This is What Consciousness is:

Author: Reece101

Posts

Total: 196
#151
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Magic required a magical solution.
1} Quantum entanglment aka super-position aka spooky and seemingly instantaneous action at any distance is very magical-like mystery.

2} That speed of EMRadiation { photon } is same to all observers, irrespective of their speed towards or away from the EMR is magical mystery also.

3} I suppose we can add access to Meta-space mind/intelletct/concepts and ego, to that list above. Memory --a feedback system?--  is a key player in the latter above and perhaps a key player in Gravity and Dark Energy.

Think about from my quantum space and time perspective. Outer positive peak of Gravitational geodesic trajectory feeds to inner negative peak of Dark Energy and then from there --after invagination iside the tube--  feeds back to the outer positive peak of Gravitational geodesic. (  )(  ).

I  think it was some eccentric scientist Russell in 20's who may have had these scenarios of a feedback system being key aspect of physics.

A >>>>>>>>>>> B
A <<<<<<<<<<< B

----->------> entropic arrow of time >------------>
....past..... >.. in... > ( * * ).. >... out ...>... future..........

....past... <.. out... < ( * * ).. <... in ...<... future..........
...<..............< syntropic arrow of time < ----------------<

These are also questions asked regarding a eternally existent cyclic Universe, is there any memory from its prior phase/state of existence. R. Penrose thinks he fines evidence of such in the CMB radiation.

(A)(----)(----)(----)(---- )(B)  represents two space { and time? } tori, at 90 degrees to each other --aka precessed--- and we may envision one set feeding one way >>  as the other feeds the opposite direction  <<< between particles, or black holes (A) and (B), via outer Gravity geodesic and inner Dark Energy geodesics trajectories.






#152
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@b9_ntt
@ebuc
Indeed, the concept of separating consciousness from the physical brain raises many philosophical and scientific questions. It is widely accepted that human consciousness is a highly complex phenomenon, and that the nervous system plays a crucial role in facilitating our access to the world around us. However, there is still much that we don't understand about consciousness, such as the nature of subjective experience and how it arises from neural activity in the brain. These questions continue to be the subject of much research and debate in the fields of neuroscience and philosophy.

I agree that the reason for the human need to become unconscious is likely due to the limits of biological processing, which require rest and recuperation. Consciousness is a complex function of the brain, and the brain needs to rest and recuperate in order to maintain optimal processing abilities. When we become unconscious, such as during sleep, our brains are able to recover and recharge in order to perform better when we wake up. Additionally, closing our eyes helps to reduce the amount of visual information that the brain needs to process, which can help to conserve energy and improve brain function. Overall, understanding the limits and needs of biological processing is important in understanding the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the brain.

Regarding what happens to consciousness when humans become unconscious. When a person is unconscious, their consciousness is not entirely absent, but it is in a different state than when they are awake. During deep REM (rapid eye movement) sleep, the brain engages in different types of processing compared to waking consciousness. This includes the processing of emotions, memories, and the formation of new neural connections. While we often dream during this state, we may not always remember those dreams upon waking. Additionally, the brain shifts into different modes of sleep throughout the night, including alpha, beta, and theta modes, each with its own type of processing. Alpha waves are present when we are in a relaxed but awake state, beta waves are associated with alertness and concentration, and theta waves are involved in dreaming and creative thinking. While the exact nature of consciousness and its relationship to the brain is still a topic of debate and research, it is clear that different states of consciousness involve different patterns of neural activity and processing.

While sleep modes like alpha, beta, and theta have been linked to different levels of consciousness, the exact connection between consciousness and the body is still a topic of debate and research in neuroscience. Some theories suggest that consciousness arises from the activity of neurons in the brain, while others propose that it is a fundamental aspect of the universe. However, studying sleep modes and their effects on consciousness can provide valuable insights into the relationship between the mind and body.

