Consciousness

[agnosticator]

This, "yet, it is unreflective, present oriented, and makes little reference to concept of him/herself" is what I was talking about with regards to the ego. <snip>

 

No...I think awareness is focused attention and this happens in the field of consciousness. Oh hell.

 

Are you talking about a "lower level" type of awareness, that is not the same as the consciousness of sentient beings? As it seems to us that atoms, cells, etc. are aware of what they do? That the "stuff" we are made of is in a sense, aware? Or that they unconsciously go about their business?

[Shyone]

Shyone, I have it in my head, but I can't explain what I want to say. Damn words.

My brain is turning to mush anyway, so I probably wouldn't understand it. I'm lucid about 1/2 the time.

 

Right now, I can't seem to drink enough coffee to get rid if my headache and stay awake.

 

Rereading your words, I get the gist of what you are saying about consciousness being more than mechanically responding to our environment. I still see it as physical even with the development of reasoning, planning and the peculiar phenomenon of self-awareness; that sense of being, realization that I exist. It seems so unphysical.

 

But however complex, weird, and even godly our consciousness is, it must be physical.

 

Not to derail this thread, but I really do think that machines will one day be capable of self awareness. I could be wrong, however, and I'm not sure how I would even be able to tell if the machine was "self aware" or just "faking it."

 

Honestly, if it weren't for our mutual biologic/physiologic similarities, how would we "really know" that other people are also self aware? We can only judge by behavior, but a machine could "behave" the same without being self-aware.

[Evolution_beyond]

 

Maybe if I change the last part of the question to this: Or is consciousness the field in which awareness of things occur? On a greater scale, consciousness is a state in which everything happens. Consciousness doesn't arrise with the senses, it is there before any awareness occurs. It's a blank slate that allows the words to be written.

 

If I might butt in here.

 

It seems to me that the thing you are describing doesn't exist. There is no awareness before senses. Consciousness=awareness. Plain and simple.

 

Those who insist that there is more to consciousness than the working of the brain seem to make this error. You are inventing an extra mystery and then saying this mystery cannot be explained by science and so concluding that there is more to consciousness than what science can reveal of the workings of the brain.

 

But the fact is that you are over-mystifying consciousness. Consciousness quite simply is the awareness/the information made available to the brain via the senses (and other brain processes). Even the phenomenal aspects of consciousness are what you would expect from such a process. You can hardly 'be aware of' things without being aware of them - and so you experience that which you are aware of. Does that make sense?

 

To me there's no mystery about it anymore.

 

The easy part of consciousness is what could be called concentrated consciousness or attention. This is only a small part of it. We are able to take in much more than we are aware of. I think this is why hypnosis works.

 

This is another fascinating aspect about consciousness. There are processes in the brain that we are not aware of (unconscious), there are others which we are aware of(conscious), and there are still others that we are not immediately aware of but can become aware of if our attention is focused on that information (peripheral consciousness). Sensory information into the brain might not be enough for consciousness but some kind of focus or concentration on the matter by enough of the brain that the event can pass into the memory afterwards.

 

Daniel Dennet's book Consciousness Explained explains this very well.

[Evolution_beyond]

A plant leans towards the light when it grows. Is it aware?

 

No

[Evolution_beyond]

Not to derail this thread, but I really do think that machines will one day be capable of self awareness.

 

I think this too

[Vigile]

Not to derail this thread, but I really do think that machines will one day be capable of self awareness.

 

I think this too

 

Can anyone explain what the barriers are?

[Ouroboros]

Can anyone explain what the barriers are?

The plasticity of the brain has to be replicated somehow.

 

There are about one hundred billion neurons in the brain, and each average to 7000 synaptic connections, and they can change and adapt.

 

Let's say each neuron was given a unique number, for 100,000,000,000 neurons it would require about 36-37 bits for each number. Let's make it even 48 bits, which is 6 bytes. So for 100,000,000,000 identifiers of 6 bytes, we would need a 600 GB storage. Not so bad.

