The scientific theory regarding consciousness

[reason1]

Hi, I invite you to discuss my physical and scientific definition of the state of consciousness, which is :
Consciousness is the state in which an entity is recalling any aspect of its prior state.

Note that, recalling and memorizing happen unconsciously, which means:
An entity that is unconsciously recalling any aspect of its prior state, which it unconsciously memorized, is conscious in regard to this aspect.

I claim that, my definition can explain any conscious experience and any unconscious state.
Examples :
- By my definition, ants are conscious entities.
- If at any certain moment, you cannot recall any aspect of your prior state, you will just fall to the ground, because this is by my definition, is the state of being unconscious.

Also according to this definition, theoretically, we can create entities that are even more conscious than us.
So , does anyone has any examples of conscious experiences (that are even virtual) that contradict this definition ?.

Note also that, the theory is still evolving, and I hope it gets me some media/academic attention for my MDC application.
Thanks.

PS: Please, this discussion is only for critical, free, open-minded, objective and deep thinkers, no derailment here !, OK ?

 

[Alkatran]

- I don't remember any of the "prior states" from before I was born, but I am considered conscious.

- Computers can store and retrieve "aka remember" plenty of prior states, but they are usually not considered conscious. Actually you don't even need to include the full computer: according to your definition the hard drive is the conscious part.

- In fact, prior states are recorded by pretty much everything all the time. Trees have rings, rocks have strata, genomes describe how to make an animal which survives at some point in time, the planet has a composition based on its early composition, etc. But none of those things are considered conscious.

- The definition is not testable, therefore not scientific.

I'll counter-define consciousness as being the quality of experiencing existence.
Not a great definition, but I contend its better than yours.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Might help if you elaborated a little.
http://192.38.103.200/cvc/Meetings/BaaFra2003.pdf

 

[Jeff Corey]

"recalling and memorizing happen unconsciously" is a meaningless statement.

 

[tsig]

Hi, I invite you to discuss my physical and scientific definition of the state of consciousness, which is :
Consciousness is the state in which an entity is recalling any aspect of its prior state.

Note that, recalling and memorizing happen unconsciously, which means:
An entity that is unconsciously recalling any aspect of its prior state, which it unconsciously memorized, is conscious in regard to this aspect.

I claim that my definition can explain any conscious experience. Also according to it, theoretically, we can create entities that are even more conscious than us.
So , does anyone has any examples of conscious experiences (that are even virtual) that contradict this definition ?.

Note also that, the theory is still evolving, and I hope it gets me some media/academic attention for my MDC application.
Thanks.

PS: Please, this discussion is only for critical, free, open-minded, objective and deep thinkers, no derailment here !, OK ?

Being aware of one's surroundings is nice if we want our consciousness to have continued existence.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Consciousness is the state in which an entity is recalling any aspect of its prior state.

The problem appears to be the the word "recalling" already implies consciousness, making the definition a tautology.

How about, Consciousness is the state in which an entity is aware of any aspect of its current state? Perhaps that is just as tautological as the former? (Aware = Consciousness)
In any case, defining consciousness is a tough nut to crack! I have read entire books that attempt to define consciousness; getting it done with one sentence may not be possible.

 

[blutoski]

Mm. reason1 deserves credit for trying, but I think it's a tall order to attempt to define consciousness, since nobody can agree on what constitutes consciousness anyway.

My personal opinion is that consciousness is a meta-feature. A person can be considered conscious if he is aware of his own existence. This can be demonstrated by answering questions about it.

Just as a counter-example, amnesiacs are certainly conscious by any definition. They can say "I'm sorry, but I can't remember anything about past states."

 

[reason1]

- I don't remember any of the "prior states" from before I was born, but I am considered conscious.

Hi, but I didn't say that you must recall all of your life prior states to be considered conscious, I said recalling any aspect of your prior state, makes you conscious in regard to this aspect.

- Computers can store and retrieve "aka remember" plenty of prior states, but they are usually not considered conscious.

I'm still thinking about , if current computers can be considered conscious, but by my definition, theoretically they can be conscious entities.

Actually you don't even need to include the full computer: according to your definition the hard drive is the conscious part.

No, hard drives are just memory, they just memorize prior states, they can't recall it by themselves, and hence by my definition hard drives are unconscious.

