Consciousness question

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Self-awareness is easy; any programmer can create that. Understanding natural language, real-time visual processng: those are the hard problems.

Im not convinced that self awareness is simple, not in the sense of self reference, but in its subjective quality. Nope, I wont discuss this as the terms are fuzzy, so I dont think we can reach an agreement.

Still, it is very true that the hard problems are others, for me, its the language itself the most complex of all. Our discussions are based on our concepts, and those are made, more or less, with words. Those words have meanings and the relation of the words with their meanings is an obscure subject.

This is without mention that we dont have clear ideas on how we can program a computer to understand meanings.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think he stated that he doesn't have a definition.

Thats a big problem. How can you discuss what others believe if you dont understand what you believe? And there are always implicit concepts or ideas, even if he is not aware of them. I have been trying to make him think about what is really in his mind.

Maybe when he can tell us what he thinks we can advance.

 

[PixyMisa]

Im not convinced that self awareness is simple, not in the sense of self reference, but in its subjective quality. Nope, I wont discuss this as the terms are fuzzy, so I dont think we can reach an agreement.

That's fair enough. I'm not 100% convinced myself, but I am certainly headed in that direction.

Still, it is very true that the hard problems are others, for me, its the language itself the most complex of all. Our discussions are based on our concepts, and those are made, more or less, with words. Those words have meanings and the relation of the words with their meanings is an obscure subject.

Well, scientists are very good at nailing down the meanings of the terms they use. That's a very large part of why science works. Other fields of human endeavour are less so.

This is without mention that we dont have clear ideas on how we can program a computer to understand meanings.

Errr... I'm not sure what you mean by this. Which kind of illustrates the problem.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Yeah. I think the "truly aware" thing means awareness of the event plus self-awareness. In which case a regular toilet is of course not "truly aware".

I've been fiddling with this, and it looks to me like a "truly aware" system requires at least eight flipflops and twelve or sixteen simple logic gates (AND, NAND, OR or whatever). That's enough to provide multiple levels of awareness of multiple events, awareness of at least parts of the processing, and self-referential awareness. All terribly limited, of course, but real.

I should have messed with that myself (I keep thinking in terms of a logical pyramid structure, which won't work... I need to actually chart it out...). I will go into detail with that a little later but that sounds about right. There you go, the simplest form of self awareness you can get, as has been determined thus far. It doesn't give the smallest number of parts, not really, but it gives the smallest amount of processing as can be determined.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Anything that minimally exhibits sentience, sapience, and awareness of self is a system that has consciousness.

Is a thermostat conscious? Not by a long shot. But that's based on my definition of conscious, which seems different than others in this thread.

Okay, so we've established that you think there has to be a dichotomy between what is self and what is not-self (thoughts, feelings, senses, the world, etc.,) in order for conscious awareness to exist. You disagree with the others in this forum that a toilet cistern is conscious of it's two possible states (and nothing else).

So what's your real world example of the minimum system necessary to produce consciousness? An insect? A snake? A mouse? Or a larger animal? Do you think that anything inorganic is conscious in any way at all? What about vegetatable life (such as a venus fly trap)? How did you determine your view to be correct and not just faith-based?

Real world examples will help us to pin this down.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Im not convinced that self awareness is simple, not in the sense of self reference, but in its subjective quality. Nope, I wont discuss this as the terms are fuzzy, so I dont think we can reach an agreement.

Still, it is very true that the hard problems are others, for me, its the language itself the most complex of all. Our discussions are based on our concepts, and those are made, more or less, with words. Those words have meanings and the relation of the words with their meanings is an obscure subject.

This is without mention that we dont have clear ideas on how we can program a computer to understand meanings.

Language is indeed tough. Let's look at how WE understand the meanings of words. In the end, we tie them into how we understand they relate to both other words and information gleaned from our other senses.

Basically, in youth, it is trial and error until something fits with certain parameters. As one develops a bigger library, those parameters just increase to include the words already established, though those might change in time as well.

