be mind activity without consciousness, such as subconscious activity. There cannot be consciousness without mind activity.
 
John Jones said:
That is incorrect.
Click to expand...

I think it can be true. Remember, information cannot exist in isolation. Information is always connected to the physical non-isolated foundation.

And consciousness can simply be a state that is activated when enough information is integrated in certain ways into a single experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom