This is What Consciousness is:

Yep. Very interesting.

" conceptual space " = Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego { identity }.

Biologic = soul with consciousness, with most complex soul human woman, having potential access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego { * i  * }

Algorithms = soul/biologic-like processes that attempt to mimic soul/biologic-like consciousness that understands, but does not comprehend a greater wholistic set of inter-relationhships that can only come from biologic/soul experience.

Ex a woman giving birth and the hormonal interactions with the rest of her biologic/soul, the fetus and those around her, that produce feeling experiences and some comprehension of a greater connection with that which exists outside of herself.

Do any here really believe we will see algorithmic processes giving birth to a complex algorithm, that, will every experience this more comprehensive set of inter-relations a of a biologic birth and resultant experiential feelings?

Isnt this what Star Treks data was always missing.  A comprehensive feelings of a greater wholistic set, that, n binds us all as one and also gives our spirit of hope, purpose, love, faith, adventure, mysterys, imagination and the desire to know more.

1}  simple mineral >>> to >>complex evolution of woman biologic/soul giving birth to that with equal potential to similar complexity

2} Biologic >>> complex >> to simple evolution via inbreeding and loss of Meta-space access to a greater , complexity { syntropy } that  comprehnds a greater wholistic set of inter-relationships, that, pertains to the environmental circumstances that sustain all biologic/souls, and their result programming algorithms

3} Simple Algorithm programing >>> accumulating information >>> with with no grasp experiential feelings of a greater wholistic comprehension inter-relationships to self, others and the environment that sustains them all.

A person who mimics another person never has the wholness { completness } of the person there attempting to mimic.

An algorythimic attempts to mimic the experiential learning process of biologic/soul, yet it will never exist as  the more complex biologic/soul or create a biologic/soul with most complex woman having access to  ?( * i  * )?  and ability to give birth from their body, to another equally complex biologic/soul

  

I'm shocked that no one has a notion of consciousness remotely similar to mine. I think it's fair to say that we are trying to define consciousness here. The proposed definition involving energetic reactions is weak at best. What if I just throw a bunch of reactants together? If I throw together enough, does a consciousness at the level of our own eventually pop up? Perhaps this will be responded to with "It isn't about amount, it's about complexity!" What makes a system of reactions more "complex" then? It seems to me like we're back where we started.

Now regarding the "experience realm." What is the experience realm? This seems ill-defined to me. We experience things in two ways: Our senses, and our thoughts. Does this mean that a low level AI with a camera would be a better contender for artificial consciousness than a high level AI with no camera, because the former has an additional channel to the "experience realm?" If you argue that this AI doesn't actually "experience" the data coming in through its camera, then this comes back to my point about this being ill-defined. What would it mean for it to "experience" this?

My notion of consciousness has three criteria which I will elaborate upon in a moment:

1. It thinks.

2. It understands its thoughts.

3. It is self-aware.

These, like the "experience realm," are, without further elaboration, completely ill-defined, so I will now explain what each of them mean more specifically.

It thinks: I will be using the analogy of an AI throughout my explanation. Picture an AI which you can ask any question, and get an answer. How it obtains this answer, or even the correctness of the answer are irrelevant. All it needs to do is give you some sort of answer. For this criterion, the AI needs to have some sort of internal "thought process" as it reaches the answer. An AI which just sends the question to google and gets back an answer does not think. An AI that first analyzes the question, then goes to google to find relevant information, and then comes back with an answer would be said to think. As you can see, thinking is actually a rather weak criterion. It is the next two criteria that are the critical ones.

It understands its thoughts: Consider the example of a thinking AI. What if you asked it to explain how it comes to its answers? It would probably research its own program, and then come back with an answer. It would not be able to tell you simply based off of its "understanding" of how it is obtaining its answers. Imagine now an AI which has another layer of processing. At each step it not only performs the step, but also understands the step, and can change it to best suite the question. This is where some humanoid characteristics start emerging. Such an AI could potentially learn from mistakes, contemplate things independent from human interaction, and more. There are some AIs a lot like this, and yet we still consider them to only be giving the illusion of consciousness, not to be truly conscious. What they need to get there is the third and final criterion.

