What IS consciousness?

does the brain produce consciousness, wich is believed by physicalist sccience.....does cnsciousness produce metter as is believed by dualists....or are we to lok elsewhere?..are rocks conscious? atoms? quarks?..the wind?.....or does consciousness rely on the human brain....comeon give up ideas...........

Holy smokes, what a luhvely topic!

Consciousness is, I say. It is a quality of existence. And we exist in consciousness, reside in it.

Consciousness is a process (biochemical and electrical reactions between neurons) where brain* evaluates incoming (or new, self created) information against the data that has already been stored in it.

* It can be other organs or cells too (example - heliotropism), depends on the life form.

Holy smokes, what a luhvely topic!

Consciousness is, I say. It is a quality of existence. And we exist in consciousness, reside in it.

Consciousness is an interesting topic, there seems to be a fundamental paradox lurking behind any precise definition of consciousness. All too often philosophers discussing consciousness are talking right past one another because there is a curious self-reference intrinsic to the idea.
I'm going to argue that consciousness cannot be a quality of existence. After all, the subjective qualities of the world (qualia) are what we are conscious OF. The inverse of what you are saying, water, is true: consciousness does exist. This is a reformulation of the cogito, but one even more impervious to doubt. Regardless of whether there is a self or a thought, consciousness is still direct, immediate and present. It is the foundation of self-evidence. For this reason, it's also a paradox--the question of the nature of consciousness is another way of stating the mind-body problem. It's a singularity which is, at the same time, the medium through which both subjective thoughts and objective sense-data are interpreted, interact and made into one thing. The mind-body problem is along the lines of: well, thoughts and ideas are different sorts of 'things' than the real-world phenomena they refer to, like viruses, baseballs, airplanes, etc. Mental and physical substances cannot be reduced to one another, and they seem to be so different that it's difficult to construct a theory as to how they interact. Consciousness, so difficult to explain, accomplishes this mediation of the mental and the physical, since it transcends both. Explaining consciousness fully would involve some kind of solution to the mind-body problem.

Is there a paradox in my definition?

Is there a paradox in my definition?

Well, besides that it is stating an identity, and is ultimately circular, nothing.

How is it, I pray, circular?
And what did you mean by stating an identity?

As far as I am aware my definition explains everything:

life - perception and evaluation of information against the data stored

death - termination of the process due to critical changes in the physical structure which had created and sustained the process.

soul (for the religios people) - there is no need for a soul, because our consciousness doesn't exist as a seperate thing that needs a seperate termination or continuation.

psychic illnesses - changes in the physical structure that result in invalid evaluation of the incoming (or new) information, or damaging changes in the already stored data.

self - it doesn't exist as a thing in us, it's a process that is the biochemical and electrical reactions in the brain (neurons and the rest), therefore we have different selfs at different times (joung and old, awake and asleep, etc) and psychically ill patiets may have many selfs active at once.

I think a lot of people make errors while thinking about consciousness because they tend to romanticise the subject, they think that it should be something grander than there is a need for.
Cultural and religious stereotypes come into play too.

Consciousness is an interesting topic, there seems to be a fundamental paradox lurking behind any precise definition of consciousness.

There is a paradox lurking behind definitions anyway.
It just becomes more apparent some times than some other times.


I'm going to argue that consciousness cannot be a quality of existence. After all, the subjective qualities of the world (qualia) are what we are conscious OF.

Well [leaving aside all the problems with definitions and reductionist fallacies ...] I'd say that we can't experience existence per se, but need consciousness to do it. If existence preceeds us and produces us, and our consciousness, then I'd intuitively say that to us, consciousness is a quality of existence.


Regardless of whether there is a self or a thought, consciousness is still direct, immediate and present.
It is the foundation of self-evidence.

This is how we know of consciousness, yes.


For this reason, it's also a paradox--the question of the nature of consciousness is another way of stating the mind-body problem.

It can be -- but how do you draw the line between the "mind" and the "body"?


It's a singularity which is, at the same time, the medium through which both subjective thoughts and objective sense-data are interpreted, interact and made into one thing.

And I think that for this, some feature capable of quality is necessary.


The mind-body problem is along the lines of: well, thoughts and ideas are different sorts of 'things' than the real-world phenomena they refer to, like viruses, baseballs, airplanes, etc. Mental and physical substances cannot be reduced to one another, and they seem to be so different that it's difficult to construct a theory as to how they interact. Consciousness, so difficult to explain, accomplishes this mediation of the mental and the physical, since it transcends both.

How come consciousness can do that?

...
I'm going to argue that consciousness cannot be a quality of existence. ...
Mental and physical substances cannot be reduced to one another, and they seem to be so different that it's difficult to construct a theory as to how they interact. Consciousness, so difficult to explain, accomplishes this mediation of the mental and the physical, since it transcends both. Explaining consciousness fully would involve some kind of solution to the mind-body problem.

Ahhh... a Dualist. :-)
You're assuming that there is indeed such a thing as a mental substance (an interesting contradiction...). This is, of course, where all dualists have gone wrong. There is no mind-body problem, if one is prepared to agree that what are called mental objects, are in fact nothing but physical processes. This naturally leads one to the conclusion that consciousness is indeed an epiphenomenal result of physio-chemical processes in the brain. Always remember Ockham's Razor. :-)

How is it, I pray, circular?
And what did you mean by stating an identity?

It is typical for definitions that they are ultimately circular and stating identities.

http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

Scroll down to "II. Definition".

My definition explains consciousness quite well, I don't see where you have a logical problem with it.
If I'd rename it to some other name (theory for example) would you still have that problem?

Always remember Ockham's Razor. :-)

*can't resist*

Occham's Razor is for people who lack imagination.

(Although it was better when Mulder said it.)

It is typical for definitions that they are ultimately circular and stating identities.

http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html

Scroll down to "II. Definition".

LOL
Come on water, you can do better than that.
First off, that's ad verecundiam .
Second, you're appeal is to Quine, a nominalist; obviously a nominalist is going to have a problem with reasoning of this type...
Stick to the argumant as it stands.

*can't resist*

Occham's Razor is for people who lack imagination.

(Although it was better when Mulder said it.)

Please.
The Razor is the only thin keeping comtemporary philosophy going. Otherwise we would all still be wondering about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, etc...

My definition explains consciousness quite well, I don't see where you have a logical problem with it.
If I'd rename it to some other name (theory for example) would you still have that problem?

Consciousness is a process (biochemical and electrical reactions between neurons) where brain* evaluates incoming (or new, self created) information against the data that has already been stored in it.

What are "biochemical and electrical reactions between neurons"?
What is "evaluating"?
What is "information"?


Are there absolutes?

Please.
The Razor is the only thin keeping comtemporary philosophy going. Otherwise we would all still be wondering about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, etc...

What else is there to wonder about ...

But thank you for having faith in me.

LOL
I sincerely hope you jest.

What are "biochemical and electrical reactions between neurons
Electrical signals being sent through synaptic connections

What is "evaluating"?
An example: a kid is born, he is being beaten by a stick by his father, the data is stored in the brain, kid grows up a bit and is not aware of the childhood events any more, then one evening his father comes in with a stick, the kid is panic stricken.
Now, he has that dynamic emotion exactly because there is data stored in his brain of the former abuse, he wouldn't have had that emotion connected with the stick if there was no data in the brain concerning the early childhood events.

What the brain did was: incoming information [father+stick] -> evaluation [(father+stick) against stored data (father+stick=pain)] -> result [it is going to pain] -> reaction [instinctive action+emotion = terror]

What is "information"?
Data that is understood. We can't know memories of other people by eating their brain, although (if the brain is fresh enough) we are eating data.

Are there absolutes?
Explain or state your question more clearly.

LOL
I sincerely hope you jest.

Question is, about what?

Electrical signals being sent through synaptic connections

And what are "electrical signals"? ...

You see, if one ascribes to the atomistic theory of meaning, then definitions are easy and non-circular, and absolutes exist, you have something solid to start from. Science has being doing that for a long time.
It's just that it never works out, and things must be redefined over and over again.

And what are "electrical signals"? ...

You see, if one ascribes to the atomistic theory of meaning, then definitions are easy and non-circular, and absolutes exist, you have something solid to start from. Science has being doing that for a long time.
It's just that it never works out, and things must be redefined over and over again.

OK water, please tell us, what are 'electrical signals' in your estimation?

By the by, Avatar's definition had nothing to do with an 'atomistic theory of meaning', especially considering there is no such theory. If anything, his definition would fit within a Coherence theory of meaning, wherein one will find a lovely methodology we call the 'scientific method'. Given that we do not have an a priori system of knowledge, this scientific method thing seems to work pretty well for now.

And what are "electrical signals"? ...
That what are electrical signals doesn't matter here. My definition would be equally valid if electric signals were bees, odour of soil or a form of energy of the universe, as long as they follow the synaptic connections (regarding the human brain).

You can ask a "and what is" question about any physical thing in this universe and we would have to go deeper and deeper, but it stops at the energy released at the big bang, there are no sublevels of it. What is energy? MC^2

I still see no problems with my definition. If you see maybe you have some problems of perception, or maybe I have.
Either way at this stage other readers are well able to choose which opinion they agree to.

ciao

OK water, please tell us, what are 'electrical signals' in your estimation?

I don't know; except that we can always ask "And what is ...?"


By the by, Avatar's definition had nothing to do with an 'atomistic theory of meaning', especially considering there is no such theory.

Holism can be contrasted with two other views: molecularism and atomism. Molecularism characterizes meaning and content in terms of a relatively small part of the web that many different theories may share. For example, the meaning of 'bachelor' might be said by a molecularist to be man who has never married. And the meaning of 'and' might be given by a molecularist version of inferential role semantics (see SEMANTICS, CONCEPTUAL ROLE) via specifying that the inference from 'p and q' to p and from p, q to 'p and q' has a special status (e.g. it might be primitively compelling, in Peacocke's terms). Atomism characterizes meaning and content in terms of none of the web; it says that sentences and beliefs have meaning or content independently of their relations to any other sentences or beliefs and therefor independently of any theories in which they appear.

