Definition of Consciousness

[Iamme]

Consciousness is the universe experiencing itself. Does that mean that the universe as a whole is experiencing itself as a single super entity? I doubt that, since the total information in the universe probably isn't integrated enough to cause the state of consciousness to emerge. There needs to be local and specific information processing to activate consciousness, such as in the human brain.

Ummmmmm. What? I keep reading the first sentence, then the 2nd to last and last sentences. How can both the first sentence and the 2nd to last and last sentences be both right? Are you trying to get so `deep` you are out-thinking yourself at times?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Ummmmmm. What? I keep reading the first sentence, then the 2nd to last and last sentences. How can both the first sentence and the 2nd to last and last sentences be both right? Are you trying to get so `deep` you are out-thinking yourself at times?

Ha ha. It's not that deep. The universe experiencing itself of course includes us ourselves having consciousness. There is not the universe PLUS humanity. There is the universe, as a single system, that INCLUDES humanity.

 

[Bikewer]

The universe is mostly hydrogen. For billions of years it was nothing but hydrogen. Nothing more complex existed at all. (Well, a tiny percent of lithium)

It was many billions of years before it was possible for any living thing to exist; early stars had to cook complex elements in their cores and then blast these elements out in nova and supernova phases to reform into systems with complex, rocky planets.... More billions of years and then in our case it took almost 2 billion years before life could evolve to the point (us...) to ask such questions.

All of which leads to one of my favorite quotes.... "If the universe is generated by conscious minds, what did it look like when there was nothing more evolved than a sea slug?"

 

[Anders Lindman]

The universe is mostly hydrogen. For billions of years it was nothing but hydrogen. Nothing more complex existed at all. (Well, a tiny percent of lithium)

It was many billions of years before it was possible for any living thing to exist; early stars had to cook complex elements in their cores and then blast these elements out in nova and supernova phases to reform into systems with complex, rocky planets.... More billions of years and then in our case it took almost 2 billion years before life could evolve to the point (us...) to ask such questions.

All of which leads to one of my favorite quotes.... "If the universe is generated by conscious minds, what did it look like when there was nothing more evolved than a sea slug?"

“Does God Exist? Well I would say, not yet.” -- Ray Kurzweil

Actually, I like the Omega Point Theory:

"The Omega Point is the purported maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which some believe the universe is evolving. The term coined by the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955)." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

 

[Navigator]

No, I am not talking about conscious machines.

Then no studying is involved.

Like legs do walking and running.

Legs are not the product of the brain.
Walking and running legs work according to the will of consciousness

No, those are not actions.

The action is that consciousness uses the brain.

It is an act of consciousness to do this.

(Also, the acorn becomes the tree through action. Action is very much happening.)

 

[Navigator]

Nonsense. The universe isn't conscious, and you are not the universe.

Said another way:

"The brain is not conscious, and you are not the brain."

The oak is not the acorn.

 

[Navigator]

"If the universe is generated by conscious minds, what did it look like when there was nothing more evolved than a sea slug?"

What did consciousness look like?

 

[Belz...]

Then no studying is involved.

By any definition of the word I know, it is.

Legs are not the product of the brain.

I think you lost track of the conversation: Legs DO running, just like brain DOES consciousness.

Walking and running legs work according to the will of consciousness

No. Unconscious machines can and do walk and run.

The action is that consciousness uses the brain.

Then what, in your view, generates consciousness ? Please note that we have an unsurmountable amount of data that shows that the brain is what generates consciousness, so I expect some very solid argument and evidence from you.

"The brain is not conscious, and you are not the brain."

Your claim is unevidenced. Mine is.

 

[Anders Lindman]

To call consciousness an epiphenomenon seems like a cop out. To call consciousness an emergent property is better. Because epiphenomenon sounds like something above phenomenon. I think consciousness is an ordinary phenomenon.

"In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.

Biology can be viewed as an emergent property of the laws of chemistry which, in turn, can be viewed as an emergent property of particle physics." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

 

[Anders Lindman]

If consciousness is a state, can computers achieve such state of awareness? It needs to be a parallel computer probably. Ordinary computers (with a single CPU) execute one operation at a time. And each operation only involves few bits. This means that it's only a tiny integration of information at a time in ordinary computers.

With a parallel computer, huge amounts of information can be processed and integrated at each operation. That could possibly be able to cause a state of consciousness to emerge.

 

[Navigator]

I think you lost track of the conversation:

Not at all.

Legs DO running, just like brain DOES consciousness.

That is what I wanted you to clarify.