 

But each neuron would have to be able to store at least 7,000 relations, which is 7,000 * 6 * 100,000,000,000 bytes = 4,200 TB. That's a fucking huge number. You need 4,200 of those 1TB drives, and the access has to be instant anywhere on them, and even allow parallel access. And the connections should be able to change depending on some complicated formula (which I don't know enough about, they talk about it when it comes to artificial neural-nets.)

 

And that's probably just the beginning.

 

So the solution is perhaps to create a completely new kind of "computer." One where the connections are physical and not digital. Recreate the actual behavior of the brain.

[Legion]

I suspect that the assumption of artificial intelligence, as it is currently envisioned by some (e.g. as if it were a matter of providing the proper software to a computer), may be deeply flawed.

[Shyone]

Can anyone explain what the barriers are?

The plasticity of the brain has to be replicated somehow.

 

There are about one hundred billion neurons in the brain, and each average to 7000 synaptic connections, and they can change and adapt.

 

Let's say each neuron was given a unique number, for 100,000,000,000 neurons it would require about 36-37 bits for each number. Let's make it even 48 bits, which is 6 bytes. So for 100,000,000,000 identifiers of 6 bytes, we would need a 600 GB storage. Not so bad.

 

But each neuron would have to be able to store at least 7,000 relations, which is 7,000 * 6 * 100,000,000,000 bytes = 4,200 TB. That's a fucking huge number. You need 4,200 of those 1TB drives, and the access has to be instant anywhere on them, and even allow parallel access. And the connections should be able to change depending on some complicated formula (which I don't know enough about, they talk about it when it comes to artificial neural-nets.)

 

And that's probably just the beginning.

 

So the solution is perhaps to create a completely new kind of "computer." One where the connections are physical and not digital. Recreate the actual behavior of the brain.

I think, however, that this model assumes we are attempting to duplicate the human brain, when that may not be necessary in order to create consciousness and self-awareness.

 

True, it's very complicated, but keep in mind that the brain is an evolutionary ad hoc apparatus and not "designed."

 

In the first place, a large part of the brain deals with maintaining homeostasis, monitoring bodily functions, regulation of those functions, etc. It takes a lot of brain tissue to do what one computer can do if properly designed.

 

Some shortcuts, or totally different means of providing connections, may happen. Brains are limited by the speed of transmission, and a computer has vastly superior potential for speedy computations - computations replacing "connections."

 

Imagine software modules that have various functions that can act in concert. One processor can manage multiple such modules, so that that number of processors may decrease tremendously, and the "connections" can involve software rather than hardware connections.

 

It is true that if you attempt to replicate the brain, you will have problems. That should not be the goal. Physical connections are not important. One neuron = maybe 7000 bits of information (synapses), or 110 bytes (if we use, say, 64 bits/byte). In the cerebral cortex, the number of neurons in the human is 11,000,000,000, which in terms of storage would be 1,203,125,000,000, or one terabyte.

 

With a fast processor and less storage than a large hard drive, one has the potential for self-awareness.

 

Yeah, it's overly optimistic, but the brain was not built for thinking. It was built for survival, and the first 3.5 billion years of evolution can be skipped, leaving only the need for 1) storage of information, 2) access to information, 3) means of acquiring information, 4) language, and 5) good enough and fast enough software to use the information.

 

"The average persons' vocabulary consists of 10,000 words, regardless of native tongue."

 

We aren't as good as we like to think we are.

 

I really didn't mean to switch the topic to AI, but I didn't want people to think that we need to replicate the brain. I also think that the ability of the brain to process and store information is vastly overrated.

 

Ironically, it may be the very inefficiency of the brain that has led to conciousness, but I doubt it. I think we are really a lot closer to self-aware machines than we know.

 

Edited to correct some mathematical assumptions...

[Legion]

I think we are really a lot closer to self-aware machines than we know.

I have become very skeptical of such claims. I can see no grounds for it.

[Ouroboros]

I think, however, that this model assumes we are attempting to duplicate the human brain, when that may not be necessary in order to create consciousness and self-awareness.

Fair enough.

 

True, it's very complicated, but keep in mind that the brain is an evolutionary ad hoc apparatus and not "designed."

 

In the first place, a large part of the brain deals with maintaining homeostasis, monitoring bodily functions, regulation of those functions, etc. It takes a lot of brain tissue to do what one computer can do if properly designed.