Basically a computer program needs to be developed that is capable of taking a word and randomly expererimenting with it by seeing how often that word is used when combined with THIS set of data, and how often it is used when combined with THAT set of data. Once it can establish a usage pattern, those words are incorporated into sets of data to refernce themselves, and as further words are introduced, the process begins all over again.

It's that elementary school trick my teachers always told us to figure out what a word means. How is it used in a sentence? Try defining a word. You do so either by using other words or imagining the idea itself, which is usually in the form of some manner of either sensory data or some sort of model you internally created.

I believe such a system is feasible.

Assuming we are in fact correct that our conciousness is merely a physical process, then this process would BE the ability to understand the meaning behind words, would it not?

 

[HypnoPsi]

From this point on, I'm using "consciousness" only in relation to the human condition.

Why?

What about cats and dogs?

And insects?

what happens to your soul when you are not conscious?

That's a good question... is there even a soul? All I know is that I have no evidence that consciousness, like matter/energy, can ever be destroyed or created.

I do know that consciousness seems somehow 'inactive' when we're under anaesthesia, so brain activity alone doesn't seem to explain consciousness because that continues under anaesthesia.

Since we quite happily believe (with very good reason) that matter/energy can be converted (thermal, kinetic, potential energy, etc.,) there seems good reason to suppose that whatever consciousness is it too 'converts' into another state at certain times. Where it goes, what it does and what it interacts with are another matter altogether and, of course, entirely hypothetical.

You lot, on the other hand, deny that the materialistic view of consciousness if faith based..... Why is that?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

*sigh* Refer to Darrk Jaguar's post concerning definitions of consciousness. Can we all agree to accept consciousness as it refers to human perception?

No. I'm not interested in that at all - unless you're saying that only humans are conscious and claiming that this is not a faith based position.

I'm only asking some simple questions to explore the notion that materialistic views of consciousness aren't faith based. If that's true then you should know exactly what conditions are required to produce (or to be) consciousness. So lets list some things that you think are and aren't conscious and examine the issue as scientists.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Iacchus]

Why couldn't we just have eternal life here?

But that aside, allow me to point out my query is a direct response to your's. Namely, you asked how it is that our universe knows how to operate. You implied it couldn't operate unless there was a higher realm giving it order. I simply decided to make you an active participant in pointing out that by that logic, that higher realm needs something to give it order.

The point wasn't evidence that there ARE no higher realms giving our's order, but merely that your argument does not constitute evidence for them.

All I'm suggesting is that it couldn't operate without a set of instructions and, I would like to know where those instructions are coming from. Oh, and did you get a chance to read my last post? ...

Oh, and that's another thing. If the world is just temporal, it suggests that something permanent and/or Eternal must have given rise to it, correct? So, shouldn't that also suggest that whatever information was required to give rise to -- as well as sustain -- the temporal world be bound up with the permanent and/or Eternal?

So, if the temporal springs forth from the Eternal (a.k.a. the Big Bang), shouldn't it continue to spring forth from the Eternal, even as we speak?

 

[cpolk]

Basically, in youth, it is trial and error until something fits with certain parameters. As one develops a bigger library, those parameters just increase to include the words already established, though those might change in time as well.

Not to mention that everyday conversations do not deal with things as complex as a universal definition of a thing such as consciousness. We can ask for Coca Cola and have no problem. No wonder deep abstractual thought is segued to God! It's SOOOO much easier to say, "God did it."

I believe such a system is feasible.

Assuming we are in fact correct that our conciousness is merely a physical process, then this process would BE the ability to understand the meaning behind words, would it not?

I do, too. And, I think we are correct in our assumption.

 

[cpolk]

Why?

What about cats and dogs?

And insects?

If you've read through previous posts, particularly the ones by Pixy and Dark Jaguar, there are three tiers of the definition of awareness that we are talking about. I think that cats, dogs, and possibly insects are on the second tier.

