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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
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?
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'. No but we do need to postulate the conditions under which consciousness can come to be if we are to understand it. Perhaps it can't be specifically derived from them, but it certainly can/could be a logical mutation of them (so to speak). Are you saying 'reality' has been fully described? Did I miss it? Where, who? 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.
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.
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? 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)
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. 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.
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. 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 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. 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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. 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. Exactly Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The problem is that an idea weaves together concepts. There is no conceptualishness about data at all.
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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: 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. Understood. Avatar: 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? 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: 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? How does this attack Idealism? If we are consciousness, like you suggest, then we may well come to support Idealism? wesmorris: 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; 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. 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... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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: 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. Why would you affirm that the totality of your experience cannot be determined? That you are an agent? 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...?
