The definition of consciousness
EL
perhaps one of the most elusive definitions is that of consciousness.
Recently, while I was contemplating on the fact that consciousness
need not be binary in states, I have arrived at a very simple
definition that demanded an immediate peer review.
I have hope that the implications that could follow, if I had
succeeded in pinpointing a correct definition, would be enormous and
consequently applicable within some disciplines and research related
to AI and neural networks. If this definition could be put practice
then conscious machines would not be far fetched.
I propose this definition:
{
Consciousness is the awareness of being aware.
}
N.B. Please use this definition only if you will to include a credit
to me "EL Hemetis".
Naturally this definition begs for a better than good definition of
"Awareness".
Please take note that I do not define the state of being conscious,
which is synonymous to the state of being aware.
One of the most appealing definitions of awareness is that it is a
"Basic Access to Information".
Nevertheless, I would like to propose an improvement to such a
definition.
I define awareness as "The Dynamic Containment of Information within a
self-organising system during a Read cycle".
N.B. Please use this definition only if you will to include a credit
to me "EL Hemetis".
The word "Dynamic" here should imply a temporal context along which
the information may evolve and change or be reinforced as a
consequence of a continuous flow of information from source to the
container through physical transducers.
The word "Containment" here implies also a temporal endurance of the
evolving topology of such information within the geometry of the
physical container.
The word "Information" here boils down to a complex wave structure
that demands energy to make it accessible.
Finally, the word "Read" here implies a process in which the being
contained information is being accessed.
The definition also is restricted to self-organising systems due to
obvious reasons.
All your comments are very welcome.
EL Hemetis.
24/11/2004
hanson
news:7563cb80.04112...@posting.google.com...
Here, bro, FYI, is a post that might kickstart a discussion:
Re: Design for a conscious machine.
in sci.physics,rec.org.mensa
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41A51BC5...@hate.spam.net...
> "Andrew E. Smyth" wrote:
> > Some anesthesias work by blocking short term memory.
>
[Al]
> You are invited to forget your screaming. The rest of us will
> go the conservative route: Knock me out; wake me up when
> it is over. I don't want to hear the doctor say
> "Oops."
> "That is interesting."
> "What is that?"
> "NURSE!"
>
[Andrew]
> > This shows that short term memory is a
> > basic component of consciousness.
>
[Al]
> In your case, no.
> For a thinking human being, memory is all he is.
> Your sciolism is astonishing.
>
[Andrew]
> > I believe a conscious machine could be constructed as follows:
> [snip crap]
>
[Al]
> CYC Project. Utter bullshit. Consciousness is not in the hardware,
> it is in the hardware's ability to evolutionarily rewire itself on the
> fly. A fluxional CPU must await spin valves.
>
[Andrew]
> > Consciousness is nothing more than experiencing what
> > is happening to an entity at the moment.
>
[Al]
> One stands amazed and aghast. You are a boring horror.
> Uncle Al
Acid Pooh
That's retarded. People don't go around "being aware that they're
aware" while grocery shopping or love making. That hardly makes them
unconscious.
'cid 'ooh
June R Harton
Ah, El, you are very nearly there!
Closing in on Truth again!
:)
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
EL
Hi Hanson. :-)
I agree with Uncle Al for sure on his reply to that "design".
Being aware of being aware is easy to say as a definition but not so
easy to implement. :-)
The first step should be focussing on awareness and consciousness
should follow automatically as the strategy of the tactics.
We may not implement awareness unless we can define it to know what we
are seeking.
I defined awareness as:
"The Dynamic Containment of Information within a self-organising
system during a Read cycle".
{"Consciousness is not in the hardware, it is in the hardware's
ability to evolutionarily rewire itself on the fly."}
Notice the relation between "Dynamic Containment" and
"evolutionarily".
I do not know what Uncle Al means by "A fluxional CPU must await spin
valves" else than being sarcastic. :-)
My "hard definition" was born out of a very long experience and not
one single word was placed haphazardly.
Notice the closing words "during a Read cycle" because it is crucial
to the definition.
The evolutionary dynamic containment of information is tactically
implementable.
Applying this to a designed self organising system is a bit difficult
but possible.
The difficult questions related to the critical read-cycle are as
follows:
1- What exactly is being read?
Which immediately brings the problems of "attention".
What mechanism can be implemented to decide a priority scheme to
direct attention in a similar fashion to an interrupt request.
Notice that pain from a sting followed by the hovering of a huge
hornet may very well interrupt an important lecture. :-)
This means that the mentioned temporary memory must be responsible for
evaluating the pointer of that interrupt request that has an idle
state too with a deeper set of inner reflections.
2- Who or what exactly is doing that reading?
Here the problem gets worse, because a computer-like register contains
an insignificant fragment of information at a single time interval
encompassing a "CPU-read-cycle".
Such a register may not contain what could be interpreted as the
moment of consciousness.
One should expect a complex and sophisticated agglomeration of
"Cells", be it biological or electronic, to be the "Bed of
Consciousness". One of the characteristics of self-observation is that
it cannot be a single entity and the optimal is a double.
This means that we must consider a global symmetry.
The Bed of Consciousness must be a symmetrical structure with two
identical mirror halves.
We may experiment with higher symmetries if we succeed in producing
the basic one of course. :-)
The fundamental two halves must be connected for sums in-between and
sums of the whole external information being presented internally.
When I say external versus internal I do not take the body as a
criterion but the BOC itself, and external information sums may
originate inside the biological body or inside the machine internal
transducers.
In other words, the conscious machine does not deal only with
information external to the body consciously but also to sensations
originating inside the structure like our hunger, drowsiness and other
sources of pain.
It makes no difference to the BOC whether the source of information
was external to the body or internal to the body that contains it.
Subconscious on the other hand is an intermediate between reflexes
that are dealt with away from the central control, and controlled
reactions. Memorised habitual responses do not elevate to the
threshold of what could be classified as conscious responses.
3- What is the relation between the BOC and the automated reflexes and
memory-conditioned responses?
Here, rather than taking part in making the decision the BOC only gets
a report if the evaluation of the information crosses the threshold of
priority and significance. This means that the BOC must be hardwired
to all primary reflex machinery and the inner devices either directly
or indirectly through threshold filters.
We also know that consciousness has a very intimate relation with the
permanent memory for interpreting a meaning of the being presented
information by association.
This means that the seemingly simple "Read Cycle" is not that simple
at all, because it involves reading the interrupt priority report and
responding to it by reading the temporary memory then fetching a
meaning by reading the permanent memory to associate other pieces of
information with the being presented information.
Here, the "Qualia" problem of the sums shaping the complex wave within
the BOC is being presented.
We may not describe Consciousness in a black-and-white scheme but
rather a continuous representation of scale from machine-like reflexes
to being aware of being aware of such reflexes happening.
It is that last thought that triggered a fantastic collusion.
Biologically speaking, we have layer after layer of neural cells that
sum the significant sums of the layer before.
That is why there are cases of lobotomised patients that still
experience consciousness.
While I tend to side with the group that indorses the idea that
consciousness is not localised in a specific organ or tissue inside
the brain, a completely healthy brain does have a final cell or group
of cells in which a final essence of consciousness resides and becomes
a BOC. If we removed that tissue by operation then the last layer of
"inner" cells shall take over that function.
This means that consciousness is strategically localised but not
tactically localised.
Any stream of conscious moments is a temporal train like a comet with
a fading tail.
We do not live each moment of consciousness abruptly like a discrete
quantum mind would do but rather in a fashion of fading interference
pattern of all the history of our memory of conscious moments.
The amazing aspect about consciousness is that it could relate
memorized information with currently perceived information to project
a prediction about something that might have never happened in the
exact form being predicted. Nevertheless, there must be enough
significant ingredients of information being presented to trigger the
assembly of such a prediction.
The final question that I do not have its answer (Yet) is how to
relate or "wire" each layer of the BOC to the other layers to simulate
cell-division? Nature can do that in 3D but we can hardly implement
the concept in 2D until now.
I have learned that Hitachi Corporation of Japan have succeeded in
producing a solid-state prototype 3D memory cell.
I do not think that memory cells are the unit device that can hold the
qualia of consciousness, but at least we seem to have the technology
of building 3D cells on its way.
EL
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message news:<799pd.3130$NU3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
EL
> That's retarded.
> People don't go around "being aware that they're
> aware" while grocery shopping or love making.
> That hardly makes them unconscious.
>
> 'cid 'ooh
[EL]
You seem to have been unconscious while reading my post. :-)
I said:
{"Please take note that I do not define the state of being conscious,
which is synonymous to the state of being aware."}
So where was your mind when you read that statement?
And you accuse me of being retarded!
Are you aware of my statement?
I said:
{"Please take note that I do not define the state of being conscious,
which is synonymous to the state of being aware."}
How about being aware of making love or being aware of shopping
grocery?
Certainly people are aware of what they do while they do
intentionally, but when you scratch your head while reading a novel
you are nether dead nor totally conscious of what you are doing.
You seem to be the type that might pick his nose in a party and wonder
why all the women (who apparently saw you) are avoiding you. You were
neither dead nor unconscious when you picked your nose, but do you
dare to admit that you were conscious of what you are doing and where
you are and when? :-)
Linguistically speaking, the medical usage of the term "the patient is
now conscious" is used when a patient that was anaesthetised comes out
of being unconscious, but in that usage it means that the patient is
now aware of her/ his surrounding environment and may respond to
stimuli.
There are many states of consciousness including subconscious and
reverie of course.
However, consciousness incarnated as the ultimate level of being
conscious is to be conscious of being conscious.
Have you ever been aware of being aware?
If you do not have that experience then you may not discuss that state
of mind with me.
To go easy on you let me demonstrate some analogy.
Do you think that whiteness is the same thing as being white?
I am sure that you could find several objects in your room that have
white colour while they all differ in their degree of whiteness.
The personal but ultimate degree of whiteness is that comparative
qualia (or state of quality) of the colour white.
This means that you yourself could only claim that one object is
whiter than the other by comparing colours or states of white colour.
Now think of Consciousness as a noun rather than an adjective.
What would be the ultimately bright state of being conscious to which
you could compare your grey-states of being conscious?
There is a critical difference between being conscious and being
aware, which is the the verb "to be" is intransitive in the former and
transitive in the later.
We are usually aware "OF" things, but we do not need to be conscious
of anything; we are just conscious or not.
However, while we are conscious, what defines the degree of
consciousness is our degree of awareness "OF" things.
I wonder, what could be a better subject than awareness itself, to be
aware of, for an ultimate state of consciousness to use for evaluating
the states of being conscious!
Can you find a state of consciousness in which the conscious subject
is not aware of anything at all?
How about finding a state of consciousness in which the conscious
subject is not aware of anything in particular.
If the only "activity" going on is being aware, then it (being aware)
must be the object "OF" awareness giving that global sensation of
consciousness. Hence my definition that Consciousness (the qualia or
the degree) is being aware of being aware. I could have said that it
is the "awareness of being aware" and it could have served the same
purpose.
Now here is a very big surprise awaiting for you;
Do you consider being aware of being aware a conscious activity or a
subconscious activity of the brain?
Let me know your thoughts, and drop the rude remarks please, they only
trigger a devil that lurks within my mind. :-)
EL
Acid Pooh
>
> > That's retarded.
> > People don't go around "being aware that they're
> > aware" while grocery shopping or love making.
> > That hardly makes them unconscious.
> >
> > 'cid 'ooh
>
> [EL]
> You seem to have been unconscious while reading my post. :-)
> I said:
> {"Please take note that I do not define the state of being conscious,
> which is synonymous to the state of being aware."}
You also said:
<quote>
>I propose this definition:
>
>{
>Consciousness is the awareness of being aware.
>}
>N.B. Please use this definition only if you will to include a credit
>to me "EL Hemetis".
<\quote>
>
> So where was your mind when you read that statement?
> And you accuse me of being retarded!
It was grappling with the obvious contradiction your statements entail.
<snip masturbation>
'cid 'ooh
Mr. Smith
>I propose this definition:
>
>{
>Consciousness is the awareness of being aware.
>}
You're on the right track, but that definition goes back to G.E. Moore
(see "The Refutation of Idealism," Mind, 12.48 1903) and more recently
to David Armstrong (in "The Mind/Body Identity Theory," 1970). Under
his second-order awareness definition Armstrong proposes that
consciousness is "the scanning of one part of our central nervous
system by another." The first part is aware of sensory data while the
second part is aware of being aware of sensory data, and that second-
order awareness is, according to Armstrong, what consciousness is.
>N.B. Please use this definition only if you will to include a credit
>to me "EL Hemetis".
Please use the definition only if you credit Moore and Armstrong.
Mr. Smith
EL
> > > That's retarded.
> > > 'cid 'ooh
> It was grappling with the obvious contradiction your statements entail.
> <snip masturbation>
> 'cid 'ooh
[EL]
Your name shows.
Your rudeness and envy shows.
I may not argue with you any more.
EL
N.B. {Arguing with an idiot makes two idiots}
EL
news:<803dq0pf92nsnd4d5...@4ax.com>...
[EL]
I deeply apologise for not being aware of the works of G.E. Moore and
David Armstrong.
I am a Ph.D. Biochemistry (retired) professor with no access to
academic resources at the present time.
My web-based search did not yield those names or any better definition
than the one I proposed.
{{{
In dictionaries
<http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=Consciousness>
Meaning of CONSCIOUSNESS
[n] an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and
your situation; "he lost consciousness"
[n] having knowledge of; "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his
sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and
general knowingness was impressive"
<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/CONSCIOUSNESS>
con·scious·ness (knshs-ns)
(Psychology)
n.
1. The state or condition of being conscious.
2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the
attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered
characteristic of an individual or group:
Love of freedom runs deep in the national consciousness.
3.
a. Special awareness or sensitivity: class consciousness; race
consciousness.
b. Alertness to or concern for a particular issue or situation: a
movement aimed at raising the general public's consciousness of social
injustice.
4. In psychoanalysis, the conscious.
}}}
I am grateful to you for making me aware of those two precedents, and
I am equally appreciative for confirming my conclusion.
The linguistic attribute of the word brought up by dictionaries was
not satisfactory on the technical side of the issue.
My target was to coin a technical definition to guide the building of
a conscious machine model.
The first observation was related to the temporal aspect of
consciousness, where a state of vigil mind is apparently continuous
along an adequate interval of time. Nevertheless, there was such an
issue related to the focal aspect of attention in which one issue is
being focussed upon by the mind. I came to realise that the variation
in attention does not add or subtract from the state of being
conscious but it does bring specific issues under the direct
examination of the mind. While the mind swaps those issues under the
significance thresholds and a priority scheme the mind continues to be
conscious {subconsciously}.
Yes I know it shall sound funny when I tell you that the mind would
subconsciously take note of being conscious.
(Notice that Microsoft had implemented a "hibernation" mode on its
operating systems.)
The transition from a state of being asleep to a state of vigil
awareness is not the same as the transition from anaesthetic
unconsciousness to consciousness (chemically speaking).
The most important difference is that interrupt requests of pain or
alarming sounds shall not trigger a transition in the later case.
What I am adding in my extremely explicit definition is that we are
also aware of not being aware when we are asleep.
This is to say that in the style of Armstrong's definition, the second
order awareness is monitoring the first order awareness from a
different perspective of consciousness.
I might even go as far as attributing dreams in REM to that second
order of awareness being aware of brain chemical activity.
Anaesthesia knocks down awareness altogether and puts us in a
biological "vegetable-like" state.
If we were totally unconscious during sleeping then how does a
screaming voice would alert us and change our state?
By reaching the idea that we must be aware of not being aware during
sleeping I had to classify awareness into classes of sub-awareness and
awareness just like sub-consciousness and consciousness.
That line of thinking forced me to arrive at the proposed definition
that turned out to be out of date. :-)
Thank you.
EL
zerkanX
> Consciousness is awareness ........
??
Isn't this the standard definition?
Aware of being aware seems like something done after the stomachs
are fed, fires are built, the mating done, the grog brewed and well
injested.
Acid Pooh
> news:<4765002.04112...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > > That's retarded.
> > > > 'cid 'ooh
> > It was grappling with the obvious contradiction your statements entail.
> > <snip masturbation>
> > 'cid 'ooh
>
> [EL]
> Your name shows.
> Your rudeness and envy shows.
Envy, huh?
Funny, and here I was thinking that I was thinking that your idea was
stupid. You must know me better than I know myself.
'cid 'ooh
ernobe
>
> Please take note that I do not define the state of being conscious,
> which is synonymous to the state of being aware.
>
Perhaps the most difficult definition you could attempt in AI is that
of being. A computer "is" all the time, and it can't understand what
being turned off entails. If for every piece of information it is fed
it could also be told what to do in its absence or during a lapse in
time then it could resemble living things. But even we don't know what
to do during a lapse, per se, of our observations. Therefore it seems
that the most computers will be able to do is keep track of jobs we
have ourselves begun, and apply new jobs based on new instructions they
receive on reporting to us.
--
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
HERC777
>
>{
>Consciousness is the awareness of being aware.
>}
Hi EL,
yes that is correct, but consciousness is just an effect of
intelligence, so its not any help in construction.
Intelligence is the inverse process of computation UTM-1.
