Consciousness question

[Iacchus]

Look at how elaborate an irrigation system is, and in fact needs to be in order to distribute every last drop of water out in the field. Now, does this make the irrigation system itself the means by which to generate the water? No, it's simply a means by which to distribute it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm not convinced that what appears to us as matter/energy is really that separate from consciousness at some level.

Ok, let me see if finally get this. You say that consciousness is as fundamental as matter/energy? That is different from them? That its not composed by them?

Or maybe more in your line of thought, are you saying that matter/energy depend on and are a byproduct of consciousness?

Because, unless we really understand what is what you are thinking, we cant really communicate.

 

[PixyMisa]

Look at how elaborate an irrigation system is, and in fact needs to be in order to distribute every last drop of water out in the field. Now, does this make the irrigation system itself the means by which to generate the water? No, it's simply a means by which to distribute it.

So?

 

[Mercutio]

So?

I admire your restraint.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Look at how elaborate an irrigation system is, and in fact needs to be in order to distribute every last drop of water out in the field. Now, does this make the irrigation system itself the means by which to generate the water? No, it's simply a means by which to distribute it.

Yes, except that where the water actually does come and go, and we can track this, conciousness does not appear to "flow" from anything.

So then, my analogy seems more accurate, the analogy of a computer program.

Make no mistake, I perfectly understand what you believe. I myself used to believe this until I started actually thinking about it.

I again need to ask you. This Prime Reality you mentioned before, which instructs our reality on how to operate? What tells it how to operate?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

So?

I was this close to just saying "so what?" but I decided to more or less make it clear why this is irrelevent.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, except that where the water actually does come and go, and we can track this, conciousness does not appear to "flow" from anything.

So, has anyone been able to measure a "drop" of consciousness yet? Obviously it must exist in some capacity, otherwise we wouldn't be able to speak about it would we?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

What's the minimum system? Is a thermometer also conscious?

No, as it does not process anything. A light bulb is also not concious in the least as it just changes it's state. However, it does make a very good model of the very basic nature of a computer.

The Sun is a very complex and stable system. Is the Sun therefore very conscious?

I see you have missed the point of what I said quite completely. I shall endevor to repeat myself. The sun is complex, but it isn't even a COMPUTER, much less a human being. As I have stated many times already, it is the specific arrangement that does the trick. Just because something is "complex" it dosen't make it concious. It has to actually be arranged to do specific things.[/quote]

Alright, that's it. Let me ask you to do ONE thing.

ASK THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE BEEN ASKING OF A COMPUTER PROGRAM AND ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, TELL US WHY THE SAME ANSWERS CAN'T APPLY TO HUMAN CONCIOUSNESS!

You need to say THIS:

"A COMPUTER PROGRAM IS COMPLEX. OKAY, SO WHAT ABOUT THE SUN? IT IS VERY COMPLEX. DOES THAT MAKE IT A VERY CAPABLE COMPUTER PROGRAM?"

My analogy works for me because I can see no difference between a given computer program and the activity of the human mind, save one, that they do different things and the human mind has different capabilities than any computer. What, pray tell, is the key difference between the human mind and a computer that makes my analogy fall apart at the seams?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

So, has anyone been able to measure a "drop" of consciousness yet? Obviously it must exist in some capacity, otherwise we wouldn't be able to speak about it would we?

It does exist in some capacity, as the process our brain goes through. And yes, we HAVE detected drops in consiousness. This is anecdotal, but I myself experience drops in conciousness whenever I get very tired.
However, this can be asked of a large number of people and one will likely get the same results time and again.
Eventually, the level drops to the point where I am no longer aware I am losing conciousness, or even that I exist altogether. Eventually, I dream and levels of conciousness rise a little, though I am still unaware of things like... logic, or that I am in fact dreaming. Eventually, I wake up. I wake up rather quickly, but a number of people have a very low level of conciousness when they wake up and chemical alterations can raise their conciousness to functional levels. Some call it "coffee".

Answer my question. This higher world that gives order to our world, what gives THAT world order?

 

[Mercutio]

It does exist in some capacity, as the process our brain goes through. And yes, we HAVE detected drops in consiousness. [snip]

Er...he was asking about "drops" of consciousness, like "drops" of water.

I can see why you answered the question your way; the way it was asked simply took his incoherent example, ignored the statements calling it incoherent, and proceeded to ask a different incoherent question based on the incoherent example.

Stick around; you'll get used to it.

 

[Imaginative]

I remember reading an article about how consciousness might still exist after death simply through the use of time. How this worked was that for the observer of someone’s death they would not see any evidence of consciousness and so conclude that the person had died.

For the dead person however, they might still be experiencing some sort of conscious experience but in a different time frame altogether. One second in our time frame could equate to hundreds or thousand of years. Consciousness going on but in a self contained personalised reality generated by that person’s self/ego. Maybe this is where those NDE accounts come from. Again, I can’t remember where I read it but it was in a serious science magazine, possibly New Scientist as that is the one I read every week.