- In fact, prior states are recorded by pretty much everything all the time. Trees have rings, rocks have strata, genomes describe how to make an animal which survives at some point in time, the planet has a composition based on its early composition, etc. But none of those things are considered conscious.

Remember , I didn't say memorizing aspects of state at any certain moment, will make an entity conscious, I said recalling those aspects will.

- The definition is not testable, therefore not scientific.

I think it's testable.

I'll counter-define consciousness as being the quality of experiencing existence.
Not a great definition, but I contend its better than yours.

But you can't experience existence If you don't recall the state of perceiving it in the first place.

Might help if you elaborated a little.

Hi, for example, by my definition, insects are conscious entities, but also there is a degree of consciousness.
Another one, If at any certain moment, you cannot recall any aspect of your prior state, you will just fall to the ground, because this is by my definition, the state of being unconscious.

"recalling and memorizing happen unconsciously" is a meaningless statement.

Hi, why do you think so ?

Being aware of one's surroundings is nice if we want our consciousness to have continued existence.

Hi, yes, my definition applies here too, because for example, if you come out from a coma and say "where am I ?", that means that you recalled the state of seeing the strange surroundings, and hence, by my definition, you're conscious.

Consciousness is the state in which an entity is recalling any aspect of its prior state.

The problem appears to be the the word "recalling" already implies consciousness, making the definition a tautology.

How about, Consciousness is the state in which an entity is aware of any aspect of its current state? Perhaps that is just as tautological as the former? (Aware = Consciousness)
In any case, defining consciousness is a tough nut to crack! I have read entire books that attempt to define consciousness; getting it done with one sentence may not be possible.

Hi, but I did address this issue:

Note that, recalling and memorizing happen unconsciously, which means:
An entity that is unconsciously recalling any aspect of its prior state, which it unconsciously memorized, is conscious in regard to this aspect.

Mm. reason1 deserves credit for trying, but I think it's a tall order to attempt to define consciousness, since nobody can agree on what constitutes consciousness anyway.

Hi, but this is actually what I'm trying to do : what constitutes consciousness is, by my definition, the unconscious function that, at any certain moment make us memorize aspects of our state and then recall these aspects in the next state of our mind.

My personal opinion is that consciousness is a meta-feature. A person can be considered conscious if he is aware of his own existence. This can be demonstrated by answering questions about it.

Just as a counter-example, amnesiacs are certainly conscious by any definition. They can say "I'm sorry, but I can't remember anything about past states."

But notice something here, If they say "I'm sorry, but I can't remember anything about past states.", that indicates, they recalled the question "do you remember your past states ?". They recalled their prior state of hearing the question, and hence, by my definition they are conscious.

 

[CurtC]

Remember , I didn't say memorizing aspects of state at any certain moment, will make an entity conscious, I said recalling those aspects will.

Since you're saying that disk drives won't be conscious, according to your definition, because they don't have the will of what to recall, it seems to me that your idea of consciousness depends less on the idea of recalling states, and more on the idea of "the will." Maybe you can work on defining that.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'm still thinking about , if current computers can be considered conscious, but by my definition, theoretically they can be conscious entities.

Computers are entirely a result of our consciousnes. They do have, and never will have, their own consciousness. They will never do anything more than we consciously program them to do.

 

[plumjam]

I'm not sure to what extent it helps us to expend so much effort on formulating a verbal definition of consciousness. I haven't seen any that are quibbleproof, and, more importantly, we all already know - better than words - what consciousness is, by virtue of being it.
Words and concepts IMO just take you further away from what consciousness is.
Something like meditation will take you closer to it.

 

[dogjones]

Je pense, donc, je suis. NEXT!

 

[blutoski]

Hi, but this is actually what I'm trying to do : what constitutes consciousness is, by my definition, the unconscious function that, at any certain moment make us memorize aspects of our state and then recall these aspects in the next state of our mind.

Yes, and other people have different definitions. What I'm saying is that I accept that this is what 'conscious' means to you. It's important to understand that others disagree, and this is the problem with defining consciousness.

But notice something here, If they say "I'm sorry, but I can't remember anything about past states.", that indicates, they recalled the question "do you remember your past states ?". They recalled their prior state of hearing the question, and hence, by my definition they are conscious.