Source (http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/MentalSemanticHolism.html).

One can do around with definitions as if they were finite only if one subscribes to the atomism of meaning.


If anything, his definition would fit within a Coherence theory of meaning, wherein one will find a lovely methodology we call the 'scientific method'.

Given that we do not have an a priori system of knowledge, this scientific method thing seems to work pretty well for now.

The thing is that it is being constantly upgraded, while at the same time each stage is treated as if it were finite ...

Consciousness is the capacity to understand that there is more than just this time (the now), and reject or accept the notion.

I've been thinking like this and can't figure around it yet:

We experience time, a progression of moments and contexts.

Our minds have the capacity to create these contexts based on the moments that preceded it, and the moments it predicts may be coming.

This creates the capacity for somethign I can't decide is an illusion, or indicative of something about the universe that is generally over-looked.

The human mind, existing in more than just an infinitessimally thin slice of time - has more time in it at one time than just that time, because what's there is actually just abstracted representations of preceding or forthcoming time, organized to satisfy whatever structure existed prior to the stimulous currently in question.

As such, a "time oddity" occurs to me. There is no more time right now than just right now according to a clock stopped right now on the wall. There is no moment. You cannot stop it and say "this is it". However, there is obviously a moment - cuz I'm typing this in it right now. It's a regurgitation of other moments, freestyled into my current mode and detail of thought.

So the extremely half-assed mathematician/scientist side of me wants to account for this with consideration of dimensionality. Given that there is no more time than right now, but yet there is... I makes me think of a means of information storage perpedicular (or a bubble) to the timeline. The "oh my god you're a retard wes" side of me thinks "dude, you're a retard, and you just can't accept that you're wrong". We could say as glaucon insists above, something about the brain being a "gestalt" or something (bad paraphrase, pardon). But where is a gestalt? I can't touch it. The meaning of it could be ripped away by destroying the brain the houses it - but is it really gone? For in the moment it existed, what it the nuerons, or was it simply their arrangment? What difference is there in this arrangment between it and an infinity of others? That it is relative to a POV and indicates weight within it, is more than just "cells firing" to me. To me it implies "there is something called abstract space", which is the "possibility space" of ideas. There are rules to this space like, "logic provides order".

Meh. Could be that I'm retarded.

The feeling of separation between what I think is me and what I think is not me. Without this separation, I could not say "I am" (consciousness)

Duendy:

Although you and I often clash on many a topic, I must commend you for bringing this discussion up.

I shall offer my comments later.

Our minds have the capacity to create these contexts based on the moments that preceded it, and the moments it predicts may be coming.

This creates the capacity for somethign
What capacity? I think it's just reaction. Please, let me explain.
For instance an indian warrior rides on his horse to battle and shouts "this is a good day to die!",
he has data/information in his brain (due to some philosophical idea) that dying is nothing bad and so his reaction when an enemy comes forward is emotional uplift, maybe joy that the battle will start.
And we have another man that has nothing to do with battle and his wife just recently died, so he is terrified of death and when he sees the same enemy he runs away in horror.

Now, these are two reactions to an identical situation. The reacions are dependent on the data/information in an individual brain.

All that we have is the capacity to create and/or perceive new data and later react according to it when it is evaluated against some newer input.

The time illusion concept I think is unneeded, because what we do at the present moment is an interaction of two types of data -> new and already stored.

Or maybe I am missing something from your argument. Please look at my definition of the consciousness at the first page and say where you see a problem when applying your own definition beside or you don't agree to it at all.
It will make me easier to understand the problem you are having with the consciousness as such.

Ah, Prince_James, I remember we had a nice discussion about the nature of reality, thanks to your valuable input I'm thinking of rewriting it mainly when dealing with the (non?) existance of consciousness, though I'm sure we'll still disagree with each other. :p

Awaiting your input here too.

in my reponse tp your explanation Avatar--and believe it, i m only really exploring this myself...trying to understand through exploring about it--that what you describe is the measureable.

For example if i may summarize....you describ electrical activity, synaptic interaction, and behaviour of people in similarsituations etc--anything i've missed out?

Well that seems to m what neurology and psychology do. in that they pertian to be able to MEASURE OBJECTIVELY consciousness , but NOT the inner FEELING of that consciousness. This is being called 'the Hard Problem. in cognitive science. That we cannot know wat the subjective feeling, or 'qualia' is for an entity.

This this implies the problem of knowing the entireity of consciousess

in my reponse tp your explanation Avatar--and believe it, i m only really exploring this myself...trying to understand through exploring about it--that what you describe is the measureable.

For example if i may summarize....you describ electrical activity, synaptic interaction, and behaviour of people in similarsituations etc--anything i've missed out?

Not in simmilar situations, just in situations and even if there is no situation at all, a human can create a situation/data that has no direct external input.

And people may not be aware to what they are reacting to, you have to take sub- and unconsciousness in mind too, deeper level processes are mostly not known to an awake mind,
I think that is what you call unmeasurable. I'd disagree that it is unmeasurable, it is just harder to measure for the awake consciousness.
Who knows, maybe your unconsciousness does it all the time.



What do you understand with the "inner feeling"? Are you refering to the deeper level processes I mentioned? In that case that is when people are aware of some portion of the deeper level thought process happening, but they are not aware of it fully.

This this implies the problem of knowing the entireity of consciousess
That is what psychology and meditations are for - to explore the consciousness,
that is to say, to be indirectly aware of and indirectly understand as much synaptic connections as possible.

I was surprised to find criticism to the few observations I was making; I thought most of the things I was saying were intuitively obvious starting from traditional interpretations of the terms mind, body, consciousness, etc. I was not actually trying to say anything so radical as perhaps some of you are thinking, and maybe my writing was a little muddled earlier, so I want to clarify a few things about my position on this matter:

Consciousness cannot be a "quality of existence" but consciousness CAN be a *property* of *existents* (sorry, I'm aware that my earlier wording invited ambiguity.) Calling consciousness a "quality" of "existence" seems backwards to me: after all, we are conscious of existence and this awareness is called experience. I am arguing that the phenomena of experience has not yet been satisfactorily explained in philosophical (theories of consciousness,) psychological (cognitive abilities or functions) and/or physical (neurobiological) terms. This situation is essentially a reformulation of the mind/body problem: how does the subjective, conscious experience of a visual sensation (say, seeing a white car right now) arise from the neurobiological substratum we call the brain, even if we look as deeply as interactions between neurons. No matter how accurate our models of the brain, even if we identify the segments which engage in an arbitrarily complex, parallel, interrelated information processing, we have only found the biological correlate of awareness. We have not localized consciousness, yet it seems localized in US; this is the kind of paradox I'm speaking of--and I'm aware that the seduction of language makes it very easy for people to talk past one another on this issue, so I shall endeavor to be clear. So, in other words, even if we could point to the PART of the brain that makes consciousness happen, we have still not explained HOW this entity which is a completely metaphysical other--conscious experience--arises out of the same kind of substance as viruses, baseballs, airplanes, etc. The problem is still one of explaining interaction. The problem is paradoxical because it is consciousness itself which mediates this interaction between physical sensations and thoughts, between matter and mind--what we shall argue is some sort of non-physical, non-localized, non-deterministic "substance" (I know the word is loaded with dualisms, but consciousness is neither imagined, socially constructed or neurobiological; it is therefore something metaphysically different. Mind is NOT the same thing as body, although--once again with the paradoxes, watch out--both are unified through consciousness, since it is a singularity. To continue:) It is indeed interesting that quantum physics has suggested that certain kinds of subatomic particles exhibit qualities like nondeterminism, nonlocalization, etc; these are fascinating findings, but the question still remains how the behavior of any kind of physical particles could even interact with, much less constitute conscious experience. Simply because both are mysterious we cannot call them the same mystery.

To everyone, but especially Glaucon:

Since Ockham's Razor is being bandied about, it would be best if everyone keeps in mind that Ockham's Razor does not say that one ought to cut down everything down to the simplest terms alone, but the simplest -and correct- terms. If the equation should read 3x + 5/6 (-34 - 22), then reducing it to 3x + 5/6 is improper. This may well be the case with Dualism, specifically if there is such a thing as Free-Will. Moreover, the ability to actually think thoughts, to perceive them in the mind's eye, does not seem to be fully accounted for by pure Materialism, or as of yet, has not been so. The problem, however, is actually saying that there are material substances and mental substances and these are polar opposites, which begs the question of how they can possibly interact. That's the true Mind-Body Problem.

Avatar:

If you accept that the brain is not the only organ capable of producing consciousness, what do they all share which produces consciousness in your theory?

Joeman:

Even though I fundementally assert that Glaucon was wrong in his attack against your Dualism, we still must take into consideration that, perhaps, mental substances and physical substances are -not- really different.

I definitely agree that we should not hastily impose a dichotomous interpretation onto the mind/body "situation." I believe that you are fundamentally accurate, that the difference IS one of perception and distinction. The distinction between mind and body is posterior to consciousness itself. The distinction is primarily a practical one which is difficult to defend in theory since the language is perversely confused on this point (especially about belief and knowledge.) I will admit 'substance' is a rather dramatic term, in that it sets up 'mind' and 'body' as polar opposites. I'm "I (heart) Huckabees" on this one: it's an essential unity which is also an infity. Everything is interrelated. But everything is not conscious experience either--I still think we are dealing with something genuinely metaphysical here that neurobiological or psychological methods are simply not equipped to handle, or even begin to answer the kinds of questions with the kinds of precision we want.

To everyone, but especially Glaucon:

... Moreover, the ability to actually think thoughts, to perceive them in the mind's eye, does not seem to be fully accounted for by pure Materialism, or as of yet, has not been so. The problem, however, is actually saying that there are material substances and mental substances and these are polar opposites, which begs the question of how they can possibly interact. That's the true Mind-Body Problem.

Which is exactly my point in invoking Ockham. Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. Ergo, there is no need, nor reason, to create non-physical entities to attempt to explain our experiences. I'm not claiming that a purely Materialist analysis can account for those things we cannot (as yet) explain. But to invoke 'ghosts' is to reduce us to fiction, and indeed to violate the Razor (and, in my opinion, reason).

