How did consciousness manifest?

Sorry Sarkus, I was working my way forward form my last post and replyed to perplexity before I got to your post that also sets him straight. (To not already know this use of "zombie," he must have had little exposure to cognitive science or to philosophy. SpuriousMonkey also seems to be ignorant in this area with his view that consciousness is found by observation of behavior.)

I liked the following paragraph from your first reference:

"Now consider a biological organism that shared all our observable physical aspects but had no rational aspect. Such a thing is what philosophers call a ‘zombie’. Zombies are exactly like us in all physical respects but have no conscious experiences. There is by definition nothing it is like to be a zombie. Yet zombies (contra Descartes) behave like us, spend a lot of time discussing their thoughts and feelings, display conscious behaviour, use a rich vocabulary, and may even hold day schools and write books on human nature and the conceivability of zombies. Such disconcerting thoughts help to make the problem of phenomenal consciousness vivid."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps it is time to refer again to post with my paper* on consciousness, free will, determinism, quantum mechanics, etc, in it. Start about one display page down at bold text: Genuine Free Will is Possible

See:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1031482#post1031482

For link to "Genuine Free Will is Possible" (can be consistent with physics) post

------------------------------------
*My position is not the standard cognitive science one - quite the contrary, but it has great "explanatory powers" in many different areas of psychology, medicine, even anthropology (specifically, providing a new explanation for the "Out of Africa" event), etc.

It is a "mental mechanism" that one would expect Darwinian evolution to produce. I particularly like it as, although it does not demonstrate free will is anything more than a very universal illusion, it does show how it can be real and yet consistent with the laws of physics that govern everything, including our brain processes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes but the brain also operates in waves. These waves are frequencies, and this is what allows people to dream, and have out of body experiences. These types of mind states, whatever they are, only seem to exist in conscious beings. Different beings have different states they go in and out of, I respect your precision in highlighting this factor.

The powers of consciuosness in my opinion, make up a new type of matter. The dark matter we always talk about, we don't even know what that is yet, so it's entirely possible that psychic matter or psychic energy exists, and that by combining our consciousness we increase the psychic material energy.

We have dreams, robots don't dream. We can astral project and feel other peoples emotions, and think as they think, and see many perspectives besides our own. We can do this, but a robot can never do that. I have never seen a robot dream, or astral project, or have empathy, or any sort of emotion. It's possible to give them fake emotions, and a fake subconscious, and to try and fake it but it's really just giving them our subconscious and our conscience.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not awareness, SELF awareness. There is a huge difference. Roaches have awareness, but they have a group self. You have SELF awareness, the point where you can study yourself with science, and you still think that your brain is you? No, your brain is not you, you are just DNA. Your DNA is simply the memory, the script, based on the choices of your ancestors.

 

Nothing in the universe is random. There is no such thing as random. Everything in the universe is cause and effect. Genes are altered by our minds, because humans, or other animals with consciousness alter it, or viruses, or bacteria, but generally it's a life form influencing a life form. Cats like the cheetah developed the ability to run because they were so hungry they had to, and because the animals they chased kept running faster, the cheetah eventually was bred into existance to catch them. Cats most likely did inter-breeding among themselves until the cheetah breed formed, and this new breed of mixed cat happened to be good at chasing stuff down.

The same happened with humans in my opinion, we formed these different appearances, heights, weights and intelligences to survive in the harsh environment. The whole concept of race and stuff like it only slows down evolution, but the same people who believe in race embrace the survival of the fittest statement of darwin, as if this is the absolute focus of evolution, as if we arent conscious enough to control it, as if we have to prey on ourselves to make up for the predators we beat fair and square. Do we need to run faster and jump higher? No, not unless we are going to chase something down. Do we need to be the best predator? Maybe if we had something to prey on other than ourselves.


