Consciousness: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Consciousness » Consciousness

Consciousness
Theories as to the origin and meaning of our experience

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Consciousness

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/18/09 - 08:54 PM:	#101
shappy wrote: A process or movement can only exist against a backdrop of non-movement. In the same way, form cannot exist without space. Consciousness is that in which the process is conceivable. I'm saying that an agent or a machine could not have such a backdrop from which to allow self-consciousness to arise. You are saying that a machine cannot have a backdrop of non-movement, and that a backdrop of non-movement is necessary in order for consciousness to arise? Is that a correct paraphrasing of your position? If so, could you please explain why you think a machine cannot have a backdrop of non-movement and why you think consciousness requires a background of non-movement? shappy wrote: As already stated by Kadu B., it would be a sophisticated stimulus-response machine. This does not adequately explain consciousness. What is it exactly that you think the model does "not adequately explain" about consciousness?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 10/18/09 - 08:58 PM:	#102
Dragohunter wrote: Consciousness is subjective experience or awareness or wakefulness or the executive control system of the mind so I would rather define it not as a process but as a state in which the mind/brain exists produced by processes, whatever that may be is still controversial. If i'm not mistaken, materialism and biological naturalism presupposes that the brain "produces" consciousness while consciousness in dualism is the causal relations between the brain and soul/nonphysical entity. Edit: sorry I would like to define it as a continuum of states (ranging from alert, oriented to time and place, and communicative through disorientation) The problem I have with defining consciousness as a "state" of the brain is that "state" implies something static, rather than dynamic. I don't think any single static state of the brain, looked at in isolation, would possess consciousness, simply because consciousness is a dynamic process (or if you prefer a dynamic sequence of constantly changing states) rather than a single static state.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 238

Posted 10/18/09 - 10:53 PM:	#103
reincarnated wrote: I can think of a process as "a unity", Yes, so can I. I probably should have distinguished two senses of unity, a weak and a strong. In the weak sense, anything at all is a unity, even fifty marbles. It is one lot of fifty. What I mean by unity in the strong sense is something not made of parts. To illustrate what I mean I will give the only natural examples I can think of: 1) A point 2) A black hole (perhaps, I don't really know) 3) A field (a continuum present at every point in space) 4) Space In order to get the kind of unity we have in phenomenal experience, I think consciousness must be a unity in this strong sense. And because I reject substance dualism, I have to identify consciousness with something 'natural', something on that list. It can't be a point or a black hole, because consciousness does not destroy its contents. Anything squashed into a point loses its character. Therefore, for me consciousness must be a field extended in space or space itself, as these relate and unify their contents without destroying them. A process isn't a unity in this strong sense, I don't think. ...and I can also think of consciousness as not being unified. There are certainly examples of disunity in consciousness, split brain effects, subconscious processes, content slipping in and out of consciousness, desires which condition our actions but which we are not continually aware of. You also list examples. But I don't need to assert the unity of consciousness in such a holistic way for my argument to go through (even though I do think that consciousness is absolutely holistic). I just need to show that consciousness, within one of its splits, is unified. And I think I can. Hearing the sound of the TV is a holistic experience. There are many auditory signals, one from a half a second ago is remembered, which is related to the one you are hearing now, both are labelled as belonging to yet another thing, your concept of the TV, which is in turn an amalgam of boxishness, communication, flashing lights, and a whole load of other stuff. All this stuff is bound together in an experience of hearing the TV. I take it that if you still think that binding happens, that you also think that consciousness, when the binding does happen, is unified. You perhaps just don't think that all experience is bound into one global whole. Is that right? There are many aspects to my conscious experience, some of which seem to rise to prominence and some of which just linger in the background (such as the sound from the TV in the background while I am writing this, the occasional scent from the lilies on the table, the nagging voice in my mind that I have more important things to do which cannot be put off all day, the occasional rumbling in my stomach which tells me I should get something to eat, etc etc), but the relative importance of each of these aspects is changing all the time as I move the focus of my awareness from one to the other. This fits perfectly with the model of consciousness as a dynamic reflexive process, a process which is continuously evaluating and measuring inputs from multiple stimuli and sources and relating these back to some artificial "centre of narrative gravity". Perhaps this "centre of narrative gravity" is the "unified consciousness" you speak of? With qualifications, perhaps, yes. Crucially, I just don't think it's artificial, and nor it is a 'centre' in the sense of a point, because a point can't relate anything together without destroying the things it attempts to relate. But a 'centre' in the sense of a spatially extended field simultaneously aware of its contents, then sure. I really like your description of how it feels to be aware that you give above, especially the shifting of our focus of attention. It seems to me a lot like a spatially extended field introducing stresses and strains within itself, centring itself around certain parts of the brain, perhaps, the parts which are responsible for processing that bit of experience that one is concentrating on at that particular time. While doing so we remain only 'dimly' aware of other parts of our 'field' of awareness exactly because the field is not concentrating (centring itself) on those parts. Edited by bert1 on 10/18/09 - 11:01 PM
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 164

