Consciousness: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Consciousness » Consciousness

Consciousness

Phaedruswax
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 104

Posted 08/11/09 - 06:31 AM: Subject: Consciousness	#1
It is often assumed that not all living things are conscious. Yet it is a necessary condition for life to respond to outside stimuli. I'd like to know at what point does consciousness depart from response to stimuli? I ask this because it seems to me like a slippery slope.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 08/11/09 - 07:52 PM:	#2
You might be interested in Popper, who takes a functionalist view of consciousness and includes lower-order animals. Some living things "respond" only through chemical and fluid processes in their membrane. A seed finds "up" by the way capillaries on the lower side expand and the ones on the top contract. Which part is "conscious", the plant, its capillaries, the fluids in the capillaries, or the genetic makeup that caused it to develop those specific capillaries in the first place. Same could be said of single-celled organisms. Can you be conscious without a brain? (Are they like little tin men?). People tend to prefer that which confirms their own assumptions, that "only humans are conscious", and they seek out a long list of properties to prove this premise, whether or not it matters.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 08/11/09 - 08:40 PM:	#3
You might be interested in this piece about intelligent amoebae. Or this about house-building amoebae. Why speculate when you can investigate?
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Phaedruswax
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 104

Posted 08/12/09 - 04:27 AM:	#4
swstephe wrote: You might be interested in Popper, who takes a functionalist view of consciousness and includes lower-order animals. Some living things "respond" only through chemical and fluid processes in their membrane. A seed finds "up" by the way capillaries on the lower side expand and the ones on the top contract. Which part is "conscious", the plant, its capillaries, the fluids in the capillaries, or the genetic makeup that caused it to develop those specific capillaries in the first place. Same could be said of single-celled organisms. Can you be conscious without a brain? (Are they like little tin men?). People tend to prefer that which confirms their own assumptions, that "only humans are conscious", and they seek out a long list of properties to prove this premise, whether or not it matters. So, because our mode of consciousness is more complex and harder to understand, organisms which aren't as highly developed are said to completely lack consciousness? There is no "part" that is conscious. I feel this sort of thinking also leads one down a slippery slope. You wind up with humans having an observer sitting in a theater, which would then need an observer sitting in the observer's theater, so on and so forth. I think the more important question is, can I be conscious without a body? Further more, what is a brain but a more complex set of chemical processes inside of a "membrane"? I think this is applicable to more than just species outside of humans. I personally believe people who support pro-choice also support the idea that fertilized eggs aren't conscious. I, of course, beg to differ for they respond to stimuli.

Phaedruswax
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 104

Posted 08/12/09 - 04:30 AM:	#5
unenlightened wrote: You might be interested in this piece about intelligent amoebae. Or this about house-building amoebae. Why speculate when you can investigate? Because investigation has already been done. In order for a system to be classified as "alive" it must respond to stimuli. Consciousness is the vehicle through which an organism is stimulated.

Rilx
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 92

Posted 08/12/09 - 11:56 AM:	#6
Phaedruswax wrote: I'd like to know at what point does consciousness depart from response to stimuli? Simple answer to a simple question. When you can observe the effect of the response, understand its meaning (relate it to your situation) and change future responses better by the meaning (make your situation somehow better), then you are conscious of your situation in the surrounding world. That's the beginning. A thermostat will never be conscious but any being with a purpose to survive is.
"In the life, there are no solutions. There are forces in motion. Those need to be created, and solutions follow." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Night Flight

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 08/12/09 - 12:46 PM:	#7
Doesn't an ice cube respond to stimuli of increased temperature by melting? Where do you draw the line from this kind of response and chemical responses? If you've taken some biology it would most likely appear that all biological processes deep down are quite similar to the ice cube that responds to hot tempreature by melting. Though there are certain emergent properties that exhibit processing power such as a centralized neural network, that kind of stimuli response is probably what you're looking for. Though the individual neurons and chemicals inside the brain may act just as the melting icecube, the emergent property of the conscious brain's processing power appears to be a step above the melting icecube.
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 08/12/09 - 06:25 PM:	#8
Phaedruswax wrote: So, because our mode of consciousness is more complex and harder to understand, organisms which aren't as highly developed are said to completely lack consciousness? Hey! I'm a functionalist, too. I believe that even plant capillaries should be considered a level of consciousness. Simple digital circuits would count as conscious. Phaedruswax wrote: I think the more important question is, can I be conscious without a body? I think you would still need something which could provide the functional basis, or else you are just talking metaphyiscally, (like the invisible hand of the free market). Speaking of which, collections of organisms and tools and appendages used by organisms could be classified as special categories of consciousness. Phaedruswax wrote: Further more, what is a brain but a more complex set of chemical processes inside of a "membrane"? If I put a brain in a blender, it wouldn't be capable of consciousness anymore. I've worked on some other ideas that it is the arrangement of the neurons, connections and associations made for stimuli that create consciousness, not the "gray matter" itself. Replace those neurons with something else, but make the functions the same, it is indistinguishable from consciousness. Phaedruswax wrote: I think this is applicable to more than just species outside of humans. I personally believe people who support pro-choice also support the idea that fertilized eggs aren't conscious. I, of course, beg to differ for they respond to stimuli. I think it might be a different subject. You are dealing with how society assigns rights and levels of consciousness required to establish a (unique?) human identity. Then you are dealing with subjective values between individuals and society. There is also viability to consider. There is some physical evidence that a human fetus doesn't respond to stimulation the same way an adult would until around 20 weeks and use this arbitrary limit to establish the "late-term" legal limits for abortion.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Phaedruswax
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 104

Posted 08/14/09 - 05:39 AM:	#9
swstephe wrote: I think it might be a different subject. You are dealing with how society assigns rights and levels of consciousness required to establish a (unique?) human identity. Then you are dealing with subjective values between individuals and society. There is also viability to consider. There is some physical evidence that a human fetus doesn't respond to stimulation the same way an adult would until around 20 weeks and use this arbitrary limit to establish the "late-term" legal limits for abortion. Really? I was under the impression that it was the fertilized egg which attaches itself to the vaginal wall. Don't be afraid to post sources proving me wrong. I'm really not that disagreeable.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.