It is self-aware: We have officially reached HAL 9000. Observe how each step so far adds one more "layer of consciousness." This AI adds a third layer of understanding and analysis to the other two. It understands its own existence, thoughts, and understanding of its thoughts. The last criterion only requires understanding of its own thought process. It now understands itself.  This AI has the ability to change its learning style, change its goals, and to plan. While the previous AI could change its process, this one can change the way in which it changes its process. It has the potential to learn new skills without human intervention, and to quickly adapt to new situations. This no longer sounds like any sort of illusion of consciousness, this is consciousness.

Finally, a few last comments on these criteria. I call an entity satisfying the first two criteria partially sentient. There are certainly partially sentient AIs out there today. There are not, however, (as far as we know) any completely sentient AIs, and if we want to create one, we will need to have a good understanding of criterion three. Finally, note that these criteria have a pattern of adding another "layer" each time. In this sense, one could imagine a fourth criterion. I call an entity satisfying further criteria in this pattern of layering ultrasentient. (In case you hadn't gathered from the past paragraph, I like having terminology for things.) Anyway, I feel that a have to thank anyone who made it through this entire post for listening to my ramblings! I hope you got something out of this!

According to Thomas Metzinger ( The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind & the Myth of the Self), the human brain creates a model of the world around us. We cannot experience the world directly, but only through our perceptions as processed by our brain. “Consciousness is the appearance of a world. ... a single and unified reality ….” It is a representation of our world, and the fact that this representation is transparent to us, enables us to think of it as “reality.”

You’re using consciousness synonymously with soul.

Biologic = soul and woman is most complex entity of Universe ---barring ideas of two or more women, man and woman, black hole or Universeppp   and most complex biologic of Universe that we know of.

There exist degrees of consciousness ---...' twoness, other-ness, awareness'.. Bucky Fuller

O O = twoness and typically we say some minimal lines-of-relationship between ex Gravitational would be the mininum ergo O---O, however, I think it more accurate to to represent that line-of-relationship this way (O)(  )(  )(  )(O) wherein the outer geodesics { in bold } are Gravity.

This above is three-ness and the background of rest of Universe and what exists outside of Universe is the background context within which the three-ness exists ergo total four-ness.

So we varying degrees of particles and their relationships as consciousness, until eventually we come to the combinations and the synergy of biologic/soul aka biologic life.

Again, we have varying degrees of consciousness --simple worm nematode being simplest--, until we get to most complex, the bilateral { *  * }, female woman and her and mans access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego/i

......space(> * <) i  (> * <)space..... i = ego identity via more complex human nervous system

i = Meta-space

Primary set of two kinds of complexity: 1} numerical ex some salmanders have much more genetic material per cell than humans, 2} synergetic complexity ex humans access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts.

Syntropy is coming together as orderly integral whole

Entropy is the dissipating apart of a whole ergo decay, chaos, dis-sorder etc

I think they know to a limited extent. It’s like saying mammals didn’t know about gravity until a few hundred years ago.

Though i’m not saying fish have the cognitive ability to fully grasp it. Though you’d be surprised how smart some fish are.

Scientists differ on the degree to which fish can have consciousness. Some researchers argue that they cannot have consciousness as their brain is simple, lacking a cerebral cortex, and they have little capacity for learning and memory, a very simple behavioural repertoire and no ability to experience suffering. Others contest this view, pointing out that, despite the small size of the fish brain, detailed morphological and behavioural analyses have highlighted homologies between some of their brain structures and those seen in other vertebrates, such as the hippocampus (linked to learning and spatial memory) and the amygdala (linked to emotions) of mammals.

Anything that can feel anything is conscious. This is the least definition of consciousness, and it marks the beginning of intelligence. Being able to feel and respond intelligently to stimuli enables greater adaptability and the birth of consciousness. And also the death of instinct, which is of the automata.