The problem though is that I believe (yes, believe, can't prove it ) that part of who we are is the experience we have. Consciousness and awareness is not a limited process beyond and excluded from the relationship we have with our environment. I believe that you won't get a true consciousness unless you include those things we consider "flawed."

 

Some shortcuts, or totally different means of providing connections, may happen. Brains are limited by the speed of transmission, and a computer has vastly superior potential for speedy computations - computations replacing "connections."

I think there are calculations done in this subject that concludes that the computers can't match up. And I believe that indeterminism of some sorts has to be included to duplicate our mind.

 

Imagine software modules that have various functions that can act in concert. One processor can manage multiple such modules, so that that number of processors may decrease tremendously, and the "connections" can involve software rather than hardware connections.

And you end up with a predictable machine, and not an unpredictable mind.

 

It is true that if you attempt to replicate the brain, you will have problems. That should not be the goal. Physical connections are not important. One neuron = maybe 7000 bits of information (synapses), or 110 bytes (if we use, say, 64 bits/byte). In the cerebral cortex, the number of neurons in the human is 11,000,000,000, which in terms of storage would be 1,203,125,000,000, or one terabyte.

I believe physical connections is the key.

 

With a fast processor and less storage than a large hard drive, one has the potential for self-awareness.

I doubt it.

 

The brain is a multi-core processor, not a bunch of quad-cores.

 

Yeah, it's overly optimistic, but the brain was not built for thinking. It was built for survival, and the first 3.5 billion years of evolution can be skipped, leaving only the need for 1) storage of information, 2) access to information, 3) means of acquiring information, 4) language, and 5) good enough and fast enough software to use the information.

Survival is part of thinking. To eliminate processes the brain does would result in something less than conscious.

 

"The average persons' vocabulary consists of 10,000 words, regardless of native tongue."

 

We aren't as good as we like to think we are.

But we can process mental images that can't be easily put into words.

 

I really didn't mean to switch the topic to AI, but I didn't want people to think that we need to replicate the brain. I also think that the ability of the brain to process and store information is vastly overrated.

Well, I disagree, as you can tell.

 

Ironically, it may be the very inefficiency of the brain that has led to conciousness, but I doubt it. I think we are really a lot closer to self-aware machines than we know.

 

Edited to correct some mathematical assumptions...

I leave it to LR to debate that part since he read up on it.

[Antlerman]

AI! ARRRGGGHHHHH AI!!! Arrrggghhhhh.

 

Let's start a separate thread on that and not suck this one down that rabbit hole.

[Legion]

Let's start a separate thread on that.

I agree.

[Ouroboros]

I have no need of discussing it any further because we've talked about it so many times before.

[Shyone]

I think there are calculations done in this subject that concludes that the computers can't match up. And I believe that indeterminism of some sorts has to be included to duplicate our mind.

 

And you end up with a predictable machine, and not an unpredictable mind.

 

I believe physical connections is the key.

 

But we can process mental images that can't be easily put into words.

 

 

Computers can do images too!

 

The brain is, quite frankly, inefficient.

 

1. The mechanism for keeping the body at an even temperature is extremely complicated. Compare with your thermostat.

2. The heartbeat is regulated by nodes, but the rate is varied by another complex system in the hypothalamus. Compare with an automatic transmission that adjusts idle speed with temperature.

3. Same with breathing, compare with air intake in a car.

 

IOW, a lot of brain tissue is spent doing things that are basic and unnecessary for a computer, but a computer can do it better and more efficiently than the brain.

 

Some interesting quotes:

 

“It’s ridiculous to live 100 years and only be able to remember 30 million bytes. You know, less than a compact disc. The human condition is really becoming more obsolete every minute.”

(Marvin Minsky)

 

“It would appear that we have reached the limits of what it is possible to achieve with computer technology, although one should be careful with such statements, as they tend to sound pretty silly in 5 years.”

(John Von Neumann, circa 1949)

 

A new way to analyze human reaction times shows that the brain processes data no faster than 60 bits per second.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

I suppose the question is, how does a gigabyte of RAM really correspond to brain storage? How many neurons equals one processor? Or is the appropriate measurement the number of bits/second of the processor? Or something else?

