Consciousness question

[cpolk]

First off, beautiful post, Dark Jaguar. We could have used that about five pages back.

Right. It is conscious for one brief instant as it changes state, then it dies.

Just for the record, our language, as I mentioned before, is based on our human perception. Before anyone goes anywhere with this, PixyMisa does not mean it "dies" in the sense that we perceive, but in the sense that its function comes to an end.

There was probably no need for me to write this, but a little precaution goes a long way. 'Bout five pages.

 

[Iacchus]

And this is exactly my point. You state that this higher realm doesn't really need any even higher realm to tell it how to work, it just does. Why can't we just skip a step and say that OUR universe just works?

Well, if there is an afterlife and, we were meant to live beyond the temporal world of time and space, we only have to die once.

 

[cpolk]

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.

Well, what is your definition of good music? LOL We can still discuss it, as long as we, at some point, get on the same page. I can have my personal definition, and maintain a separate definition for the sake of this conversation. My biology is designed to handle that.

 

[HypnoPsi]

Yes. A mousetrap is very briefly conscious, then it dies. It is only ever conscious of a single event.

lol, okay, if you say so.

Now, do you accept you only have faith that a moustrap has a brief moment of consciousness or do you consider it fact?

Aside from that, what is that single firing event in a mousetrap apart from motion? The mercury/alcohol in a thermostat is always in motion since temperature is never absolutely steady. Why doesn't that constant movement of mercury/alcohol count as consciousness while the springing of a mousetrap is a moment of consciousness, in your view?

Do you have any other examples?

Yes.

Then please provide some examples. The more real-world examples of your "system" you provide the more we'll all be able to understand it by comparing and contrasting these examples with those you don't think are conscious.

Let's take H2O. Is it ever conscious when it's changing it's state from solid to liquid to vapour?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[cpolk]

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

Well, if there is an afterlife and, we were meant to live beyond the temporal world of time and space, we only have to die once.

Are you correlating a difference between your consciousness and your soul? If not, what happens to your soul when you are not conscious? If so, what happens to your consciousness if your soul is removed?

 

[cpolk]

lol, okay, if you say so.

Now, do you accept you only have faith that a moustrap has a brief moment of consciousness or do you consider it fact?

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

 

[HypnoPsi]

A toilet cistern refils by mechanics and nothing more. Why does it need to be aware that the tank is empty?

Because otherwise it would not refill the tank.

The water level causes the airball to rise and fall. Where does awareness come into it?

Neither skepticism nor atheism are required. Materialism (or naturalism) is required, but then, it is the only metaphysical system that has allowed us to make any sense of the universe at all. Your continuing inability to distinguish between these concepts just illustrates your own perpetual self-inflicted ignorance.

Dude, you believe that moustraps, and toilet cisterns are conscious. Telling me I'm ignorant is laughable. I don't believe in things like homeopathy, crystals or astrology so am I a "skeptic". When it comes to consciousness, you either believe it's produced by the brain (or toilet cisterns and mousetraps) or you don't. One view is Western Materialistic Atheism and the other view.. isn't. K?

Ask yourself with total honestly if there is any way this whole thing that you're into might not just be another faith-based mind-control/brain-washing cult. Really, really think about it.

It's entirely logical and fully supported by observation.

What, it's entirely logical and fully supported by observation that mousetraps and toilet cisterns are conscious? You're deluded.

You, on the other hand, cannot even offer definitions. You can't understand or even remember the simplest and most direct answers. Instead of addressing the point, you revert to ad hominem attacks. Why? What do you hope to prove by this?

Dude, I don't have to do anything apart from take you to the logical conclusions of your own views for you to make yourself look like an idiot. And don't give me any moping or grumbling about it, okay? I'm quite sure you're more than happy to join the chorus and talk about "woo" issuing ad hominem by the bucketload to anyone who declares their support for something you disagree with.

