Definition of Consciousness

[Anders Lindman]

These are the processes of mining information in action.

Yes, the integration of the information must be a process. Static and finite information will never cause consciousness to emerge.

 

[Anders Lindman]

A layer of abstraction, sustained in the neurons of the mind, as "maps" of the body and its surroundings, could provide this opportunity for "independence", or at least the feeling of it.

But couldn't that abstraction layer be purely an information process?

 

[Wowbagger]

But couldn't that abstraction layer be purely an information process?

Yes, it could. (That's why I feel it would be possible to give computer systems a consciousness.)

But, it seems to me that IIT would only be measuring qualities about the information running through the abstraction layer that is the conscious state. It would not be describing the layer, nor the conscious state, itself.


(ETA: It might be worth remembering that memory and language would have to be part of the system. They are also information-based, but they would almost act as external references to the core of conscious. And, more importantly, their "formula" for integration could vary from a lot of the other external references and factors. So, there might not be a single, universal IIT formula, even within humans, that can explain it all.)

 

[Anders Lindman]

Yes, it could. (That's why I feel it would be possible to give computer systems a consciousness.)

But, it seems to me that IIT would only be measuring qualities about the information running through the abstraction layer that is the conscious state. It would not be describing the layer, nor the conscious state, itself.


(ETA: It might be worth remembering that memory and language would have to be part of the system. They are also information-based, but they would almost act as external references to the core of conscious. And, more importantly, their "formula" for integration could vary from a lot of the other external references and factors. So, there might not be a single, universal IIT formula, even within humans, that can explain it all.)

Christof Koch talks about IIT from about 23 minutes into this video: Christof Koch on "The Neurobiology and Mathematics of Consciousness" at Singularity Summit 2011 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i9kE3Ne7as&t=23m

 

[Anders Lindman]

In order to integrate information there has to be a process. Otherwise it would just be static information and that's zero integration. Like a DVD with billions of bits of information where each bit is separate.

And for consciousness to emerge as a result of integration of information there has to be a process that puts separate bits together in certain ways.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Then what about the human soul and life after death? Isn't the idea that consciousness is merely a state of information too limiting? Not at all! Here is a speculative yet theoretically possible scenario:

An extraterrestrial super artificial intelligence keeps track of all our brain activities and when we die the AI has all the information for our unique individual self safely stored and we can be resurrected by the AI anytime.

So the human eternal soul is simply the information that defines the unique personality and experience of the person.

 

[Navigator]

Then what about the human soul and life after death? Isn't the idea that consciousness is merely a state of information too limiting? Not at all! Here is a speculative yet theoretically possible scenario:

An extraterrestrial super artificial intelligence keeps track of all our brain activities and when we die the AI has all the information for our unique individual self safely stored and we can be resurrected by the AI anytime.

So the human eternal soul is simply the information that defines the unique personality and experience of the person.

AI which has reached the level of conscious self awareness is in some form which enables it to achieve what you metaphor here Anders.

In this thread in this post I explain what consciousness is as I understand it in its 'undiluted/pure' state. It is the same, regardless of what form it takes (what form creates it).

AI consciousness is not different from 'what consciousness is'. It is consciousness simply happening within the experience of another medium
"The human soul" you are saying here is the sum total of the data of experience of one individual human experience.

A planetary consciousness/a species soul could be made up of all these souls regardless of what kind of life these individually both experienced and made willful conscious decision through.

The AI is the 'container' of such experience therefore is the 'form' of that total collected experience.

 

[Wowbagger]

Christof Koch talks about IIT from about 23 minutes into this video: Christof Koch on "The Neurobiology and Mathematics of Consciousness" at Singularity Summit 2011 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i9kE3Ne7as&t=23m

I've seen that video. It doesn't change anything. He may claim he is talking about the essence of consciousness. But, he is still talking entirely about measuring aspects of information of a consciousness system.

And for consciousness to emerge as a result of integration of information there has to be a process that puts separate bits together in certain ways.

But, that's only part of it. Such an integration would not feel awareness on its own.

If that process could ALSO operate as an independently functioning system, at least for some amount of time (not 100% of the time), then a real conscious state could emerge. Without that, all you have is... merely an integration of information.

Then what about the human soul and life after death?

Is that what you are after?


I agree that our consciousness (or "soul" if you insist on using that word) could, potentially, be safely stored in computer memory banks, and that and we could be "resurrected" by injecting that stored state into new bodies.

It doesn't need to be an organic body, it could be an android body. But, it still needs to have a mechanism for those semi-independently acting layers of abstraction to emerge.

The integration of information is merely a measurement of a quality of the information in that system, not the conscious systems, itself.

Understand the difference?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Such an integration would not feel awareness on its own.
...
The integration of information is merely a measurement of a quality of the information in that system, not the conscious systems, itself.