 

Thinking of physical connections in the brain, developed as an adaptation over billions of years, is like saying the only way to get from Las Vegas to Los Angeles is to head east. A computer could be designed to head west.

 

I am reminded of one who writes a computer program one byte at a time. When he is on the 1,000th byte of a program that would require 100 mb to complete, his competitor produces a complete program. How is this possible? Modules.

 

Computers can now "understand" us. They can beat us at games. They can "suggest" better ways of doing things.

 

I'm not even sure we have a long way to go. We are, perhaps, there in a way... And it's happening without our even realizing it.

 

Incidentally, computers don't need to be strictly deterministic. Heueristic computation is not a fantasy, it is a reality. Computers can make "educated guesses" and draw inferences from patterns.

[Shyone]

I have no need of discussing it any further because we've talked about it so many times before.

Sorry. I spent quite a bit of time on my last response, and in the meantime half a dozen suggestions to terminate the discussion grew up.

[Ouroboros]

That's fine. You're free to start a new thread about it, and there might be other people who wants to engage.

[Shyone]

That's fine. You're free to start a new thread about it, and there might be other people who wants to engage.

Nah, it's not that interesting, and like you said it's been debated to death.

 

And my computer told me to drop it.

[Antlerman]

Let me "define" consciousness. The state of awareness that enables acquisition of new information. I like that one. It basically means awake and smart enough to learn.

In one form or another. Sort of the way evolution works in all biological species, sorting out what works and what changes are necessary to adapt and survive. If it were just hit or miss in real world application and no sort of 'preselection' before for the fact in the trial and error phase of what is needed, the odds would be against survival at all, considering one miss could likely mean death. Sort of like that...

 

If something is interacting with its environment with 'purpose', I would qualify that as being aware. Now, is that at the level of human cognizance, where the organism goes "Hey, I'm aware of me being aware!"? Not that sophisticated of course. But then couldn't we just understand that our level of consciousness is just more highly developed, more evolved consciousness?

 

It begins with the organism 'aware' of its environment and on a rudimentary level, itself I suppose since it is responding to the 'need' to exist (I'd extend that to all matter actually). And this leads to what you yourself bring up here....

 

Being self aware, aware of others, aware of concepts and language, ideas, cooperation etc. are all stages of development that start with being ready and able to learn.

Stages of development is a good way to put it. Development is another word for evolution, and "Development" is how they spoke about processes of the natural world for 150 years prior to Darwin putting together his theory of how it works.

 

So lets start with your example of the child in his stages of development. At what point is he manifesting what you call consciousness? As he starts responding to his environment? Later? Say somewhere around the age of 4 where he is beginning to understand the world beyond self, or perhaps even much later? If you place consciousness earlier, in simple awareness of the environment, even though cognitively it is indistinguishable from the self, then what you see in the developing child is an evolving of that consciousness to higher and higher states, where for the infant it begins with their processing of the environment as being indistinguishable from themselves, to a stage of seeing the world as distinct from themselves, to deeper and deeper and higher levels of that consciousness being experienced in them as they develop.

 

But with that understanding, all matter is 'aware' of its environment, and I will contend that the human's form is building on that 'nature' of the universe in their forms, where that awareness become vastly more deep, complex, and experienced by our machine, that brain you seem to place its unique and abrupt appearance out of nothing on. In a true sense of the word, if that were so, that it suddenly and uniquely appears ex-nihlo in humans, then that would seem to support the Magic explanation of the Creation Myth in Genesis. Yes?

 

Instead, and this would seem to run contrary to the theology of LNC (unless he has more sophisticated understanding of the Divine than a literal interpretation of Genesis), our Development as a species, is part of that whole unfolding of the Universe in forms, and that consciousness, is not a product of the machine, but integrated into it as its elemental, functional Heart. It is one thing to look at the machine and recognize its components, but there is the whole interior space of its 'being' that is overlooked. Our brains, are simply the tools we are using that opens that to us, that opens that vast, endless, interior depth of the unfolding universe within us! The brain doesn't create it, it exposes it!! We are the Universe coming to know itself. (That's inspiring to me, can you tell)?

