What is Conscious? (Split from 'Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand')

[DBT]

You have no evidence to support the notion of mind, consciousness or will in computers.

Mate, we have no evidence to support the notion of mind, conciousness or will in other himans. We just assume that, as they're very similar to ourselves, their mental experience is very similar to our own.

Which would be a reasonable assumption, if it were not undermined by the fact that we also have no reliable evidence to support the notions of mind or will in ourselves, either. The question of consciousness, I think we can delegate to René Descartes.

Nah, it's not difficult to tell whether an animal is alive or dead, conscious or unconscious, asleep, awake, groggy, alert, fearful, relaxed, playful or aggressive.....while computers function as they are designed and built, glitches and all, with absolutely no sign of being conscious, aware or acting on will.

Which means that there is evidence for the former and none for the latter, conscious computers, a claim that is a crock of shite.

 

[excreationist]

Mate, we have no evidence to support the notion of mind, conciousness or will in other himans. We just assume that, as they're very similar to ourselves, their mental experience is very similar to our own.

Which would be a reasonable assumption, if it were not undermined by the fact that we also have no reliable evidence to support the notions of mind or will in ourselves, either. The question of consciousness, I think we can delegate to René Descartes.

Well that suits my belief that if we're in a simulation maybe most of the other people are philosophical zombies in order to reduce the amount of conscious suffering in the world.

 

[DBT]

Crock. You have no evidence to support the notion of mind, consciousness or will in computers.

Other than the fact that they render behavior and inference on information such that practical phrases are formed and stated within the system between its parts?

Complexity and function alone doesn't equate to consciousness.

No, function alone equates to consciousness. Complexity equates to complex consciousness, whereas constrained and regular function defines simple consciousness, specifically according to that function.

Bull Shit. Get a grip. Stop making fantastic claims that you can't support.

Try it. Produce one reputable study that demonstrates computer consciousness. Who besides you even makes such a claim?

You can't be serious, surely? You are just stirring the pot, right?

 

[Swammerdami]

Have I mentioned that all this discussion is futile until you define consciousness?

For those agreeing that non-human creatures are "conscious" it might be fun to see where the line is drawn. Are bacteria conscious? Trees? Jellyfish? Coral colonies? Snails? Ants? Ant colonies? Volcanoes? The planet Jupiter?

 

[Swammerdami]

I don't remember if Jaynes makes this claim, but is "eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" a metaphor for the rise of subjective consciousness?
Yes, Jaynes makes this specific claim in a longish chapter on the Hebrew.

Are you talking about the "voice of God" hallucination? As far as knowledge of good and evil goes are you talking about a superego? (a voice telling them what they "should" do?)

I won't attempt a summary of Jaynes' interesting biography but his specialty was comparative psychology. Despite this, I don't think he attempts to map his model to Freud's terminology. I see ONE mention of "superego" in the book:

... I suggest that the god-hero relationship was ... similar to the referent of the ego-superego relationship of Freud or the self-generalized other relationship of Mead. ... The gods are what we now call hallucinations.

Schizophrenia patients report "losing [their] ego." (Might a bicameral mind correspond to superego without ego? That's ME asking, not Jaynes.)

(Jaynes uses lots of fancy words that confuse me. What is "referent" in the above quote? "Rationalistically" is another example -- I assume it's different from "Rationally" but don't try to understand it.)

When they realized they were naked I wonder if it was a feeling or a voice? Though it says "who told you you were naked?" (like the superego could have told them)

It was consciousness that made them realize they were naked. Apparently they displeased God by moving beyond the God-obeying bicameral mode.

As far as the book goes it seems it is from 1976 and is 500 pages. Maybe I can skim read it....

His style may make it hard to skim. And details and evidence are sprinkled here and there. It may be better to savor it slowly than to skim-read it.

One example of bicameral mentality that I find convincing comes from the historical mystery of Pizarro's conquest of the Incas. How did a tiny band of men conquer an empire of 16,000,000+? The Incas themselves were great conquerors, and their large complex empire had presumably necessitated that they discover consciousness. However the Inca Emperor and his inner circle were apparently still bicameral, so were unfamiliar with deceit!

