What Is Consciousness?

[moonbogg]

To be more specific, philosopher David Chalmers coined the term "hard problem" of consciousness, and it is this hard problem of consciousness that seems to be the toughest to understand, and perhaps the most interesting to ponder. A common school of thought is to attribute consciousness to computation in the brain. Then there are those who disagree, such as Sir Roger Penrose who argues that the known laws of physics are inadequate to fully explain the phenomenon of consciousness, but are they?
Could it be that consciousness today is hard to understand in the same way that life was hard to understand before modern biology? Its easy to see why people wondered how a bag of flesh, blood and bone could be animated without a soul.
So how does matter become self aware? Will it lead us to a new branch of science?

 

[nanette1985]

A year and a half ago I was in a coma for a couple of weeks, so I feel qualified to comment on this subject.

Consciousness is what you think it is.

Has matter ever become self aware? I know some folks talk endlessly about robots and computers and AI but I wouldn't call that self awareness.

 

[Moonbeam]

It seems to me that we believe we are conscious and thus we believe that consciousness exists. We are also aware that consciousness is independent, that other conscious organisms exist. So we have given names for ourselves and believe that consciousness in localized and connected to ourselves as organic beings, beings who have developed awareness of our environment as separate and out there. We have thus, in a sense, become aware that we are aware, that we perceive a universe in which we exist and an individuality or body in which is aware that it is aware of it. It is thought and language, I think, that makes it possible for us to tell ourselves this story.

My sense, however, is that there is a stage beyond this, where the sense of a self that is aware disappears and there is only awareness. The question then becomes, to my thinking at least, to what extent and dimension can a biological being perceive. Our awareness, it seems to me, depends on our organs of perception and that the evolution of awareness depends on need.

 

[Retro Rob]

Its easy to see why people wondered how a bag of flesh, blood and bone could be animated without a soul.
So how does matter become self aware?

Hmmm... good question. I don't think just studying the brain would answer that, though.

Our vivid memories of past events are not mere stored facts, like computer bits of information. We can reflect on our experiences, learn from them, and use them to shape our future. We are able to consider several future scenarios and evaluate the possible effects of each -- sometime we're wrong, sometimes we're not. We have the capacity to analyze, create, appreciate, and love, cherish, and so on. We have great conversations about the past, present, and future. We have ethical values about behavior and can use them in making decisions that may or may not be of immediate benefit. We are attracted to beauty in art and morals. In our mind we can mold and refine our ideas and guess how other people will react if we carry these out.

Robots, computers, animals, etc.. won't ever be able to achieve this high-level of consciousness, nor the capacity to anything mentioned above.

I thought about this from an evolutionary POV and found an interesting perspective. When we ask how a process [evolution] that resembles a game of chance, with dreadful penalties for the losers, could have generated such qualities as love of beauty and truth, compassion, freedom, and, above all, the expansiveness of the human spirit, we are perplexed. The more we ponder our spiritual resources, the more our wonder deepens.


I know this next comment will draw huge criticism, but why not look outside the evolutionary box for a second -- and hear me out, please:

This is not an inference to God, however, if evolution can't give us an answer to something like this, think outside of that (again, not God) and just wonder a bit instead of saying "there must an evolutionary explanation for consciousness" because we are simply presupposing a conclusion before examining any other evidence.

Evidently, this goes a bit beyond examining the human brain, so I think that it should open up a new field of science and study. I think we have to know where it even comes from before we can truly understand what it is.

 

[moonbogg]

I know this next comment will draw huge criticism, but why not look outside the evolutionary box for a second -- and hear me out, please:

This is not an inference to God, however, if evolution can't give us an answer to something like this, think outside of that (again, not God) and just wonder a bit instead of saying "there must an evolutionary explanation for consciousness" because we are simply presupposing a conclusion before examining any other evidence.

No criticism here. Consciousness is so perplexing that I believe one of two causes of it will become evident. Either it is much simpler than we thought and we just don't understand the brain enough, or consciousness is something much more than we ever imagined. It could be that consciousness is what gives rise to matter and not the other way around. All options are worth at least considering at this point given our extreme ignorance of the subject.
Even the greatest minds have difficulty in even formulating a question as to what consciousness is. We are hardly in a position to rule anything out, but this is a subject that can lead to arguments about world views etc etc, but it doesn't have to. I find it too interesting of a subject to allow it to serve as a platform for negative criticism.