So you claim the human brain is more than an integration of information?

 

[Wowbagger]

So you claim the human brain is more than an integration of information?

Well, yes. The way the information is abstracted from the rest of the body and environment also makes a key difference, I think.

That's a difference that could lead to a feeling of being an independently acting agent (illusion or otherwise), with awareness of its own existence. Something IIT doesn't seem to address so well.

Though, that difference could, itself, possibly be described in terms of information. Though, it's a different aspect than measuring integration, I think.

 

[Manopolus]

Woo is required before any Woo can Woo to produce Woo. These are actions of Woo.

This is pointless heckling. Say something meaningful or go away.

As to the rest of the thread... "I" am still processing it carefully and am currently hesitant to contribute, because I'm not sure I understand some of what's being said. Some of the words used are being casually molested along the way, I suspect... but as of yet, I cannot say more.

 

[Reivax]

Well, yes. The way the information is abstracted from the rest of the body and environment also makes a key difference, I think.

That's a difference that could lead to a feeling of being an independently acting agent (illusion or otherwise), with awareness of its own existence. Something IIT doesn't seem to address so well.

Though, that difference could, itself, possibly be described in terms of information. Though, it's a different aspect than measuring integration, I think.

You are referring to the embodied mind and the extended mind theses?

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is pointless heckling. Say something meaningful or go away.

Oh I'm sorry was I lowering the intellectual standards of the "My fish is made of toast, therefore the bishop is in the mailbox." debate?

 

[Wowbagger]

You are referring to the embodied mind and the extended mind theses?

That's not really what I was referring to.

Neural networks, in the brain, can form "maps" of the environment, and the person in relation to that environment, along with information about the states of the various pieces of those things. And, when they do so, the information isn't merely just "integrated". It can ALSO act as a self-contained virtual-sort-of world of its own. And once that is established, the opportunity for it to act as though it was independent of the rest of the Universe, is granted.

The independence might not literally be real. I am NOT proposing one of those classic "mind-separate-from-the-body" ideas. It could be an illusionary feeling of independence. But, the point I'm making is this: Without that feeling, I don't think we can say the entity is truly conscious, at least not in the human-like form.

And, IIT is not sufficient, on its own, to provide that feeling. As least near as I can tell.

Unfortunately, I don't recall a concise name for the entire theory, but parts of it have their own names, given by various researchers over the years. The final layer of mapping is referred to as "The Autobiographical Self" by Antonio Damasio.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Some eastern spiritual traditions describe how everything is consciousness. It depends on how they define consciousness, but that's kind of opposite of my definition of it.

As a state, consciousness is a result of the physical universe. Does that remove the spiritual side of the world? No. Because everything physical with enough and correct information integration becomes a part of consciousness. And that makes the whole universe a candidate for becoming conscious. That's pretty spiritual imo. Including our physical bodies which can become more conscious.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes. If you intentionally makes up definitions for "consciousness" that are some degree of nonsensical or meaningless, you can then define those nonsensical or meaningless definitions as spiritual.

I've always adored this line of thinking.

1. Religion/Philosophy claims science can't explain consciousness.
2. Someone points out the fact that actually modern neuroscience really sorta has explained most if not all of it, especially the parts that are actually meaningful in any way.
3. Religion/Philosophy then adds on meaningless, vague, nonsensical, or hollow addendums to the concept of "consciousness."
4. Religion/Philosophy then claims sciences can't explain the meaningless parts of consciousness that it just made up, therefore "science doesn't know everything," therefore spirituality, therefore woo.

 

[Navigator]

WTF?

Yes. If you intentionally makes up definitions for "consciousness" that are some degree of nonsensical or meaningless, you can then define those nonsensical or meaningless definitions as spiritual.

Strictly speaking it is most likely you who is the "you" in this example, related to the hilited.

Since it is consciousness itself which is supplying the definitions (because it can self define) it is not limited to any science exploring the definition of consciousness within a strictly limited criteria.
Therefore 'making up definitions' is a logical think to do because there are possibilities outside those limited boundaries - those places which cannot be touched by any science exploring the definition of consciousness.

Consciousness knows the limitations of strictly physical science when related to exploring itself.
That is exactly why it explores other areas of thought. Because they are there to explore as ideas.
Consciousness loves ideas.

I've always adored this line of thinking.

Consciousness does enjoy thinking. Adoration of thought reminds me of Religion/Philosophy

1. Religion/Philosophy claims science can't explain consciousness.

Not true. Religion/Philosophy are too much a blanket label. Some things which are seen to be/call themselves "Religion/Philosophy" might claim "science can't explain consciousness" Not that I can recall any types of "Religion/Philosophy" making such claims. Do you have some examples?