Multiple 16th century Spanish witnesses report of both Aztecs and Incas that they visited statues which "spoke to them."

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Third Man Factor.

....
The third man factor or third man syndrome refers to the reported situations where an unseen presence, such as a spirit, provides comfort or support during traumatic experiences.
......

Third man factor - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Jarhyn]

Have I mentioned that all this discussion is futile until you define consciousness?

For those agreeing that non-human creatures are "conscious" it might be fun to see where the line is drawn. Are bacteria conscious? Trees? Jellyfish? Coral colonies? Snails? Ants? Ant colonies? Volcanoes? The planet Jupiter?

I already DID define it namely that which makes any thing "physically aware" of some other things, wherein physical awareness is any physical interaction by which the state of one thing may be leveraged to reveal the state of another.

For example, when a switch in on a sensor behind a lens receives a photon whose wavelength "blue" is both necessary and sufficient to trigger a change in the system, it is "aware" of "blue" even by any other name.

This means that almost everything you can point at is conscious of different things in different ways among different subsets of its stuff, and when discussing it more meaningfully there is an "of what" attached.

This is in line with Integrated Information Theory, a theory of consciousness that looks directly at this process of information integration as the basis for what we call "consciousness".

This is why I use terms like "meta-consciousness" to describe the thing most people just call "consciousness", largely because its activity is purely reflective, much like a PID loop on past states and variables from the last pass in the current pass.

Meta-consciousness is also something most other animals have. It's trivially easy. Even a PID loop has something you could call meta-consciousness, even if it's rather trivial; but this lets us observe that it is "trivial" rather than "absent".

My contention is that consciousness, just like life, constructs from smaller primitive elements -- namely states of matter switched to some state by necessary and sufficient conditions.

So we discovered that matter is built of smaller matter, that large mutations are built of smaller mutations, that interactions are mediated by smaller interactions.

Why do people believe after seeing how everything in our world is constructed of smaller elements that we do not somehow believe that "large" consciousness is achieved by constructing of smaller and more trivial things into consciousness of more interesting phrases about those things?

I defined consciousness in such a way that computers absolutely have the thing I defined as consciousness; that it isn't even a question really. We already KNOW computers have that, there's just an open question that some seem to find ridiculous as to whether this model is correct.

The only objections I've heard to this are of the form DBT levels, their intuition that computers must not have consciousness... But how much of that must is real and how much is bias, a simple desire to be considered more "special" than a computer could ever be? They reject something real, something they can touch in favor of believing they can understand the human mind without understanding the process and nature of the underlying computation.

I would pose that 100% of this sort of objection is based on the indignity of being compared to a calculator, and not any sort of substantive arguments.

 

[Swammerdami]

Have I mentioned that all this discussion is futile until you define consciousness?

For those agreeing that non-human creatures are "conscious" it might be fun to see where the line is drawn. Are bacteria conscious? Trees? Jellyfish? Coral colonies? Snails? Ants? Ant colonies? Volcanoes? The planet Jupiter?

I already DID define it namely that which makes any thing "physically aware" of some other things, wherein physical awareness is any physical interaction by which the state of one thing may be leveraged to reveal the state of another.
... This means that almost everything you can point at is conscious of different things in different ways among different subsets of its stuff, and when discussing it more meaningfully there is an "of what" attached.
...
This is why I use terms like "meta-consciousness" to describe the thing most people just call "consciousness"...

So -- let's see if I got this right -- YOU define "consciousness" to include almost EVERYTHING and then complain when others question your insistence that things are conscious? Do the others accept your definition? Did they even read it?

Perhaps you should replace (at least in your own mind) every instance of "conscious" in the thread with "meta-conscious." I'd then ask you to define "meta-conscious" -- or rather 'the thing most people just call "consciousness"' -- but am reluctant to prolong the futility.

 

[Swammerdami]

@ Jarhyn -- I am not saying your point of view is "wrong." But (assuming we can quantify consciousness) even a bacterium is much more "conscious" than a light switch.

Discussion is useless without a common vocabulary.