Maybe. How long a delay distinguishes 'stimulus-response' from 'conscious'?

eg: they may not be answering a recent question. It may be that they are simply aware that they can't recall past events, and are reporting this to all present. They may even repeat this over and over, regardless of the question asked.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Maybe. How long a delay distinguishes 'stimulus-response' from 'conscious'?

eg: they may not be answering a recent question. It may be that they are simply aware that they can't recall past events, and are reporting this to all present. They may even repeat this over and over, regardless of the question asked.

Which makes me think of Clive Wearing:

In a diary provided by his caretakers, Clive was encouraged to record his thoughts. Page after page is filled with entries similar to the following:

8:31 AM: Now I am really, completely awake.
9:06 AM: Now I am perfectly, overwhelmingly awake.
9:34 AM: Now I am superlatively, actually awake.​

Earlier entries are usually crossed out, since he forgets having made an entry within minutes and dismisses the writings--he doesn't know how the entries were made or by whom, although he does recognize his own writing.[1] Wishing to record the important life event of "waking up for the first time", he still writes diary entries as of 2007, more than two decades after he started them.

 

[Alkatran]

Hi, but I didn't say that you must recall all of your life prior states to be considered conscious, I said recalling any aspect of your prior state, makes you conscious in regard to this aspect.

My mistake. Miscommunication on the context of "any".

I'm still thinking about , if current computers can be considered conscious, but by my definition, theoretically they can be conscious entities.

Whether or not computers are conscious is a big question. They can meet pretty much all the testable requirements for consciousness.

No, hard drives are just memory, they just memorize prior states, they can't recall it by themselves, and hence by my definition hard drives are unconscious.

Hard drives can recall things by themselves, they just don't initiate the action. A being does not need to be conscious to instruct a hard drive to read data, so I don't think the initiation is the conscious part. Freewill might imply consciousness, but the reverse is not true [eg. being unable to control your actions but being aware of them].

Remember , I didn't say memorizing aspects of state at any certain moment, will make an entity conscious, I said recalling those aspects will.

I feel that "recall" is ambiguous here. If a tree sprouts leaves in the spring because that's what it genome codes it to do, is it recalling information from its genome?

I think it's testable.

How would you test it? How will you distinguish a p-zombie from a conscious being?

But you can't experience existence If you don't recall the state of perceiving it in the first place.

I disagree. You haven't explained why being conscious requires knowing you are conscious, you've just stated it as a common-sense fact. I disagree with that statement. Are babies not conscious before they conceive of being conscious? If you stop thinking about being conscious, do you become less conscious? If you aren't intelligent, are you less conscious?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

How does blindsight^WP fit into your theory?

ETA: and Anton-Babinski syndrome^WP

 

[CurtC]

Computers are entirely a result of our consciousnes. They do [not] have, and never will have, their own consciousness. They will never do anything more than we consciously program them to do.

Why not? What if our computer designs evolve to be more like brains? What if, after a long process of design evolution, we eventually build one that's basically just like a human brain? Will it be conscious? What if we then improve on that design?

I think pretty much everyone here would agree that these brain-like computers would indeed possess consciousness.

 

[Cuddles]

I'm still thinking about , if current computers can be considered conscious, but by my definition, theoretically they can be conscious entities.

In which case, even assuming that your definition makes sense (which I don't think it does), of what use is it supposed to be? Since your definition appears to include things as diverse as humans, ants and computers, what is the point? It's like having a definition of life that includes cars and fire. The whole reason for defining groups is to distinguish them from other groups by reference to a particular feature. Having a definition that is either too restrictive or not restrictive enough makes it rather a waste of time.

For example, I could define conciousness as "everything". However, if I actually want to talk about something in particular, I need a further point of reference, since I can't actually distinguish anything from anything else by referring to its conciousness. Your idea isn't quite that bad, but I think it is still bad enough to be useless. You need to come up with a definition that only includes things that are actually agreed to be concious, otherwise you're simply defining something else and using the wrong word to describe it.

 

[Perpetual Student]

In order to avoid tautological expressions and words like recall, which seem to imply consciousness, something like this may be useful:
Consciousness:
A state of being that is characterized by self generated continual acquisition and retention of current and past information about itself and its surroundings and the interactions thereof.

 

[reason1]

Whether or not computers are conscious is a big question. They can meet pretty much all the testable requirements for consciousness.