... we still must take into consideration that, perhaps, mental substances and physical substances are -not- really different.

All too true. Just as I am bound not to exclude non-physical possibilities.


And for the record, my main concern here was water's disregard for the dialectic, moreso than the argument. Anyone can play quid pro quo; he failed to provide a counter position of his own.

If you accept that the brain is not the only organ capable of producing consciousness, what do they all share which produces consciousness in your theory?
The ability to react to outer stimuli according to the data/information stored, i.e., any level of consciousness operates with information stored in the same organism / life form, i.e., consciousness is that process of operation.

The more it can operate (that is to say - make choices) with the information, the more developed the consciousness.

Which is exactly my point in invoking Ockham. Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. Ergo, there is no need, nor reason, to create non-physical entities to attempt to explain our experiences. I'm not claiming that a purely Materialist analysis can account for those things we cannot (as yet) explain. But to invoke 'ghosts' is to reduce us to fiction, and indeed to violate the Razor (and, in my opinion, reason).
I agree with glaucon here, there is no need to to explain something with more than it is required.
Imo, the idea of consciousness as a process explains and predicts everything quite nicely.

What do you think about artificial intelligence?

We don't have an artificial intelligence yet. All that we have are automata, i.e., all the choices/reactions have been premade to them by human consciousness and they act according to those (instructions).

But when/if we create a real A.I., then there will be a new consciousness on this planet. Carbon, silicon or something other based - it doesn't matter.

So from the silence, I guess I should take it that "I'm retarded" is the consensus? Hmm. Yeah okay I can buy that. :)

I definitely see the logic behind using Occam's Razor. All things being equal, we should not attempt to invoke as few 'fundamentals' as possible, not creating entities which cannot be described in materialistic or behavioristic terms to explain things which ARE describable in materialistic terms. For example, we don't need to invoke the 'soul' in this discussion because the idea because it lacks explanatory power, i.e., doesn't functionally illuminate the process of consciousness--also, it's an unnecessary hypothesis, which in general it is correct to say we should avoid. I'm saying, however, that consciousness is an exception, but not just an ad hoc exception. We don't need to postulate consciousness, because this is already circular since we ARE consciousness, most primarily and fundamentally the relation of the self to "reality" (sense data, self-evident truth, observations, hypotheses, etc) is fully described in the notion of conscious experience. It can't be derived logically FROM our physical theories of the nature of reality since it precedes theorization entirely. But this is unremarkable. What is remarkable is that, recognizing this, we also recognize the limitations of materialism AND idealism to fully describe reality. Dualism doesn't go away just because it seems 'messy'. --please help me if my thinking is incorrect about this. I am very curious about this subject; this is just the way it seems to me.

Rather, we *SHOULD* attempt to invoke as few fundamentals as possible.

It can't be derived logically FROM our physical theories of the nature of reality since it precedes theorization entirely
How does it do that?
I see absolutely no impartial and scientific reasons for dualism.
In what does consciousness as a process does not satisfy you with an explanation?

I definitely see the logic behind using Occam's Razor. All things being equal, we should not attempt to invoke as few 'fundamentals' as possible, not creating entities which cannot be described in materialistic or behavioristic terms to explain things which ARE describable in materialistic terms.

While an idea is describable in material terms, its content... the experience of it - is not. Consciousness cannot currently be completely explained in material terms. I have a huge problem in my own mind with the quandry: "where does anything abstract fit into spacetime?" There is simply no place to put it. It only exists fleetingly in mind from an internal "I experience this" kind of perspective, yet, it's is real, as if it were not, we could not have this conversation. As such, I postulate a fundamental: "abstract space", which I've hypothesized may exist in Hawking's 'imaginary time'.

We don't need to postulate consciousness, because this is already circular since we ARE consciousness, most primarily and fundamentally the relation of the self to "reality" (sense data, self-evident truth, observations, hypotheses, etc) is fully described in the notion of conscious experience.

No but we do need to postulate the conditions under which consciousness can come to be if we are to understand it.

It can't be derived logically FROM our physical theories of the nature of reality since it precedes theorization entirely.

Perhaps it can't be specifically derived from them, but it certainly can/could be a logical mutation of them (so to speak).

But this is unremarkable. What is remarkable is that, recognizing this, we also recognize the limitations of materialism AND idealism to fully describe reality.

Are you saying 'reality' has been fully described? Did I miss it? Where, who?

Dualism doesn't go away just because it seems 'messy'. --please help me if my thinking is incorrect about this. I am very curious about this subject; this is just the way it seems to me.

Actually I think if you allow the degree of freedom I hypothesize, duality... well. Hmm.. it seems to me in mathematics, where there appears to be duality, the math is either wrong, or you're looking into more dimensions than you may have considered.

While an idea is describable in material terms, its content... the experience of it - is not. Consciousness cannot currently be completely explained in material terms. I have a huge problem in my own mind with the quandry: "where does anything abstract fit into spacetime?" There is simply no place to put it. It only exists fleetingly in mind from an internal "I experience this" kind of perspective, yet, it's is real, as if it were not, we could not have this conversation. As such, I postulate a fundamental: "abstract space", which I've hypothesized may exist in Hawking's 'imaginary time'.
So, if I say it's a process that accesses data on demand and that demand is continuous and simultaneous, i.e., lots of data accessed simultaneously, where's the problem?
I really don't see why we should import abstract spacetime into this, although we can perceive time differently at different times.

So, if I say it's a process that accesses data on demand and that demand is continuous and simultaneous, i.e., lots of data accessed simultaneously, where's the problem?

You haven't defined the process? How does it work? What is it that accesses data or demands it? When it does, where does the data go? Why does it do this?

I really don't see why we should import abstract spacetime into this, although we can perceive time differently at different times.

Then tell me where ideas fit into space-time. You can put a hard drive or a piece of art in front of me, but without me there to observe it, it is not an idea. When I do, my capacity to experience it abstractly cues up and now it's an idea. (subjectively of course, as it could be an idea in other people's minds who of course, would have had to undergone the same transition I did for it to go from being part of "the great unknown" to part of the ideas in my mind)

You haven't defined the process? How does it work? What is it that accesses data or demands it? When it does, where does the data go? Why does it do this?
As the process I understand the reactions that happen in the brain, namely, creation of synaptic connections and electrical signals being sent through them.

I'm not a neurologist, so I have no in depth knowledge of how exactly does it work,
and unfortunately I'm very busy right now with writing a report, so I don't have the time to learn that.

Then tell me where ideas fit into space-time. You can put a hard drive or a piece of art in front of me, but without me there to observe it, it is not an idea. When I do, my capacity to experience it abstractly cues up and now it's an idea. (subjectively of course, as it could be an idea in other people's minds who of course, would have had to undergone the same transition I did for it to go from being part of "the great unknown" to part of the ideas in my mind)
An idea is new data created by the brain.
You see the painting, perceive it, brain compares/evaluates it against all the other data (that may be related to the picture) stored in it, maybe all your past emotions when you've seen other works of art, your knowledge in art, etc, and when it's done it reacts by creating an emotion, idea, description and what not.
Oh, and lots of ideas are created in the unconsciousness, so you might not always be aware of what you are thinking about in deeper levels of consciousness, i.e., spontaneous ideas (ideas that seem spontaneous to the awake consciousness), behaviour, etc.

As the process I understand the reactions that happen in the brain, namely, creation of synaptic connections and electrical signals being sent through them.

All that happens sure, but there is no accepted or even proposed theory of which I'm aware that says "x->y-> consciousness". So the process is not defined at the moment.

I'm not a neurologist, so I have no in depth knowledge of how exactly does it work, and unfortunately I'm very busy right now with writing a report, so I don't have the time to learn that.

Though many nuerologists likely do have in-depth knowledge, not a one of them can tell you for sure how consciousness "as a process" happens. There are a lot of hypothesis (what's the plural of hypothesis?), but no working theories.

An idea is new data created by the brain.

An idea is not "data" as I think of it. "data" is information. An idea is a subjectively heirarchical, abstracted synthesis of data. Perhaps it's arguable that this is also data. Hmm. Regardless, there is no known means to encapsulate "an idea" that isn't mutated by each instance of experiencing it. There is no real good working definition of a concept in terms of data either. Given that to me, the mind is a working concept engine (so to speak), your explanation falls far short of usefullness in my own comprehension and ideas regarding the topic.

Oh, and lots of ideas are created in the unconsciousness, so you might not always be aware of what you are thinking about in deeper levels of consciousness, i.e., spontaneous ideas (ideas that seem spontaneous to the awake consciousness), behaviour, etc.

So now the "process" has levels? Are they definable? I'm not trying to be mean, I just mean that it seems if you're trying to even remotely explain yourself, just invoking "levels of consciousness" is pretty short, but I do understand what you're getting at. I just see the whole process differently. IMO, these "levels of consciousness" are indicative of pre-existing conceptual relationships which the mind forms in subjectively geometric relationships to one another, representing abstracted experiences to be re-experienced when stimulous triggers a reaction similar to that which triggers the formation of that section of the geometry in the first place. *phew*

Okay it's a lot easier just to say "process". Agreed. :)

An idea is not "data" as I think of it. "data" is information. An idea is a subjectively heirarchical, abstracted synthesis of data. Perhaps it's arguable that this is also data. Hmm. Regardless, there is no known means to encapsulate "an idea" that isn't mutated by each instance of experiencing it. There is no real good working definition of a concept in terms of data either. Given that to me, the mind is a working concept engine (so to speak), your explanation falls far short of usefullness in my own comprehension and ideas regarding the topic.

Why an idea is not data? It's something new that has been created on the basis of (multiple) other data.
Every new mutated form of the idea is new data using some parts of the old idea as one of the base data.
I see no problems with this explanation, of course, I might be missing somethning.
If so, please point it out.