There is a theory, which states that consciousness is energy, and that when we combine our energy of consciousness, it becomes a form of matter. I do not mean that matter will materialize itself into existance, I'm saying that when we combine our brain energy, we can create any matter into existance through manipulating the very atoms which our brain is built on, proving that mind over matter is actually real. We call the energy of combined brains, shadow matter. It's pseudo-science, because we cannot prove it's there due to the fact that we don't see it, but we clearly see it's there due to looking at how when we combine our brains we do generate energy, and we do have more control over physical matter. So there is a reason for this, and just by calling us robots, does not change the fact that consciousness is a type of energy.

I'm not sure why people here are trying to prove that humans are just like robots, maybe they feel like one.

I'm speaking of alchemy here. Isaac Newton believed in it, as did many others. It's all about transmutation.

As far as solving the question of, (is consciousness energy?), it's obviously real. We can combine consciuosness, so it acts a lot like energy, and until robots can communicate with each other I'm not sure they are alive. When they can, they still won't be alive because they wont be self aware, why are we self aware? It's not just because we communicate with each other, because otherwise if computers can, they'd talk themselves into taking over the earth wouldnt hey?


http://deoxy.org/eoctave.htm
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Consciousness_studies:_Early_ideas

 

No I do not believe that according to my logic robots or AI have a consciousness. My posting explained one way that memory can be engrained in the brain by the repitition of neurons to form solidified neuron channel activity. I said that I was leaning more toward Humphrey's view that this might lead to an "inward encumbrance" given the size, complexity and sophistication of our brain. But yes, I do believe in a mechanistic view and I believe that Einsten did too. This is why I am confused why you posted the following quote from Einstein:

I think this quote supports what I am saying and Einstein is professing a mechanistic view by equating conscious and the brain via matter. To restate this quote more clearly, Einstein is stating that he believes the mind is immortal in the same sense as the body is immortal. In other words, neither are immortal, because the body eventually dies. Then he is saying that it is difficult to doubt that the body and consciousness are connected with matter. In other words, isn't he stating that the body and consciousness ARE connected by matter? Because it is difficult to doubt the capacity of this?

To be perfectly honest, I really don't know. And I'll have to read two more pages of this thread to catch up with these excellent postings and arguments.

 

Instinct (DNA hereditary): stimulus>response

 

Spurious, If you are serious, what is your definition of consciousness???

 

Clearly, this supports a mechanistic view?

I would like to know more about the experiments that PROVE mice feel empathy: control variables, means of measurement and identifying this conscious feeling?

I think that I can assume that my dog has a consciousness. I was forced to leave her in a kennel for one day and it took her a week to forgive me for it. She acted like she didn't even know me at first and only gradually returned to our normal closely-bonded relationship.

The more advanced and evolved we get the more consciousness expands. I restate this as a fact: not a quote. In Husserl's Phenomenology ("The Phenomenology of Inner Time-Consciousness," 1928; Eng. trans., 1964), which is an extremely deep book to read and easy to get lost in (not recommended, and not easy to read), he postulates, and it is true, that there is such a thing as "pure consciousness." In Phenomenology, the phenomenological method requires that you suspend all speculative assumptions about the world and our experience of it, then intuit the phenomenon. Time and "intentionality" are the essence of consciousness. It is possible to expand your consciousness so that you are conscious of being conscious of your consciousness of an intentionality towards an object. Now this is heavy and deep.

Again, instinct: stimulus>response

 

Consciousness is an extreme state on the gradual slope of awareness, culminating currently in self-awareness, and is a product of evolution.

Hence I consider the basic instinctive behaviour as a low form of consciousness. Although the mind of the cockroach doesn't make conscious decisions to start moving when the light is switched on, the mind is aware of the light being on and the necessity of movement. Whether that is hardwired or not, it is still awareness. And on simple forms of awareness, more complex forms can be build.

Hence I will never use the definition of consciousness very strictly. That would result in an 'unnatural' distinction.

hope that clears things up.

 

Correct, so couldn't you therefore turn this statement in on yourself? I'd have to side with Perplexity on this one, but then you'd reply "whatever on the second one"?