I have absolutely no evidence that my dog thinks in terms of abstracts, beyond reacting to his physical environment, so I cannot place him on the third tier. I cannot say for sure if my dog understands the concept of art, or thinks, "I am me."

Since you are adamant about not allowing the common toilet in the conversation regarding awareness, that eliminates the first tier. Since you are adamant about not allowing the self-regulating thermostat in your definition of awareness, that eliminates the second tier.

We are then left with the third tier, with the limitation that the only things that we can believe are part of this awareness are those things that can communicate that to us.

So, no dogs. No cats. No insects.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Okay, so we've established that you think there has to be a dichotomy between what is self and what is not-self (thoughts, feelings, senses, the world, etc.,) in order for conscious awareness to exist. You disagree with the others in this forum that a toilet cistern is conscious of it's two possible states (and nothing else).

Agreed.

So what's your real world example of the minimum system necessary to produce consciousness? An insect? A snake? A mouse? Or a larger animal? Do you think that anything inorganic is conscious in any way at all? What about vegetatable life (such as a venus fly trap)? How did you determine your view to be correct and not just faith-based?

Well, my definition of consciousness requires some level of sentience, sapience, and self-awareness.

Sentience is the ability to perceive. Perception is unfortunately vague. It could be pure ability to sense external stimuli (something plants can do) or could also include ability to form mental concepts about the stimuli experienced or intuitive cognition (something I don't think insects can do but animals can).

Sapience requires intelligence, not just detecting stimuli, but recording the information and deciding to act on it in a later time. Smart animals do this, but other animals and insects I think don't.

Self-awareness is perception of one's own nature, one's own existence. The only real way to figure out if an organism exhibits this behavior is to ask them. Certainly, a wolf understand it's relation relative to a pack, but does it think about the nature of that relationship and the consequences of its existence in any sense? As such, only humans historically have demonstrated self-awareness.

The problem is, dogs sleep, and dogs probably dream. Whatever the case, animals sleep, thus they lose consciousness. But, since they don't have self-awareness, then they didn't have consciousness to begin with. Unless consciousness is defined by level of alertness or level of awareness of one's surroundings (sentience and sapience).

Vegetables have no conciousness because they do not really perceive, they merely detect and respond to external stimuli without any feelings or concept of the stimuli detected.
Animal consciousness is sentience, smart animals have sapience also.
Human consciousness is sentience, sapience, and self-awareness.

The definition of consciousness I've been using in this thread is obviously that of human consciousness.

The minimum system required is one that exhibits sentience, sapience, and self-awareness. It is a system that detects external stimuli, forms conceptual details about the stimuli experienced (sentience), stores the experiences as information and can recall information upon experiencing other external simuli experienced and process that information accordingly (sapience), and can prove to observing humans that it has developed concepts and ideas about itself and its relation to everything not of itself.

 

[PixyMisa]

Self-awareness is perception of one's own nature, one's own existence. The only real way to figure out if an organism exhibits this behavior is to ask them.

Well, one interesting idea is the mirror test - see if an animal recognises that the thing in the mirror is itself. Most apes pass the test, as do dolphins. Human babies don't usually pass the test until 18 months or so, which is illustrative of the point that human consciousness is something that develops over time, not something that we are magically granted.

Since only humans have language, we have to resort to tricks like this to "ask" animals if they are self-aware, and the answer, in some cases, appears to be yes.

 

[PixyMisa]

The mirror test, by the way, typically works like this: Take an orangutan (for example) and paint a green spot on its head while it's asleep. Then watch what it does when it sees itself in the mirror. The result (with apes) is that they reach up and touch the spot; they recognise from seeing the image in the mirror that "I have a green spot on my head". I, my - the essentials of self-awareness. Less intelligent animals tend to either ignore the mirror or become agressive (notable with birds, of course).

Now, it's a long way from "I have a green spot on my head" to "I think, therefore I am", but I think it has been convincingly argued that it is a continuum; that there is nothing unique in human consciousness except quantitatively.

What is unique, of course, is language.