So now the "process" has levels? Are they definable? I'm not trying to be mean, I just mean that it seems if you're trying to even remotely explain yourself, just invoking "levels of consciousness" is pretty short, but I do understand what you're getting at.
Sorry if I used an unscientific term, I ment consciousness, unconsciousness and subconsciousness. They are not seperate minds of course, but I had to use those words to describe the different ways our mind can work.

these "levels of consciousness" are indicative of pre-existing conceptual relationships which the mind forms in subjectively geometric relationships to one another, representing abstracted experiences to be re-experienced when stimulous triggers a reaction similar to that which triggers the formation of that section of the geometry in the first place.

Okay it's a lot easier just to say "process". Agreed.
Exactly :D

The problem is that an idea weaves together concepts. There is no conceptualishness about data at all.

There is no conceptualishness about data at all.
But concepts can be written as data that our conciousness can operate with, no?

It could be hypothesized as such, but I don't think that "data" is the appropriate term... that's why we call them "concepts" instead. Data has no life, it is dead information. Concepts are full of life and subjectively, a fundamental building block of mind. Data as I see it, is heirarchally lower than concepts. A concept may require or incorporate data, but it is not data as I see it.

Well, I can't really argue with a subjective view, also because my view most likely would be subjective too. ;) :D

My mostly subjective view is that concepts really are different data with special relations between them which are created by our consciousness, i.e., there is not one file (so to say) for one concept, but there are many files which if viewed together in particular relationship make a concept.

That is my view, but it's not something that I'd stand and die for. And I have done no special research in this field of concepts.

Consciousness is the Reality some call Samadhi, Kundalini, Self, Atman.

It is an ocean of unfathomable JOY in which the universe is just an imaginary drop.

Everything else is thoughts. Thoughts are Consciousness' Nothing, fiction.
Life, death, the body, universe, thinking ... these are all thoughts that are Reality's Nothing: fiction.

Life is not even a dream because compared to Consciousness it is nothing, fiction, thoughts.

JoeTheMan:

Welcome to SciForums, by the way.

Now, in what way do you think we are dealing with something relates back to metaphysics? What aspect of consciousness do you rightfully believe relates to ontology (as I assume you don't mean First Principles or Theology)?

glaucon:

Which is exactly my point in invoking Ockham. Do not multiply entities beyond necessity. Ergo, there is no need, nor reason, to create non-physical entities to attempt to explain our experiences. I'm not claiming that a purely Materialist analysis can account for those things we cannot (as yet) explain. But to invoke 'ghosts' is to reduce us to fiction, and indeed to violate the Razor (and, in my opinion, reason).

We need not necessarily resort to "ghosts", but the peculiarities of the mental do at least partially warrant investigation and do not require us to resort to Ockham's just yet. Whilst a "ghost" would require some sort of empirical verification and might not be at play here, we still might be dealing with a whole new class of "substances" or something entirely different than expected.

And for the record, my main concern here was water's disregard for the dialectic, moreso than the argument. Anyone can play quid pro quo; he failed to provide a counter position of his own.

Understood.

Avatar:

The ability to react to outer stimuli according to the data/information stored, i.e., any level of consciousness operates with information stored in the same organism / life form, i.e., consciousness is that process of operation.

The more it can operate (that is to say - make choices) with the information, the more developed the consciousness.

So, in essence, the ability to sense = consciousness, yes? With the lowest level probably found somewhere around primitive bacteria and algae, and the top level with humans, apes, elephants, whales, and dolphins, followed by the carnivores and such?

I agree with glaucon here, there is no need to to explain something with more than it is required.
Imo, the idea of consciousness as a process explains and predicts everything quite nicely.

Some of the aspects of consciousness are peculiar, though. If there is such a thing as free will - which all signs point to no, but let's just take it hypothetically - then this would distinguish conscious beings from everything in the universe. Moreover, even if there isn't, the ability to recollect, to store data, to imagine, to dream...All these things are unexplored to the fullest extent.

As regards Artificial Intelligence:

Over in the AI board, under one of the topics about what an AI would need, I give a definition, if anyone would be interested, in what I view an AI would need in order to be sapient.

JoeTheMan:

We don't need to postulate consciousness, because this is already circular since we ARE consciousness, most primarily and fundamentally the relation of the self to "reality" (sense data, self-evident truth, observations, hypotheses, etc) is fully described in the notion of conscious experience. It can't be derived logically FROM our physical theories of the nature of reality since it precedes theorization entirely.

Are you asserting that we shan't ever find a foundation for consciousness because we must particpate in it always? Moreover, what do you think of the Cartesian need to verify the self?

But this is unremarkable. What is remarkable is that, recognizing this, we also recognize the limitations of materialism AND idealism to fully describe reality. Dualism doesn't go away just because it seems 'messy'. --please help me if my thinking is incorrect about this. I am very curious about this subject; this is just the way it seems to me.

How does this attack Idealism? If we are consciousness, like you suggest, then we may well come to support Idealism?

wesmorris:

While an idea is describable in material terms, its content... the experience of it - is not. Consciousness cannot currently be completely explained in material terms. I have a huge problem in my own mind with the quandry: "where does anything abstract fit into spacetime?" There is simply no place to put it. It only exists fleetingly in mind from an internal "I experience this" kind of perspective, yet, it's is real, as if it were not, we could not have this conversation. As such, I postulate a fundamental: "abstract space", which I've hypothesized may exist in Hawking's 'imaginary time'.

Might you tell us a bit more about your theory, Wes? I'm intrigued. Also, might you tell us about Hawking's "imaginary time"? I am usually pretty up to date with his theories, but I haven't heard of this.

It might well benefit this conversation if we sought an understanding of thought, also. I am of the old Empiricist view that "nothing exists in the mind which was not first in the senses", adding, however, that the mind displays the ability to imagine/infer from sensory data to create ideas which have no antecedent sensory cause. For instance, the image of the centaur is surely of a man combined, mentally, with that of a horse, though no one has likely seen a centaur ever in waking life, as there is no reason to suggest these beings at all exist. I am convinced of this position due to the impossibility for someone blind from birth to truly understand "sight", or for normal-sighted folks to be able to imagine an entirely new colour, that is, not a mix or shade of a prior one but something akin to "blork" or "nixta" which would represent entirely different frequencies of light.

You make a number of excellent points Prince_James. It's nice to have you involved.

A few remarks;



Now, in what way do you think we are dealing with something relates back to metaphysics? What aspect of consciousness do you rightfully believe relates to ontology (as I assume you don't mean First Principles or Theology)?

For myself, I will not speak of metaphysics; leave that for the part-time 'philosophers' (sic).
With respect to ontology, when it comes to consciousness, I can say little with certainty. Epistemologically speaking however, I can do no better than anyone else can: speak of that particular suspicion that I am more than a physical process; that the entirety of my experiences cannot be determined; that I am an agent; that there is something that uniquely defines the chronology of experienced experiences as mine. These, for me, are the relevant aspects in question.




Are you asserting that we shan't ever find a foundation for consciousness because we must particpate in it always? Moreover, what do you think of the Cartesian need to verify the self?

Personally, I think the Cartesian need as you put it (although I would say this 'need' arises in all of us who think well..) is in fact part of the solution. But to get into that would be a digression here... :-)

However, for myself, I would indeed assert that we shall never find a 'foundation for consciousness' (not that I think such is required..) because we must always participate in it. It is the very act of introspection that draws us to the idea of consciousness; that we can take a step back so to speak, and reflect on ourself signifys an immediate and intimate knowledge of our subject (our self). To thus identify however, creates a recursive problem that is inescapable.

glaucon:

You make a number of excellent points Prince_James. It's nice to have you involved.

I am glad you think so! It is a pleasure to be involved. Moreover, it is surely wonderful to have you part of the conversation, too. Hopefully through this discourse we shall gain a greater understanding of consciousness.

With respect to ontology, when it comes to consciousness, I can say little with certainty. Epistemologically speaking however, I can do no better than anyone else can: speak of that particular suspicion that I am more than a physical process; that the entirety of my experiences cannot be determined; that I am an agent; that there is something that uniquely defines the chronology of experienced experiences as mine. These, for me, are the relevant aspects in question.

Why would you affirm that the totality of your experience cannot be determined? That you are an agent?

However, for myself, I would indeed assert that we shall never find a 'foundation for consciousness' (not that I think such is required..) because we must always participate in it. It is the very act of introspection that draws us to the idea of consciousness; that we can take a step back so to speak, and reflect on ourself signifys an immediate and intimate knowledge of our subject (our self). To thus identify however, creates a recursive problem that is inescapable.

Yet surely by judging from presumably-conscious beings aside from ourselves, surely might reveal to us from whence was produced the genesis of our own consciousness, nay? Whilst surely we all ready are irrefutably thinking beings, participating in consciousness, to still yet seek after the cause of what produces consciousness may certainly be worthwhile, no? I fail to see how we, as conscious beings, are somehow then incapable of discerning how consciousness came to be? Are you saying that the information is unreliable due to our subjective experiences, or something along that line...?

It is indeed refreshing to actually engage in some civilized discussion here.

To your points:

As I said, I have a suspicion that the totality of my experiences is not determined. What I mean here is that I doubt that I am not the same person/experiencer/observer that I was 10 years ago; I'm reasonably confident that what I recall (and have evidence for) happening 10 years ago did indeed happen (and that it involved me). Similarly, I'm reasonably confident that I do indeed have the power of election; that the choices I make are indeed mine, and not predetermined. Is it possible that I am simply a 'cog' running through behaviours that were set in motion years ago? I admit it is a possibility. However, I think it more reasonable to doubt this possibility.


The 'other-minds' problem: this one is huge and nasty, and doesn't really belong here but.... strictly speaking, we have more cause to doubt the supposed consciousness of others than we do our own. Simply because other beings resemble me physically, and tend to behave somewhat similarly, gives me no reason to presume that they are similarly 'composed', so to speak. This problem is more seriously dealt with when we look at the Turing-Test, particularly in our day and age. It is quite possible that a computer could fool a human into believing that they were in fact dealing with (usually speaking to, or asking questions of) another human.