 

Peplexity is just trying to say nothing in every post. Or that everything is nothing. Or that there is no reality. Or that there is no observer. Or no fact. Or no forum. Or no keyboard.

I'm not going to take that seriously.

 

So I'm thinking that you were only stating that robots have a consciousness in order to emphasize the FACT that there ARE degrees of consciousness, but not that they have a consciousness in any semblance to BIOLOGICAL consciousness, else we definitely part company on our depth of understanding of EVOLUTION of "LIFE"?

 

To an extent, yes, but I do see Billy T's point of view and his distinction is valid.

To the contrary, does not consciousness manifest itself through behaviour? And this is why we can "only guess" the counsciousness of another species, i.e., through its behaviour.

 

Spurious is certainly not ignorant in his view that consciousness is found by observation, else how else do we find it in other species? And there definitely is a clear continuum in biological species.

This talk about zombies leads to a circular argument. You can take what is quoted below and add that they also share "rational aspects" and still come up with the same conclusion. It seems to be just a matter of a useless definition of the term.

Do you see the hypocritical nature of this statement. First it doesn't become a form of matter, then it does??? As is stated, this is pseudo-science, or sci-fi. Earth to space?

 

Ron, Yes. This was my error in connotation. In haste, I pressed the send key and added on "I agree!" at the end of the post, but it was cut off. However, I don't think you should bring the "moral consciousness" aspect into this thread as this is only of historical interest in semantics and I don't think that it is of much relevance to our discussion in modern terms today, although you might disagree?

A very good point was made earlier that consciousness is formed by our environment. At least in part. In MOST part! Could it be otherwise? Yet in our human capacity, given our time and place in history and our freedom and luxury to do so, we seem to strive to go beyond this. And why not?

Like I stated, as Husserl deeply delves into, we can be conscious of our counscious of our pure consciousness of directed intentionality toward an object of awareness. And I'm glad that the meaning of "awareness" was cleared up. There is definitely a huge difference between "awareness" and "self awareness." The later can be equated with consciousness, depending on your definition of consciousness, but the former can not.

 

Ron, Yes. This was my error in connotation. In haste, I pressed the send key and added on "I agree!" at the end of the post, but it was cut off. However, I don't think you should bring the "moral consciousness" aspect into this thread as this is only of historical interest in semantics and I don't think that it is of much relevance to our discussion in modern terms today, although you might disagree?

A very good point was made earlier that consciousness is formed by our environment. At least in part. In MOST part! Could it be otherwise? Yet in our human capacity, given our time and place in history and our freedom and luxury to do so, we seem to strive to go beyond this. And why not?

Like I stated, as Husserl deeply delves into, we can be conscious of our conscious of our pure consciousness of directed intentionality toward an object of awareness. And I'm glad that the meaning of "awareness" was cleared up. There is definitely a huge difference between "awareness" and "self awareness." The later can be equated with consciousness, depending on your definition of consciousness, but the former can not.

 

Spurious: As you can probably tell, I am very perplexed by this topic and I do apologize for being so strict in my reply, but I believe there is a huge gap-jump between robotic "awareness" and "biological consciousness," although I think I see your point. And I do see awareness in AI, but not consciousness?

You were right earlier by commenting on my limited understanding of evolution. But don't we all? I now have seven courses in biology, and all had a focus on evolution, especially the Comparative Vertabrate Anatomy course that I took that seemed more geared toward paleontology and cladistics than anatomy. However, I also have a degree in philosophy, majoring in Phenomenology, especially with an analyses of Husserl's conception of time counsciousness. I kind of went off into the deep end on this where my advisor finally pulled me out, basically telling me that that's enough.

I would argue vehemently against a spiritual, supernatural, God-oriented aspect of consciousness, so I hope this thread does not go into that deadend circular route. We must view consciousness as a continuous progression in evolution of species to where we are right now!