I don't even recall science making such claims. Science exploring the definition of consciousness is still in the process of exploring.

2. Someone points out the fact that actually modern neuroscience really sorta has explained most if not all of it, especially the parts that are actually meaningful in any way.

When I read that I *chuckled*.

'Mostly sorta has' Yep! Modern neuroscience has cracked that egg!

Really what has been acheived to date is much like what Astroscience has done. Opened the Pandora Box/Rabbit Hole a little wider so that consciousness might peek into it.
"Lots to see here folks. Stop and adore."

3. Religion/Philosophy then adds on meaningless, vague, nonsensical, or hollow addendums to the concept of "consciousness."

Actually consciousness itself (rather than 'Religion/Philosophy') has added on the bits which you consider to be "vague, nonsensical, or hollow addendums to the concept of "consciousness."

Religion/Philosophy are simply two paths it traverses in the quest to understand itself. Neuroscience is another such path.

The case is not 'closed' or it would have stopped 'looking'.

4. Religion/Philosophy then claims sciences can't explain the meaningless parts of consciousness that it just made up, therefore "science doesn't know everything," therefore spirituality, therefore woo.

Therefore science neuroscience no science at all refers to anything as 'woo'. The word itself is too meaningless.

Oh yes I understand that you might find meaning in it JoeBentley, but that does not signify science has got yer back on this.

And as such, it has - in the mentioning, no particular use.

(I acknowledge) It might - on an individual level have a use to you, and others also adoring such thought processes, but as an argument it is sadly very lacking, as I have shown.

 

[Iamme]

Has there been discussion here regarding `levels of consciousness`?
.
By simply labeling consciousness as ``a`` thing, ... as if something either has it or something dont, can lead us down the wrong path regarding the truth to what it is.
.
If we view consciousness as something basically us humans only have, this is what can fuel the fire of woo and goddidit, type thinking.
An unexplained mystery of the mind.
.
But if we look at it like it is something that is more incremental, and comes into being as something barely discernable as consciousness, but then can grow further into a complex version of it, to where there is no doubt as to whether this thing called consciousness within whatever being we are discussing(usually humans), we may be on the right track.
.
Now take a baby. I dont think there is any consciousness... yet. No self awareness. It gradually comes with age as more brain input occurs thru its senses of... eyes, hearing, touch, smell, taste.
.
But it is something that goes beyond that. Because i think there are people in institutions that have no consciousness, even though they have their 5 senses working. They are like animals. Maybe more like a vegetable. They cant process information right.
.
So consciousness requires input thru the senses, AND a certain type of processing, for a person to say i am me...not you. I can do THIS...you can`t. I think i will do this...not THAT. I think i will THINK about this...not that.
.
Also, once at the stage described above...it is only at this state which allows the ability for random thought, deep thinking, creating, performing in the arts, and all those things that identify us as humans, and not just some animal.
.
These thoughts came to me while listening to the song ``Carry On My Wayward Son`` -Kansas. Spectacular composition and performance. And i got thinking...how on Earth! anything or anyone could come up with something like this? Only some conscious being could.
And a conscious being of a high degree.
.
Then there is another matter regarding consciousness. I mentioned before about the senses playing a role.
Well, i know a 100% blind woman. She cant see nothing, not even light... yet she is aware of self. Hellen Keller was blind deaf and dumb, yet she was aware of self. She could feel, smell and taste.
Perhaps all we require is one sensory to function to allow us to have self awareness.
And perhaps we NEED at least ONE of our sensories to work, for us to be self aware...to be with conscious.
.
Now, there is the matter regarding dogs. I believe dogs are at a stage one of consciousness because they know they arent that other dog they are barking at(although some will bark at themselves in a mirror, so perhaps more thought has to be given here). They also exhibit certain things like love for their master, protectionism, to please the owner, they will gaze into your eyes.
Dogs are a subject onto itself, and i have to quit my ramblings for now.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Has there been discussion here regarding `levels of consciousness`?

I posted this earlier: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9855779&postcount=25

 

[Anders Lindman]

Yes. If you intentionally makes up definitions for "consciousness" that are some degree of nonsensical or meaningless, you can then define those nonsensical or meaningless definitions as spiritual.

I've always adored this line of thinking.

1. Religion/Philosophy claims science can't explain consciousness.
2. Someone points out the fact that actually modern neuroscience really sorta has explained most if not all of it, especially the parts that are actually meaningful in any way.
3. Religion/Philosophy then adds on meaningless, vague, nonsensical, or hollow addendums to the concept of "consciousness."
4. Religion/Philosophy then claims sciences can't explain the meaningless parts of consciousness that it just made up, therefore "science doesn't know everything," therefore spirituality, therefore woo.

Science only deals with objective things. Consciousness is a subjective experience.