To complete a list in an iq test, you input the data, and work out the
program, (then complete the sequence using a rudimentaty computation
process). By definition computer programmers are intelligent.
Social awareness is observing the output of other agents and WORKING
BACKWARDS to infer their plans, their programs.
If you see someone looking at a beach sign while carrying a towel, and
he changes directions towards the beach, you can reverse engineer his
plan of action.
GO SWIMMING =
1/ get towel (OBSERVED agent-a)
2/ go to beach (OBSERVED agent-a)
3/ hop in water
4/ dog paddle
We observe he is going to the beach and use intelligence, reverse
computation to generate/recognise his algorithm, GO SWIMMING. Then we
get more useful infomation like he (agent a) is about to hop in the
water, make predictions.
The mind is a collection of simultaneous ideas, in schizophrenic people
they can hear part of the subconscious talking. In healthy people you
only hear a semi-consistent single train of thought. Part of
consciousness is HEARING your own thought, subconscious is thoughts
that are not loud enough to hear, or too fast or not decompressed or
not decoded or not in the audible 'process section'.
NASA can pick up your thoughts with a microphone attached to your
throat, perfect mind reading and lie detection is not far off. It's a
continuous monolog, and there is a background noise of multiple
parallel fast thought segments that you yourself don't hear.
What is a rough word count of your thoughts in one minute, how much can
it vary by? it's one main stream, intermittent multiple lower streams,
it doesn't matter if you think 2 things at once, they have differring
'volume'. your subconscious is just lots of parrallel YOU, if you are 2
minded about something your consciousness picks up on one channel.
step on a nail and your subconscious literally SAYS ouch that nail hurt
a second before you feel the pain, 2 seconds before you 'hear yourself
think = conscious' OUCH THAT NAIL HURT. The whole kaboodle is all audio
based.
the subconscious is sped up voice, phonetically compressed I usually
call it and our speaking speed thoughts are like echoes of them.
basically, conscious thought is thought twice, the second time its
slower and louder. you think you are creating your words on the spot
but its the illusion that only the second time you are aware. its just
like The Wonder Years, we're just speaking within ourselves.
subconscious conscious public
QUIET LOUD THOUGHT SPOKEN
---->
----> --------------> =====>
---->
---->
INPUT
-----> subconscious thought strain (detectable with microphone)
<-- FEEDBACK mental process searching for next continuous thought
DECOMPRESS TO SPEAKING SPEED
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
thought becomes audible, you are aware of awareness.
Herc
Acid Pooh
Have you ever heard of the "Beads in a Box" experiment?
>
> What is a rough word count of your thoughts in one minute, how much can
> it vary by? it's one main stream, intermittent multiple lower streams,
> it doesn't matter if you think 2 things at once, they have differring
> 'volume'. your subconscious is just lots of parrallel YOU, if you are 2
> minded about something your consciousness picks up on one channel.
How about the private language argument?
'cid 'ooh
EL
Thank you HERC for your very interesting post.
"HERC777" <her...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<1101609889.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> >I propose this definition:
> >
> >{
> >Consciousness is the awareness of being aware.
> >}
>
>
> Hi EL,
>
> yes that is correct, but consciousness is just an effect of
> intelligence, so its not any help in construction.
[EL]
I beg to differ regarding this point.
Although the cliché "Consciousness" may not help at all,
its definition might be very helpful in construction.
The way I see it, is that {"being" aware OF "being" aware} is in
itself a construction.
If the target is creating a conscious machine, and if the definition I
proposed was correct (as much as it seems now),
then our target is precisely an implementation of the sub-construction
of {"being" aware}.
I am not concerned at this fundamental level with higher linguistic
associations for thought streams.
I am deeply concerned with connecting reflexes to the state of being
aware of a reflex.
{{{
> step on a nail and your subconscious literally SAYS ouch that nail hurt
> a second before you feel the pain, 2 seconds before you 'hear yourself
> think = conscious' OUCH THAT NAIL HURT.
}}}
I totally agree that while the body's automated reflexes reduces the
foot pressure on that nail by directing the muscular actions in a
reverse direction to that of the physical intrusion relative to body
position (shrink), a pain signal is reported to the cortex. The cortex
has its learned reaction (subconscious) giving orders to bring the
foot into the reach of the eye (for inspection) and the hands for the
rescue. At this stage the information does not stop where it is but
the whole history of the memory becomes at service in a most attentive
conscious state to retrieve and dispatch the physical intrusion, seek
medicine and apply medicine.
The mechanism is well known, but it does not answer the hard question
regarding mental qualia.
A conducting wire, a set of silicon junctions and a register construct
does no explain or guarantee {"being" aware}.
Recall my definition of awareness:
"The Dynamic Containment of Information within a self-organising
system during a Read cycle".
Notice that the problem here is in the word "Read", where there must
be an object (information) and a subject "?".
CPU method of reading is absolutely out of question as an answer to
this problem.
That is precisely where the science community have strayed into a
dead-end path.
Simulation is not the answer.
We need to invent a solid state BOC (bed of consciousness) and / or
SOA (seat of awareness).
Each unit cell must have permanent properties of EEPROM yet retains
temporary properties of Dynamic RAM.
The value of each "unit cell logic state" is not a binary value but an
analogue level between two limits.
Each cell must have multiple inputs, multiple outputs and a feedback
dedicated set of outputs.
The connectivity of the cells must be in 3D to distinguish between
inner, lateral and outer layers of connections.
The outer connections are inputs and feedback-outputs, while the
lateral and the inner are strictly inputs and outputs for sharing
information.
Such a cellular solid-state agglomeration has prospects of holding a
very complex wave function that resembles a seat of awareness at each
lateral layer. With a multitude of layers, we can expect each "inner"
(not literally) layer to be "aware" of the outer layer neighbour. If
we build a model founded on an inner-most spherical layer, then a
significant radial activity resembles attention during a conscious
moment.
The "value" of each wave-function within a layer is in the class of
subconscious, while vigil consciousness is a radial activity across
multiple layers, thus classified as an awareness of awareness of
awareness....... .
I never came across an electronic circuit that fulfilled those
demands.
Kind regards.
EL
hanson
> "" Consciousness is the awareness of being aware""
EL, besides the glaring circle "awareness of being aware",
I get the uneasy feeling that your definition even has a 2nd ring
of being circular. Isn't self-organizing the underlaying,
fundamental basis/requirement for consciousness? Or,
doesn't consciousness imply the existence of self-organizing?
Vibes on another level tell me that you are aware of something
that you wanted to define, but you just didn't express it in/with
the right words. Then I get the impression that you are into ID.
Are you sure you haven't become religious, and not even being
aware of it? ....Did that gold-eater sect organize to get to you?
ahahahaha.......ahahahanson
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7563cb80.04112...@posting.google.com...
EL
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > I propose this definition:
> > "" Consciousness is the awareness of being aware""
> > The definition also is restricted to self-organising systems
> > include a credit to me "EL Hemetis".
> [.....AHAHAHAHAHAHA]
> EL, besides the glaring circle "awareness of being aware",
> I get the uneasy feeling that your definition even has a 2nd ring
> of being circular. Isn't self-organizing the underlaying,
> fundamental basis/requirement for consciousness? Or,
> doesn't consciousness imply the existence of self-organizing?
>
[EL]
That is certainly a good question Hanson.
If you took the time to search for the definition of "self-organizing"
you would have known that dynamic systems evolving under the emergence
of new properties is a requirement for the evolution of each personal
consciousness along the "now" time scalar. How can the implications
imply circularity! The cause is the ability to organise self and the
complex effect is consciousness. Period.
Being aware "OF" being aware also is not circular because the first
subject-tissue is different from the second subject tissue, but both
are tissues within the same brain. While the second subject tissue
manipulates information gained from the world external to the body,
the second subject tissue manipulates the information gained from the
first. That is precisely what gives a depth attribute to awareness.
One may say, "I am very aware", "I am quite aware", "I am extremely
aware", "I might have been aware", "I seem to have been aware",
etcetera.
Consciousness and subconsciousness are two layers of the same
"material", however, we tend to give special significance to the one
on the surface.
If you do not subconsciously scratch your skin, or subconsciously
behave aggressively towards someone you dislike, you are at least
subconsciously conscious of being conscious as long as you are awake.
The ground energy level attained by basal metabolism sustains the
monitoring of the higher energy levels reached in the brain. An
alarming sound from that clock beside your bed, forces higher activity
in your brain, and it is the job of that constantly monitoring
awareness to become aware of that higher energy awareness of the
alarming sound.
It is that "sub-awareness" that reports the intruding state to the
rest of your brain to take action consequent to the alarm that might
have been your wife screaming or your child calling for help. It is
hardwired in our survival instincts.
EL
Paul Holbach
> I propose this definition:
>
> Consciousness is the awareness of being aware.