No. Unconscious machines can and do walk and run.

But they are machines and do not know this is what they do. Subjective consciousness sees what they do and say's 'the machine is running.'

Then what, in your view, generates consciousness ?

My 'argument':

I do not know what generates consciousness. It may be that it has always existed.
It may be that the brain brings it into existence, and that it dies with the brain.
or it may continue on.
I don't know and I know of no one who does know.

Please note that we have an unsurmountable amount of data that shows that the brain is what generates consciousness,

So high I cant get over it, so low I cant get under it so wide I cant get around it?

so I expect some very solid argument and evidence from you.

My 'argument' above is solid enough. The evidence, while compelling to some (as a filler for their beliefs) is still unable to show for sure. It does say for sure that when the body the consciousness occupied dies then that is the end of any interaction the living incarnate consciousnesses can have with it.
While that sufficiently provides evidence that death happens to the body, it does not provide evidence that death happens to the consciousness which evolved through that individual human experience.

Belief that the consciousness survives the experience of death or belief that it doesn't are, while in opposition - both irrelevant to what actually happens.
What actually happens is not known. What it might look like or be hoped for are basis for beliefs to emerge from and are pointless for that.

Your claim is unevidenced. Mine is.

What claim? I made no claim either way. Did you make any claim? You seem to say you did, but I may have missed it.
If you did make a claim can you please clarify what exactly the claim is.

 

[Belz...]

But they are machines and do not know this is what they do.

1. We are also machines
2. Consciousness is not required for running. This was my point.

Subjective consciousness sees what they do and say's 'the machine is running.'

Again, a well-programmed machine could come to the same conclusion without consciousness. The definition of the word does not include the ability to observe.

I don't know and I know of no one who does know.

In that case you simply either haven't looked into what we humans know about consciousness, or would rather leave some mystique about it, because we do know it arises from the brain. The exact mechanism is not yet nailed, but we definitely know it's entirely a brain function.

My 'argument' above is solid enough. The evidence, while compelling to some (as a filler for their beliefs) is still unable to show for sure.

Consciousness ceases as soon as brain activity ceases, and starts back up with it. This alone should be enough to tear down your "argument", even if we didn't have loads of other observations to that effect. Explain how this fact doesn't conclusively prove what I'm telling you.

 

[Iamme]

Here is something else to chew on: How could we prove a machine gained consciousness, and was simply giving programmed responses?
.
Suppose you and your android were sitting in your den together. You start to hum along to the theme song of Hawaii -Five O. When suddenly your robot barks out `` Shut the (bleep) up!``
You ask, ``You talking to me?``
Robot: Yep.
You: How do i really know that you realize what you are saying?
Robot: Well i just do!
You: Well. We`re going to see about THAT! (You go get a hammer)
Robot: (Optics `see` that you got a hammer)
Robot: Watcha gonna do with that thing?!
You: YOU`LL see! (You approach robot ready to swing.)
Robot: PLEASE. Please don`t! Stop!
(You start wailing away. Crunch, crash, boom, dent........)
Robot staggers backwards, and screams ``help!``
.
Now, does this dialogue conclusively prove that that machine is now some kind of actual humanoid, that is conscious like us?
Or could it simply contain a whole pile of information where almost nothing was left out of its data banks? That everything WE know is programmed into it?
.
Keep in mind that it would not have to contain(know) all information. Only as much as you know. Because YOU are conscious. The machine therefore wouldnt have to contain any more info than you. A matter of fact it could contain way LESS, and STILL be conscious. I.E., you knew you were conscious when age 5, right?
.
Well?

 

[Iamme]

I edited and it didnt take. Dont want to risk losing post. It should read ``.....simply NOT....``, in the opening of my previous post..

 

[Anders Lindman]

How could we prove a machine gained consciousness

Ray Kurzweil has said that there is no test that can determine "this machine is conscious" or "this machine is not conscious" but that droids in the future would be so advanced that we will not be able to tell the difference, including emotions and stuff.

 

[Navigator]

] We are also machines

We are consciousness.

Our biological bodies are some kind of incredibly complex machine that also feel pain.

]Consciousness is not required for running. This was my point.

We don't really know that for sure. Many things are going on subconsciously in relation to the running of the machine - we are not consciously aware of those things going on, but consciousness may well be aware of all the things happening - only at a subconscious level.

'we' may well be that too (subconsciousness) but are not so aware of that.

Not enough is really known so that we can define fully what we are. We focus upon the self aware part in relation to our human experience.