Of course it gets a whole lot more complicated than that, but that's consciousness.  

As to what intelligence is, I'd say we've cracked that. Human intelligence is an enormity of competing neural nets. It's the feeling that I think we'll never crack. Attempts at AGI put the cart before the horse. The human body is a wonderland of an environment billions of years in the making which we won't simulate for any learning agent. 

If feeling is awareness, then I agree with you.

An AI could be aware of its inner & outer activities, and its experience would be qualitatively different from that of a human. That difference should not be the criteria for consciousness, because the two kinds of brains are differently embodied. Humans seem to think that the quality of their feelings are an important part of consciousness. I don't think so.

An AI is only as good as the data it's trained on. Quality and quantity of data is obviously important.

I understand that.

I still would like to know whether you think that feeling is equivalent to awareness.

More or less. I think intelligence is an illusion or an outgrowth of feeling. I think feeling arises in an organism as a way to measure concerns. I mean, it's surely all very complicated and I don't have all the answers, but this is my intuition. I feel a thousand things right now. I feel each of these words I'm writing on the tip of my tongue. Some of them even have shape. I am my tongue pressed to the top of my mouth. I am the breath behind it. Honestly, I think I'm just some sort of mediation neural net. I'll force the hand to touch the hot thing if we need to. Otherwise it works on its own intelligence. 

This reminds me of "This is Water" by DFW. Read it recently to my girlfriend and made her cry. It's a pretty speech. 

We have consciousness because There are about 1 billion neurons in the human brain and each of these neurons has 1,000 other connections with other neurons accounting to more than trillions of connections.

Them and others are confusing consciousness with access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego.

From a quick search; in an adult there’s about 100 billion neurons in total with many thousands of connections each.

Just wanted to say I've read #63, several times, since you've posted it.

I'm not sure why I don't have anything to say to it.

Consciousness is akin to a flame that illuminates the darkness of our existence. It is a multifaceted phenomenon, with various levels and dimensions, that allows us to perceive the world in a way that transcends mere sensory awareness. It is the awareness of oneself and one's surroundings that defines our subjective experience of being alive.

Like the Greek oracle at Delphi who proclaimed, "know thyself," consciousness involves the ability to reflect upon oneself and one's surroundings. It requires a higher level of awareness that allows us to think about ourselves and the world in more nuanced and abstract ways, just as the philosopher Aristotle contemplated the nature of existence and the meaning of life.

This awareness includes an introspective capacity that enables us to reflect on our own mental states and experiences, similar to the Stoic practice of self-examination. It is a higher level of consciousness that enables us to form abstract concepts and ideas, like the Platonic Forms, and reflect on our own thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations.

Furthermore, consciousness involves a sense of self-awareness that is unique to every individual, much like the Buddhist concept of Anatta, or no-self. It includes an awareness of one's own thoughts, emotions, desires, and intentions, as well as an awareness of the social and cultural context in which one exists.

In essence, consciousness is the flame that illuminates our existence, allowing us to perceive and reflect on the world in a way that transcends mere sensory experience. It is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that is still not fully understood, but its importance in defining our subjective experience of being alive cannot be denied.

The publication you mentioned is fascinating, as I was previously unaware of the official documentation. However, I find it self-evident that prey running from predators shows an awareness of their place in the food chain, just as predators chasing prey demonstrate their conscious recognition of their position in the hierarchy. Consciousness involves being aware of one's own existence within both internal and external systems, which suggests that there may be different levels of consciousness depending on the extent of this awareness. While I have been aware of the concept of different levels of consciousness, I had not heard of any official documentation before, so I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.

@FLRW @Critical-Tim

If a robot is programmed to respond to a signal of body damage,

Then flee from threat, repair body, or scan it's body,

I suppose this 'could be called conscious,

But I'm not sure it's the same as sentience.

Really I think that distinction might be what I was unsure about int Math_Enthusiast's post #63 or Reece101's Toy Hamster 'experiencing.