You don´t need to be aware of your being aware of something in order
for you to be conscious. - You just need to be aware of something.
"By 'consciousness' I mean those states of sentience or awareness that
typically begin when we wake up in the morning from a dreamless sleep
and continue throughout the day until we fall asleep again."
[Searle, J. (2000). /Mind, language and society/. London: Phoenix. (p.
40f)]
#PH
EL
Hi Paul.
That definition of 'consciousness' is crippled and less its qualia.
It became a synonym of awareness.
The linguistic context I am trying to define is that of a qualia.
A drowsy patient just became conscious as soon as the anaesthetic
effect wore off.
A nurse became conscious of that patient's change of state.
She reported the fact to the doctor so that he too becomes conscious of
his patient's health development.
Each of the three states of consciousness was different in qualia.
The consciousness of the nurse was the highest degree of the three.
The proof is that she took an action accordingly and as a consequence.
She was not only aware of the state of the patient but also aware of
her awareness and realised that the consequent action is to inform the
doctor.
EL
Paul Holbach
> That definition of 'consciousness' is crippled and less its qualia.
> It became a synonym of awareness.
> The linguistic context I am trying to define is that of a qualia.
Perhaps you prefer the following:
"An organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is
something that it is like to b e that organism--something it is like
f o r the organism."
[Nagel, Thomas (1979). What is it like to be a bat?. In Th. Nagel,
/Mortal Questions/. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (p. 166)]
#PH
EL
Not at all. :-)
It is getting dark in the streets here, but it might be getting darker
in some minds.
The darkness of the street is incomparable to the darkness of the minds
due to qualia.
They all share a state of being dark, dark green, dark red and dark
blue.
But how mach dark is each darkness of each state of being dark?
Let us assume that I have told you a joke.
Let us assume that I later asked you to tell the joke but you declared
that you have forgotten its details.
Let us assume that I have reminded you of the details of the joke.
Let us assume that I later asked you to tell the joke but you declared
that you have forgotten its details.
Now this time I remind you that I have reminded you of the details of
the joke.
You happen to remember both events of being told a joke and being
reminded of the same joke.
The joke was that "An old man forgot to take the memory enhancing pill
because he forgot to take the memory enhancing pill, but when the nurse
gave him the memory enhancing pill he remembered that he forgot to take
the memory enhancing pill. The next time he forgot to take the pill she
gave him a pill and he remembered that he forgot to ask his nurse to
marry him because he needs her to remind him to take the pill to
remember to ask her to marry him to remind him to take the pill". :-)
I am aware of being aware to have explained this to you before but in
different ways.
I subconsciously know it or else it would have never been in my memory
to fetch it.
If you were never aware of what you were aware of , then why should you
ever remember that you were once aware of anything at all?
<smiling>
EL
David Thomson
news:881c8779.04120...@posting.google.com...
>> hem...@hotmail.com (EL) wrote in message news:<
>> 7563cb80.04112...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>> I propose this definition:
>>
>> Consciousness is the awareness of being aware.
Perhaps consciousness is a real phenomenon? If so, it would have to be
measurable. The conductance unit is often associated with mental states in
the neurosciences. Perhaps conductance is the actual unit of consciousness?
I have found evidence to support this and included it in my new book,
Secrets of the Aether. www.16pi2.com. I'd be happy to discuss it on
a.s.p.n.
Dave
David Thomson
news:u0ctd.198$Je4....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> "David Thomson" <ne...@volantis.org> wrote in message
> news:j8Psd.37$Sb.1...@news.uswest.net...
>> Perhaps consciousness is a real phenomenon?
>
> uncertainty
> is as much a reflection of 'cognitive instability' (to carefully chose
> what I say) as the
> underlying degree of this uncertainty is, in the mind of the proposer.
Where's the discussion? You start off with conclusions. What physical
evidence exists for consciousness? If it truly exists, then there has to be
a way of verifying it. Are you saying that consciousness is not a real
phenomenon?
>> If so, it would have to be
>> measurable. The conductance unit is often associated with mental states
>> in
>> the neurosciences. Perhaps conductance is the actual unit of
>> consciousness?
>
> Do I detect a tendency to by-pass the plurality of levels of patterning
> involved. [?]
If you do, it is a personal bias. I don't see how you could detect anything
without first engaging in a discussion with the purpose of acquiring data
and equations. For me, science is the canvas on which I paint the picture
of consciousness. I can't rely on prejudice, intuitions, or suspicions,
even if they come from you.
> I think I am correct in being cautious,
Yes, we should all be cautious. We should all focus on acquiring data and
formulating equations that explain the data. In the end, our results must
be reproduceable and the explanation must be rational.
> because it is apparent to me that
> most minds not only seem incapable of appreciating
> the range of different meanings given to this word
> but that people in general also seems incapable of extracting
> a philosophically optimized overview, and a position of analytical
> understanding (of this aspect of What Is going on).
Can you quantify, "incapable of appreciating" and "incapable of extracting a
philosophically optimized overview?" These sound like subjective concepts
with no bearing on the quest for facts.
> That is, I am referring to an extraction of such a position of
> understanding
> not just from this range of meanings (more or less flimsy associations)
> but
> from relevant scientific fields of facts and principles, and from best-bet
> rational
> interpretations of such facts and principles.
This is what I'm after. We should be able to make progress if we both truly
seek facts.
>> I have found evidence to support this and included it in my new book,
>> Secrets of the Aether. www.16pi2.com.
>
> Have you.
Yes, I have.
>> I'd be happy to discuss it on a.s.p.n.
>
> I am sure you would (on your particular prerequisite
> AEVASIVE terms, that is).
What is the point of prejudiced views? Are you trying to evade a discussion
of find the truth? What is a more constructive approach to the effort of
defining consciousness?
I would suggest beginning with empirical data.
Event-related skin conductance responses to musical emotions in humans.
http://www.accelerated-learning-online.com/research/event-related-skin-conductance-responses-musical-emotions-humans.asp
Emotional Brain Pt 1
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s399345.htm
Pecchinenda, A., & Smith, C. A. (1996). The motivational significance of
skin conductance activity during a difficult problem-solving task. Cognition
and Emotion, 10, 481-503.
http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/depts/psych_and_hd/faculty/smithc/em_abstract.html#scl1
There are many studies that show a relationship between skin conductance and
emotions.
Now let's begin to analyze the nature of emotions and the unit of
conductance to see if they could be related. All physical units have a
dualistic nature. For example, force is either a push or pull, length is
directional, time is directional, acceleration is either a speeding up or
slowing down, potential is either high or low, conductance is either high or
low.
In order for emotions to be measurable, they too must have a dualistic
structure. Within the Eastern traditions, which are really a scientific
process of discovering mind, emotions are all various quantities of like and
dislike. For example, love is an extreme form of "like," and hate is an
extreme form of "dislike." Jealousy is a certain blend of the two, as are
lust, appreciation, caring, envy, malice, etc.
Although it might make a good beginning in the investigation of emotions (as
a form of consciousness) to see them related to conductance, there seems to
be more to emotions than mere high and low states. If we reflect on our
language, we often describe colors with emotions, such as "green with envy,"
or "hot (red) tempered." This would imply frequency is also involved. So
we might investigate the possibility that emotions are equal to a unit with
dimensions of coul^2/kg*m^2.
From the system of physics I've developed, this unit would be investigated
to its meaning. The inverse mass to charge ratio is seen as an indication
that the unit is the inverse of electromagnetism times the inverse of area.
All units must have meaning within the Universe if any units have meaning.
So these odd units with inverse electromagnetism and inverse area may
correlate with aspects of the mind. They also may not, but it should be
investigated. If the units do correlate with mind, then perhaps a device
could be built to directly measure that particular unit?
There are other aspects of physics that should be further investigated for a
relationship with mind. The dimensions of length, frequency (inverse time),
mass, and charge are fascinating. These four dimensions, and perhaps the
sphericity of pi, are the most basic, measurable consituents of the
Universe. And yet, all of these characteristics have no physical existence.
For example, mass seems to be the basis of all substance. We often think of
mass as being a "thing." But mass is a dimension of force, momentum,
energy, and other units. There is also mass in resistance, magnetic flux,
magnetic field, and potential. Sure, there is mass in force, which we
measure as weight. But where is the substance of the mass in the unit of
resistance?
Mass is a non-physical quality, yet it gets physical quality to our physical
world. The same holds for length. You might think of things as having
length, but length itself is not a thing. Similary things have frequency,
or exist in time. But frequency and time are not things either. The same
goes for charge. Objects also have geometry. At the quantum level, all
geometry is spherical or curved. In my book I show this curved nature to be
caused by time, just as length produces the angular nature.