 

[excreationist]

Perhaps you should replace (at least in your own mind) every instance of "conscious" in the thread with "meta-conscious." I'd then ask you to define "meta-conscious" -- or rather 'the thing most people just call "consciousness"' -- but am reluctant to prolong the futility.

It could be less controversial to use terms like "awareness" and "self-awareness".

 

[DBT]

Have I mentioned that all this discussion is futile until you define consciousness?

For those agreeing that non-human creatures are "conscious" it might be fun to see where the line is drawn. Are bacteria conscious? Trees? Jellyfish? Coral colonies? Snails? Ants? Ant colonies? Volcanoes? The planet Jupiter?

Roughly speaking, defined as ''the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings,'' consciousness is the brains virtual, mental representation of the external world and self in the form of imagery that we experience as we navigate through the world and respond to its challenges, which appears to be the evolved function of consciousness. Machinery responds according to design, but is not aware of its surroundings, it is not conscious.

How the brain generates consciousness is not understood.

 

[Swammerdami]

Have I mentioned that all this discussion is futile until you define consciousness?

For those agreeing that non-human creatures are "conscious" it might be fun to see where the line is drawn. Are bacteria conscious? Trees? Jellyfish? Coral colonies? Snails? Ants? Ant colonies? Volcanoes? The planet Jupiter?

Roughly speaking, defined as ''the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings,'' consciousness is the brains virtual, mental representation of the external world and self in the form of imagery that we experience as we navigate through the world and respond to its challenges, which appears to be the evolved function of consciousness. Machinery responds according to design, but is not aware of its surroundings, it is not conscious.

How the brain generates consciousness is not understood.

Self-driving cars and other robots certainly need to be aware of, and responsive to their surroundings. They may be less competent, and less able to cope with surprise than human drivers, but isn't that just a matter of degree?

 

[bilby]

Self-driving cars and other robots certainly need to be aware of, and responsive to their surroundings. They may be less competent, and less able to cope with surprise than human drivers, but isn't that just a matter of degree?

Self-driving cars are MORE competent and MORE able to cope with surprise than the overwheming majority of human drivers.

Their performance and history is comparable with that of the very best human drivers; But as a novel and non-human thing, they are distrusted and held to an impossible standard of perfection.

Speaking as a professional driver, I would much rather share the roads with robo-taxis than with the human taxi and uber drivers I am actually sharing the roads with.

 

[DBT]

Have I mentioned that all this discussion is futile until you define consciousness?

For those agreeing that non-human creatures are "conscious" it might be fun to see where the line is drawn. Are bacteria conscious? Trees? Jellyfish? Coral colonies? Snails? Ants? Ant colonies? Volcanoes? The planet Jupiter?

Roughly speaking, defined as ''the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings,'' consciousness is the brains virtual, mental representation of the external world and self in the form of imagery that we experience as we navigate through the world and respond to its challenges, which appears to be the evolved function of consciousness. Machinery responds according to design, but is not aware of its surroundings, it is not conscious.

How the brain generates consciousness is not understood.

Self-driving cars and other robots certainly need to be aware of, and responsive to their surroundings. They may be less competent, and less able to cope with surprise than human drivers, but isn't that just a matter of degree?

Self driving cars, computers, AI, etc, are aware of nothing. Sensors and processors and mechanical actions work unconsciously....as does most of the activity of a brain.

 

[Swammerdami]

Have I mentioned that all this discussion is futile until you define consciousness?

For those agreeing that non-human creatures are "conscious" it might be fun to see where the line is drawn. Are bacteria conscious? Trees? Jellyfish? Coral colonies? Snails? Ants? Ant colonies? Volcanoes? The planet Jupiter?

Roughly speaking, defined as ''the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings,'' consciousness is the brains virtual, mental representation of the external world and self in the form of imagery that we experience as we navigate through the world and respond to its challenges, which appears to be the evolved function of consciousness. Machinery responds according to design, but is not aware of its surroundings, it is not conscious.

How the brain generates consciousness is not understood.