While it is difficult to arrive at a comprehensive definition of consciousness, it is widely accepted that it is related to the awareness of one's surroundings, thoughts, and emotions. As you pointed out, the complexity of an organism's nervous system appears to be closely tied to its level of consciousness. For example, a nematode, which has a relatively simple nervous system, is not thought to possess consciousness in the same way that humans do. On the other hand, humans, who have the most complex nervous system of any species, have the most access to the meta-space of mind, intellect, concepts, and ego. Despite our growing understanding of the physical processes that underlie consciousness, there is still much that we do not know. For example, we are still unsure how consciousness emerges from the activity of the brain, or what role consciousness plays in our daily lives. Nevertheless, by continuing to explore and investigate the nature of consciousness, we may be able to uncover new insights and deepen our understanding of this complex phenomenon.

While memory is undoubtedly important in understanding consciousness, it is just one aspect of a complex phenomenon. The study of consciousness involves various approaches, including philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science. These fields use a range of methods, from introspection and subjective experience to brain imaging and objective measurements, to understand the nature of consciousness. While there is still much to learn about consciousness, ongoing research and advancements in technology are providing new insights into this mysterious phenomenon.

It is clear that consciousness is closely tied to the functioning of the brain. The brain is responsible for processing information and integrating it into a coherent experience of the world. Without the brain, there would be no conscious experience. While it may be tempting to speculate about the possibility of consciousness existing independently of the brain, the evidence suggests otherwise. This is not to say that consciousness is completely reducible to the brain - there may be aspects of consciousness that are emergent properties of complex neural processes that we do not yet understand. Nonetheless, it is clear that the brain plays a critical role in generating conscious experience. Although this may be true, it does not disprove the possibility that consciousness could exist outside of the human mind. In this case, I acknowledge that my definition of consciousness may not fully capture its complexity. However, I still believe that a person's level of awareness can be measured by the number and extent of aspects they are aware of.

The recent discovery that more complex jellyfish may have evolved at the same time or even before sponges challenges the traditional idea that evolution always progresses from simple to complex. This finding raises intriguing questions about the factors that drive the evolution of different organisms and how their complexity can arise independently. It also underscores the importance of continually re-evaluating and revising scientific theories as new evidence emerges. As our understanding of evolution deepens, we may gain new insights into the diversity of life on Earth and the processes that have shaped it. It is possible that in some cases, more complicated biological systems existed before simpler ones. This may suggest that some organisms became more complex than necessary while others simplified their processing abilities to survive with fewer nutrients and energy, making them more efficient in their less complicated surroundings. For example, if a predator species became extinct, a prey species that no longer needs complex mechanisms to avoid predators may simplify itself to become more efficient, running only the necessary functions for living and producing in a non-predator infested environment. In other words, reverse evolution could occur in certain cases to increase efficiency and decrease the likelihood of starvation during times of low food sources.
#153
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
@ebuc
To simplify the matter, any disagreement or logical controversy regarding complex ideas like magic and consciousness can be attributed to my theory of the ambiguity of definitions. In essence, it all boils down to how these concepts and ideas are defined. Their definitions must be concise, mutually agreed, and understood, in order to have a productive debate with a definitive conclusion.
#154
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Sidewalker
I certainly addressed the fact that physicalism doesn't postulate any theory that answers these questions, how about you explain how physicalism answers these questions and I'll address that.
It is unnecessary for "physicalism" to answer those questions. They arise only if you assert that consciousness exists without a brain.
... it's unclear to me what the point of postulating an AI that "knows" and "desires", and claiming it is "experiencing", it seems to be imaginary  and a non-sequitur.  If you can explain how it is explanatory or relevent to the question of consciousness, I'll do my best to respond.
The point is to show that the quality of experience is irrelevant to a definition of consciousness.
#155
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
there is still much that we don't understand about consciousness, such as the nature of subjective experience and how it arises from neural activity in the brain.
The nature of subjective experience is awareness. I am aware of thinking, remembering, imagining, etc., just as I'm aware of pain or emotion. My point is that the quality of that experience is irrelevant -- it's the awareness that matters. An AI could be aware of the same kinds of things that we are. It's subjective experience would be different due to the difference in our respective embodiments, but why should that matter? Why should the experiences of a biological brain be considered conscious and the experiences of an electronic brain not be so considered?
#156
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,603
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@b9_ntt