Dimensions are an awesome thing to contemplate. Non-physical qualities give
rise to the phenomena that produce the physical Universe. The mind is
non-physical. Are dimensions actually qualities of mind? It should be
investigated.
Then there are the forces themselves. Gravity, electrostatic force, and
electromagnetic force are the three manifestations of force that drive the
entire physical Universe. In my book I show the mathematical unification of
all three forces (as well as the weak interaction of the electrostatic and
electromagnetic forces) and derive the common Gforce. The Gforce is an
enormous force that pre-exists physical existence. The Gforce is actually
inverse force. This inverse force acts on mass and produces gravity, it
acts on electrostatic charge and produces electrostatic force, and acts on
electromagnetic charge and produces electromagnetic (strong) force. So an
all-powerful (1.21 x 10^44 newton), non-physical Gforce (a unit which is the
inverse of force) gives the dynamic qualities of the physical Universe. An
inverse unit is shown to be significant to the creation of the physical
Universe. It is possible that these inverse units refer to a quality of
mind. In the case of the Gforce, it appears to be related to a God-like
mind.
Of course, the Gforce is derived from empirical measurements, as are the
dimensions. So it is quite possible that if the theory is sorted out
properly, there could be a measurable way to quantify consciousness, or
mind, or whatever we end up calling it.
Dave
consciousne...@yahoo.com
aware has already been taken up by someone and for five years have
focused on it. He is Antonio Damasio. In his book "The Feeling of What
Happen". He described how consciousness is awareness of being aware.
He described about first order and second order maps. He stated that
the neural mappings of the object and the organism reacting to the
object are first order maps. Consciousness occurs when an organim
forms a second order mapping of the happenings of the first orer maps,
second order maps that describe the relationship between the object
and the organism. The second order maps represent the organism in the
process of making first order maps related to the aprprehension of an
object. This is the crucial st ep in Damasios acco unt. Proposed
neural sites of these second order mappings are the colliculus, the
thalamus, the cingulate cortices, some medial parietal areas and the
predrontal areas. For theoretical reasons, Damasio favours the
thalamus and the cingulate cortices. Highly detailed exposition of
this is mentioned in Damasio book. He wrote 2 other books called
"Descartes Error" and "Looking into Spinoza: Joy and Sorrow in the
Feeling Brain"
Consc
Peter F
> "Peter F" <effective...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:u0ctd.198$Je4....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
One has to be rather 'disconnected' (psychophysiologically) from reality
to question whether or not the patterns in 'brainspacetime' that we call
"being conscious" is part of reality. (Perhaps, you meant something
else, but even so it can only be a superfluous questioning statement.)
> What is the point of prejudiced views?
Could be a pre-conscious 'point of evading' something significant.
There is never a fully conscious and transparent (easily observed) point
(purpose or function) of prejudiced views. (As far as what I take these
words to mean.)
> Are you trying to evade a discussion
> of find the truth?
No, only to avoid getting on the wrong
(least fruitful for a useful understanding)
track.
> What is a more constructive approach to the effort of
> defining consciousness?
>
> I would suggest beginning with empirical data.
>
> Event-related skin conductance responses to musical emotions in humans.
> http://www.accelerated-learning-online.com/research/event-related-skin-conductance-responses-musical-emotions-humans.asp
>
> Emotional Brain Pt 1
> http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s399345.htm
>
> Pecchinenda, A., & Smith, C. A. (1996). The motivational significance of
> skin conductance activity during a difficult problem-solving task. Cognition
> and Emotion, 10, 481-503.
> http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/depts/psych_and_hd/faculty/smithc/em_abstract.html#scl1
>
> There are many studies that show a relationship between skin conductance and
> emotions.
Now, this is somewhat like trying to derive the outline of a flower by
measuring the degree of acidity or alkalinity of soil in which it grows!
Any enthusiasm for this approach seems (to me) to have to be channeled
(or funneled - not fuelled) by an ignorance about how and why the
galvanic skin-resistance does change in response to different emotions.
--------------------
I have come to to thoroughly explanatory terms with that people have an
innate and usually "conditioned-in" tendency to reflexively avoid
becoming conscious (viscerally and/or emotionally and/or cognitively so)
of what motivates much of what they think, believe, and do.
We can be explained to be thus partly but importantly as a result of
1 A relevant key evolution-theoretical thematic principle at work in our
phylogeny
2. "CURSES" type memories getting as if put into brains by conditioning
caused by being/ending-up in "SHITS"
"SHITS, come CURSES" are handled, partly but importantly for reasons, by
means, and in manners, that I flexibly encapsulate by help of yet
another "decEPTively 'fuzzsilly' logical" concEPT (of mine) - namely
"AEVASIVE".
EVEN IF your formulation of physical interaction would of does make
perfect mathematical and experimental sense (be as scientifically
confirmed as e.g. QED, SR/GR and their currently most unifying
string/M-theoretical representation) it would still be appropriate to
simply conclude that there is always an 'ephemeral background-dimension'
to any level and content of consciousness (as I personally
umbrella-understand it).
For one thing, we are part of a 'quantum-weird world', as is ANY
perceivable (or not) and more or less predictable pattern of "What Is,
going on" in respect of this (or any other) Universe.
Peter
--
Partly inspired by MAD (cold war shaming acronym), I arrived at EPT
[e.g: eclectically Explanatory perversely Pert
philosophical Terminology] and by 'concEPTual' lenses/tools saw/grasped how
and why AEVASIVE preoccupations (personalities) normally preclude making
in dEPTh sense of things - including of themselves.
Of the letters in the acronym for "Ambi-advantageously Evolved
'V-word'(e.g. Vital, Veritable, Vexed)
Actention Selection (System) Incorporating (amongst much else but in an
instructively characteristic and central role, and with a spelling
suitable for concEPT-building) Various Endoopiates", AS(S) stand for how
we think/emote/behave based on our individual repertoire of mutually as
if competing {partly by lateral inhibition) whilst cheered and booed (by
current and past environmental influences) "actention modules", & AE
refer to the didactic division of the "Evolutionary Pressure Totality"
into relevant dialectic lifetime juxtapositions of:
1. "Opportunity"
and
2. "Adversity" - here not the least "SHITS" [Synaptic Hibernation
Imploring {naturally selective AND 'motivating' of selective
unconsciousness) Traumatic {also tardily so) Situations] that are
normally repercussively retained as CURSES (alt. CCKHHURSES) type
memory, better (though not well) known as "Pain" [as per Janov -
www.primaltherapy.com]
Peter F
interpretation of the cognitive level of consciousness.
However, a very much compatible *broader*
interpretation is also possible.
Peter
EL
[EL]
Hi Peter.
My good intention behind starting this thread with a title of "The
definition of consciousness" is exactly as the title implies, which
must have been behind attracting the minds that are responding on this
thread as well.
To me, defining a concept is also parallel to refining that concept in
the attempt of creating a definition.
Let us take this logical argument and analyse it.
If consciousness was identically equal to awareness, then why do we
accept having a phenomenal subconsciousness without having a parallel
sub-awareness?
>From a biochemical POV, both concepts are not black-and-white with
exclusive either/or of state.
As a matter of fact I should have said that the "type" of awareness of
the second order should have been typically classified as a continuous
sub-awareness state of the mind during vigil activities of the brain
chemical pool.
In a state of anti-unconscious we know that there are many states that
include day reverie, multitasking such as eating while reading or
planning with words echoing in the mind.
When I released the definition as awareness of being aware, the first
attack was related to attention saying that having sex or buying
grocery needs not being aware of doing such activities. Paying
attention to being aware of being aware is in fact a very difficult
task that requires meditation-training.
The default state of consciousness is a "background-task" of a general
awareness less attention, and in which that sub-awareness is only
"sub-aware" of the capability of being aware of something specific.
This specific activity need not take place all the time and it demands
a lot of chemical energy and psychological concentration to remain
fully focused.
Being "sub-aware" of being aware should have nothing to do with
attention or voluntary commands.
The technical words are already overloaded but I cannot avoid using
such old words to communicate a new idea (I am trying any way).
Let us say that (technically), a transition from anaesthetic
unconscious-state to conscious-state begins by the least degree of
ambient audio perceptiveness (plus all internal feedback of course,
which includes skin-pressure nerves reporting weight under gravity)
functioning, and that that being perceived information (within the
dedicated receptors) are being perceived by inner nervous tissue
layers.
The wearing off or the exhaustion of the anaesthetic chemicals, coupled
with the conversion of ATP to ADP (making chemical energy available)
and the normalisation of the chemical blood-picture is precisely behind
that transition.
Occasionally, a medical doctor might slap the face of an anaesthetized
patient to induce local alarming signals to trigger the transition if
it was later than anticipated for automatic transition.