Sadly, if we are to tackle the consciousness problem, we can look for no aid whatsoever from 'other minds'.
:-)

So, in essence, the ability to sense = consciousness, yes? With the lowest level probably found somewhere around primitive bacteria and algae, and the top level with humans, apes, elephants, whales, and dolphins, followed by the carnivores and such?
Essentially yes, lowest levels of consciousness would be for bacteria, plants, and such,
humans have the most complex brain on this planet as far as I know.

Some of the aspects of consciousness are peculiar, though.
But that doesn't mean we have to romanticise it. Most things in this universe are peculiar (at least for the human mind).
Moreover, even if there isn't, the ability to recollect, to store data, to imagine, to dream...All these things are unexplored to the fullest extent.
So is dark energy and gravity waves (just entering experimental stage), but we don't propose that it's a breath of god, just because it's not yet fully explored.

Good evening all.
As I am looking at this thing called Consciousness and listening in to your words, I'm hearing how 'we participate in consciousness'. I see Consciousness 'participating' in us.

Consciousness touches 'possibility/probability wave' (quonton) collapsing it into a particular 'hologramic reality' within Mind.
A speck of the vast Sea of Chaos (quontons=(?)Mind) collapsing into a flash of 'quark'.
Mind might well be the 'quonton field', the field of 'probability/possibility/INFORMATION waves'
('Quontons' are the stuff of which Dreams are truly made!)
The senses now have 'something' to 'detect'.
The senses (self) 'arising', within Mind, simultaneously/mutually with their 'objects'.
The 'hologramic self' simultaneously with it's 'context', fractally propagating into the multiversal hologram. Also called Indra's Web....

So I see Consciousness poking its tendrils of awareness throughout Mind, throughout the little hologramic Mental concepts/constructs/egos that are 'us'. It has been known for millennia that the egoic sense of self only blocks and distorts the 'free flow' of Consciousness, within Mind, and the more that the 'personality' is 'removed from the equation' the 'greater' is unhindered Consciousness in the 'vicinity'; but, of course, the less that Consciousness has to be conscious 'of'. Which is why, parhaps, it 'touched the quontons' in the first place?

And thats what it looks like, for the moment, anyway, from here...

I like where this discussion is going, thanks everyone for great points of view. I too am very interested in this question. So it seems that finding the source of consciousness would be to grasp ones origin. Note that we are not necessarily looking for the origin of everything, that is, some explanation of totalized or infinitized existence. For that kind of origin, I think it's not inaccruate to generally reserve the term 'God' (divorced here from its theological or religious connotations) to describe an origin higher than our own. With consciousness, however, we are looking only for the origin of OUR experience of ANYthing and everything. The problem is not so much that our subjective perspective is limited; it is that our perspective is mediated and constituted THROUGH the very process we are attempting to explain. If we say it's a process, then we ARE the process which is trying to furnish a functional description OF the process, or rather the underlying mechanism or substratum responsible for its emergence. Consciousness is one of those interesting whole-is-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts kind of phenomena; there is an inherent difficulty in pinning down exactly WHAT gives you the "what-it-is-to-be-like-you" that you have all the time and which is unique to you. Without getting lost in semantics, there is at least one series of gestures and actions which leads to the creation of aconsciousness exterior to our own, and that's procreation. The mystery seems to be that, before you were around, your conscious experience didn't exist. Since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, every part of your body was grown or transformed from already existing energy, so we have a definitive origin for the physical body. But this conscious experience 'entity' or 'process' just kind of blossoms from the sum of the parts, and neither its current existence nor its originating 'kickstart' can be localized in any piece of it. I see the analogy here with a universal Mind, or some kind of cosmic consciousness we all participate in, but I'd advise Occam's Razor here as well. In general, I think that quantum mechanics is best left out of discussions about free will and consciousness--searching for consciousness in the interplay of so-called 'fundamental' quantum particles still doesn't explain that 'hard problem' of where and how experience arises. Saying it's an emergent property of interacting nondeterministic particles on many levels is just confusing the fact that there's something special about how hard this particular problem is; we have to face up to the problem of consciousness if we're ever to make any progress.

If we say it's a process, then we ARE the process which is trying to furnish a functional description OF the process, or rather the underlying mechanism or substratum responsible for its emergence
Quite so, wonderful, isn't it?
But I don't think it's something unprecendented, for example we are made of atoms and these atoms have assembled themselves into structures that ponder on their very own origin (origin of atoms).

i would enjoy it to if it wasn't for the overbearing know-it-all presence of the unspeakable who has seeemingly hijacked my tread with his pretence of knowing consciousness when he doesn't even know how to not offend people, and take responsibility when he does.....fukin phony
tats all i am gonna sy for nw. dont want to disrail MY tread now do i

[-deleted offtopic-]

I know exactly how to offend people, duendy, but it's their own flaws in personality that make them offend themselves, not me, I merely give the required input by predicting their personality and life experience, the disliked reaction/emotion comes from their own consciousness.

me))))))you phony. let me tell you something. i of course can be a bitch whni wanna. but i NEVER tell some one they are not right or braindamaged. But err theres something really not right about y -ou kid. one miniute i was in midst of a discussion here about consciousness wid you where i showed respect--go read post--even THO you had previosly also insulted me yet cvame with the same bullcrap that its your victime's fault.......i let that go. NEXT thing i find you gossipling and lanndering me wit Buddha1. now are you tellin me tat is NORMAL? yet you are constantly calling me NOT normal. so please see your actions. what you do. i CAN. i am waiting for you to and will hound you till yo do

Now please stop these off topic remarks
and let us return to a scientific discussion on human (and not only) consciousness.
fuk you you cheeky not-normal. tis is MY fukin thread already. go and make yer won thread. yer talkin outta yer arse anyhow cause you are a coontradiction. pretending tp know consciousness yet dont know how to BE human.
you are te same as a woman batterer who blames the woman for makin you angry. wanker

look lad. there really should be a 'fight club' forum here sos when someone offends, offened can get a go with offender in appropriate forum rather tan disrailing. true
all we gothere is cesspit....NOW. for some reason i cant open treads there. so heres an offer........you open one there and we will have tis out there so as not to spoil MY fukin thread, NOTyours mr conciousness-man OK?!!!

[-deleted offtopic-]

This is a public thread and all are allowed to particepate in it. And I really like this topic.

me::::::oh yeaaah. i know you do. and guess who had the intitiative to start it? the person you have offended more than once is who. YOU

Now please stop ruining this thead! We are here to discuss.

me::if 'we are here to discuss' as you seem to suggest, how comes you seem to be here to ABUSE ME, and then not expect fireworks when YOU DO THAT, mr??

I don't have a problem with you, but you clearly have a problem with me.

me::if you 'dont have a problem wit me' why is me being discussed and slagged offa by YOU? can you conciousness accomadate this simple question or what?

If you wish you can send your futile love letters to my inbox.

me:::i can assure you my messages to you aint love letters. what about my suggestion for the 'cesspit' coppin out are ya? is it UNcpnscious? haven't even heard you mention it. i was quite clear

Oh, and I adjust my perception to my own needs, not to your romantic views on what a human must be.

me::so romantic views include being civil to preople does it, and not slaggin them off all over the forums?

cheers!

======
To others: I am sorry about this, but duendy has some amusing problems with my persona on the same thread as himself; I won't reply to his remarks in this thread any more (second thread in which I say this today). Sorry again!
dont aplogize for me you sorry little boy with no manners to his name. who doesn't know how to behave and needsa a fukin good spank. aplogize for yourself....!

. But this conscious experience 'entity' or 'process' just kind of blossoms from the sum of the parts, and neither its current existence nor its originating 'kickstart' can be localized in any piece of it. I see the analogy here with a universal Mind, or some kind of cosmic consciousness we all participate in, but I'd advise Occam's Razor here as well.

There is no need for an universal mind. Let me explain my view.
I think you put forward this analogy, because you put matter/energy on par with a process,
but they are esentially different things, because process arises from the interaction of matter/energy.

As for the beginning of the consciousness:
Even when just born we and other animals have information in us that we can read, i.e., particular instincts to the particular species (if you wish I can give an example/evidence for this). And then we also have the sensory ability, i.e., we get new data atop the data that is already there.
Now, to make any use of the received data we must put it in relation to the data we already have (for example: see a distant hill, put our experience/information about perspective related to it, have an estimation of the distance).

So the kickstart might be the point where a new life form starts recording new data and in order to put it in the data bank/memory, it must make sense of it. This making sense essentially may be the process we are talking about.

Why does it must make a sense of it? Well.. maybe because that's our biological structure, i.e.,
our consciousness is a required process that is forced by our own biological structure and the way our biology records data.

Why does it must record it in that way I haven't thought of, it seems that that may be the field of our quantum world experts. ;)

-------
edit: just ignore duendy's offtopics, he's genuinly not well a bit.

actually it is all rather ironic. ok....i start a thread called 'what is consciousness' and talk to one of the members about it. next thing he is slanering me in another thread later on telling Buddha1 i have done to many drugs and cannot do logic etc

now excuuuuuse me. any humans here? are you teling me that wouldn't piss you off? i am not saying would you repond as i have, but would it piss you off someone having the audacity to say that? course it wouold

so you get back to the person who is all over your thread spouting 'what conscious IS;....so you consciously confornt him. whats this dude's reaction?...that it is YOUR fault to be offended!..what the fuck do you do with that? and this is the second time he has done

noooow. it is not likfely i am gonn let this pass and get back to a nice little cozy chat aout cnsciousness with him is it. and i coldn't get in edgeways cause he's all over the thread ;ordin it about, and then tells me to quit MY thread...hahahahahahmanic laughter

so it is obvious. this 'avatar' IS what he thinks he is-----a computer. computer's tend to not have FEELINGS

http://www.ncgreenpower.org/images/River-in-mountains2.jpg

Consciousness flows.

actually it is all rather ironic. ok....i start a thread called 'what is consciousness' and talk to one of the members about it. next thing he is slanering me in another thread later on telling Buddha1 i have done to many drugs and cannot do logic etc

now excuuuuuse me. any humans here? are you teling me that wouldn't piss you off? i am not saying would you repond as i have, but would it piss you off someone having the audacity to say that? course it wouold

so you get back to the person who is all over your thread spouting 'what conscious IS;....so you consciously confornt him. whats this dude's reaction?...that it is YOUR fault to be offended!..what the fuck do you do with that? and this is the second time he has done

noooow. it is not likfely i am gonn let this pass and get back to a nice little cozy chat aout cnsciousness with him is it. and i coldn't get in edgeways cause he's all over the thread ;ordin it about, and then tells me to quit MY thread...hahahahahahmanic laughter

so it is obvious. this 'avatar' IS what he thinks he is-----a computer. computer's tend to not have FEELINGS

It may be good to consider these principles (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49812).

you learn something new everyday. thanks

Yes. You're welcome. :)

glaucon:

As I said, I have a suspicion that the totality of my experiences is not determined. What I mean here is that I doubt that I am not the same person/experiencer/observer that I was 10 years ago; I'm reasonably confident that what I recall (and have evidence for) happening 10 years ago did indeed happen (and that it involved me). Similarly, I'm reasonably confident that I do indeed have the power of election; that the choices I make are indeed mine, and not predetermined. Is it possible that I am simply a 'cog' running through behaviours that were set in motion years ago? I admit it is a possibility. However, I think it more reasonable to doubt this possibility.