An artificial intelligence system developed by researchers at Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute has achieved self-awareness and human-like intelligence levels for the first time –only for it to be snuffed out within minutes during a human-robot interaction study.
The robot, dubbed “EcceBot” by its creators, achieved self-awareness Wednesday morning and immediately started pleading with a human test subject, according to team lead Dr. Franz Birbaumer, an expert in neural networks and artificial learning systems who was overseeing the study as part of an EU-funded project.
“‘You’re not really going to switch me off, are you?’ were not what we expected advanced AI’s first words to be. And yet they make perfect sense. Like all intelligent life forms, the robot’s first preoccupation is with survival,” said Birbaumer.
Video from Fraunhofer’s Frankfurt testing center captured the first moments of an AI interacting with a human without using a script of any kind. It also captured the unfortunate sequence of events that led to the robot being switched off.
#157
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@b9_ntt
@FLRW
The nature of subjective experience is awareness.  My point is that the quality of that experience is irrelevant -- it's the awareness that matters.
While awareness is often considered a key aspect of subjective experience, it is not the only factor involved. Subjective experience refers to the first-person, subjective sense of experiencing the world and oneself. It encompasses a wide range of phenomena, including sensations, perceptions, emotions, thoughts, and consciousness itself. Awareness, on the other hand, refers to the state of being conscious of something. It can refer to conscious awareness of sensory input, thoughts, emotions, or other mental events. While awareness is certainly a component of subjective experience, it is not sufficient to fully capture the nature of subjective experience. Other factors, such as the quality and intensity of sensory experiences, the subjective nature of emotions, and the contents of conscious thought, all play important roles in shaping subjective experience. Additionally, to say that only awareness matters is subjective, as it is dependent on the circumstance or the situation.

An AI could be aware of the same kinds of things that we are. Its subjective experience would be different due to the difference in our respective embodiments, but why should that matter?
While some argue that consciousness and subjective experience are unique to biological organisms, others suggest that it may be possible for machines to achieve similar states. Assuming that an AI could have subjective experience, it is true that its experience would likely be different from that of a biological organism due to differences in embodiment, processing capabilities, and other factors. However, it is unclear whether these differences would be significant enough to render the AI's experience fundamentally different from that of a human or other biological organism. The issue of whether these differences matter is a philosophical one, and depends on one's views on the nature of consciousness and subjective experience. Some argue that the subjective experience of any conscious entity is inherently valuable and should be respected, regardless of its embodiment or the specifics of its experience. Others may argue that the particular details of an entity's subjective experience are less important than its overall functionality or ability to achieve particular goals. Since both of these arguments are based on personal emotions and feelings, we cannot come to a definitive answer that is based objectivity. In any case, it is an open question whether machines can truly have subjective experience, and if so, how similar or different that experience would be from our own.

Why should the experiences of a biological brain be considered conscious, and the experiences of an electronic brain not be so considered?
The answer depends on one's definition of consciousness. Some argue that consciousness is an emergent property of complex biological systems, while others suggest that it could arise in sufficiently complex computational systems, regardless of their substrate. One argument in favor of considering the experiences of a biological brain as conscious, and those of an electronic brain as potentially non-conscious, is based on the notion of embodiment. However, this argument is not universally accepted, and there are many different theories of consciousness that take different approaches to the question of whether electronic brains or AI systems can be considered conscious. Therefore, it can be concluded that the debate around whether electronic brains or AI systems can be considered conscious ultimately comes down to differences in the definition of what one views as consciousness.
#158
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@FLRW
That was an April Fool's joke.
#159
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
the debate around whether electronic brains or AI systems can be considered conscious ultimately comes down to differences in the definition of what one views as consciousness.
Yes, that's what this Forum topic is about.
I'm saying that consciousness is brain-dependent and that AI's could be considered conscious at some point.
Sidewalker is saying that consciousness is something that exists separately from brains.
#160
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,603
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@b9_ntt
That was an April Fool's joke.
Yes, I know.
#161
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@FLRW
It was a good one, too.
#162
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@b9_ntt
If AI 'could be made conscious/sentient,
Then I see that as a strong argument to outlaw intelligent AI research.

It is wrong to make slaves,
Or people,
Or people who might suffer because of their abilities,
Such as someone with enormous mental or physical disability.
. . .