Hard drives can recall things by themselves, they just don't initiate the action. A being does not need to be conscious to instruct a hard drive to read data, so I don't think the initiation is the conscious part.

Since you're saying that disk drives won't be conscious, according to your definition, because they don't have the will of what to recall, it seems to me that your idea of consciousness depends less on the idea of recalling states, and more on the idea of "the will." Maybe you can work on defining that.

Hi, I didn't say that hard drive won't be conscious, I meant that , although a hard drive can contain stored states, it cannot recall those states by itself when it's not connected to any other entity.
The problem is, we must define the entity before trying to applying my definition, which is:
An entity that is unconsciously/unwillingly recalling/retaining a certain aspect of its prior state, which it unconsciously/unwillingly memorized, is conscious in regard to this aspect.
The two functions (recalling and memorizing) must be contained in one discrete entity for it to be considered conscious. but also an entity is formed from multible entities.
If you think about a hard drive, it has a physical memory, a circuit board for processing and the software , so it can be considered a computer. For computers, what we need to know is ,what the entity is.

Computers are entirely a result of our consciousnes. They do have, and never will have, their own consciousness. They will never do anything more than we consciously program them to do.

But notice that , this is the same case for us, we also were in the past just unconscious matter.

I'm not sure to what extent it helps us to expend so much effort on formulating a verbal definition of consciousness.

and, more importantly, we all already know - better than words - what consciousness is, by virtue of being it.
Words and concepts IMO just take you further away from what consciousness is.
Something like meditation will take you closer to it.

Yes, we tend to take things for granted, but everything in this world has a scientific explanation, and we must try to explain it even if we have to invent new terminology.

I haven't seen any that are quibbleproof,

I think mine is .

Je pense, donc, je suis. NEXT!

Hi, yes , when you are thinking, you are also unconsciously memorizing your state of being thinker, and at the next state of your mind you will recall that, so this indicates to you that you exist, and hence, by my definition, you are conscious at that moment.

Yes, and other people have different definitions. What I'm saying is that I accept that this is what 'conscious' means to you. It's important to understand that others disagree, and this is the problem with defining consciousness.

Hi, you're right, this is why I'm discussing my theory here.

Maybe. How long a delay distinguishes 'stimulus-response' from 'conscious'?

This is a very good question. It varies from entity to entity, and also it depends on the level of abstraction of the stimulus, for example :
Questions consist of words , which consist of letters, which consist of sounds , which consist of waves that have frequency and amplitude.
If an entity can memorize and recall certain number of waves as a sound , it's conscious in regard to hearing.
If an entity can memorize and recall certain number of sounds as a letter, it's conscious in regard to language.
If an entity can memorize and recall certain number of letters as a word of certain language, it's conscious in regard to this particular language.
If an entity can memorize and recall certain number of words as a question, it's conscious in regard to grammar.
And so on, the more a stimulus is abstract, the more is the delay to construct a unit for it before it can be memorized in the area which is reserved for this particular stimulus kind.
And then after a unit of stimulus is recalled, comes the appropriate response, which can be internal (e.g.: more abstraction) or external (e.g.: replying to the question).

Also there is a degree of consciousness which varies from time to time,for example:
When you go to your bed, first you are conscious and then as time passes, the degree of consciousness gradually decreases until you become unconscious. And then this operation is reversed when you're about to wake up.

eg: they may not be answering a recent question. It may be that they are simply aware that they can't recall past events, and are reporting this to all present. They may even repeat this over and over, regardless of the question asked.

Even if this is the case, they are also conscious by my definition, and that is because they're recalling their prior state of not remembering anything.

Which makes me think of Clive Wearing:

In a diary provided by his caretakers, Clive was encouraged to record his thoughts. Page after page is filled with entries similar to the following:
8:31 AM: Now I am really, completely awake.
9:06 AM: Now I am perfectly, overwhelmingly awake.
9:34 AM: Now I am superlatively, actually awake.
Earlier entries are usually crossed out, since he forgets having made an entry within minutes and dismisses the writings--he doesn't know how the entries were made or by whom, although he does recognize his own writing.[1] Wishing to record the important life event of "waking up for the first time", he still writes diary entries as of 2007, more than two decades after he started them.