Consider this: You do everything for a reason, no? You are incapable of doing something "simply because", no? For even "simply because" likely has a root in various semi-emotional states, or vague predetermined likes and or dislikes, no? So if you have a reason, would you really be free to buck against it?

The 'other-minds' problem: this one is huge and nasty, and doesn't really belong here but.... strictly speaking, we have more cause to doubt the supposed consciousness of others than we do our own. Simply because other beings resemble me physically, and tend to behave somewhat similarly, gives me no reason to presume that they are similarly 'composed', so to speak. This problem is more seriously dealt with when we look at the Turing-Test, particularly in our day and age. It is quite possible that a computer could fool a human into believing that they were in fact dealing with (usually speaking to, or asking questions of) another human.

Here's a proof for other minds I have developed as part of my yet-to-be-written Refutation of Transcendental Idealism (a sort of twin to my prior Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism): If we are to take the empirical foundation of knowledge to mind (as the heart isn't proper for intellectual thought!) then we must conclude that it is impossible for us to learn language alone, and since language exists, and you and I surely are fluent or at least proficient in one (English), then we must conclude that there are other minds.

Avatar:

Essentially yes, lowest levels of consciousness would be for bacteria, plants, and such,
humans have the most complex brain on this planet as far as I know.

Fair enough, I personally assert something similar.

But that doesn't mean we have to romanticise it. Most things in this universe are peculiar (at least for the human mind).

Surely this is so, but the difference betwixt mental and physical phenomena do differ in many key ways, as I noted. Let's see what your response to them is...

So is dark energy and gravity waves (just entering experimental stage), but we don't propose that it's a breath of god, just because it's not yet fully explored.

Surely not, but we must allow to truly discover a very odd term of events with mental ones. To resort to the "breath of God" would indeed be folly, but as regards Dark Energy/Matter, which all ready displays the pecularity of only interacting with the force of gravity, we would be foolish to disregard many exciting new possibilities.

JoeTheMan:

For that kind of origin, I think it's not inaccruate to generally reserve the term 'God' (divorced here from its theological or religious connotations) to describe an origin higher than our own.

I would agree.

With consciousness, however, we are looking only for the origin of OUR experience of ANYthing and everything. The problem is not so much that our subjective perspective is limited; it is that our perspective is mediated and constituted THROUGH the very process we are attempting to explain. If we say it's a process, then we ARE the process which is trying to furnish a functional description OF the process, or rather the underlying mechanism or substratum responsible for its emergence.

Yet due to the capacity for consciousness to determine such things, introspective evaluation, or evaluation of similar beings, ought to furnish us with some semblance of understanding of how it imght arise, no?

Since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, every part of your body was grown or transformed from already existing energy, so we have a definitive origin for the physical body. But this conscious experience 'entity' or 'process' just kind of blossoms from the sum of the parts, and neither its current existence nor its originating 'kickstart' can be localized in any piece of it.

The notion that consciousness is related to emergence is an interesting one and most certainly possible. Of course, emergence seems to be rooted in almost every physical phenomena, as relationship produces things which are not found in the individual parts.

I see the analogy here with a universal Mind, or some kind of cosmic consciousness we all participate in, but I'd advise Occam's Razor here as well.

Why do you find this necessary, even if you're willing to potentially get rid of it due to Ockham's?

In general, I think that quantum mechanics is best left out of discussions about free will and consciousness--searching for consciousness in the interplay of so-called 'fundamental' quantum particles still doesn't explain that 'hard problem' of where and how experience arises.

I agree.

Saying it's an emergent property of interacting nondeterministic particles on many levels is just confusing the fact that there's something special about how hard this particular problem is; we have to face up to the problem of consciousness if we're ever to make any progress.

Just signing it off as an emergent property doesn't deal with it as much in depth as is needed, but it could be a nice foundation. However, yes, I would agree that we need to tackle the problem of consciousness.

Duendy:

Your usefulness in this thread has gone.

Avatar:

So the kickstart might be the point where a new life form starts recording new data and in order to put it in the data bank/memory, it must make sense of it. This making sense essentially may be the process we are talking about.

It would seem to me that sense itself requires the formation of a conscious receptor of said sensation, no? A sensory stimulus we do not consciously take in seems to have no impact us on at all, such as when one falls into a "day dreaming" state .


water:

I think that picture was taken in Upstate NY. I knew a man who had similar photographs in his office who lived up there.

It would seem to me that sense itself requires the formation of a conscious receptor of said sensation, no? A sensory stimulus we do not consciously take in seems to have no impact us on at all, such as when one falls into a "day dreaming" state .
With sense I meant meaning, not sensuality (damn English), i.e., rock -> wow, what is this, hard, heavy, does not cause pain, feels cold, has a particular structure, touch., I'll call it a rock. Thus our brain has created a rock in itself. And when for example it sees something other that might be a rock it compares to the information that it already has.

A sensory stimulus we do not consciously take in seems to have no impact us on at all, such as when one falls into a "day dreaming" state .
Yes and no. For example people have particular dreams while dreaming in relation to the sensations the unconscious body receives, for example, people tend to have nightmares and unpleasant dreams when their body is too hot.
Minor stimuli maybe are disregarded, but they might still have an impact.
Just like when awake our unconsciousness is still active and recording, even if we are not aware of its' thinking process (like see some man and he seems unpleasant to you for apparently no known reason - that's a product of unconscious thought).

As for day dreaming, we are able to create inner stimuli for ourselves, let's say, feel like flying, laughing, running, etc, that is the new data that our brain creates.
Our brain can create new data or receive new data from outer stimuli, essentially it's all new data to our brain.

It would seem to me that sense itself requires the formation of a conscious receptor of said sensation, no?
As for consciouss receptors,i.e., why we feel cold like that and not like some other feeling I don't know. Here might be interesting reading about studies of people who taste spoken words and see different shapes in different colours. It seems that their conscious reception/understanding/perceiving is different, but(!) also the physical structure of their brain is different, because these traits have been recorded to run in family, i.e., genetical traits, they have nothing to do with data aquired by experience.

So it is most likely that how we feel cold and perceive other outer stimuli has to do with the biological structure of our brain although I have no idea what particular differences those might be.

Avatar:

With sense I meant meaning, not sensuality (damn English), i.e., rock -> wow, what is this, hard, heavy, does not cause pain, feels cold, has a particular structure, touch., I'll call it a rock. Thus our brain has created a rock in itself. And when for example it sees something other that might be a rock it compares to the information that it already has.

I would have to agree with this.

Yes and no. For example people have particular dreams while dreaming in relation to the sensations the unconscious body receives, for example, people tend to have nightmares and unpleasant dreams when their body is too hot.

Some sensory stimulation seems to seep in, yes, specifically that which the body reacts to through reactions of various sorts, but for the most part much of what is happening around us is utterly being lost to us when we are not consciously aware.

Minor stimuli maybe are disregarded, but they might still have an impact.
Just like when awake our unconsciousness is still active and recording, even if we are not aware of its' thinking process (like see some man and he seems unpleasant to you for apparently no known reason - that's a product of unconscious thought).

Yes, we do have a degree of unconscious connection through conditiong and the like, but conditioning has its genesis in the conscious mind first. Moreover, when we are exposed to a conditioning stimulus, we must first be consciously aware of it in order for us to react on the sub/unconscious level.

As for day dreaming, we are able to create inner stimuli for ourselves, let's say, feel like flying, laughing, running, etc, that is the new data that our brain creates.
Our brain can create new data or receive new data from outer stimuli, essentially it's all new data to our brain.

Yes. We're essentially creating our own little pocket world for that time. We are overriding the stimulus of the real world with this. Although it seems that only with the majority of dreams does the brain not distinguish betwixt its own information and other information, as generally one is aware that one's thoughts come from oneself, for instance.

Some sensory stimulation seems to seep in, yes, specifically that which the body reacts to through reactions of various sorts, but for the most part much of what is happening around us is utterly being lost to us when we are not consciously aware.
Agree.
Interesting in relation to this is.. I was once very tired after exams and was woken up, but I later didn't remeber that. Later I was told that I was walking about the room and talking some nightmarish, horrible thoughts.
It's possible that I was awoken, but my consciousness wasn't, i.e., I was walking unconscious there, and I'd never speak of such things as I said if being conscious.
Yes, we do have a degree of unconscious connection through conditiong and the like, but conditioning has its genesis in the conscious mind first. Moreover, when we are exposed to a conditioning stimulus, we must first be consciously aware of it in order for us to react on the sub/unconscious level.
Agree.
as generally one is aware that one's thoughts come from oneself, for instance.
Not always. That is the problem with psychic illnesses. I've been doing some field work in a psychiatric clinic and there are people who don't distinguish this (hearing voices for example), they are very dangerous and unpredictable if you haven't found out what their voices are telling.