Posted 10/19/09 - 11:58 AM:	#104
reincarnated wrote: The problem I have with defining consciousness as a "state" of the brain is that "state" implies something static, rather than dynamic. I don't think any single static state of the brain, looked at in isolation, would possess consciousness, simply because consciousness is a dynamic process (or if you prefer a dynamic sequence of constantly changing states) rather than a single static state. That is closwer to what I think, but I'd rather think consciouness is a system rather than a sequence. Consciousness experience is rather produced by a sequence of perceptions and reactions at the instant that you feel a certain level of awareness.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 10/19/09 - 04:12 PM:	#105
Simple Occam wrote: mway wrote: The point of this, is that we still cannot look at a standard trained neural net and explicitly explain exactly what is going on in terms of single nodes, but we DO know how it works. The brain is simply more complicated, taking into account both spacial and temporal data. The key is to map, simulate and start understanding the different levels of neural topologies if we want a specific explanation. Imagine you knew nothing about computers and someone asked you to understand windows. You would have billions of 1's and 0's, and would have to figure out how they all interact. It may seem impossible, but it was also once impossible to map the human genome. Surely you don't mean to suggest that the only diffrence between your brain and a computer is complexity? Computers compute numbers. That's all they do. Brains do much more, including having consciousness. As computers get more and more advanced, do you think it's because computers are evolving or because we are? Firstly, computers don't compute numbers (they obviously can be used for that). Computers are physical memory in a state which use a CPU to process and alter the state into other states. A state machine. The human brain isn't much different, other than being semi analog/digital. Both computers and brains receive input and pass output both to the environment, and to themselves. Both are constantly modifying hardware states; the brain is constantly altering synaptic efficencies and forming new connections, while a computers physical memory (HDD) is constantly changing it's state. The primary difference is the complexity, and the software. Consciousness exists as much as my photos exist on my computer. Is that really so difficult to understand? Everyone seems to forget that they ARE the consciousness; the software. Software presented to software can be anything.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Mars Man
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 27, 2006
Location: Matsumoto, Japan

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 898

Posted 10/20/09 - 06:25 AM:	#106
Kadu B. wrote: I think there is a problem with these tests and checks for consciousness, even if you use very sophisticated functional imaging techniques. I mean, there is a problem only if you are a very skeptical philosopher or scientist, which I'm not. But it leaves something out anyway.(underscore mine) I tend to reason here, that problems which may be created, will more usually be found to have been created for lack of a more pragmatic definition range, and not due to any great evasiveness in what can be gleened so far about correlates of consciousness. (of course, it will be noted in the above wording, that some problems will simply be--not created--yet that by rationalizing, some will be screened out as having been created. [see below] I also underscored that portion of the quote to highlight a question of 'skeptic to what degree?' That's something that we may have to take as it comes. I feel I understand the objections pointed out, yet would yet stick to my guns here, and suggest that we need not to make assumptions yet (or not nearly so often), but rather go to case studies and verify with batteries of tests and observations. We will find, for example a number of autonomic nervous system (ANS) responses which are quite mechanical. We can see cases of 'otherwise lacking a state of consciousness' conscious activity in persistent vegative cases; and of course we'll always have our sleepwalkers, talkers, and sexers. These conditions all present elements of test battery. (and we could include professor V.S. Ramachandran's 'Pepsi test' to establish a state of consciousness) Kadu B. wrote: I don't think your reasoning is wrong, I just think it leaves the phenomenon of qualia out of the equation. I would respond by pointing out that to the degree that, say for now, at least, the normal H. sapien brain⁽¹⁾ is quite the same for all of that set, we understand the 'what it is like-ness.' We need no prior experience nor detailed knowledge of the internal biological events to have our first orgasim, and know what it feels like, and in that way have no reason to concern ourselves over that function of neural activity, really. In the matter of core consciousness--which will quite parallel [or union with] phenomenal consciousnes which the quale thing seems to be mostly about--we will find that there are, again, tests for that scale of conscious brain. Mary will see red phenomenonally.⁽²⁾ Yes, let's see what can be learned--and I will provide some paper results which have come out already, as time allows. On another point, I'd argue for consciousness, a threshold range above a certain degree of conscious, as being of a brain state/build, and although (as pointed out) there is the dynamic aspect, that aspect is a property of the brain build. 1. Please give me the benefit of the doubt here, as I do reason I have good reason to point out that there is a normal brain state/build. 2. And, as far as I know, you are correct in saying that [i]fMRI will not show us the detail and complexity of intra-neural mapping necessary for the 'what it is like-ness.' Although there is now an improved tensory[if I have recalled that word correctly--will check] version, the pixel size is still just not that clear, and is not, I think, functional.

throng
Profester.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Location: Downunder.

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 803

Posted 10/20/09 - 08:08 AM:	#107
I think consciousness is awareness of perception, or perception of awareness. I don't think there's any difference.
I know that I don't know, so I don't know if I do.

shappy
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 04, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 10/20/09 - 09:39 AM:	#108
reincarnated, My position is that your model will merely simulate self-consciousness. And if self-consciousness is a simulation, then your model will be a simulation of a simulation... so what? Where did the simulation of self-consciousness come from? What generated the process? If you ever actually construct such an agent and together discuss the meaning of life, where will that leave you? What have you understood about consciousness? What have you understood about yourself? This entire exercise is a means to keep the "self" relevant. It's not and it can't be.

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 164

Posted 10/20/09 - 11:46 AM:	#109
throng wrote: I think consciousness is awareness of perception, or perception of awareness. I don't think there's any difference. Wrong, consciousness is the causal relations for both the awareness of perception and conscious experience (for example, if a computer sent electrical signals into your nerves to cause your arm to rise, it isn't the same experience of you raising your arm at will). This is what gives the qualitative data that confuses both philosphers and cognitive scientists.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 10/20/09 - 03:36 PM:	#110
Consciousness is software, and is actually quite simple to explain. In fact, I don't think it is hard to build a crude simple model of it on a normal computer. You simply need an agent (a computer game character for example), and that agent requires an internal state that changes based upon environmental input. This is it's phenomenal state. For example, if red comes as input, the internal state changes to 'I am seeing red'. You neither have to define 'red' itself (as it doesn't really exist), or the 'I' (as that doesn't exist either). If you scaled the complexity of this crude agent way up, and included many non binary variable states that were altered not only by the environment but the other states as well, and the ability to store temporal memories, you would end up with a self conscious machine.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

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