I don't see how something can be conscious/sentient/aware without material existence/energy,

But that does not mean all material existence/energy is conscious/sentient/aware.

. . .

@Self

Though maybe I'm reading Math_Enthusiast's post wrong,

They 'do say,

But 'something about that feels 'off to me,

It's just adding the same layer,

Which admittedly is two layers, but still just two layers.

Though that's what my overflowing cup example is arguing itself,

I'm not 'quite satisfied with my explanation,

And I don't think Math_Enthusiast is quite getting at the same argument as me,

But I'm sleep deprived this moment, maybe it'll be clearer tomorrow, or tomorrow's tomorrow, because I won't sleep much tonight.

Well, I'm going to bed, need to work tonight.

I have questioned if animals are merely chemical responses, and I realized that humans are also subject to chemical reactions, yet we possess consciousness. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that animals too have consciousness, which is a result of their own chemical reactions. While animals' consciousness may differ from that of humans, we can still observe their awareness through their actions as both predators and prey. Ultimately, both animals and humans are programmed to respond to their environment, but the presence of consciousness in both is evidence of the complexity of their chemical reactions. This ultimately leads to our discussion of free will versus determinism, which I claim is an improperly formed question. Additionally, I argue that the questions "what is reality", "what is truth", and "is evil necessary for good" are improperly formed. All of these questions have 2 things in common, they are controversial even in modern day debate, and they are improperly formed due to their oversimplification. It is clear that a question without a definite answer cannot be properly answered, such as the question "is this blue" without any context. Someone might say yes or no based on their perception, but without necessary clarity in the question, it cannot be answered definitively. Many individuals focus on creating a definitive and accurate answer but fail to realize the importance of crafting an accurate and definitive question. It is evident that a proper question is necessary to obtain a proper answer as you cannot create an answer without a proper question. In this way, modern controversial topics that lack the necessary definitiveness in questions, resulting from their oversimplification, is the very thing that keeps them controversial and unresolved today. In fact, many controversial topics that remain unresolved are plagued by oversimplification in their formulation. For instance, the question "Is a person who wishes for rain kind or cruel, one of his friends loves rain, while the other dreads it?" cannot be reduced to a simple yes or no answer, as it depends on the person's perspective and the context of the situation. Oversimplifying debates often leads to ongoing miscommunication and hinders the resolution of complex issues. Ultimately, accurate and nuanced understanding of reality requires us to move beyond simplistic formulations and engage with the complexity of the issues at hand.

Some might argue that to create a proper question it is therefore necessary to know the proper answer.

Sincere questions are generally borne out of ignorance.

Otherwise the process might be better regarded as a test, or scientific method.

 

@Critical-Tim

Not all organisms pass the mirror test,

Though I'm reminded of a book I forget about a race of alien spiders and humans meeting,

Where neither could communicate or understand one another for a long time,

Different senses, actions, ideas of communication.

Maybe a dog would recognize it's scent better, than a picture of itself.

While a human would recognize a picture better, than their own scent.

. . .

Why does it follow that if we are something,

Animals are something as well?

We wear clothing,

But animals don't?

. . .

To be predator or prey, is this 'Sentient Awareness,

Or instinctual reaction awareness, as with a programmed robot?

@Self

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, 42.

René Descartes and animals, . . . and robots.

Hm, Idea of a developed consciousness,

The ancient Romans. . .

Questions like "what is reality", "what is truth", and "is evil necessary for good" are improperly formed due to oversimplification, and their controversial nature is a result of this. A proper question is necessary to obtain a proper answer, and oversimplification often hinders the resolution of complex issues. Ultimately, a nuanced understanding of reality requires moving beyond simplistic formulations and engaging with the complexity of the issues at hand. A question that is oversimplified, such as "What is," lacks the necessary context to provide a clear understanding of the question and can be interpreted in multiple ways. This can lead to controversy as different people may understand it differently. To obtain a definitive answer, a question must have a clear context and be properly formed. Without a properly formed question, the answer will also be non-definitive, therefore leading to controversy.

