So what IS consciousness?

And the millions that are born

TS: I think the dream you had need not have been "watched" or experienced all over again like a rerun'd episode. Since everything we've ever perceived is stored in our long term memory (LTM), when we are subconscious, or sleepings, our mind simply access them by random. It may actually be a blessing in disguise since some of these ideas or experiences in our LTM may be valuable to us. However since we are not conscious, meaning we are not in control of our "dreamings" these dreams, in the most case, be stained by other random ideas in our LTM.

Some people think its destiny when they meet a new person for the first time whom they've seen in a dream. But actually, they have "seen" this person, it may not be consciously though, it could be some lost face one has glanced through a large crowd in a subway, but that simple image (like a video cam snapshot) has stored itself in our LTM and just randomly show itself in our dreams.

"im understanding qualia correctly at this point, right?"

^ yes you are. And I would have to agree to some extent because the degree of value on qualia is completely subjective. However, like Wittgenstein's language game, we have a way of using our own knowledge of our qualia to adopt and cope with our environment. We get to predict responses from things/creatures/people...

(Jackson): Imagine Mary to be an expert on neurobiology and the physics of colors. She may perfectly explain what happens in the brain as we perceive colors of diff wavelengths. The only problem is, she has lived all her life in a room where the only colors are black, white, and shades of gray. She isn't colorblind but she has not perceived other colors that weren't mentioned. The question is, does Mary, who has complete knwoledge of the physics involved in seeing colors but lacks the actual experience of seeing some colors, know everthing about in seeing colors? Suppose she steps outside the room and sees red, is there something added to what Mary already knows about red? The obvious answer is, yes, it is the feel of what it is like to see red.

Very interesting video. I think there are a bunch professors and experts on the deep topics of consciousness is being funded by the american govt for future military use. hmm.

Think this: All one needs is the first ultra-intelligent machine that is (let's be easy and say) 10x smarter than us. This machine is then able to create a far more advanced machine that itself 10x faster and smarter. Then that 2nd generation machine can do the same so on and so forth. Thousands faster (imagine a far superior machine each hour).

The consequence of an ultra-intelligent machine is it could touch questions and answers about reality. About everything. That we are not capable of. Imagine this machine curing all cancers, curing poverty, greed, etc. All in our favor. (of course it cannot be absolutely cured since we have free will; we can rebel even if were satisfied)

But the interesting question is, how could we create the first ultraintelligent machine that is completely in OUR control, in our favor. Its intelligence compared to ours maybe be how a bug's intelligence is compared to ours. So if this machine is intelligent, why would it do what we ask it to do? Also, why would it continue to create a far more intelligent machine that itself if it knows its consequence would deem its own existence futile?

Well, can we create things that are more intelligent than we are? for instance can one programmer expect to create a program that is more intelligent than he is? or doe it require a group of programmers to create a program more intelligent than a human being?

or is it that human beings never reach their intellectual potential, and so two less intelligent beings can create an offspring that is extremely intelligent, just because that offpsring was willing (for whatever reason) to attain more of its intellectual potential.

for instance, einstein. we can say that einstein's parents probably were not intelligent in the same way or to the same degree as einstein, however they did create him. thustly a human being is capable of creating a thing that has the possibility of becoming more intelligent (in the sense of learning)

also about the lucid dream. i had never seen the episode before, i was simply hearing the voiced because my freinds were watching it while i was asleep, and i awoke halfway through the episode

Or doe it require a group of programmers to create a program more intelligent than a human being?
^ this. To make a simple example, imagine the intellectual capacity of this machine being that of the credible data stored in the internet. And imagine it doing its own synthesis, as if its read all the articles about a specific topic and has gathered them together to come up with the best and original answer.

Ah, that lucid dream is very normal. Our senses are still awake anyway, our mind just doesn't take into focus what it is happening outside our dream state. Imagine a dream being a blank piece of paper, so if I'm sleeping on a yacht and I hear the waves, what first added to the "dream" is the sounds of the waves, then the subconscious mind just adds different things to complement it. Like a swimming pool scene from a movie I've seen when I was a kid. Then it gets weirder and weirder as your sleep goes deeper.

It is said in studies that the more unfamiliar the characters of your dream are, the deeper your sleep is. And vice versa.