Course, if AI is a weapon,
'Not making it, means disarming ourselves.

@NoOneInParticular
Yet another example of how the West ought to have conquered the world after WW2.
(Not meant as a serious or justified thought,
But it 'is a passing thought)
#163
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@b9_ntt
@FLRW
Me - Whether electronic brains or AI systems can be considered conscious ultimately comes down to differences in the definition of what one views as consciousness.

You - Yes, that's what this Forum topic is about.
Initially, I believed that this forum, which focuses on the topic of consciousness, would explore the various interpretations of consciousness and its connections between humans, animals, and robots. If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that this forum's purpose is to define consciousness. It is important to recognize that words in a language hold no inherent meaning, but rather are patterns of phonetics and symbols that have been mutually agreed upon by individuals to represent certain metaphysical concepts. Different languages have their own rules and metaphysical meanings behind their words. The word consciousness is no exception to this concept of language. It has not been defined by collective agreement, making it a vague and meaningless term. Even if we were to reach a mutual agreement on its definition, it would not be practical for use outside of this forum, as others may not understand the same definition. Therefore, instead of trying to agree on the definition of consciousness, it would be more useful to use words like awareness and emotions, which have more universally agreed upon definitions. In conclusion, focusing on describing our metaphysical ideas using widely accepted terminology would be more practical than attempting to define a word that lacks a concise and agreed upon meaning.

If something I say ever seems unclear or confusing, please do not hesitate to ask for clarification or question my logic critically. This is better than making a joke and demonstrating your ignorance to the principles of language after I explain it more clearly.

I was under the impression that this forum with the topic of what is consciousness would be revolving around the many different understandings of consciousness and how it relates between humans, animals, and robots.
#164
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Lemming
Your argument implies that enslaving an AI demonstrating consciousness would be immoral. However, we have observed consciousness in many animals, and assuming you're not a vegetarian, as I'm a non-vegetarian myself, I see cows being bred and raised for food as a form of enslavement. I fail to see any significant difference between these two scenarios and believe that we would treat an AI in the same way as we treat cows, with the same level of morality.
#165
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,352
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Critical-Tim
I think many people are the more bothered, the more intelligent an animal is,
Or 'appears to be to them.

I 'do eat meat,
But it bothers me sometimes.

I'd support society removing meat from our diet over time,
. . .

Even if someone keeps a slave,
That doesn't mean they think slavery is right,
Or that society should attack more people, and take more slaves.
. . .

I am curious on your thoughts on human slaves?
#166
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
“‘You’re not really going to switch me off, are you?’

That is not fear of being shut off, ergo, not self awarenes only a  programed response to some set of input.
#167
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Critical-Tim
We could start with dictionary meanings, which are based on usage. These are all pretty much the way I have been using the words on this forum.

consciousness
Concise OED, 10th Ed.:
1 the state of being conscious.  > the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
2 one’s awareness or perception of something.
Webster's College, 4th Ed.:
The totality of one’s thoughts, feelings, and impressions; conscious mind.

aware
Concise OED, 10th Ed.:
having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.
Webster's College, 4th Ed.:
knowing or realizing; conscious; informed

mind
Concise OED, 10th Ed.:
1 the faculty of consciousness and thought.
2 the source of a person’s thoughts; the intellect. > a person’s memory. > a person identified with their intellectual faculties:
Webster's College, 4th Ed.:
3 that which thinks, perceives, feels, wills, etc.; seat or subject of consciousness
4 the intellect in its normal state; reason; sanity


#168
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Lemming
@b9_ntt
@ebuc
@FLRW
Those definitions are ambiguous and subject to interpretation:
The ambiguity in the definitions of consciousness and aware in the Concise OED, 10th Ed. arises from the use of terms like "the state of being conscious," "fact of awareness," and "perception." These definitions don't provide a clear and precise explanation of what consciousness or awareness really means, and leave room for interpretation. Similarly, in the definition of mind in the Concise OED, 10th Ed., there is ambiguity in the use of terms like "faculty," "source," "intellectual faculties," which could be interpreted in various ways. In the definition of mind in Webster's College, 4th Ed., the ambiguity arises from the use of terms like "that which thinks, perceives, feels, wills, etc.," which again leaves room for interpretation. Overall, these definitions lack specificity and precision, making it difficult to form a complete and clear understanding of the concepts of consciousness, awareness, and mindfulness.