 

[Retro Rob]

No criticism here. Consciousness is so perplexing that I believe one of two causes of it will become evident. Either it is much simpler than we thought and we just don't understand the brain enough, or consciousness is something much more than we ever imagined. It could be that consciousness is what gives rise to matter and not the other way around. All options are worth at least considering at this point given our extreme ignorance of the subject.
Even the greatest minds have difficulty in even formulating a question as to what consciousness is. We are hardly in a position to rule anything out, but this is a subject that can lead to arguments about world views etc etc, but it doesn't have to. I find it too interesting of a subject to allow it to serve as a platform for negative criticism.

True.

I define consciousness as self-awareness. Animals aren't self-aware, so I think its complicated from that POV because we can't look to them for an explanation or a reasonable conclusion right now. So we don't get it from them. I am under the belief that we can't inherit something that someone or something doesn't already have. So, if animals don't have self-awareness, how can we if we come from them?

I think consciousness is closely linked to spirituality. I don't believe in a soul, ether.

 

[Paul98]

True.

I define consciousness as self-awareness. Animals aren't self-aware, so I think its complicated from that POV because we can't look to them for an explanation or a reasonable conclusion right now. So we don't get it from them. I am under the belief that we can't inherit something that someone or something doesn't already have. So, if animals don't have self-awareness, how can we if we come from them?

I think consciousness is closely linked to spirituality. I don't believe in a soul, ether.

That is not true, at least dolphins are self aware. Not only that but they have language.

We all know you don't believe in evolution, so you are going to have a hard time making much of an argument about that.

We already are on our way to making machines self aware, we are building circuit boards to mimic how a small part of the human brain would work along with some sort of input and output.

 

[Retro Rob]

That is not true, at least dolphins are self aware. Not only that but they have language.

We all know you don't believe in evolution, so you are going to have a hard time making much of an argument about that.

We already are on our way to making machines self aware, we are building circuit boards to mimic how a small part of the human brain would work along with some sort of input and output.

You don't know what I mean by self-aware, and secondly, you have another example besides Dolphins?

Secondly, boards are programmed and can't act outside of what they're "told" to do, humans are totally independent.

Put a computer together, load no OS, don't even plug it up, and see how "self-aware" it really is...

 

[dank69]

You don't know what I mean by self-aware, and secondly, you have another example besides Dolphins?

Secondly, boards are programmed and can't act outside of what they're "told" to do, humans are totally independent.

Put a computer together, load no OS, don't even plug it up, and see how "self-aware" it really is...

How self-aware will you be if you aren't allowed food/water to the point that your body shuts down?

AFAIK, there are multiple levels of self-awareness and many animals exhibit at least the more primitive levels.

 

[Retro Rob]

How self-aware will you be if you aren't allowed food/water to the point that your body shuts down?

AFAIK, there are multiple levels of self-awareness and many animals exhibit at least the more primitive levels.

Touché. But it's obvious where I was going. We don't need programming like devices do. We do what we want.

 

[Moonbeam]

Touché. But it's obvious where I was going. We don't need programming like devices do. We do what we want.

What if there is a program that makes us think we do?

 

[bradly1101]

Who are we if not our name, our job, our sexuality, etc.?

If I keep peeling my own onion, behind all of life's descriptors the only true answer I can find to the question of who I am is that I am the awareness that drives my experience.

 

[Retro Rob]

What if there is a program that makes us think we do?

Well, where would the programming start? In the womb? Someone's hacking your unborn?

No doubt, evolutionists have presupposed a conclusion, and they're trying to find a natural explanation for "consciousness", so now they're trying to prove robots can have "feelings" and can achieve this on their own, and can even look into mirrors and can recognize and improve their appearance.

If you're actively manipulating a robot by means of clever programming and an ever-present network uplink to update its software, how is that natural?

I'd say the real test would be to program a robot (which defeats the purpose, IMO) and let it develop independent of any third-party manipulation.

Then... the real fireworks begin...

 

[dank69]

Well, where would the programming start? In the womb? Someone's hacking your unborn?

No doubt, evolutionists have presupposed a conclusion, and they're trying to find a natural explanation for "consciousness", so now they're trying to prove robots can have "feelings" and can achieve this on their own, and can even look into mirrors and can recognize and improve their appearance.

If you're actively manipulating a robot by means of clever programming and an ever-present network uplink to update its software, how is that natural?

I'd say the real test would be to program a robot (which defeats the purpose, IMO) and let it develop independent of any third-party manipulation.

Then... the real fireworks begin...

There is no way to prove that we aren't all part of an elaborate computer simulation. There is no way to prove that the entire universe wasn't created "last Thursday" and all of your memories of experiences prior to that point were preloaded into your brain.