 

[cpolk]

Vegetables have no conciousness because they do not really perceive, they merely detect and respond to external stimuli without any feelings or concept of the stimuli detected.
Animal consciousness is sentience, smart animals have sapience also.
Human consciousness is sentience, sapience, and self-awareness.

I agree with your definitions; they make sense. I've got some ramblings that are related.

I wonder whether it is more precise to say that plants have no consciousness, or that they have "plant consciousness" as you did with the animals.

Plants do not perceive the way we do because they are not biologically able to. We can only guess that they have no "feelings", because we cannot determine them. We can determine them in animals, because their biology is closer to our own and easier to understand how, say, the sensation of pain travels through the nervous system.

Plants shrivel their leaves in cold weather - that much is, to our perceptionn, merely reactionary. But is that reaction sensory, by way of some sort of nervous system? Wouldn't that count as a form of awareness, no matter how small? If plants had biological mobility, would they move to where the soil is fertile, once the nutrients have dried up in one area? Just a hypothetical.

My dog has a name, knows when I ask him if he wants to go outside - he even has a favorite playtoy! But I have to wonder how much of this abstractual reality is his awareness and how much is my imagination. If I use the same tone of voice that I use to call his name, and I say, "Brooklyn Bridge!", he will look up at me. If I use the same tone I use to ask him if he needs to go outside and I say, "The Brooklyn Bridge?", he will go to the door. This demonstrates sapience to some degree, but not to the degree that most people like to imagine their pets having. He is trained to respond to certain tones - and I use the word "trained" rather than the word "chooses" purposely - so while he is showing both sapience and sentience in doing so, he is showing much more a degree of sentience than what most pet owners would like to think. In any case, the fact that he plays catch with his favorite toy shows some degree, however small, of sapience.

His favorite toy is a sure sign of sapience, maybe even could be considered a form of "art". But does he look at his toy in a way that we understand? Is it his favorite toy because of the design, the texture, or just because it has his slobberry scent on it and is easy for him to detect? If I take that toy away from him, is he sad? Does he miss it? Does he recall it at any time other than when it is again used as an environmental stimuli?

I can't say for sure. I can say this - he snores, he kicks, and he growls in his sleep. I can pretty safetly say that he dreams, even if it is different than how we experience it. But it is probably closer than how insects experience it - a lot of them have sleep cylces as well.

 

[cpolk]

Well, one interesting idea is the mirror test - see if an animal recognises that the thing in the mirror is itself. Most apes pass the test, as do dolphins. Human babies don't usually pass the test until 18 months or so, which is illustrative of the point that human consciousness is something that develops over time, not something that we are magically granted.

Since only humans have language, we have to resort to tricks like this to "ask" animals if they are self-aware, and the answer, in some cases, appears to be yes.

Out of curiosity, how does it sense that the animal in the mirror is itself? Maybe it merely sees the image but does not sense anything else - odor, for example - and simply is not threatened or is utterly uninvoked by the image. Does it react similarily when a photograph of itself or a like creature is shown? A picture of a monkey with a dot on its head, for instance? I would be interested in these studies...

Google, here I come!

If you were to take that orangutan and show it a video screen set up to show a mirror image, and use video to edit it and, say, remove its left arm, will it fear that it has lost its left arm?

Could the tapping on the head merely mean to tell the humans or the "other orangutan" in the picture that "she's got a dot on her head", without a direct connection to an "I"?

Now, it's a long way from "I have a green spot on my head" to "I think, therefore I am", but I think it has been convincingly argued that it is a continuum; that there is nothing unique in human consciousness except quantitatively.

What is unique, of course, is language.

I don't think our intelligence itself is unique, either, but I think that our level of consciousness is. The reason we can form language, besides our vocal and memorization abilities, is because we have more than the most basic rudimentary understanding of abstracts. For example, we not only understand that we fear, but can rationalize what we are afraid of. Instead of letting out a "Caw!" to signal everyone else to fear, we have language to let them know, specifically, what it is that they should fear.