Self-driving cars and other robots certainly need to be aware of, and responsive to their surroundings. They may be less competent, and less able to cope with surprise than human drivers, but isn't that just a matter of degree?

Self driving cars, computers, AI, etc, are aware of nothing. Sensors and processors and mechanical actions work unconsciously....as does most of the activity of a brain.

I was working from YOUR definition. Now we're going in circles. WHY do you know the one is conscious, the other not?

I'm not saying you're wrong. Just that your definition does not define.

 

[DBT]

Have I mentioned that all this discussion is futile until you define consciousness?

For those agreeing that non-human creatures are "conscious" it might be fun to see where the line is drawn. Are bacteria conscious? Trees? Jellyfish? Coral colonies? Snails? Ants? Ant colonies? Volcanoes? The planet Jupiter?

Roughly speaking, defined as ''the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings,'' consciousness is the brains virtual, mental representation of the external world and self in the form of imagery that we experience as we navigate through the world and respond to its challenges, which appears to be the evolved function of consciousness. Machinery responds according to design, but is not aware of its surroundings, it is not conscious.

How the brain generates consciousness is not understood.

Self-driving cars and other robots certainly need to be aware of, and responsive to their surroundings. They may be less competent, and less able to cope with surprise than human drivers, but isn't that just a matter of degree?

Self driving cars, computers, AI, etc, are aware of nothing. Sensors and processors and mechanical actions work unconsciously....as does most of the activity of a brain.

I was working from YOUR definition. Now we're going in circles. WHY do you know the one is conscious, the other not?

I'm not saying you're wrong. Just that your definition does not define.

Equivocation.

The ability to detect does not equate to conscious awareness. A motion sensor, for instance, detects motion without being conscious or aware of motion, objects in motion, or itself or what it is doing. It functions unconsciously.

To be aware is to be conscious. A mechanical detector is not aware. A motion sensor is not in a 'state of being aware,' just the ability to detect what it was designed to detect.

Awareness
the quality or state of being aware : knowledge and understanding that something is happening or exists - Merriam Webster

Conscious awareness
''Consciousness is being aware of your surrounding and being able to process that information when it is given to you. This is in contrast with conscious awareness, which is being aware of that consciousness, or, being aware of your awareness. Consciousness can exist without awareness, but awareness cannot exist without consciousness.''

''Conscious awareness is a twofold state of being, in which the mind is both awake as well as cognizant of its surroundings''

 

[Jarhyn]

A motion sensor, for instance, detects motion without being conscious or aware of motion, objects in motion, or itself or what it is doing. It functions unconsciously.

You haven't justified in the least this idea that a lack of remembering of an experience means a lack of experience.

Sure, it doesn't know more about motion than the heuristic provides, but it doesn't need to to apply the heuristic. It doesn't know the word motion, but it has a mechanically implemented understanding of movement against its detector, of objects in motion. It lacks any sort of meta-awareness of those things, but it absolutely has an experience even if its experience does not include remembering the experience for its own recall... Though some motion sensors do (as a matter of their sensitivity management routine).

While @Swammerdami might criticize my definitions for "applying to everything" so does the idea of energy. Everything is energy too, after all... Yet we can recognize that discussing the amount, configuration, and nature of that energy is the value of the concept.

Similarly, the value in this "compatibilist consciousness" is not in discussing where it is or isn't in binary terms, but in discussing how it is, wherever it is, which is everywhere, such that we may do an exploration at any moment of what any given thing happens to be conscious of.

 

[Swammerdami]

Roughly speaking, defined as ''the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings,''

Self driving cars, computers, AI, etc, are aware of nothing. Sensors and processors and mechanical actions work unconsciously....as does most of the activity of a brain.

I was working from YOUR definition. Now we're going in circles. WHY do you know the one is conscious, the other not?

I'm not saying you're wrong. Just that your definition does not define.

Equivocation.(sic)

The ability to detect does not equate to conscious awareness. A motion sensor, for instance, detects motion without being conscious or aware of motion, objects in motion, or itself or what it is doing. It functions unconsciously.