You made your own bed - you deal with it. I sure as hell didn't tell you to start believing toilet cisterns and micetraps were conscious.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[cpolk]

Hold up, everyone. HypnoPsy has not learned to read ahead and get "up-to-date" before replying in a forum, so let him have some time to catch up.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Well, if there is an afterlife and, we were meant to live beyond the temporal world of time and space, we only have to die once.

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.

 

[PixyMisa]

Now, do you accept you only have faith that a moustrap has a brief moment of consciousness or do you consider it fact?

Are you completely incapable of understanding simple sentences?

Aside from that, what is that single firing event in a mousetrap apart from motion? The mercury/alcohol in a thermostat is always in motion since temperature is never absolutely steady. Why doesn't that constant movement of mercury/alcohol count as consciousness while the springing of a mousetrap is a moment of consciousness, in your view?

Already answered.

Then please provide some examples. The more real-world examples of your "system" you provide the more we'll all be able to understand it by comparing and contrasting these examples with those you don't think are conscious.

Already answered.

Let's take H2O. Is it ever conscious when it's changing it's state from solid to liquid to vapour?

Already answered.

 

[Iacchus]

Well, if there is an afterlife and, we were meant to live beyond the temporal world of time and space, we only have to die once.

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?

 

[PixyMisa]

The water level causes the airball to rise and fall. Where does awareness come into it?

The airball is part of a larger system. The airball is not aware of the water level, any more than your eyes are aware of what they see. The system is aware.

Dude, you believe that moustraps, and toilet cisterns are conscious.

See the definition.

Telling me I'm ignorant is laughable. I don't believe in things like homeopathy, crystals or astrology so am I a "skeptic".

So?

When it comes to consciousness, you either believe it's produced by the brain (or toilet cisterns and mousetraps) or you don't. One view is Western Materialistic Atheism and the other view.. isn't. K?

No.

What, it's entirely logical and fully supported by observation that mousetraps and toilet cisterns are conscious?

Yes. This has already been explained in detail.

You're deluded.

No.

[qupte]Dude, I don't have to do anything apart from take you to the logical conclusions of your own views for you to make yourself look like an idiot.[/quote]
If you think these conclusions are not true, then show this.

And don't give me any moping or grumbling about it, okay? I'm quite sure you're more than happy to join the chorus and talk about "woo" issuing ad hominem by the bucketload to anyone who declares their support for something you disagree with.

If you think these conclusions are not true, then show this.

You made your own bed - you deal with it. I sure as hell didn't tell you to start believing toilet cisterns and micetraps were conscious.

I don't "believe" this. It follows from the definition and the properties of the systems in question. If you think these conclusions are not true, then show this.

If you disagree with the conclusion, then you must disagree with one or more of the following:

1. The definition of consicousness used.
2. The properties of the systems in question.
3. The logic applied.

Which of these do you think is incorrect, and why?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

We do know what is required for self-awareness: A second logic unit that is aware of the first. ("Sel awareness" is a misnomer, of course. You are only aware of parts of yourself. There are mental and physical functions going on all the time that you have no awareness of at all.)

The complexities of the human mind are things like learning, memory, vision and language. Self-awareness is one of the simplest things we do.

Brilliant! I'm surprised I didn't think of this myself, but that is a VERY good point. We are self aware because our self awareness is that self referencing program. What we are NOT aware of is the self aware program itself, except as deduced by logic mind you (just like we are aware of our hearts only as deduced by logic). In a sense, since our self awareness is actually the self referencing protocols, we aren't actually self aware at all, self awareness is just the part that is aware of the part being referenced.

Hold up, everyone. HypnoPsy has not learned to read ahead and get "up-to-date" before replying in a forum, so let him have some time to catch up.

I'm guilty of that myself .

 

[cpolk]

When someone says a toilet cistern has to be aware of the water level, they are not operating on this "truly aware" nature you define the word by. What you are operating under is the self referencing nature of being aware. When that person defines "aware", they merely mean the mechanical process of doing what it does. That's the only awareness it is ever capable of, by design. I myself don't use that definition of "aware", as I tend not to use that term when I program various flags, but I can see it's validity in a sense. If the toilet had the ability to render itself in a processor by some series of logic gates, then it would have the awareness you define the word by, self referencing. Very rudimentary though.