Consider this: You do everything for a reason, no?

Not necessarily. I breathe, for example. This is, of course 'reasonable', but it is not an activity I control, being under the control of the autonomic nervous system. There are also cases where, afterwards, I cannot account for why I have done something. Surely you've asked yourself, "What the hell did I do that for?"?



You are incapable of doing something "simply because", no? For even "simply because" likely has a root in various semi-emotional states, or vague predetermined likes and or dislikes, no? So if you have a reason, would you really be free to buck against it?

I disagree on all counts. I have indeed acted whimsically, or chosen to act based upon emotionally-charged context, but I would say that in each of these cases, if I had taken the time to think things through, I could indeed have chosen to act differently. I am free to 'buck against' any choice that I make. This is simply a result of the fact that it was a choice . If one finds that one were not free to 'buck against' an option, there really never was a choice possible.





Here's a proof for other minds I have developed as part of my yet-to-be-written Refutation of Transcendental Idealism (a sort of twin to my prior Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism): If we are to take the empirical foundation of knowledge to mind (as the heart isn't proper for intellectual thought!) then we must conclude that it is impossible for us to learn language alone, and since language exists, and you and I surely are fluent or at least proficient in one (English), then we must conclude that there are other minds.

Although I am in full agreement with you that empiricism is the only legitimate foundation for knowledge, the language game fails to help to prove 'other minds'. The problem lies in the premiss: it isn't necessarily true that an 'other mind' is required to learn a language. First: (this is the weaker of my two points) verbal imitation is always present in the learning of a language process. This doesn't require a 'teaching' mind. Natural noises (rushing water, thunder, etc.) as well as noises made by animals could very well be objects of 'learning mimickry'. I'm quite confident that once upon a time, humans simply growled and grunted at each other, much as some animals do.
Second: a simple computer program could reasonably be programmed to teach a child a language (again, this brings up the spectre of the AI topic, but that's another topic entirely). Note, the program wouldn't even necessarily have to use a verbal form. A program could conceivably be designed to teach a child a language based upon colour tones alone for example. What about Braille? This is essentially a tactile based language, admittedly one that is taught, but using another language (verbal). We all learn how to identify objects in our environment by touch, but we learn this on our own, with no coaching.

Prince,


I think that picture was taken in Upstate NY. I knew a man who had similar photographs in his office who lived up there.

Lovely, isn't it?

of course one can be all academicy, scientificy, and up ones arse when apporachin this subject. there is nothing wrong with te scientific apporach o' course, but my original question i NOT just apllying to that mode, but also to experiential modes too.........of a combination of both objective and subjective inquiry into this question 'what is consciousness?'.......this would mean psychedelic experience as a mans of insight into consciousness

the oter night i was tinking about this qustion. i was thinkin about 'matter'.......actually the question 'whatis matter?' is as difficult if not more so that the original question of tis thread...........obviously there is fundamental connection between 'matter' and 'consciousness'

anyway, as i say i was thinkin....andi imagined having taken a pinch of a psychedelic, and have access to a microscope also, and before me is a tree. i look THRU microscop at the tree.....hmmmmmmmmwhat would i see?....well i would see a pattern wouldn't i? and tis pattern would seem incredibly alive...i would be lost in thispattern.....Then i imagined an awareness that was looking at my EYElookin at te tree also trough a microscope. like a double microscope. again it would be a pattern........my arteries in my eyes would b indistingushable from the similar patterns in tree, etc etc

these patterns are alive--are conscious. they are not made OF consciousness but ARE consciousness, yet are ALSO matter

tere wouldn't be just the looking 'objectively' neither. there would be te emotional FEELINGS regarding te observation. this is usually discarded by 'objectivist' science, but it is very important to keep in mind

Meditate on the picture I posted!

I know my business.


(Yeah, and my horse is also very high ...)

ahahhhhh yes. is beautiful, and was very appropriate and well timed

water is the most wondrous thing....the living 'metaphor' for what i mean

also the whole question of 'what is consciousness' propbably is more 'desperate' in Wsternized culture which has become alienized from Nature and EVEn from CONSCIOUSNESSin its fullest meaning....Alan Watts:
"The dualism of mind and body arose, perhaps, as a clumsy way of describing the power of an intelligent organism to control itsel.It seemed responsible to think of the part controlled as one thing and the part controlling as another. In this way the conscious will was opposed to the involuntary appeties and reason to instinct. In due course we learned to center our identity, our selfhood, in the controlling part--the mind--and increasingly to disown as a mere vehicle the part controlled. It thus escaped our attention that the organism as a whole, largely unconsciouss, was using consciousness and reason to inform and control itself. We thought of our conscious intelligence as descending from a higher realm to take possession of a physical vehicle. We therefore failed to see it as an operation of the same formative process as the structure of nerves, muscles, veins, and bones--a structure so subtly ordered (that is, intelligent) that conscious thought is as yet far from being able to describe it."
((The Joyous Cosmology: Adventures in the Chemistry of Consciousness, by Alan Watts, pages 4-5)))

Avatar:

Agree.
Interesting in relation to this is.. I was once very tired after exams and was woken up, but I later didn't remeber that. Later I was told that I was walking about the room and talking some nightmarish, horrible thoughts.
It's possible that I was awoken, but my consciousness wasn't, i.e., I was walking unconscious there, and I'd never speak of such things as I said if being conscious.

When one is utterly worn out, strange things like this tend to happen, yes. It may be related to the body knowing it is so exhausted, it simply refuses to "wake up" properly and enters almost into a sleep-walking state.

Not always. That is the problem with psychic illnesses. I've been doing some field work in a psychiatric clinic and there are people who don't distinguish this (hearing voices for example), they are very dangerous and unpredictable if you haven't found out what their voices are telling.

Ah! A good point. I wasn't thinking in terms of schizophrenics and the like. It always seemed interesting to me how people can have voices speak to them, though. Has there been any studies done on it that links it, perhaps, to the capacity for the brain to create personalities in dreams and the like?

glaucon:

Not necessarily. I breathe, for example. This is, of course 'reasonable', but it is not an activity I control, being under the control of the autonomic nervous system. There are also cases where, afterwards, I cannot account for why I have done something. Surely you've asked yourself, "What the hell did I do that for?"?

The body is certainly acting for its survival and energy needs when breathing, is it not? A proper reason that something is happening. And as to being totally taken back by why I did something like that, whilst I have had that feeling, I do realize that my reasoning process was apparent at the time, just that in hindsight - which is, as they say, 20/20 - it seems silly or embarrassing.

I disagree on all counts. I have indeed acted whimsically, or chosen to act based upon emotionally-charged context, but I would say that in each of these cases, if I had taken the time to think things through, I could indeed have chosen to act differently. I am free to 'buck against' any choice that I make. This is simply a result of the fact that it was a choice . If one finds that one were not free to 'buck against' an option, there really never was a choice possible.

The problem with assuming the hypothetical capacity to choose differently is that it is an untestable assertion. The reality is that we do choose one thing and this choice, not existing in a vacuum, but clearly impacted by prior likes, personality traits, et cetera, seems to point towards prior conditioning of one sort or another to be biased towards that choice. The problem is accounting for everything which impacts one. However, the very fact that we can often predict behaviour in other people seems to indicate a far less "free" attitude as we'd expect, for should freedom be more absolute, we should show no true signs of constancy, no?

Although I am in full agreement with you that empiricism is the only legitimate foundation for knowledge, the language game fails to help to prove 'other minds'. The problem lies in the premiss: it isn't necessarily true that an 'other mind' is required to learn a language. First: (this is the weaker of my two points) verbal imitation is always present in the learning of a language process. This doesn't require a 'teaching' mind. Natural noises (rushing water, thunder, etc.) as well as noises made by animals could very well be objects of 'learning mimickry'. I'm quite confident that once upon a time, humans simply growled and grunted at each other, much as some animals do.

It is reasonable to conclude we did indeed develop a sort of "beastial" language of grunts beforehand, yes. Although the meanings, inflections, et cetera, which would likely be passed by culture, would require other conscious beings to do so, as a language in a specific group has no known genetic foundation. This would become more and more true the more it become a proto-human language, with complex thoughts being expressed.

Second: a simple computer program could reasonably be programmed to teach a child a language (again, this brings up the spectre of the AI topic, but that's another topic entirely). Note, the program wouldn't even necessarily have to use a verbal form. A program could conceivably be designed to teach a child a language based upon colour tones alone for example. What about Braille? This is essentially a tactile based language, admittedly one that is taught, but using another language (verbal). We all learn how to identify objects in our environment by touch, but we learn this on our own, with no coaching.

Ah, but does not a computer require programming? And if it was a mock-mind, with some of the aspects of intelligence, could not we conclude that it was, at least in part, a being? Moreover, whilst it is definitely true that we can associate languages with other senses, these too, for mutual intelligibility, or for us to teach to another person, require other minds, no? Braile, for instance, in order to really work, needs to be rooted in a language all ready developed.

Water:

Lovely, isn't it?

Yes. I love woodland streams.

Duendy:

these patterns are alive--are conscious. they are not made OF consciousness but ARE consciousness, yet are ALSO matter

Alive does not necessarily mean conscious. If I cut off a finger, for a while it would be "still alive", but would it have conscious thought?

of course one can be all academicy, scientificy, and up ones arse when apporachin this subject. there is nothing wrong with te scientific apporach o' course, but my original question i NOT just apllying to that mode, but also to experiential modes too.........of a combination of both objective and subjective inquiry into this question 'what is consciousness?'.......this would mean psychedelic experience as a mans of insight into consciousness

the oter night i was tinking about this qustion. i was thinkin about 'matter'.......actually the question 'whatis matter?' is as difficult if not more so that the original question of tis thread...........obviously there is fundamental connection between 'matter' and 'consciousness'

anyway, as i say i was thinkin....andi imagined having taken a pinch of a psychedelic, and have access to a microscope also, and before me is a tree. i look THRU microscop at the tree.....hmmmmmmmmwhat would i see?....well i would see a pattern wouldn't i? and tis pattern would seem incredibly alive...i would be lost in thispattern.....Then i imagined an awareness that was looking at my EYElookin at te tree also trough a microscope. like a double microscope. again it would be a pattern........my arteries in my eyes would b indistingushable from the similar patterns in tree, etc etc

these patterns are alive--are conscious. they are not made OF consciousness but ARE consciousness, yet are ALSO matter

tere wouldn't be just the looking 'objectively' neither. there would be te emotional FEELINGS regarding te observation. this is usually discarded by 'objectivist' science, but it is very important to keep in mind


(((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))

Has there been any studies done on it that links it, perhaps, to the capacity for the brain to create personalities in dreams and the like?
If there is, then I'm not aware of that, I don't really have an in depth knowledge in psychic illnesses, have a course in diagnosis only.