To be aware is to be conscious. A mechanical detector is not aware. A motion sensor is not in a 'state of being aware,' just the ability to detect what it was designed to detect.
...
''Consciousness is being aware of your surrounding and being able to process that information when it is given to you. This is in contrast with conscious awareness, which is being aware of that consciousness, or, being aware of your awareness. Consciousness can exist without awareness, but awareness cannot exist without consciousness.''

''Conscious awareness is a twofold state of being, in which the mind is both awake as well as cognizant of its surroundings''

You added the new phrase "being aware of your awareness." This may conform to Jaynes' view, and certainly does restrict. But I'm not sure how easy it will be to apply this test.

A millipede alters its travel path to cope with obstacles or poison. Is it aware, but not aware of its awareness? How about a tiger prowling through the jungle? The first chapter in Jaynes' book points out that the most creative human thinking is usually unconscious or subconscious. Some brain skills may require LACK of awareness: A pianist will falter if he's overly aware that he's playing the piano.

Here's an interesting 6-page article:
Plant Consciousness: The Fascinating Evidence Showing Plants Have Human Level Intelligence, Feelings, Pain and More
Here's another article.

When I read this article, I conclude that a tree might "think" in the same sense that a prowling tiger or a human pianist does, but may lack "awareness of awareness" -- the type of cognition Jaynes calls "subjective consciousness" and seeks to define and describe in great detail.

 

[excreationist]

Here's an interesting 6-page article:

Plant Consciousness: The Fascinating Evidence Showing Plants Have Human Level Intelligence, Feelings, Pain and More
Here's another article.

Then there's this:

Debunking a myth: plant consciousness

Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental policy ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[DBT]

Roughly speaking, defined as ''the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings,''

Self driving cars, computers, AI, etc, are aware of nothing. Sensors and processors and mechanical actions work unconsciously....as does most of the activity of a brain.

I was working from YOUR definition. Now we're going in circles. WHY do you know the one is conscious, the other not?

I'm not saying you're wrong. Just that your definition does not define.

Equivocation.(sic)

The ability to detect does not equate to conscious awareness. A motion sensor, for instance, detects motion without being conscious or aware of motion, objects in motion, or itself or what it is doing. It functions unconsciously.

To be aware is to be conscious. A mechanical detector is not aware. A motion sensor is not in a 'state of being aware,' just the ability to detect what it was designed to detect.
...
''Consciousness is being aware of your surrounding and being able to process that information when it is given to you. This is in contrast with conscious awareness, which is being aware of that consciousness, or, being aware of your awareness. Consciousness can exist without awareness, but awareness cannot exist without consciousness.''

''Conscious awareness is a twofold state of being, in which the mind is both awake as well as cognizant of its surroundings''

You added the new phrase "being aware of your awareness." This may conform to Jaynes' view, and certainly does restrict. But I'm not sure how easy it will be to apply this test.

What I added was more information. You can't say everything that may need to be said in a brief remark, so more information may be needed.

'Being aware is to be aware of your awareness, there is no need to say 'being aware of your awareness'

To be in a conscious state as a person is to be conscious or aware of yourself and your surroundings.

A millipede alters its travel path to cope with obstacles or poison. Is it aware, but not aware of its awareness? How about a tiger prowling through the jungle? The first chapter in Jaynes' book points out that the most creative human thinking is usually unconscious or subconscious. Some brain skills may require LACK of awareness: A pianist will falter if he's overly aware that he's playing the piano.

Here's an interesting 6-page article:
Plant Consciousness: The Fascinating Evidence Showing Plants Have Human Level Intelligence, Feelings, Pain and More
Here's another article.

When I read this article, I conclude that a tree might "think" in the same sense that a prowling tiger or a human pianist does, but may lack "awareness of awareness" -- the type of cognition Jaynes calls "subjective consciousness" and seeks to define and describe in great detail.

There lies the problem of equivocation. information processing and response initiation, trees, plants, brains, is not necessarily a case of conscious thought.

Regardless of this, sensors, detectors, switches, software and other computerized response mechanisms do not work consciously, a computer is not aware. cognizant, or conscious of itself, its surroundings or what it is working on or responding to.