 

There is a huge gap, but scientists are trying to bridge it, unless this is what you already are aware of. The question is will they? If they do, we are fucked! Who builds a superior 'being' to themselves and survives it? Hasn't anyone watched Robocop!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/consciousness-submit/consciousness-submit.html

"Making Robots Conscious of their Mental States

John McCarthy

Computer Science Department
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
jmc@cs.stanford.edu


Abstract:
In AI, consciousness of self consists in a program having certain kinds of facts about its own mental processes and state of mind.
We discuss what consciousness of its own mental structures a robot will need in order to operate in the common sense world and accomplish the tasks humans will give it. It's quite a lot.

Many features of human consciousness will be wanted, some will not, and some abilities not possessed by humans will be found feasible and useful.

We give preliminary fragments of a logical language a robot can use to represent information about its own state of mind.

A robot will often have to conclude that it cannot decide a question on the basis of the information in memory and therefore must seek information externally. Gödel's idea of relative consistency is used to formalize non-knowledge.

Programs with the level of consciousness discussed in this article do not yet exist.

Thinking about consciousness with a view to designing it provides a new approach to some of the problems of consciousness studied by philosophers. The advantage is that it focusses on the aspects of consciousness important for intelligent behavior."

 

To sidetrack a little bit, do you know about the scientist that is actively implanting computer chips into his brain and is now considered to be the world's first bionic man? He is doing this, so he says, in preparation for the day when robots with advanced AI might take over the world. Each one-millimeter chip implant has some 50,000 transistors and 3,000 or so capacitors. He is able to transmit signals from his brain over the internet as he moves his hand to activate the same function in a robotic hand halfway around the world.

Yes, I agree with you. Scientists are trying to bridge this gap, but will they? Nevertheless, it is not the same as human consciousness, and my position is that we are hardwired through our extensive neuron-axon network, and this and this alone is responsible for human consciousness. And how can that be duplicated in a AI? You can copy and imitate it but.....well, I don't know.

Perplexity: I need to apologize. Posting the analogous articles about zombies adds fruit to this thread's discussion forum and gives us more to think about and consider.

Now, back to what I think. As was posted before:

I don't have any problem understanding consciousness from a purely mechanistic point-of-view like the above. The cerebrum is the "seat of intelligence." Through the extensive neural network of billions of neurons in the reticular formations (the net) that extends from parts of the brainstem, through the thalamus, relaying them on to the cerebral cortex, we have a conscious awareness of the activities of the aforementioned functions by way of the cerebrum's somatosensory association area that integrates it all together to give us a thought process. This also gives us memory and consciousness. Consciousness can evolve much in the same way as evolution has evolved us from simple prokaryotes to homo sapiens.

In the brain stem, the reticular formations in the medulla oblongonta, the pons, the midbrain and the diencephalon relay motor and sensory impulses and these impulses function in consciousness and arousal. We know this from CAT, PET and MRI scans and the wavelengths, particularly the beta waves that show the mental activities, by EEGs (electroencephalograms). There are primary impulse input areas and secondary sensory association areas and the cerebral cortex's "common integrative area" puts it all together to form thoughts and consciousness. I have absolutely no problem understanding multiple levels of consciousness this way.

Basic "perceptions" of touch-feeling, temperature sensations, and pain are already percepted in the thalamus even before the impulses are relayed to the cerebrum. The cerebrum consists of folded layers. Conceptionally, I have no problem imagining that the inner white matter integrates all these perceptions, while the much larger outer layers of gray matter surrounding it acts as consciousness - layer upon layer: consciousness upon consciousness This is how the brain increases during embryonic development, and consciousness increases too.

It would be interesting to know if a person who had a lobotomy still had as much consciousness as before he had the lobotomy. I would think not. I would think that after a lobotomy it would be more difficult to integrate the whole from the seperated left and right hemispheres than when they were connected together, and isn't this what we found to have happened to the people who had lobotomies in the 50's for serious mental problems?