 

More on this idea of the Interior. I'm going to quote again from Ken Wilber who I went into length in explaining the 'tenets' of emergence back on post 146, as I like how he explains this . From SEC, p.p. 112-114. In following up talking about how the systems theorist would claim "that the resultant 'big picture' covers the whole of reality, from atoms to cells to animals, from stars to planets to Gaia, from villages to towns to planetary federations...", he adds:

 

And yet, and yet. Something is terribly wrong. Or rather, terribly partial. All of these diagrams represent things that can be seen with the physical sense or their extensions (microscopes, telescopes). They are all, all of them, how the universe looks from the

outside

. They are all the

outward forms

of evolution, and not one of them represents how evolution looks from the

inside

, how the individual holons feel and perceive and cognize the world at various stages.

 

For example, take the progression: irritability, sensation, perception, impulse, image, symbol, concept.... We might believe that cells show protoplasmic irritability, that plants show rudimentary sensation, that reptiles show perception, paleomammals show images, primates show symbols, and humans show concepts. That may be true (and is true, I think), but the point is that

none

of those appear on any of our diagrams. Our diagrams (thus far) show only the outward forms of evolution, and none of the corresponding “interior phehensions” of the forms themselves (sensation, feelings, ideas, etc.).

 

So the diagrams themselves are not wrong (once we have revised a few errors), but they are terribly partial. They leave out the insides of the universe.

 

And there is a reason for this. The general systems sciences seek to be empirical, or based on sensory evidence (or its extensions). And thus they are interested in how cells are taken up into complex organisms, and how organisms are part of ecological environments, and so on – all of which you can

see

, and thus all of which you can investigate empirically. And all of which is true enough.

 

But they are not interested in – because the empirical methods do not cover – how sensations are taken up into perceptions, and perceptions give way to impulses and emotions, and emotions break forth into images and images expand to symbols…. The empirical systems sciences cover all of the outward forms of all that, and cover it very well; they simply miss, and leave out entirely, the

inside

of all of that.

 

Take, for example, the mind and the brain. Whatever else we may decide about the brain and the mind, this much seems certain: the brain looks something like figure 3-6 (or some anatomically correct figure), but my mind does not look like figure 3-6. I know my mind from the inside, where it seems to be seething with sensations and feelings and images and ideas. It looks nothing like figure 3-6, which is simply how my brain looks.

 

In other words, my mind is known interiorly “by acquaintance,” but my brain is known exteriorly “by description” (William James, Bertrand Russell). This is why I can always to some degree see my own mind, but I can never see my own brain (without cutting open my skull and getting a mirror). I can know a dead person’s brain by simply cutting open the skull and looking at it – but then I am

not

knowing or sharing that person’s mind, am I? or how he felt and perceived and thought about the world.

 

The brain is the outside, the mind is the inside – and, as we will see,

a similar type of exterior/interior holds for every holon

in evolution. And the empirical systems sciences or ecological sciences, even though they claim to be holistic, in fact cover exactly and only one half of the Kosmos. And that is especially what is so partial about the web-of-life theories: they indeed see fields within fields, but they are really only surfaces within surfaces within yet still other surfaces – they see only the exterior half of reality.

 

And so as we evolve, as the Universe evolves, our biological brains allow a greater depth of awareness of that consciousness within each ‘holon’, within the material universe. Just as a child’s consciousness becomes greater and more opened as he develops, so does everything in the universe to it. This negates the Magic of some sudden apparent aberration or ‘miracle’ with human brains. Our experience of consciousness is what is ours, but conscious itself is not created by our brains. It is the interior reality manifest in the exterior in manifold forms and depths.

 

Now, wrap your mind around that in whatever mythology you think explains it best to yourself. I’d be curious to see LNC respond to this within a Christian context. How does he see consciousness existence, and what does that say for his theologies?

[Shyone]

It begins with the orgasm 'aware' of its environment and on a rudimentary level, itself I suppose since it is responding to the 'need' to exist (I'd extend that to all matter actually). And this leads to what you yourself bring up here....

 

I wasn't aware that my orgasms were aware.

 

Our experience of consciousness is what is ours, but conscious itself is not created by our brains. It is the interior reality manifest in the exterior in manifold forms and depths.