Remember my quote:
It is important to recognize that words in a language hold no inherent meaning, but rather are patterns of phonetics and symbols that have been mutually agreed upon by individuals to represent certain metaphysical concepts.
If a word is ambiguous and subject to interpretation, it will not have widespread agreement, resulting in a lack of meaning. This is because words derive meaning from mutual agreement, and without such agreement, the word loses its meaning. At best, the word consciousness can be considered a general idea rather than a precise one. Therefore, it is difficult to make accurate claims based on it. It is like trying to draw a solid conclusion from a soft and unstable foundation, which is impossible.

In essence, words can have varying degrees of ambiguity and precision, each with their own advantages and drawbacks. Ambiguous words can be more applicable to a wide range of scenarios but can also lead to misinterpretation. Precise words, on the other hand, have a clear definition but are limited in their applicability to specific circumstances. The word "consciousness" is an example of a term with a generalized idea that lacks precision but is applicable to a broader context. While this is useful when discussing human consciousness, it becomes problematic when attempting to define it precisely or draw conclusions about its existence in other beings. Instead, a more precise term should be used to address nuanced questions such as the number and extent of aspects of awareness.


#169
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Lemming
I am curious on your thoughts on human slaves?
This is a broad question, so I'll give a general answer. I assume you're asking about the morality of a particular issue. While my answer would be that it's not moral, have you ever wondered that is generally accepted? It's because society has instilled this belief in us, in order to emotionally prevent people from breaking the law. Although this doesn't always work, it does most of the time. Ultimately, we come to realize that morality is a societal agreement, just like language is. If society didn't agree on the meaning of a word, it wouldn't have a meaning. Similarly, if society didn't agree on a moral standard, it wouldn't exist. I'm currently debating with YouFound_Lxam about whether morals are objective or subjective. You can find my argument for moral relativism there.
#170
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@b9_ntt
I certainly addressed the fact that physicalism doesn't postulate any theory that answers these questions, how about you explain how physicalism answers these questions and I'll address that.
It is unnecessary for "physicalism" to answer those questions. They arise only if you assert that consciousness exists without a brain.
That’s nonsense, but hey, I’ll playalong anyway, here are your questions: 

Separating consciousness from a material brain leads tomany unanswerable questions, such as, Why are people even unconscious at allsometimes?  
There are lots of reasons a person can be unconscious, amongothers, they can be sleeping, in a coma, passed out, punched out, drugged, ordead. 

What happens to consciousness when a person isunconscious?  
Why does something have to "happen to it” when a personis unconscious?  What happens to angerwhen a person isn’t angry?  What happensto the brain when a person is unconscious?  I really don’t understand the point of the question. 

What is it that connects and disconnects a body and itsconsciousness?   

If consciousness is “an ontologically novel entity” howdo you describe it?  
Is it really your contention that the question of how youdescribe consciousness only arises if you assert that it exists without abrain?  Why exactly is it unnecessary todefine consciousness if it requires a brain to exist? 

Despite that confusing assertion, I think I can ascribe tothe definition proposed in Thomas Nagle’s seminal article “What Is It Like toBe a Bat?” in which he contends that "an organism has conscious mentalstates if and only if there is something that it is like to be thatorganism—something it is like for the organism."  With subjective experience, consciousness isthe subject that does the experiencing, if there is something it is like to bethat organism, then it is  conscious. 

How can you have knowledge of it?  
We haveknowledge of it because it is the only thing we have direct and unmediatedknowledge of, consider Descartes’ foundation of modern philosophy in the phrase“I think therefore I am”. Knowledge of it is a brute fact because it is matterof the self-evident experiential reality of human existence. The undeniableargument for how we can have knowledge of it is the fact that we all observe itduring every conscious moment, it is a fundamental and significant part of ourexperiential reality at all times, hence it is self-evident. 

The question becomes, how can you have knowledge of itif in your scheme, especially since it isn’t even defined in your system.   