I don't want to nitpick and I don't want this to get out of hand. If it's going to go there, just don't reply. This is a rather silly direction to begin with.

Are the toilets at some major airports, which can detect users via sensors, flush automatically, automatically stop functioning if a problem is found in self-diagnostics, and sends diagnostic reports to maintainence, enough to qualify under this definition of "awareness", as rudimentary as it may be?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I don't want to nitpick and I don't want this to get out of hand. If it's going to go there, just don't reply. This is a rather silly direction to begin with.

Are the toilets at some major airports, which can detect users via sensors, flush automatically, automatically stop functioning if a problem is found in self-diagnostics, and sends diagnostic reports to maintainence, enough to qualify under this definition of "awareness", as rudimentary as it may be?

Hmm, as I defined it? Yes I suppose that is the case. Did I fail in my definition? I'm always open to criticism (except when I'm not, and shame on me for those times).

Perhaps then it is merely a matter as to how much the system is designed to be aware of and the level of internal processes, and most importantly how much of that is fed into a single self referencing program designed TO do all that processing and analyzing by using the self referencing capability?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Huh, I tried to read the posts, but nothing interesting. A flame war is not that fun.

BTW, HypnoPsi, you still dont answer my question. Would you tell us your own definition of consciousness? Maybe we are talking about different things.

 

[PixyMisa]

Brilliant! I'm surprised I didn't think of this myself, but that is a VERY good point. We are self aware because our self awareness is that self referencing program. What we are NOT aware of is the self aware program itself, except as deduced by logic mind you (just like we are aware of our hearts only as deduced by logic). In a sense, since our self awareness is actually the self referencing protocols, we aren't actually self aware at all, self awareness is just the part that is aware of the part being referenced.

Thanks. This is why I bother to argue with people like HP - because it makes me express my ideas clearly. It's only recently that I came to the conclusion that it's not consciousness that is the hard problem or the thing that makes us special; it's all the other stuff that philosophers ignore as trivial.

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

It seems to me that most of the people who object to materialist explanations of consciousness do so because they want to believe in something for which they have no evidence, most usually the persistence of identity.

 

[PixyMisa]

Huh, I tried to read the posts, but nothing interesting. A flame war is not that fun.

Yeah. Unfortunately, HypnoPsi is neither answering questions nor forming new ones of his own. Kind of brings the debate to a halt.

BTW, HypnoPsi, you still dont answer my question. Would you tell us your own definition of consciousness? Maybe we are talking about different things.

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

 

[PixyMisa]

Hmm, as I defined it? Yes I suppose that is the case. Did I fail in my definition? I'm always open to criticism (except when I'm not, and shame on me for those times).

Perhaps then it is merely a matter as to how much the system is designed to be aware of and the level of internal processes, and most importantly how much of that is fed into a single self referencing program designed TO do all that processing and analyzing by using the self referencing capability?

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.

 

[cpolk]

Hmm, as I defined it? Yes I suppose that is the case. Did I fail in my definition? I'm always open to criticism (except when I'm not, and shame on me for those times).

Perhaps then it is merely a matter as to how much the system is designed to be aware of and the level of internal processes, and most importantly how much of that is fed into a single self referencing program designed TO do all that processing and analyzing by using the self referencing capability?

I apologize, it is not your definitions that throw me off. I am simply trying to pinpoint a common ground that we can use for discussions such as this one. This wasn't aimed at you, it was just a general question.

For example, for "consciousness", we now have three tiers:

1. Purely mechanical, in the sense that something must be aware of whether or not conditions are met to activate a mechinism. This is the case of the common toilet tank that has only the mechanical function of differentiating between full and empty.

2. "Third-party", for lack of a better term, where awareness of the structure is formed by a diagnostic engine/program that is separate from the main function, but part of the structure itself. This describes both the automated toilets in my previous post as well as thought process of humans.

3. The "human" condition, which combines all aspect of our perception, from psychology to intelligence to education to learning to experiencing, without differentiating.