Some neurons seem to evolve to preserve the design of the order they are naturally placed in the organ . I have some of the less bold characteristics of autism that Albert Einstein and Al Gore were thought to have, though if you put my brain cells in the above mentioned rat robot it would probably seek to have intercourse with a receptacle . Aspies lack many social skills, but are often great at thinking outside the box

What is it that makes some people aspies, some people mentally nonfunctional, and others however they are?

inherited in a lot of cases yet, but what exactly are they inheriting? chemical deficiencies or excesses? fault brain structure?

Some evolutionist have speculated that humans are bipedal because an ape made a conscious decision to use its forelimbs for carrying lager amounts of food back to the nest. I was inspired by this because at some point the mind is influenced by the heart or emotive force . The spirit of creativity could be seen as a natural law that had no beginning and will not end

When a dream becomes a reality it often requires at least secular faith

My interest of chemical balance through spirituality was never meant to distract from the mechanics of natural cognitive progression

Google chemical balance through spirituality if you dare.

I was under the impression that it was more that apes capable of carrying more food back to the nest were able to eat more, and if they were capable of only using their hind legs to do so then they were dually fit to survive. it was probably at this point that we because terrestrial apes anyway, even though our earliest ancestors were tree dwellers. however, the evolution of the mind is amazing, the discovery and creation of tools for instance. the emergence of language art and writings, so on and so forth.

it would be really fascinating to take a psychological look into the early mind, wouldnt it?

Yes it would, especially the so called civilized mind

The point at which ape became man is as blurred as the line between machine and man is becoming.

It seems we're on our way towards the discussion of emergence here... something new emerges from something fundamental (as you guys mentioned: hand symbols to spoken language, throwing rocks to building wheels). Life emerges from biological proceses of matter... consciousness emerges from the brain.

The latter is a complete mystery, Chalmers made an analogy of social emergence where a group of people may commit to a certain goal that is far outstanding and that any individual can never achieve (think scientific progress), yet we can explain the output by dissecting the dynamics of each individual. But when you try to understand the emergence of consciousness, it remains a mystery how the arrangement the connections of neurons (in the right way) may result to conciousness.

Maybe it could be answered, who knows (the same people like us had the same view towards biology centuries ago), but definitely not in our lifetime.

Well on the subject of consciousness, isnt it possible that nature did exactly what we are trying to do in labs? look at it from the beginning forwards rather than from now backwards and it seems a lot less linear potentially.

maybe nature had a shot gun blast of different attempts at consciousness, and out of the hundreds upon hundreds of attempts at it, only the near misses and final successes were 'intelligent' enough to really breed and evolve. the evolutionary non conscious life forms would either remain basic enough for that to be acceptable, or would be destroyed.

So you're saying that consciousness could just be an accident out of a possible billions of trials that nature has surpassed?

Interesting, but I believe the same questions we've asked above remains.

In lab testings, if all of a sudden we've found the cure for cancer, or the cure for immortality, they could both be explained by the use of formulas, procedures, etc of the people who conducted the experiments. However, if nature did brought up this "consciousness" then where is the explanation? Evolution could be explained by biology and dna. Consciousness remains a mystery, there are bunch of attempts to solve it though. I could share a few here if you're interested.

It seems possible. nature probably didnt get consciousness right on the first go, it was probably not unlike trial and error, only on a cellular biological level.

those attempts could are probably very pertinent to the discussion if you want to share them.

The following passage are my notes taken from David Chalmer's article, "Facing Up the Problem of Consciousness"

Here are two main case-studies that tries to build an explanatory gap between functions and experience"

1. Neurobiological theory of consciousness (Crick and Koch)): such oscillations in the cerebral cortex are the basis of consciousness. Binding (process whereby separately represented pieces of information about a single entity are brought together to be used by later processing) may be achieved by the synchronized oscillations of neuronal groups representing the relevant contents.
^ (How perceived information is bound and stored in memory, for use by later processing)

Criticisms:
1. It also takes place in unconscious processing, and why do oscillations give rise to experience.
2. No connection between binding and experience

2. Global workspace theory of consciousness (Baar): contents of consciousness are contained in a global workspace, a central processor used to mediate communication between a host of specialized nonconscious processors. When such processors need to broadcast information to the rest of the system, they do by sending this information to the workspace, which acts as a kind of communal blackboard for the rest of the system, accessible to all the other processors.
^ (Cognitive accessibility: explains how it is a certain information contents are widely accessible within a system, as well as a theory of informational integration and reportability)

Criticism: Nothing internal to the theory explains why the information within the global workspace is experienced. Globally accessible? Then why should it give rise to conscious experience?