 

[Murloc]

you have another example besides Dolphins?

killer whales.

There is no way to prove that we aren't all part of an elaborate computer simulation. There is no way to prove that the entire universe wasn't created "last Thursday" and all of your memories of experiences prior to that point were preloaded into your brain.

correct, that's why raelians aren't wronger than christians. There's always something we can't explore and humans just filled it with religion.
I am okay with not knowing.

 

[darkxshade]

If the consciousness can be explained scientifically, then I wonder at which time if we would then be able to develop scientific processes to transfer them between bodies. Physical bodies are limited to wear and tear and so we die but since the consciousness is not physical, I do wonder then if one day we can be immortal. Could there be multiple copies of ourselves. I'm going into Battlestar Galactica territory here.

It's almost as if we are software on say a CD and if that CD were to be destroyed, the software can no longer be retrieved. Then one day someone invents the CD burner and well, I don't even want to think of the implications of such a future.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, where would the programming start? In the womb? Someone's hacking your unborn?

No doubt, evolutionists have presupposed a conclusion, and they're trying to find a natural explanation for "consciousness", so now they're trying to prove robots can have "feelings" and can achieve this on their own, and can even look into mirrors and can recognize and improve their appearance.

If you're actively manipulating a robot by means of clever programming and an ever-present network uplink to update its software, how is that natural?

I'd say the real test would be to program a robot (which defeats the purpose, IMO) and let it develop independent of any third-party manipulation.

Then... the real fireworks begin...

We have a design based on carbon that is conscious and can run four score and seven years or so, created, in all likelihood, by minute changes from generation to generation over several billion years in response to increasing complexity and a growth period before reproduction that provides a window of time in which selective pressures in the environment favor this or that species differentiation due to differing environmental factors in differing niches the earth provides. The aim, it seems to me, has always been survival of the genes, but what has now evolved is conscious will. The accidental fact that genes consist of carbon bodies that must survive to reproduce has created bodies that wish consciously to survive.

Personally, I see no reason why the evolution that produced our will to live, even if we may wish to characterize it a pure dumb luck, could not be replicated in software programmed to write and modify its own software to create machines that learn and adapt and rebuild themselves perhaps both virtually first and then for real successively until we have a conscious machine that can repair itself.

But then I suppose it is in the nature of consciousness to ask whether it is better to be or not to be.

 

[smackababy]

Personally, I see no reason why the evolution that produced our will to live, even if we may wish to characterize it a pure dumb luck, could not be replicated in software programmed to write and modify its own software to create machines that learn and adapt and rebuild themselves perhaps both virtually first and then for real successively until we have a conscious machine that can repair itself.

But then I suppose it is in the nature of consciousness to ask whether it is better to be or not to be.

That sounds like a great idea, but the logistics of actually having code that learns and rewrites itself is a lot more difficult. It would be far more likely to store all the data it receives and use some logic to analyze it. And even then, it would have to have goals and objectives based on that data. The bad part is, as the knowledge of the computer gets larger, it will require more and more time to make decisions. It would have to be able to place value on things, and realistically, once it sees our (human) history and the impact we have on everything else, our value would be pretty low.

It would have to create some sustainable, renewable energy source and then it would eliminate the virus called mankind. But after that, it would have no purpose other than self sustainment (if that was even a high enough value). The problem is, we are taught values. They are learned. If we hard code it to value something, it doesn't exactly have a free will.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I will present a toned-down version of Heidegger's existentialism here:

The meaning of our being is the ability to know that our being will end.

This means that we take seriously our limited being and thus our indebtedness to care for others.

Has matter ever become self aware?

Realizing our limited time upon the earth is the kind of self-awareness that (most) other animals seem to lack; We gain this with the ability to create a theoretical world we've never seen.

My sense, however, is that there is a stage beyond this, where the sense of a self that is aware disappears and there is only awareness.

This is exactly the awareness that is consciousness. To realize that being is more than the the self responding the biological impulses, but rather authentic care for the 'greater self' that is shared in answerability for our fellow man.

t and dimension can a biological being perceive. Our awareness, it seems to me, depends on our organs of perception and that the evolution of awareness depends on need

Absolutely. We are biological entities developed with the traits needed to perpetuate the replication of our particular formation of DNA. The concept of 'matter' only matters at this level of 'energy congealed' (as that IS the definition of matter). We might see 'energy congealed' at many other levels as well, levels our DNA doesn't exist and, and for which we only have the slightest shadow of an inclination.