 

[PixyMisa]

Out of curiosity, how does it sense that the animal in the mirror is itself? Maybe it merely sees the image but does not sense anything else - odor, for example - and simply is not threatened or is utterly uninvoked by the image.

Some animals do pretty much that - they will see the mirror, sniff at it, then ignore it.

Does it react similarily when a photograph of itself or a like creature is shown? A picture of a monkey with a dot on its head, for instance? I would be interested in these studies...

Google, here I come!

Check Wikipedia for "Mirror Test" for a start. There's been a fair bit of research aimed at establishing whether animals form a "theory of mind", that is, self-awareness and awareness of others being, in turn, self-aware. I think the evidence is interesting but not completely convincing.

Could the tapping on the head merely mean to tell the humans or the "other orangutan" in the picture that "she's got a dot on her head", without a direct connection to an "I"?

I don't think so, no. As I understand it, the apes try to groom away the spot.

I don't think our intelligence itself is unique, either, but I think that our level of consciousness is. The reason we can form language, besides our vocal and memorization abilities, is because we have more than the most basic rudimentary understanding of abstracts. For example, we not only understand that we fear, but can rationalize what we are afraid of. Instead of letting out a "Caw!" to signal everyone else to fear, we have language to let them know, specifically, what it is that they should fear.

Yes. Some animals do form abstract concepts, but they are far more limited in this than we are.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

All I'm suggesting is that it couldn't operate without a set of instructions and, I would like to know where those instructions are coming from. Oh, and did you get a chance to read my last post? ...

So, if the temporal springs forth from the Eternal (a.k.a. the Big Bang), shouldn't it continue to spring forth from the Eternal, even as we speak?

And again, if you are suggesting it couldn't operate without a set of instructions, then you have to, by that logic, suggest that those instructions could not operate without another set of instructions.

Further, you assume too much. Why is it that the existance of temporary things suggests something eternal?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

No. I'm not interested in that at all - unless you're saying that only humans are conscious and claiming that this is not a faith based position.

I'm only asking some simple questions to explore the notion that materialistic views of consciousness aren't faith based. If that's true then you should know exactly what conditions are required to produce (or to be) consciousness. So lets list some things that you think are and aren't conscious and examine the issue as scientists.
_
HypnoPsi

That isn't entirely accurate. One does not in fact need to know how something works in order to conclude what causes it.

I can conclude that a light bulb works due to electricity. I need not know exactly HOW the light bulb operates to conclude this.

We do not in fact know the exact nature of how our brain works. That much is obvious. We are getting closer though, and as of yet no evidence in our investigations show that something else is responsible for the conciousness effect.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Not to mention that everyday conversations do not deal with things as complex as a universal definition of a thing such as consciousness. We can ask for Coca Cola and have no problem. No wonder deep abstractual thought is segued to God! It's SOOOO much easier to say, "God did it."



I do, too. And, I think we are correct in our assumption.

However I neglected one aspect, the usage of grammar, sentence structure. However, I believe that can be thought of as the next logical extension of words. Basically, how each word relates to others, as established before, and then by trial and error combining them to create networks of logic. For example, green super fish. It is a pretty simple thing to figure out exactly how those three words, each already established in someone's mind, can simply have aspects that don't contradict added together to create an idea and the aspects that do contradict discarded. The word "super" even illuminates another aspect, the unique definitions of words different people share. A lot has to be in common, but one person's visualization of what a "super" fish may be is very likely to be at least a little different than another's.

One thing is for sure. The most likely path to a succesful "chat bot" is the system I described above, which to make it clear I certainly did not think up myself. It is the path a large number of programmers have undertaken. The flaw as I percieve it is they are trying to get the chat bots to build up entire sentences and their definitions, as opposed to one word at a time (at least those I've seen). From what I've seen of how children learn language, I think the best way to go is to somehow provide an AI with some other context for judging a word and then simply using single words. To that end, other programmers are designing visual recognition systems which I think should be combined with a chat bot that works with single words and compares them to both memories and current input like that visual data.