--

"nature probably didnt get consciousness right on the first go"
^ I am inclined to ask the question your opinion on why nature would include or add consciousness to us?

A naturalist seems at times to be only interested in natural phenomenon . When Albert split the Atom it would have profound effects on his conscience. Con/science is not opposed the nature no more than any man should be . One contemporary philosopher classified phenomenon into three divisions ,natural, unnatural, and supernatural . The chemist emerged from the alchemist, the astronomer emerged from the astrologer. Must we not use Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), to discover order from chaos intelligence from ignorance and immortality from mortal man?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Biocybernetics is the application of cybernetics to biological science, composed of biological disciplines that benefit from the application of cybernetics: neurology, multicellular systems and others. Biocybernetics plays a major role in systems biology, seeking to integrate different levels of information to understand how biological systems function.
Biocybernetics as an abstract science is a part of theoretical biology, and based upon the principles of systemics.

"nature probably didnt get consciousness right on the first go"
^ I am inclined to ask the question your opinion on why nature would include or add consciousness to us?

well i mean i dont think nature is a sentient being that said, ok, consciousness now! rather several thousands upon millions of cellular organisms were evolving in parallel, some becoming multicellular. as soon as one of these multicellular organisms developed consciousness it fucked it up for everything else giving way to what could be called a consciousness arms race in which humans won eventually. think about an organism the size and make of a dog that had absolutely no mind, and could only respond to stimuli to the same depth that cells do.

some of these kinds of entities exist for instance large colonies of bacteria will sometimes form something large such as a specific type of stalactite in a cave

http://www.terradaily.com/images/copper-silicate-stalactite-bacterial-diversity-bg.jpg

i think it was merely evolutionarily beneficial to develop consciousness to some level, and those that did survived and bred, whereas those that did not evolve quickly enough were devoured and destroyed. perhaps there were even many kinds of consciousness that were achieved but were eliminated by what is now considered emergent consciousness. then again maybe ants really are a hive mind, one consciousness with many bodies
_______

so you mean to say that by occam's razor it is natural to assume that from non consciousness, consciousness emerged because that was the next stage, and development in other fields supports that idea?

occam's razor might not be the philosophy i would use to explain that, but i can sort of see your point, particulalry as it pertains not to the emergence of consciousness, but rather the future of it.

is it fair to assume that the act of being cyberized will drastically change ones consciousness? in what ways?

Nice. I guess since there are no answer that can be found on the why's and how's of consciousness, let's drop it, as we seem to have slightly shifted to the uses of consciousness...

Must we not use Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), to discover order from chaos intelligence from ignorance and immortality from mortal man?

^ You might be talking about Plato's cycle of opposites and not Ockam's razor. Though the latter is a slippery slope to use and can then be faulty.

"William of Ockham (; also Occam, Hockham, or several other spellings; c. 1288 c. 1348) was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher, who is believed to have been born in Ockham, a small village in Surrey.[1] He is considered to be one of the major figures of medieval thought and was at the centre of the major intellectual and political controversies of the fourteenth century. Although he is commonly known for Occam's razor, the methodological principle that bears his name, William of Ockham also produced significant works on logic, physics, and theology. In the Church of England, his day of commemoration is 10 April.[2
Ontological parsimony
One important contribution that he made to modern science and modern intellectual culture was through the principle of parsimony in explanation and theory building that came to be known as Occam's Razor. This maxim, as interpreted by Bertrand Russell,[18] states that if one can explain a phenomenon without assuming this or that hypothetical entity, there is no ground for assuming it, i.e. that one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors, or variables. He turned this into a concern for ontological parsimony; the principle says that one should not multiply entities beyond necessity "

It is certain that we cannot create something from nothing and multiplying entities is certainly not the aim of a monk but I am one of those that believe faith should not have to oppose reason.

Giordano Bruno

The summary of Bruno's philosophy would be a fulfillment to a prophecy
To have unity in diversity in a master idea of unity
All reality is one in substance, one in cause, and one when it was begun
And mysteriously, God and this reality are also one
To me this another way of saying creation is God's alone
And this is something Giordano Bruno must have known

Bruno refused to separate the physical and the psychical
Although many authorities of his day thought he was radical
To him mind and matter were one
Just as the stars were the same as the sun

So the object of his philosophy he taught in a university
Therefore was to perceive unity in diversity
So mind in matter, and matter in mind
These concepts to him were one of a kind

To find the synthesis in which opposites and contradictions meet and merge
Would put a persistent philosopher on the verge
Of rising to the highest knowledge of universal unity
Which is the intellectual equivalent of the love of God's entity

According to Webster the universe is all created things regarded as a system or whole
Would it be reasonable to assume God�s creation separate from Him, or out of control?
As for the oneness of the physical and the psychical, does not the miracle of creation, make the natural a fragment of the supernatural?