Please notice that a first order mapping of neural communication
between sensory receptors and the brain is fundamental yet not
sufficient to create a state of consciousness, and not before entering
a subconscious state of being aware (or sub-aware) of that
communicative state that we may call the global state to have
transformed towards consciousness and away from unconsciousness.
>From an evolutionary POV, the secondary order of mapping evolved as a
consequence of the survival of the bearers of information coordinative
abilities. Reflexes were critically important but was inferior to
motion commands being coordinated with input information.
Light-sensory systems' evolution ware conditional while sound-sensory
systems had to evolve first due to vibration being available all the
time.
Chemical pool-sampling and concentration detection and responses
developed much, much earlier than those of sound and light to seek
"food".
Even fish would sleep and awake and undergo such transition.
It is the accidental overgrowth of the human brain that makes us so
talkative. :-)
EL
Peter F
"EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1102909128....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>From an evolutionary POV, the secondary order of mapping evolved as a
> consequence of the survival of the bearers of information coordinative
> abilities.
> Reflexes were critically important but was inferior to
> motion commands being coordinated with input information.
> time.
> Chemical pool-sampling and concentration detection and responses
> developed much, much earlier than those of sound and light to seek
> "food".
> Even fish would sleep and awake and undergo such transition.
> It is the accidental overgrowth of the human brain that makes us so
> talkative. :-)
and slightly unconscious manner! :-)
Cheers,
Peter
Truth
but exactly what is aware?
my answer is that consciousness
is the perception of the material dimension
through the eyes of an intelligence from another dimension
June R Harton
"Truth" <tr...@undeniable.net> wrote in message
news:41BFBF4D...@undeniable.net..
:)
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=622019
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
EL
Peter F wrote:
> "EL" <hem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102909128....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >From an evolutionary POV, the secondary order of mapping evolved as
a
> > consequence of the survival of the bearers of information
coordinative
> > abilities.
>
> Clearly a good and relevant argument.
[EL]
Thank you. :-)
>
> > Reflexes were critically important but was inferior to
> > motion commands being coordinated with input information.
>
> > Light-sensory systems' evolution were conditional while
sound-sensory
> > systems had to evolve first due to vibration being available all
the
> > time.
> I don't see why not. :-)
[EL]
A good explanation would be too verbose for a post, so I shall try to
give a certainly bad explanation. :)
Sound reception (in all "hearing" creatures) is continuous and
unblocked or conditioned (although some may spatially "tune" complex
organs to sound source).
Light is hindered by two different methods, namely, global shadows and
local shadows.
If the source is the natural light from the sun, then a sunrise and a
sunset are obvious influences that had controlled the global
biochemical cycles on day-time basis. Light perception is found in very
primitive forms of life, while in insects, a multitude of lens cells
have developed to contribute with "directional" higher sensitivity to
light intensity and variation rates. Higher animals developed very
efficient and very complex image capturing organs (eyes with retinas)
that "seemingly" must be shut-down to allow the dormant state for
chemical regeneration. (avoiding verbosity) Poultry production plants
would intentionally leave strong lights on for three months to force
meat production continuously ended by slaughter. The hens constantly
eat and drink without deep sleep but rather napping now and then.
Rodent control technology includes ultrasonic sounders to repel them
from grain stores. In short, audio perception is clearly dominant to
visual perception although it is less complex from a biological POV.
Eye reading and audio comprehension are both a second order activity
founded on the more primitive image recognition and voice signature
recognition. However, all spoken languages may not properly express a
3D image as instantaneous as a visual blink of an eye can communicate.
This means that the visual sensory organs must have developed atop of
the audio, where the later is dominant for urgent interruption. A very
sophisticated cross section examination under a microscope is very
simply interrupted by a single stressed voice screaming "Fire" or
"Help".
The evolution of the eye tends towards a complex yet directional
favourite structures while that of the ear is preferably
non-directional. An argument rises here that a very sophisticated
listening to a symphony may be simply interrupted if visual sexual
stimulation was induced such as a naked female passing in the field of
vision of a male who is listening to the symphony. :)
The counter argument is that nature equipped the eye with lids for
higher concentration on audio, hence interruption may be cut out but
the same must be induced by artificial earplugs for a similar effect.
Sound is basically exhibiting all the time in the background adhered to
the material world vibrations but light in nature is either cyclic on a
planet's surface or totally absent underground and in deep waters. I
may also add that sound is a higher "key" for survival than light is
because danger alarms and sexual signals (calls) are the most dominant
form of sound utility in animals, while visual signals seem to have
developed as a sophistication in selectivity of food, sex mates and
predicting danger from afar (seeing opponents or even a tornado heading
to home) which is not a very frequent event.
>
> > Chemical pool-sampling and concentration detection and responses
> > developed much, much earlier than those of sound and light to seek
> > "food".
>
> Absolutely. I agree. :-)
> >
> > Even fish would sleep and awake and undergo such transition.
> > It is the accidental overgrowth of the human brain that makes us so
> > talkative. :-)
>
> You seem to have jumped into those last two sentences in a bit of a
disjointed
> and slightly unconscious manner! :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
[EL]
I agree, but there is a deeper meaning than the superficial one. :)
Fish' consciousness must be included in the main picture if we really
want to understand this phenomena.
My very personal POV is that consciousness is a property of the CNS
only, regardless of the creature.
However, you may disregard my comment on talkativeness (for now). :)
EL
Skler
> Consciousness is the awareness of being aware.
How 'bout this:
Awareness is consciousness of being conscious.
:-)
I'm being silly of course.
But seriously, the way we define consciousness with language like that
implies a strong element of internal feedback, which appears to be a
significant aspect of consciousness and probably occurs, literally, as some
complex manner of physical electrical & chemical arrangement in the brain.
Mainly, I think the definition of consciousness as conveyed with common
language, analog mathematical models, algorithms, maps or what ever, should
ultimately follow from measurement and not vise versa. We can always make
up words to describe any new phenomenon or new arrangement of stuff that
comes along.
Skler
Albert
>>Consciousness is the awareness of being aware.
>
>
>
> How 'bout this:
>
> Awareness is consciousness of being conscious.
>
> :-)
>
>
> I'm being silly of course.
>
> But seriously, the way we define consciousness with language like that
> implies a strong element of internal feedback, which appears to be a
> significant aspect of consciousness
OK...
> and probably occurs, literally, as some
> complex manner of physical electrical & chemical arrangement in the brain.
Probably? Literally? What have you said here?
> Mainly, I think the definition of consciousness as conveyed with common
> language, analog mathematical models, algorithms, maps or what ever, should
> ultimately follow from measurement and not vise versa.
Measurement of what? What units of measure would you use for
something that you cannot even define?
> We can always make
> up words to describe any new phenomenon or new arrangement of stuff that
> comes along.
We already have the word. No need to make up a new one.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
slavek krepelka
This has only now caught my attention.
EL wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
> perhaps one of the most elusive definitions is that of consciousness.
> Recently, while I was contemplating on the fact that consciousness
> need not be binary in states, I have arrived at a very simple
> definition that demanded an immediate peer review.
>
> I have hope that the implications that could follow, if I had
> succeeded in pinpointing a correct definition, would be enormous and
> consequently applicable within some disciplines and research related
> to AI and neural networks. If this definition could be put practice
> then conscious machines would not be far fetched.
>
> I propose this definition:
>
> {
> Consciousness is the awareness of being aware.
> }
> N.B. Please use this definition only if you will to include a credit
> to me "EL Hemetis".
Actually that is pretty sensible.
> Naturally this definition begs for a better than good definition of
> "Awareness".
>
> Please take note that I do not define the state of being conscious,
> which is synonymous to the state of being aware.
>
> One of the most appealing definitions of awareness is that it is a
> "Basic Access to Information".
> Nevertheless, I would like to propose an improvement to such a
> definition.
>
> I define awareness as "The Dynamic Containment of Information within a
> self-organising system during a Read cycle".
> N.B. Please use this definition only if you will to include a credit
> to me "EL Hemetis".
Interpretation of information within the context of the "storage unit"
interests, experiences and capability.
> The word "Dynamic" here should imply a temporal context along which
> the information may evolve and change or be reinforced as a
> consequence of a continuous flow of information from source to the
> container through physical transducers.
And why necessarily physical, may I ask?
Tell me Hemetis. How can a man make an experience of traveling across
some 6km (as the crow flies) of never previously traveled (by that man)
well forested cliffs above a lake, toward a specific target, on a
monocles night, in about 2 hours (a little detour was taken to check if
cliffs dropped really down where expected and found there all right,
before continuation), dead on target, without once tipping over, or
running into a tree, or off the cliffs? And why would someone be fool
enough to even contemplate such a trip knowing well what lies ahead in
terms of dangers, as the man knew the shoreline area from the water way
below the cliffs? What physical channels of information do you propose
for the guidance of this man through this earthly topology?