 

In every sense, consciousness is a product of the brain. "Created" is a loaded word. It's like saying that my parents created me by combining sperm and egg, but then you would say, "And they were created by their parents, whose ancient ancestors were created by... and so the universe created you."

 

Our brains, however, begin without consciousness as we usually understand it, and then progress to simple awareness, self awareness, awareness of others... until they are fully conscious in whatever sense you wish to use.

 

The mechanism of consciousness does not require that the self-perception include a particular viewpoint. It only has to be practical. What, then, is self-perception? Or "interior reality"? It is the framework for thinking of ourselves. We are like others. We can see ourselves in mirrors and in others. We have opinions and thoughts that do nor require a visual image, but rather an algorithm, or perhaps a combination of memory and language. There is nothing in opinion or thought that is not a function of the brain.

 

"Interior reality" is a function of sensory input combined with brain function. I rubbed my face, and it was rough. Memory and experience (another way of viewing memory) tells me that I need a shave. I could get the same information from looking in the mirror.

 

Somehow, you view thinking and the brain in some way that does not include thinking or the brain.

[Antlerman]

I love it! Talk about serendipity. I decided to pick up that book I've referred to several times by Sri Aurbindo tonight over a good jazz album. Here's what I just started reading. See if it ties into this!

 

So long as Matter was Alpha and Omega to the scientific mind, the reluctance to admit intelligence as the mother of intelligence was an honest scruple. But now it is no more than an outworn paradox to affirm the emergence of human consciousness, intelligence and mastery out of an unintelligent, blindly driving unconsciousness in which no form or substance of them previously existed. Man's consciousness can be nothing else than a form of Nature's consciousness. It is there in other involved forms below Mind, it emerges in Mind, it shall ascend into yet superior forms beyond Mind. For the Force that builds the worlds is a conscious Force, the Existence which manifest itself in them is conscious Being and a perfect emergence of its potentialities in form is the sole object which we can rationally conceive for its manifestation of the world of forms.

 

The Life Divine

, pg. 97

 

I'll offer a response to the previous post later. For now, I thought to share this. There is in fact, not just one way to understand reality.

[Shyone]

I love it! Talk about serendipity. I decided to pick up that book I've referred to several times by Sri Aurbindo tonight over a good jazz album. Here's what I just started reading. See if it ties into this!

 

So long as Matter was

Alpha and Omega to the scientific mind

, the reluctance to admit

intelligence as the mother of intelligence

was an honest scruple. But now it is no more than an outworn paradox to affirm the emergence of human consciousness, intelligence and

mastery

out of an

unintelligent, blindly driving unconsciousness in which no form or substance of them previously existed

. Man's consciousness can be nothing else than a form of Nature's consciousness. It is there in other involved forms below

Mind

, it emerges in Mind,

it shall ascend into yet superior forms beyond Mind

. For the

Force

that builds the worlds is a conscious

Force

, the

Existence

which manifest itself in them is

conscious Being

and a

perfect emergence

of its potentialities in form is the

sole object which we can rationally conceive for its manifestation of the world of forms.

The Life Divine

, pg. 97

 

I'll offer a response to the previous post later. For now, I thought to share this. There is in fact, not just one way to understand reality.

This passage is annoying. It is unnecessarily perjorative and full of assertions. The use of capital letters is unnecessry and sooooo 18th century. Even the language is characteristic of the 18th century, except that the words used, in the order used, make no sense.

 

Should I dissect this passage in its entirety? No, I'll leave the bad grammar and pretentious phrases alone, but I highlighted a few of the things I found annoying.

 

World of forms? The IRS?

 

Perhaps I should have just highlighted the entire passage.

[Antlerman]

A form of ad hominem?

[Shyone]

A form of ad hominem?

Exactly! The implication of the Alpha and Omega remark was to imply that scientists are more religious than logical and the characterization of materialistic science as an "outworn paradox" was dismissive.

 

But the use of Capital letter to suggest Importance of a Word was just Weird.

[Legion]

A form of ad hominem?

I'm not in the right frame of mind to think much about this now, but Shyone's post didn't strike me as ad hom. It seemed he restricted his criticism to the quote.