Does not all matter in the universe come from the mind of God?
So if there were no matter in His mind would not you find it odd?
And His matter can be transformed by the mind of man
And can be used for good in accordance with God's plan

If something totally seems to lack the properties of another
Just as to feed a flame is at the other end of to smother
They are said to be the opposites of each other
Some things are alike but different like a sister is to a brother

But I suppose Bruno knew that mans knowledge of opposites was incomplete
Concluding because of the laws of motion many opposites tend to meet
Just as the substance of creation, which, God did scatter
Are moved by God, and the void becomes filled with matter
And if the soul is void of matter could not time change the latter

Bruno seemed to be a philosopher with mysticism
Some say he was condemned for teaching pantheism
Many scientist credit him with heroism
For supposedly dying for Copernicanism
But was his brutal execution a paradox
By those who thought themselves orthodox
Or did his life end like the summary of his philosophic forethought
I think he was a martyr for the truth that he so diligently sought

I fail to see the relevancy.

re you saying that consciousness is everything and everything is consciousness because a god is currently imagining it to be so?

please lets avoid bringing religion into this kind of discussion, not because its wrong, but simply because it is not...desired at this particular time.

i dont want this to turn into a heated religious debate.

Actually it does not surprise me that you fail to see the relevancy. Most neuro- typical scientist
fail to see the environment as a higher power that we depend on. They see no need to artificially accelerate the adaptation to a possible global warming scenario natural or manmade . So if you can build a cyborg in your spare time I say may the force be with you ...carry on

I see need to address and pro actively respond to a potentially catastrophic event like global warming. i do not bring a divine, spiritual being into it.

Just to sidetrack for a moment here:

You spoke of Ockam's razor as if it was Plato's cycle of opposites, was my point...

there wouldn't be order without chaos, good without evil, imperfect being without perfect being, etc. Ockam's razor has been criticized heavily in modern philosophy of science today. It is a guiding principle in science when scientists select hypotheses to form a theory or select a theory from other competing theories. (Given two explanations which both describe the same thing, the simpler one is to be preferred. In short: don't introduce new components without a good reason) However, of course it doesn't go for all cases. There are times when even though an explanation is more complex than another explanation, it could actually be the correct one.

Ex: suppose I have fever. Explanation 1 says "You got rain-specked." Explanation B says "Considering the place you pass by everyday, you might have caught some bacterial or viral infection. Your body defends itself and fight against the infection, hence your temperature has risen above 36.5 degrees Celsius. -- Explanation 1 is simpler, so if we apply Ockham's razor here, it must be the correct one. But clearly it's not. Ockham's must not apply to cases like this. If it has been examined already, observers would know whether getting rain-specked has a direct causal connection to getting fever or not. So if they know this already, they shouldn't be using Ockham's Razor anymore.

Now, take the same example on consciousness.

Just because we can't understand the total facts of consciousness doesn't mean we have to settle with a naturalistic explanation. I would much rather be critically honest and just suspend judgement, such attitude would lean more to progress.

Whatever, conscious people only see what they want to see. If simple stimulation is your goal you should put TS 125 brain cells in a ratbot and let him have at a 110v WS

Regardless of where my brain cells do or do not belong, it seems that we've strayed from the topic at hand. surely the act of cyberizing a decent portion of humanity, that is to say installing implants at the neural level such as to blurr the lines of man and machine even further. would have some profound effects on human consciousness.

wouldnt such a procedure have an effect that would almost instill a subconscious need for conformity and unity within peoples as they became more and more connected on a mental level?

"Electronic chip, interacting with the brain, modifies pathways for ...
Oct 24, 2006 ... An implantable electronic chip may help establish new nerve connections in the part of the brain that controls movement."

If the world is ready for it I pray the designer is benevolent
For he who control the mind, heart, and soul will be the Lord of this world

Sorry could not resist I've been listening to Oz to long lol

http://youtu.be/kwWMKC3U01w

One needs more than two senses to survive in cyberspace most important is a sense of humor

Mind, heart and soul... I'm not being a reductionist here, but there really is just the mind. And like discussed earlier, it is divided into two states: Intentional states (where beliefs, hopes, fear, etc belongs), and phenomenal states (where desire, affective feelings, etc belongs). The latter is what we call "the heart", the former, "the soul". But really it is just the mind.