I am the man.
Tell me El, did the boy "knew" that his uncle was to be married the next
day, before his father brought the news home as it leaked to him only an
hour ago? (no phones there and then) What physical channels may you
propose here?
I was that boy.
Tell me El, how can a man know who makes his phone ring, when he has not
spoken to this old friend for good 16 years and there is an ocean and
half a continent between the two of them? How could he know with enough
certainty to address his friend by name without letting him say a word
first?
I am that man.
And so on.
No. Not necessarily physical channels in the sense of physical, that is
massive whatever you want to call it. Standard would be matter. There
are obviously other options for gathering of information available to
some of us to a greater or lesser degree, and there is a good reason for
it. After all, we are only an assemblage of primitive cells and the
voice of the population is God's voice, as long as one can "hear" it.
> The word "Containment" here implies also a temporal endurance of the
> evolving topology of such information within the geometry of the
> physical container.
Gosh, what a wording. (G)
But I disagree. "Containment with temporal endurance of the evolving
topology of any information would include my computer.
> The word "Information" here boils down to a complex wave structure
> that demands energy to make it accessible.
Ah, well, everything is waves. Too vague.
> Finally, the word "Read" here implies a process in which the being
> contained information is being accessed.
Fair enough.
> The definition also is restricted to self-organising systems due to
> obvious reasons.
Ah, you have just cut my computer out of it. :-)
No you did not. I got an anti virus and other programs which "self
organize" the information automatically being tripped by the computer
clock or an incoming virus or whatever, including defrag programs,
registry healers etc. It is not so easy to define. It will be a longer
story this definition.
> All your comments are very welcome.
>
> EL Hemetis.
> 24/11/2004
My kind regards, Slavek.
P.S.
I'll give you a hint. Life is not about consciousness and self
replication etc. It is about having and satisfying its own desires,
material or otherwise.
Skler
>it would be logical and rational to imagine that physical measurements
> of consciousness at various physical scales and degrees of integration of
> the ongoing and underlying physical process * are possible*.
Skler
> > Mainly, I think the definition of consciousness as conveyed with common
> > language, analog mathematical models, algorithms, maps or what ever,
should
> > ultimately follow from measurement and not vise versa.
>
> Measurement of what? What units of measure would you use for
> something that you cannot even define?
Along with myriad others, I believe that consciousness is a subjective
meta-phenomenon that emerges from a very physical mechanism. That being the
case, it would be logical and rational to imagine that physical measurements
of consciousness at various physical scales and degrees of integration of
the ongoing and underlying physical process. I believe Science has shown
that natural phenomenon can be understood in a practical and useful at
levels of complexity (via analog equations, models, algorithms, theories as
they arise from human imagination and ensuing measurements - quantification)
vastly simpler than the level at which the phenomenon itself operates.
Godel's incompleteness idea comes to mind regarding this relationship.
Newer models of consciousness will inevitably stem from imagination,
subjective experience and the models & observations that have come before,
but newer models, if they are to be of greater practical use, will reveal
the underlying process through physical measurement where it coincides with
theory.
> > We can always make
> > up words to describe any new phenomenon or new arrangement of stuff that
> > comes along.
>
> We already have the word. No need to make up a new one.
As the underlying physical mechanisms of consciousness and their arrengement
become better known, it is natural for people to invent or modify language
in order to give distinction to their discoveries.
Skler
Albert
>>>Mainly, I think the definition of consciousness as conveyed with common
>>>language, analog mathematical models, algorithms, maps or what ever,
>>>should ultimately follow from measurement and not vise versa.
>>
>>Measurement of what? What units of measure would you use for
>>something that you cannot even define?
>
>
> Along with myriad others, I believe that consciousness is a subjective
> meta-phenomenon that emerges from a very physical mechanism. That being the
> case,
'That being the case' is what you believe, not necessarily the
fact. However, I have no problem with believing that
consciousness is an emergent phenomenon.
> it would be logical and rational to imagine that physical measurements
> of consciousness at various physical scales and degrees of integration of
> the ongoing and underlying physical process.
It is not at all logical and rational to me to believe that
measurement of the underlying physical process is, in any way, a
measurement of consciousness.
> I believe Science has shown
> that natural phenomenon can be understood in a practical and useful at
> levels of complexity (via analog equations, models, algorithms, theories as
> they arise from human imagination and ensuing measurements - quantification)
> vastly simpler than the level at which the phenomenon itself operates.
And I believe that you are wrong to believe that quantification
and measurement of an underlying mechanism says anything useful
about an emergent phenomenon.
> Godel's incompleteness idea comes to mind regarding this relationship.
How so?
> Newer models of consciousness will inevitably stem from imagination,
> subjective experience and the models & observations that have come before,
> but newer models, if they are to be of greater practical use, will reveal
> the underlying process through physical measurement where it coincides with
> theory.
I disagree, as I said above.
>>>We can always make
>>>up words to describe any new phenomenon or new arrangement of stuff that
>>>comes along.
>>
>>We already have the word. No need to make up a new one.
>
> As the underlying physical mechanisms of consciousness and their arrengement
> become better known, it is natural for people to invent or modify language
> in order to give distinction to their discoveries.
Please read my signature.
Skler
> measurement of consciousness.
At the highest level you would have subjective experience of ones'
consciousness, a kind of unity in which the measurement is the thing itself.
As with other phenomenon, I would infer that consciousness can be
represented by measurement of the underlying physical process in such a way
that might prove of intellectual (or emotional) interest and perhaps even
practical use. We use analog equations or even simply poetic language via
symbols and common experience as a means of modeling the natural physical
world around us, including such emergent 'metaphysical' things as
consciousness or subjective experience. Such models and human expressions
are of great value and sometimes practical use in terms of conveying a thing
or system of things from one person to another. That's the thrust of my
interest in including metrics in the subject of consciousness. It's simply
applying what the history of scientific endeavor suggests as occurring with
consciousness as with any other natural thing.
>
> > I believe Science has shown
> > that natural phenomenon can be understood in a practical and useful at
> > levels of complexity (via analog equations, models, algorithms, theories
as
> > they arise from human imagination and ensuing measurements -
quantification)
> > vastly simpler than the level at which the phenomenon itself operates.
>
> And I believe that you are wrong to believe that quantification
> and measurement of an underlying mechanism says anything useful
> about an emergent phenomenon.
Specific physical structures in the brain have already been established
as receptor sites for anesthesias used to target human consciousness with
accuracy. There are brain systems involved of course, so such a crude
physiological model is only a rough starting point. People are mapping the
brain with increasing levels of detail. When it comes to something as
intricate as the processes underlying a particular thought, well, I don't
think we are close to that. Positron emission tomography and very minute
electrical measurements have already shown physical changes and process,
albeit at a relatively low resolution, which coincide with common variants
of subjectively conscious states and mental activities. Decades ago, neuro
surgeons demonstrated that stimulating areas of the neo cortex at random
served to elicit very specific memories or virtual sensory experience,
altered states of consciousness. Current could be turned on and off with the
electrode remaining in the same position and a particular 'stream' of
thought or ideation could be modulated! By no means are such measurements
to be considered as synonymous with consciousness, but useful.. Heck yeah!
Obviously we disagree on that aspect. Anyways, useful measurements of
physiological brain process that correspond to general states of
consciousness, at a broad level, have already been made and repeated
successfully. Higher degrees of resolution will ensue, as will more accurate
mapping of brain physiology, function, systems, and some day perhaps on a
more intimate level within systems.
I am curious. What logical reason could one have upon which to base an
idea that physical measurement or physical phenomenon may not be used to
represent in useful fashion, the phenomenon of consciousness?
>
> > Godel's incompleteness idea comes to mind regarding this relationship.
>
> How so?
Metaphorically. In the sense that a useful or practical model of
something can be considered as a finite system, of which the details in it
do not at all have to be anywhere near as complex as the higher system as it
is intended to represent in order to be useful.
Are there any phenomenon not stemming from physical mechanism or
underlying material reality? Would consciousness be one of them? Are there
others? If so, are such non-physical or non-material phenomenon
testable? Falsifiable?
Skler
Albert
>>It is not at all logical and rational to me to believe that
>>measurement of the underlying physical process is, **in any way**, a
>>measurement of consciousness.
>
> At the highest level you would have subjective experience of ones'
> consciousness, a kind of unity in which the measurement is the thing itself.
Is this then your definition of 'consciousness'?: "a kind of
unity in which the measurement is the thing itself."
> As with other phenomenon, I would infer that consciousness can be
> represented by measurement of the underlying physical process in such a way
> that might prove of intellectual (or emotional) interest and perhaps even
> practical use.