Just wondered if any others here had read a similar article somewhere as this possibility hasn’t been mentioned yet in this thread. I know everyone wants proof about these things but this is, after all, a philosophy group, and as such we should be able to discuss these ideas openly.

 

[Mercutio]

I have read any number of such ideas...mostly in science fiction, though.

Certainly we can discuss them. If we wish to discuss them seriously, though, the burden of proof is clearly on the claimant. There is no actual evidence of such a sort of consciousness (even your description of it demonstrates how it would be impossible to see evidence of it), though, so any belief that such a thing is true would be purely based in faith. Moreover, for it to be true, quite a lot of what we know about biology would have to be rewritten.

 

[Imaginative]

I have read any number of such ideas...mostly in science fiction, though.

Certainly we can discuss them. If we wish to discuss them seriously, though, the burden of proof is clearly on the claimant. There is no actual evidence of such a sort of consciousness (even your description of it demonstrates how it would be impossible to see evidence of it), though, so any belief that such a thing is true would be purely based in faith. Moreover, for it to be true, quite a lot of what we know about biology would have to be rewritten.

Fair enough, if you are an author of Sci Fi for instance, you wouldn't really need to use your imagination, you could just log on to places like this and get all the ideas you want.

 

[DreadNiK]

So, has anyone been able to measure a "drop" of consciousness yet? Obviously it must exist in some capacity, otherwise we wouldn't be able to speak about it would we?

Did you just not read what you were typing?

How about measuring 'friendship' or 'love' or 'hate' or 'luck' or 'difficulty'. Obviously they exist as concepts, but we can't measure a 'drop' of them.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Seriously, I will be very happy to talk about this with you again after you have watched the videos. Right now, I can't tell whether you are redefining things because you are unaware of the research, or despite an awareness of it. If you watch those vids, and still sing this tune, it will answer a lot.

Your videos are about evolutionary psychology, developmental psychology, neural networks, mental modules and cognitive modelling. All of which I studied as an undergraduate - and none of which actually explains consciousness.

Yes, our neurological capacity to process information has evolved as the species evolved. Likewise from birth to death we continuously form new neural networks and cognitive models. But how does any of this explain the fact that we are consciously aware of information processing and/or the results of such information processing?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Iacchus]

Er...he was asking about "drops" of consciousness, like "drops" of water.

I can see why you answered the question your way; the way it was asked simply took his incoherent example, ignored the statements calling it incoherent, and proceeded to ask a different incoherent question based on the incoherent example.

Stick around; you'll get used to it.

Well, just remember this is all being broadcast through the Consciousness Channel ... and, that one way or another we are all tuned in.

 

[Iacchus]

Your videos are about evolutionary psychology, developmental psychology, neural networks, mental modules and cognitive modelling. All of which I studied as an undergraduate - and none of which actually explains consciousness.

What, and you were actually able to remain cognizant through the whole thing? Just kidding Merc!

 

[HypnoPsi]

That's what consciousness is.

What is the mechanism by which information processing produces conscious awareness of that information processing and/or the result of such information processing?

The present and desired temperatures are represented, specifically. To the rest of the universe, specifically.

(Which means that by definition, consciousness is not possible without reference to an external universe.)

In terms of physics and chemistry that doesn't make much sense. In a most basic type of thermostat the expansion/contraction of the mercury/alcohol in the thermometer component causes an increase/decrease in the air pressure in the mercury/alcohol container. As this air pocket gets squeezed (as the temperature increases) it will push against a guage at the top of the thermometer which turns off the central heating. As the air pocket expands (as the temperature drops) there is less pressure and the guage at the top becomes depressed turning the central heating back on.

Now, if we just had a simple glass thermometer alone and no pressure guage, the pressure build up of temperature would still cause the glass tube to expand slightly, displacing the air around the tube. Meaning there is still a chain reaction whenever thermal, kinetic and chemical energy is transferred and converted.

In conclusion, information is always being transferred and processed as energy is transferred in any system at all.

So why do you think a thermostat is conscious but not a thermometer? How do you explain why information processing should cause conscious awareness (however rudimentary) anyway?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, our conscious aspect (the observer) is not aware of any of the internal processing going on inside of the body, but more so the immediate impact of its external environment, including the ability to reflect on these things inside itself. It would be more like the "computer operator," as opposed to the computer itself.

 

[Mercutio]

Your videos are about evolutionary psychology, developmental psychology, neural networks, mental modules and cognitive modelling. All of which I studied as an undergraduate - and none of which actually explains consciousness.

But of course, many experiments were presented which could potentially have falsified the explanation of consciousness (emergent property of functioning brain/body), but which instead support the model.

Yes, our neurological capacity to process information has evolved as the species evolved. Likewise from birth to death we continuously form new neural networks and cognitive models. But how does any of this explain the fact that we are consciously aware of information processing and/or the results of such information processing?
_
HypnoPsi

I would very much dispute that this is a fact. The conclusions you are reaching are very much dependent on the questions you are asking, which presuppose some things which should instead be questioned. There were at least three presenters who, expressly or tacitly, disagree with what you assert is a fact. Perhaps more. Why do you claim it as fact? Is it faith?