Now we can't even imagine how it would be like without the phenomenal states. Most theorists actually believe that you cannot separate the two. But as TS proposed, we can speculate the effects if we could. (The view that seeks this is called the SEPARATIST view, pioneered by Horgan and Tienson.) Of couse from our pov now, it would seem like a horrible world if we don't have these affective/phenomenal states like humour, empathy, conscience, etc... but we can't help being biased for such faculties because we have them at the moment.

But if you assume a world where there is no, for example, sense of humour, then they wouldn't be complaining because what we think they lack never existed for them. These are contingent faculties, they are not necessary.

But if you assume a world where there is no, for example, sense of humor, then they wouldn't be complaining because what we think they lack never existed for them. These are contingent faculties, they are not necessary.
^
thats a slippery slope, we could get to a point in a parallel form of consciousness where they are so different from our consciousness that we no longer consider them to be conscious. to say that a different form of consciousness is still consciousness, don't we have to define exactly what it is, and move the benchmark away from us as a species?

--------------

in my anthropology class we are actually studying social systems, and there are 4 social systems that address the 4 universal human problem sets.

Family
population production
child nursing
child education
affection

Government
the division of power
the establishment of order
the enforcement of order

Religion
knowledge
meaning

Economy
food
goods
services
distribution

in this modern age it is clear to note that science has begun to definitely usurp religion, however for all intents and purposes, despite the approaches to knowledge and meaning being as radically different as their final conclusions, their objectives are one in the same.

in modern society there are actually several other social systems that exist, for instance

Entertainment
distraction
appeasement
satisfaction

Health
recovery
treatment

Education
extended training

now then, how is this relevant?

well, from a very, very early age these social systems are imprinted on us, and if we do not meet all of those needs in however way it is organized, then human beings become unhappy, and despondent. for instance, despite being wealthy, well educated, healthy, and so on, if a person lacks affection then he is very likely unhappy.

it seems to me that these social structures, on a fundamental level, are the key to the lens through which our intentional states, and phenomenal states operate.

say that we find chemical set and reaction X23 is decoded in the human mind as being hugged which is thought of as receiving affection. sat X24 is the equivalent of being kissed. with an interactive web of these... sensations and beliefs, perhaps coupled with VR and other bio chemical implants, could actually simulate affection on a profound level.

to a similar degree, perhaps these kinds of implants could sort of... convince a human mind that it was receiving all of its fundamental needs. obviously it would be so much more efficient and cost effective to just go out into the world and make some freakin' friends, however in theory, shoudlnt it be possible?

Pardon me but I wasn't saying that such a world wouldn't have their own kind of consciousness, I was just arguing that we can never be in a position to say that such a world without this faculty or that can be called "a horrible world".

--

I believe the social systems that are added in the modern society are contingent systems that are conventionally made by us. The first 4 you mentioned are the ideals, while the ones for modern society are just advanced models used to satisfy some intellectual principle in us (such as the entertainment section)

"obviously it would be so much more efficient and cost effective to just go out into the world and make some freakin' friends, however in theory, shoudlnt it be possible?"

^ true. Actually, to be honest, if I wasn't introduced to lessons on consciousness, I would meddle with different problems and have different pleasures (no matter how relatively valuable or not they are in the public eye). But at the same time, this other me could actually live a happier life and fulfill those social structures you mentioned, than the me who dwells into analytical theories...

The question you are asking is somewhat an existential view towards our discussion, which is also very interesting.

Well in a way, if we did not have consciousness then we wouldnt exist. we wouldnt know, for instance, that we think, and then we wouldnt know that we are. perhaps we would still exist but in not knowing that we are, or anything that that entails, its a similar psychological state to being dead.

All I can say is just that I agree. :)

I guess were near the end of our conversation. It's been a great discussion with you. If you have any recommendation on reading, (Fiction or non-fic), videos, or even movies, don't hesitate to email me.

Indeed it was grand. i greatly enjoyed the conversation, and i can walk away feeling i know much more on the subject. thank you all who contributed.

The Universe has always been cold Lad, you have to warm it up before hand! Then when the warmth ensues, and those stars fly about your head, the fire cannot be quenched, There is Creation!
So, Yeah! All systems are breaking down the Universe! Then the Organisms!

Every end is a new beginning. The only constant is change.