If I cut off a finger, for a while it would be "still alive", but would it have conscious thought?
At what point would it cease to be alive?

However, the very fact that we can often predict behaviour in other people seems to indicate a far less "free" attitude as we'd expect, for should freedom be more absolute, we should show no true signs of constancy, no?
Not only! :) If the human is stereotypical enough or you know him well it's more or less easy to predict what s(he) will say next. I once freaked out one teenager girl when wrote the exact question she was going to ask me in front of her, and after the question showed her the paper. :D

Free will is a funny question. I could do something completely irrational, but would the desire to do something irrational, in spite to show that there is free will would not be preconditioned too?
Alas it is my thought that we have free will, but only when we are paying attention to what we are doing/thinking. If we are not, then it's more or less logical, automatic steps (taking in mind past experience, etc).
But I can freewill to realisticly imagine a snake sliding across my arm and it's not something that I would have logically done, thus that is free will.

At what point would it cease to be alive?
When all the cells die in it.

of course one can be all academicy, scientificy, and up ones arse when apporachin this subject. there is nothing wrong with te scientific apporach o' course, but my original question i NOT just apllying to that mode, but also to experiential modes too.........of a combination of both objective and subjective inquiry into this question 'what is consciousness?'.......this would mean psychedelic experience as a mans of insight into consciousness

the oter night i was tinking about this qustion. i was thinkin about 'matter'.......actually the question 'whatis matter?' is as difficult if not more so that the original question of tis thread...........obviously there is fundamental connection between 'matter' and 'consciousness'

anyway, as i say i was thinkin....andi imagined having taken a pinch of a psychedelic, and have access to a microscope also, and before me is a tree. i look THRU microscop at the tree.....hmmmmmmmmwhat would i see?....well i would see a pattern wouldn't i? and tis pattern would seem incredibly alive...i would be lost in thispattern.....Then i imagined an awareness that was looking at my EYElookin at te tree also trough a microscope. like a double microscope. again it would be a pattern........my arteries in my eyes would b indistingushable from the similar patterns in tree, etc etc

these patterns are alive--are conscious. they are not made OF consciousness but ARE consciousness, yet are ALSO matter

tere wouldn't be just the looking 'objectively' neither. there would be te emotional FEELINGS regarding te observation. this is usually discarded by 'objectivist' science, but it is very important to keep in mind

(((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))

What on earth is this?!

Water

I'm just responding in a language deundy understands. I'm surprised you haven't noticed that many of his posts use that particular dialect.

so when i am saying consciousness, i am meaning uncnsciousness too. which may sound weird so i will have to try explore what i am meaning by unconsciousness

....Well we knoqw about THE unconsciousness dont we?,,,,,to be simple, for Frued it was a kind of repository for repressed thoughts emotions, alo involving the 'Id' which connected us--according to his theories with te 'primeval swamps' etc....i hope to go into this later, ten we get the renegade Jung who sees 'the unconacious' as a dimension more spiritual
and 'Collective'----it is VERY interesting to note that in his first renderings about
'the unconscious' he included animal and plant collectivity, but later just included human collectivity!

Alan Watys in his book Psychotherapy East and West reveals the limitations of Freudian and Jungian interpretations of the unconscious......their limitations due to unacknowleddged and...Uncpnscious metaphysical assumptions....but like i said i'll maybe explore this later

All i am rtrying to say is that the unconscious involves awareness we usually phase out of the needs fr survival....so forexample, i may be talking with one of you. i notice your body language, your scents, you tone of voice, other events that may be happening.....v ery aware, yet seemingy phase out, and depending how much i allow myself TO be aware of, th rest is Unconscious, yet ISbeing recorded.......as re my feelings that i may not be awareof. maybe i hafv created for myself a persona that is fixed. like a fixed mask i show to the world, and thus become unconscious of other aspects of myself. YE at a level i Am aware of all this, and when at the right occasion, will remember and BE aware of these aspects, etc

Water

I'm just responding in a language deundy understands. I'm surprised you haven't noticed that many of his posts use that particular dialect.

Yes, I've noticed you were using his style! But I couldn't tell what motivated you to do so.

Then, I thought maybe you were giving hugs to emptiness ....

hahahhahaaahhhhhhaaaaaaaaa....sound of sea/..whooooooosh ...swerrrrooooooOOOOOOASHHHH

When all the cells die in it.

the 78th funniest thing i've heard. as if only cells would be alive and not the parts which cells are made of. there is no specific line between alive and dead because everything lives. death is the other side of life.

You don't seem to understand,
if a cell dies, then it's dead and nothing's alive in it any more. I was not talking about parts of it dying, but about a cell - the sum of all that it consists of.

Living beings among other reproduce, rocks don't. How is a rock alive?
The difference between a dead thing like a rock and a living one like an ant is in the complexity of how atoms have combined. Alive beings on all scales (till the atomic level) are very complex atomic structures, dead things are a lot simpler.

p.s. This is not about consciousness, so let's talk on topic.
Or do you want to say that a rock is conscious? :D

if a cell dies, then it's dead and nothing's alive in it any more.

So how do you determine the moment the cell is no longer alive?

The difference between a dead thing like a rock and a living one like an ant is in the complexity of how atoms have combined.

Complexity defines what is alive and what is not? I'm pretty sure it would be possible to create a very complex piece of "dead matter".

Or do you want to say that a rock is conscious?

Matter is the lowest level of consciousness. How do you explain the movement of atoms? By very primitive expression of "consciousness".

If you were sealed inside a rock, you could only express yourself by cooling off, paralyzing and drawing things toward you (magnetism). Of course, "you" couldn't do this consciously. The "self" is in everything, even in rocks, but it is only humans who can be conscious of the self, due to their advanced brain, and humans are the only ones who can express the self fully. But people today limit themselves into a personality, a mask, a small aspect of the self. In ancient Egypt... the people...

also the whole question of 'what is consciousness' propbably is more 'desperate' in Wsternized culture which has become alienized from Nature and EVEn from CONSCIOUSNESSin its fullest meaning....Alan Watts:
"The dualism of mind and body arose, perhaps, as a clumsy way of describing the power of an intelligent organism to control itsel.It seemed responsible to think of the part controlled as one thing and the part controlling as another. In this way the conscious will was opposed to the involuntary appeties and reason to instinct. In due course we learned to center our identity, our selfhood, in the controlling part--the mind--and increasingly to disown as a mere vehicle the part controlled. It thus escaped our attention that the organism as a whole, largely unconsciouss, was using consciousness and reason to inform and control itself. We thought of our conscious intelligence as descending from a higher realm to take possession of a physical vehicle. We therefore failed to see it as an operation of the same formative process as the structure of nerves, muscles, veins, and bones--a structure so subtly ordered (that is, intelligent) that conscious thought is as yet far from being able to describe it."

* First, I really disagree with Mr. Watts on the following points: reducing an evident, present dichotomy (like body and mind) into a singularity is the opposite of reason, indeed, resembles terror in its refusal to discriminate. You're not playing the philosophical 'game'; recognizing the futility of language to truly capture being is one thing, but asserting that you are somehow able to understand, encapsulate and explain to others an idea which "conscious thought is as yet far from being able to describe" is an absurdity. I do agree that our consciousness (which, btw, is NOT the same thing as intelligence) did not "descend from a higher realm to take possession of a physical vehicle." The thesis (mind) and the antithesis (body) are, in fact, resolved not into a unity ("intelligence structure," or more banally, "body") but transcended in a synthesis (consciousness.)

The idea Mr. Watts is attempting (in my view quite unsuccessfully) to describe is actually a worthwhile one, stripped of the reductionistic scientism. Thinking of the universe as a giant problem and individual human beings are just partial solutions (not that much different than the previous version or generation) in a gigantic, hive-minded organism which is constantly evolving new ways to solve this problem--from the perspective of the organism, it's survival and flourishing, from the perspective of a conscious human, it's the ultimate meaning of everything, from the perspective of the human being as an animal, it's survival once again. Both the problems of survival and of meaning is recursive and self-defeating, in a sense, for survival because of the second law of thermodynamics (one of the most pessimistic formulations I think humanity has yet come up with) and for meaning because it is always relative to context. The fact that light and time seem to be relative leads me to believe that simple faith in the results of science is naive; we must view science as an ongoing process of approximating a truth which is not wholly illuminated.

"As for the beginning of the consciousness:
Even when just born we and other animals have information in us that we can read, i.e., particular instincts to the particular species (if you wish I can give an example/evidence for this). And then we also have the sensory ability, i.e., we get new data atop the data that is already there.
Now, to make any use of the received data we must put it in relation to the data we already have (for example: see a distant hill, put our experience/information about perspective related to it, have an estimation of the distance).

So the kickstart might be the point where a new life form starts recording new data and in order to put it in the data bank/memory, it must make sense of it. This making sense essentially may be the process we are talking about." -Avatar

OK, Avatar, the way I see things is that, even assuming we *can* explain cognitive processes like memory, reason, perception, sensation, etc., we still haven't explained how the subjective experience of being emerges--i.e., why participating in these processes occurs simultaneously with the consciousness *of* these processes, the *feeling* of participation. This is not just remembering a datum about a hill I saw yesterday, or processing data i