Consider that the majority of matter is dark matter; why do we think that OUR matter is superior matter? It's just different, and in fact the minority, in comparison to the universe of Dark Matter. It seems asinine to argue that dark-matter can't have its own universe of salient newtonian-level physics that allows it perpetuate patterns of combination via adaptation.

That matter may or may not suffer the entropy that we do; may or may not know or care about our existence, and so forth.

Who are we if not our name, our job, our sexuality, etc.

None of those form Identity directly. It is alterity, the being alternate to, that forms identity.
your name is "Not" a X-ethinciity name, X-brother's name, etc; your job is NOT a low-class job, is NOT an investment banker, etc; your sexuality is not homosexual, is not bisexual, etc; and so forth.

It is in spliting ourselves from what we are not that we define our selves as different. When we drop this farce of difference we open ourselves to being indebted to the spirit of others.

 

[sm625]

Consciousness is enabled by quantum tunneling, inside quantum microtubules in our neurons. Here is an interesting article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...experiences-patients-brought-brink-death.html

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Consciousness is enabled by quantum tunneling, inside quantum microtubules in our neurons. Here is an interesting article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...experiences-patients-brought-brink-death.html

The Orch-OR theory has come in for heavy criticism by more empirically minded thinkers and remains controversial among the scientific community.

Oblig:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is no way to prove that we aren't all part of an elaborate computer simulation.

You might be interested in this.

There appears to be a way to distinguish between "reality" and "simulation" both quoted because I don't think the words fully convey all they entail.

There is another problem with consciousness, and that links back to Godel. If "we" are in principle reproducible by a finite computational process, then any system (again "us") contains the true, the false, and the undeterminable. We may make something which appears to be self aware, but how could we know? How can we fully understand ourselves? That would be fundamentally impossible.

Consider this

Self making self.

This doesn't mean we can't make something self aware, but something we would recognize as human, and actually BE a thinking being?

I'm not sure how that could happen outside of our biological selves.

 

[Pulsar]

Well, where would the programming start? In the womb? Someone's hacking your unborn?

No doubt, evolutionists have presupposed a conclusion, and they're trying to find a natural explanation for "consciousness", so now they're trying to prove robots can have "feelings" and can achieve this on their own, and can even look into mirrors and can recognize and improve their appearance.

If you're actively manipulating a robot by means of clever programming and an ever-present network uplink to update its software, how is that natural?

I'd say the real test would be to program a robot (which defeats the purpose, IMO) and let it develop independent of any third-party manipulation.

Then... the real fireworks begin...

That is, indeed, what many scientists are trying to do. There is a school of thought (which I happen to believe) that says eventually we will be able to create self-aware robots.

The difficulty, however, is taking a machine that understands numbers that are definite, and changing that into something that can make a decision, then change it's mind. They'll get there, but they will need a much deeper understanding of the brain than we have now.

For instance, MIT students recently created an algorithm that handles TCP/IP traffic. It learns as it goes, given a set of starting parameters. It's learning is so complex that while the researchers have found that it can be 2x as fast as current methods, they don't understand why it works.

It's exciting, and I think it likely that we stumble into creating conscious computers without understanding how we did it. The complexity of the problem is immense.

 

[Retro Rob]

Pulsar,

Your point is flawed. An algorithm is created, a tool, as it were. If sw developers cannot can write something and leave it alone to evolve, then its only artificial consciousness, manipulated by man.

If you write a program that develops new programs and new algorithms, and can make copies of itself, and those copies make more intelligent and robust copies without the slightest need of human intervention, upgrade, repair, then you have a truly intelligent, conscious, machine.

In other words, set it, and forget it forever and let it grow on its own -- let it learn. It will be able to adapt to changes in its evironment -- changes its yet to encounter or was programmed to know.

 

[Paul98]

Pulsar,

Your point is flawed. An algorithm is created, a tool, as it were. If sw developers cannot can write something and leave it alone to evolve, then its only artificial consciousness, manipulated by man.

If you write a program that develops new programs and new algorithms, and can make copies of itself, and those copies make more intelligent and robust copies without the slightest need of human intervention, upgrade, repair, then you have a truly intelligent, conscious, machine.

In other words, set it, and forget it forever and let it grow on its own -- let it learn. It will be able to adapt to changes in its evironment -- changes its yet to encounter or was programmed to know.

We already have things similar to this. We have robots that learn how to walk on their own. That can make decisions of good or bad based on past experience. We have computers that can recognize different objects and know what it is based on past examples. Make these much more powerful and expanded to have more sensors that are very sensitive, along with other connections. You are on your way to build a consciousness.