Hi, well, by my definition, Clive is conscious but by less degree than us. Notice that he recalled his prior state of reading the first entries, and based on that, he confirms more that he is awake in later entries.He recalled prior states of his mind and acted accordingly.He was conscious in regard to reading the language.

Freewill might imply consciousness, but the reverse is not true [eg. being unable to control your actions but being aware of them].

I don't believe in freewill, because future events are only triggered by past ones.

How would you test it? How will you distinguish a p-zombie from a conscious being?

I don't believe in p-zombie , p-zombie is impossible to virtually exist !, an entity can't say "ouch" because of pain while it doesn't actually feel that pain !.

I disagree. You haven't explained why being conscious requires knowing you are conscious, you've just stated it as a common-sense fact. I disagree with that statement. Are babies not conscious before they conceive of being conscious? If you stop thinking about being conscious, do you become less conscious? If you aren't intelligent, are you less conscious?

No, i didn't mean that, I meant , to be able to experience existence you must first recall the state of sensing it. Recalling here happens unconsciously/unwillingly.

How does blindsight^WP fit into your theory?
ETA: and Anton-Babinski syndrome^WP

Well, I think,
In the case of blindsight^WP: Although those people can't recall the images which their eyes see, they are still conscious in regard to some abstract aspects of processing images.
In the case of Anton-Babinski syndrome^WP : Those people are dreaming, because some areas in their brain are not active (sleeping), when they should. And I'm still thinking about dreaming.

Also according to my theory, if someone suddenly loses all of his basic senses, and then think "what the hell happen to me ?", this means that he recalled his prior state of not sensing anything, and hence, by my definition, he is conscious in regard to neutral sensing, but unconscious in regard to these basic senses. Because the memory that are reserved for some aspects of those particular senses are now empty, he is not recalling prior states of them.

Why not? What if our computer designs evolve to be more like brains? What if, after a long process of design evolution, we eventually build one that's basically just like a human brain? Will it be conscious? What if we then improve on that design?

I think pretty much everyone here would agree that these brain-like computers would indeed possess consciousness.

Even more, they can become more conscious than us . Also theoretically we can live in a simulated virtual reality and we won't feel any difference !. We won't need our biological bodies and hence we will be able to live forever !..

In which case, even assuming that your definition makes sense (which I don't think it does), of what use is it supposed to be? Since your definition appears to include things as diverse as humans, ants and computers, what is the point? It's like having a definition of life that includes cars and fire. The whole reason for defining groups is to distinguish them from other groups by reference to a particular feature. Having a definition that is either too restrictive or not restrictive enough makes it rather a waste of time.

For example, I could define conciousness as "everything". However, if I actually want to talk about something in particular, I need a further point of reference, since I can't actually distinguish anything from anything else by referring to its conciousness. Your idea isn't quite that bad, but I think it is still bad enough to be useless. You need to come up with a definition that only includes things that are actually agreed to be concious,

Hi, yes, it's easier to apply my definition to entities that we know for sure that they're are conscious , but I think it can be also applied to any entity that is even virtual.

otherwise you're simply defining something else and using the wrong word to describe it.

Well, maybe I am, maybe my theory will evolve and become the theory of everything, you never know .

I feel that "recall" is ambiguous here. If a tree sprouts leaves in the spring because that's what it genome codes it to do, is it recalling information from its genome?

In my theory, recalling happens unconsciously/unwillingly. And I think this is the case with this tree, but the tree is not recalling what it itself memorized. and hence, by my definition, the tree is unconscious in regard to this genome aspect.
But also, according to my theory there is something conscious here, but what is it ?!. We need to construct an entity that contains both functions which are :
unconscious/unwilling memorizing and recalling.
So, I think, the conscious entity here can be the evolution of this tree's species that is recalling the mutations which it memorized in the genome of this tree's ancestors !.
What also assists this theory is that, when you examine species, you will find that they are fitted very well in their environment, it's like they are created by a super-conscious being , but it just happened to be conscious evolution !.

In order to avoid tautological expressions and words like recall, which seem to imply consciousness, something like this may be useful:
Consciousness:
A state of being that is characterized by self generated continual acquisition and retention of current and past information about itself and its surroundings and the interactions thereof.

Thanks, as I'm not a native english speaker, I'm having a hard time with the terminology.

PS: sorry if that was too long !.