ETA
A human body without consciousness cannot achieve anything much.
And:
If the brain creates consciousness, it does so in a very short time. Each brain functions individually and each brain creates consciousness automatically (no thought, no plan of action, no willful need to do so).
Each consciousness is created, not over eons of time, but super fast in relation to the physical universe.
Consciousness - if a creation of the brain, is not something which has happened over a long period of time.

]Again, a well-programmed machine could come to the same conclusion without consciousness. The definition of the word does not include the ability to observe.

There are many ways to observe. The definition of the word will broaden as our understanding of consciousness continues to be added to.

]In that case you simply either haven't looked into what we humans know about consciousness, or would rather leave some mystique about it, because we do know it arises from the brain. The exact mechanism is not yet nailed, but we definitely know it's entirely a brain function.

From subjective perspectives it looks that way. You are saying the evidence is in and indisputable, therefore proves conclusively that the individuate consciousness ceases to be when the brain dies?
Or are you saying the evidence shows that 'it looks that way and there is no way to know if individuate consciousness survives death of the brain'?

Consciousness ceases as soon as brain activity ceases, and starts back up with it. This alone should be enough to tear down your "argument", even if we didn't have loads of other observations to that effect. Explain how this fact doesn't conclusively prove what I'm telling you.

It does show conclusively (to those still in a body and living) that individuate consciousness does not continue to be seen active after the death of the brain which birthed it in relation to that dead brain.
It does not and cannot show that the consciousness survives in some other state.

As such it does not tear down anyone's argument related to the possibility.

Your reasons for believing consciousness ceases to exist have to do with observations this side of death (which only can measure the physical aspects of consciousness interacting with brain) to which you then assume makes you correct in your belief that that is the end of things. When you die, you as an individual consciousness will cease to be in this or any other state.

That is your belief. Others believe you are wrong. I have no opinion either way because quite rightly, there is nothing to tell me either way.

 

[Iamme]

I spose it wouldnt really matter if it had the same response as us.
But by us not knowing if the machine had a sense of self like we do, would make us keep wondering if it is indeed only us that has a soul/conscious that puts us on some plane God and universal consciousness is in.
If there is such a thing.
But we couldnt speculate as good if we never were to find out the answer as to whether or not a machine is `conscious` or not.
We even `know` that we are breathing. Would a machine `know` it was hooked to batteries?
It really get creepy if we made a machine breathe, and we had one sitting on the park bench next to us smoking.

 

[Belz...]

We are consciousness.

What is that supposed to mean ?

Our biological bodies are some kind of incredibly complex machine that also feel pain.

And ?

We don't really know that for sure.

We DO know it for sure. Robots can run !

Each consciousness is created, not over eons of time, but super fast in relation to the physical universe.
Consciousness - if a creation of the brain, is not something which has happened over a long period of time.

Again: so ?

There are many ways to observe. The definition of the word will broaden as our understanding of consciousness continues to be added to.

Does a security camera linked to a recording VCR observe ? If not, what's your definition of "to observe" ?

From subjective perspectives it looks that way.

No, it looks that way from ALL perspectives. Again: look into it. Refusing to look into the evidence doesn't make it go away.

You are saying the evidence is in and indisputable, therefore proves conclusively that the individuate consciousness ceases to be when the brain dies?

Yes.

Or are you saying the evidence shows that 'it looks that way and there is no way to know if individuate consciousness survives death of the brain'?

No. There is a way to know; we know; it doesn't survive, as much as I'd like it to.

It does show conclusively (to those still in a body and living) that individuate consciousness does not continue to be seen active after the death of the brain which birthed it in relation to that dead brain.

Of course it does: every indication of consciousness ceases, and the patient reports no passage of time between the two events, so both subjective and objective data show the same thing: no brain, no mind.

It does not and cannot show that the consciousness survives in some other state.

You are free to believe anything you want, but reality shows otherwise. Why would you not want to believe in reality is beyond me.

Your reasons for believing consciousness ceases to exist have to do with observations this side of death

You are begging the question.

That is your belief.

No. You cannot call every claim a belief, because they are not all equal.

 

[Anders Lindman]

It really get creepy if we made a machine breathe, and we had one sitting on the park bench next to us smoking.

Lol. The droids will become so advanced that they will be indistinguishable from humans is my prediction. And our own bodies 100% enhanced with intelligent matter. So the difference may totally disappear!

 

[Navigator]

We DO know it for sure. Robots can run !

Read it again. I was talking about humans when humans are running. I will answer the rest of your post later.