Without an adequate definition of 'consciousness' how could it be
represented by anything? A name is not its own definition.
> We use analog equations or even simply poetic language via
> symbols and common experience as a means of modeling the natural physical
> world around us, including such emergent 'metaphysical' things as
> consciousness or subjective experience.
I have seen no model of "such emergent 'metaphysical' things as
consciousness or subjective experience," that is based on
anything more than pure speculation.
> Such models and human expressions
> are of great value and sometimes practical use in terms of conveying a thing
> or system of things from one person to another. That's the thrust of my
> interest in including metrics in the subject of consciousness. It's simply
> applying what the history of scientific endeavor suggests as occurring with
> consciousness as with any other natural thing.
Except that 'consciousness' has not yet been defined as being
'like' any other natural thing. Why this obsession with
'metrics'? As I asked in an earlier thread: "What are the units
of measure for consciousness?" Is everything real quantifiable?
Granted, such knowledge is useful. But, kicking a balky machine
so that it quits making that funny noise tells you little about
the inner workings of that machine.
You have yet to offer any evidence that 'consciousness' is even
machine-like. You can describe to any level of detail you like
how to build an airplane, but none of that detail will give you a
clue as to what it feels like to the pilot that flies that plane
nor even what a 'pilot' is.
> Obviously we disagree on that aspect. Anyways, useful measurements of
> physiological brain process that correspond to general states of
> consciousness, at a broad level, have already been made and repeated
> successfully.
How can something you have not yet defined be said to have
'general states'? Or that there is a one-to-one correspondence
with anything we may know of 'brain process'?
> Higher degrees of resolution will ensue, as will more accurate
> mapping of brain physiology, function, systems, and some day perhaps on a
> more intimate level within systems.
So, you think that you have a general idea, as yet not explicitly
defined, just what 'consciousness' is, and await only 'higher
degrees of resolution.' Show me that a map of the brain is just
a higher/lower resolution map of 'consciousness.' Is the map of
a dead brain identical to the map of a living brain?
> I am curious. What logical reason could one have upon which to base an
> idea that physical measurement or physical phenomenon may not be used to
> represent in useful fashion, the phenomenon of consciousness?
My current reason, logically arrived at, is that neither you nor
anyone else has yet given me any reason to believe otherwise.
I am offered nothing but hidden postulates and assumptions based
on little more than than this kind of reasoning:
(1) all the Universe is a clockwork almost completely explained
by a Physics that awaits only the dotting of each 'i' and the
crossing of each 't',
(2) when the brain dies, then consciousness disappears, so
consciousness must be just a function of the brain, and hence
just another natural phenomena that awaits the magic of
mathematics, computer science and biology to be fully explained.
>>>Godel's incompleteness idea comes to mind regarding this relationship.
>>
>>How so?
>
> Metaphorically. In the sense that a useful or practical model of
> something can be considered as a finite system, of which the details in it
> do not at all have to be anywhere near as complex as the higher system as it
> is intended to represent in order to be useful.
Useful for what? Behaviour control? I am more interested in
understanding just what consciousness is and how it emerges from
the functioning of brain.
> Are there any phenomenon not stemming from physical mechanism or
> underlying material reality?
Not as far as Science is concerned. And Science is what we are
talking about.
> Would consciousness be one of them? Are there
> others? If so, are such non-physical or non-material phenomenon
> testable? Falsifiable?
Those are the questions *I* am asking. In reply, I receive only
double-talk and speculation.
In this post you describe 'consciousness' thusly:
(1) "a kind of unity in which the measurement is the thing itself."
(2) "consciousness can be represented by measurement of the
underlying physical process"
(3) "We use analog equations or even simply poetic language via
symbols and common experience as a means of modeling...such
emergent 'metaphysical' things as consciousness or subjective
experience."
(4) "metrics...[is] simply applying what the history of
scientific endeavor suggests as occurring with consciousness as
with any other natural thing.
(5) "useful measurements of physiological brain process that
correspond to general states of consciousness",
"Higher degrees of resolution will ensue", and
"By no means are such measurements to be considered as synonymous
with consciousness."
Please note that you speak as if it is already known what
consciousness is and how it emerges as a phenomenon of brain.
You are so sure of this that you even presume to quantify,
measure and model a phenomenon that you cannot even define.
Skler
"Albert" <albert...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Tr4yd.4348$ql2.510@okepread04...
> Skler wrote:
> >>It is not at all logical and rational to me to believe that
> >>measurement of the underlying physical process is, **in any way**, a
> >>measurement of consciousness.
> >
> > At the highest level you would have subjective experience of ones'
> > consciousness, a kind of unity in which the measurement is the thing
itself.
>
> Is this then your definition of 'consciousness'?: "a kind of
> unity in which the measurement is the thing itself."
That's a great question.
I would say that self awareness presents as a limit to the measurement of
consciousness, but within that subjective set boundary there lies the
picture, the impression of an ability to sense and that others may sense the
same, a very consistent system that we think of as the physical world; that
such world is a continuum of which consciousness itself is a part, an
apparent subset. I would also, ironically, express that the issue of the
subjective verses apparent objective appears ultimately unresolvable, so
philosophical differences between Materialists and non-material Idealists as
to correctly interpreting the consistent patterns of the inner map of the
world with it's apparent sensorial link to a broader realm outside of one's
own mind, is a matter of how one interprets that information. Also
observable is that although apparent abilities and experiences greatly
overlap, there are differences, which account for the dissonances of
disagreement on for example, issues regarding consciousness. There are many
feedback loops in the system, in the relationship between the apparent
realms of Mind and it's apparent - parent set, Nature, which confuses people
I think.
Skler
EL
[EL]
Three months already passed.
I was watching ever so patiently to observe the evolution of this
thread.
I studied the different replies to learn what other minds believe
consciousness is about.
Apart from those who have strong beliefs in metaphysics and divine
intervention or creation, I was quite amazed that there are those who
have no clear idea of what difference is there between consciousness ad
awareness.
One particular poster did not even differentiate between daydreaming or
a meditative reverie and informative awareness.
I feel that there is a great need to clarify that a state of being
conscious is a requirement for the activity of the informative senses
that collects environmental data to feed the brain.
Such informative senses when "turned on" brings the self-organizing
creature into the technical state of awareness.
Nothing said have defined the qualia of consciousness so far.
For those who know several languages of multiple sources, I am
confident that they may have a better grasp on the issue.
In another language, the technical word used for consciousness can be
translated literally as "containment."
Naturally the issue would be the containment of the information being
sensed through the activity we call awareness.
Containment has a temporal dimension in which the form in which
information is being preserved endures time, that is it must be
memorised.
An instant recall of the being memorised information is fundamental to
integrate such information into the data bank of all previously
memorised information.
Given such a logical analysis, we should realise that the focus of
awareness is collecting information while the focus of consciousness is
the manipulation of the information being collected.
If I use the wording that states that consciousness is a function of
collecting and organising the collected information then I may not
escape from considering the wording that it is the awareness of being
aware.
I may also use different words here to describe such an illusive
function by saying that it is the function of making sense out of the
being sensed.
I may also conclude that consciousness must be defined as a "function"
the substrate of which must be information.
Although those facts are obvious they do not give any distinction from
machine processing functions that processes information.
The core of the hard problem is in the hidden concept of "self" when
one examines awareness.
Who is being aware of what?
Asking "who", implies an identity of information containment and
concurrently the self awareness of being the owner of the information
set.
This extremely complex structure defines the qualia of the hard problem
in terms of a self organising system, which is aware of itself as a
bounded complex system that is differentiable from the rest of
existence.
Without this critical criterion of self-awareness all the factual bits
of the definition must lose all meaning.
All the diverse internal sensations of all body parts, gravity,
relative location and state of being is integrated into the identity of
self of which the self is being aware of.
The function of consciousness emerges from the higher order of
complexity in the multiple sets of diverse awareness focal points.
Being aware of the date, the hour and time in general; being aware of
the place; being aware of safety versus danger; being aware of fullness
versus hunger; being aware of thirst versus dryness; being aware of a
fly that is sticky and annoying; a multitude of awareness issues is
being sensed and reported concurrently to define the self through being
integral and containable in the same system that can integrate such
information and manipulate it to extract priorities of reflexes and
conditioned reactions.
If the concept of "self" may not emerge without such a multitude of
awareness issues, then self awareness should imply an awareness of
being aware in the second order.
This does not imply that consciousness "must" function in the
front-side of awareness. In fact the default consciousness is a
background activity.
I say that the key to the solution of the hard problem is in an
extremely well defined awareness.
Consciousness and the qualia of the hard problem should follow smoothly
once awareness as a problem was solved properly.
If we accept this definition of consciousness then the true problem
would be in creating a machine that is self-aware.
EL