Can you give me an example of a proper question?

As it is, you are a bit like a philosophical version of Ebuc.

In so much as, I think that you are attempting to put forward a sincere idea.

But I just don't quite get it.

To say one can be aware of various situations,

'Might be true,

And it might be I'm not asking quite the right question,

But it feels a rewording of the question what is consciousness,

Rather than an answer, to say that consciousness is awareness.

It is quite a challenging topic and thank you for acknowledging my attempt and I apologize I was not able to present it as clearly as I wished I could. Hopefully this time will be clearer, however if not please let me know as I will continue working on understanding and explaining my idea better.

I am suggesting that in everyday language, people make assumptions all the time. For example, when someone says "you," they assume that they are referring to the person they are talking to; when someone says "up," they assume that it means away from gravity; and when someone says "kind," they assume that it means a desirable emotional trait. I am highlighting the fact that language conveys both explicit and implicit meanings. People often focus on the implicit meaning, such as when they value a product review for its implicit intentions rather than its explicit words. For instance, if a competitor writes a negative review, they may view the implicit meaning as an attempt to reduce competition, whereas if a customer writes a negative review, they may assume it's because they disliked the product. However, relying on implicit meanings can lead to misunderstandings because it is subjective and not explicitly stated. Furthermore, when someone says, "that's good," it's unclear what exactly they mean. "Good" means a benefit towards something, but it doesn't specify what it benefits. There is an implicit accepted meaning that it benefits the individual, but this is not always the case. Others may accept it as an implicit benefit towards themselves, which can lead to miscommunication. In everyday language, people often use implicit meanings and accept ambiguous contexts because they think they understand the intentions behind them. However, when engaging in complex philosophical debates, ambiguity can lead to subjective interpretation and miscommunication.

To demonstrate ambiguity, let me give some real examples. The question "is equality good", there are infinite interpretations of what they mean. Do they mean equality of outcome, opportunity, financial income, happiness, or something else? Furthermore, if they are for equality in any of these categories, they could mean different things - for example, they might want to level everyone down to the lowest level, or bring everyone up to the highest level, or raise everyone to the median level. The topic is complex and has many variations, including negative interpretations, such as leveling everyone down to the lowest level for the sake of equality. When asked if equality is good or bad, the question itself is flawed and raises many other questions. The ambiguity is so high that we could never hope to answer it. Instead, we should ask properly formulated questions that address specific aspects of equality. For example, we could ask if they are for raising everyone to an equal financial income level, with the implication that they want to raise people up, rather than bring them down or make everyone average. Additionally reminding yourself that good means to benefit towards something what are they referring that equality could be good towards government, individuals, groups; and for each one of those it could mean financial income, happiness, protection, support. In other words, the question is equality good is an oversimplification to which causes more questions than answers and is more problematic than helpful. When a question becomes more problematic than helpful you know that you have oversimplified the question.

Consider this oversimplified question: "Are good and evil interconnected or independent?" While some may believe that this is a more direct question than "Can good exist without evil?", even this more direct form of the question remains ambiguous. Morality encompasses several sub-aspects, including the morality of intent and the morality of outcome. These sub-aspects refer to whether the morality of intent and outcome are interconnected or independent. Additionally, morality can be viewed in several different ways, including deontology, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, moral relativism, and moral absolutism, each providing a unique perspective on evaluating and determining what is right or wrong. With so many different understandings of what is right and wrong, how can we determine whether good and evil are interconnected or independent? Only by removing ambiguity and forming a properly interpretable question can we arrive at a definitive answer.

In summary, this can be likened to the scene in Jurassic Park when Ian Malcolm says, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." Similarly, people often become so fixated on finding an answer that they fail to consider whether they have asked the right question, and when a question is improperly formed and has ambiguity controversial debate with no seeming agreement is always sure to follow.

I'd agree language can be ambiguous, that context helps greatly in understanding.

I like that movie, Jurassic Park.

. . .