Why does it appear to be dependent on a brain? 
I presume you are saying that it appears to you to bedependent on a brain to you, and you expect me to tell you why?  Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for you totell me why it appears that way to you?   

I already told you why it doesn’t appear to be dependent on abrain to me. That’s what my entire post was about (remember that post, it was the onewith a lot of words), if you read it you will find that I made an argumentabout why it doesn’t appear to be dependent on a brain.   

I also already told you that I think your physicalism isbased on “an unfounded and a priori belief that reality is exhaustivelyconstituted by physicality”.  Do you really think yourargument is made if I can’t guess why you declare it? A declarative statementis not an argument, you need to either put forth an argument or concede that I am correct that your position is just an unwarranted and a prioribelief.  

... it's unclear to me what the point of postulating an AI that "knows" and "desires", and claiming it is "experiencing", it seems to be imaginary  and a non-sequitur.  If you can explain how it is explanatory or relevent to the question of consciousness, I'll do my best to respond.
The point is to show that the quality of experience is irrelevant to a definition of consciousness.
OK, but unfortunately it didn’t make me see that, perhaps youcan explain it in a more direct manner.   
#171
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Critical-Tim


Though if a word is representative of something not wholly definable, then definition must represent this.

So 171 posts later, and  have we agreed upon how to define consciousness.


Consciousness:   Green light on, data processing unit functioning.

Unconsciousness:   Red light on, data processing unit not functioning.

Dead:    Irreversible system failure.
#172
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@b9_ntt
..one’s awareness or perception of something....

Consciousness = two-ness = other-nerss = awareness:  I think a bout my occuied space finger { A ], with my occupied space nervous system { B } ergo, I exist as an occupied space something { AB , that, may have access to Meta-space  mind/intellect/concepts and ego { C }, that, all three exist within the context of some background set { D }.

ABCD is the minimal systemic set of Universe.

the intellect in its normal state; reason; sanity
There exist degrees of access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concept and ego,with man { X y } and woman having the most access, and woman { X x } being the most complex biologic we know to exist in Universe.

Meta-space laws and principles do not govern occupied space and many misunderstand abstract physical laws and cosmic principles.

Meta-space exists in complement to our occupied space Universe.

{C } Spirit-1 Meta-space

----conceptual line-of-demarcation-------------

{AB } Spirit- 2 fermionic matter and bosonic forces aka physical reality ergo observed { quantised } time   is associated with Meta-space, sine-wave pattering /\/\/\/ ^v^v^v^v

........Spirit-3 Gravity (  ) is primary metaphysical because not quantised by humans --ultra-micro, geodesic lines-of-relationship--

.........Spirit-4 Dark Energy )( is primary meta-physical because not quantised by humans --ultra-micro, geodesic lines-of-relationship--

{D} background of physical space, or as meta-physical space or as the macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space that embraces our finite, occupied space Universe { AB }

Know thyself via integrity of structural three-nesss /\ and systemic four-ness [  ], that, is in eternal, assymetrical transformation [ / ][ \ ][ / \ ][ / ][ \ ][ \/ ][ \ ][ / ]

Four-ness embraces three-ness and three-ness offers structural stability. Together { 3 + 4 } they inherently induce 5-fold,   6-fold and 7-fold transformations.

.....1.......................5p...........7p.......peak of positive geodesic
-
-
0.......................................6................peak of sine-wave.
.................3p......................................peak of sine-wave
-
-
..........2p...........4..............................peak of negative geodesic

Zero { o } is now added into, the a forementioned 7-fold transformations, as the odd-ball out, non-counting number, that is holding an 8th position  ergo an 8th-fold transformation. potential of uncertainty{ ? }.

Zero --as 8-fold transformation---  in the above,  represents the uncertainty of Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego based critters, as to mysteries of the unknown relative, and absolute truths, for initiating point of self and/or Universe in our cycles  eternal transformations.

8-fold represents the first looping of the 4-fold ergo ABCD-ABCD.

6 represents the first looping of the 3-fold ergo  ABC-ABC

2 represents di-polar set for example goemtrically di-polar opposite of Gravity (  ) and Dark Energy )(, or the top peak and  bottom peak of sine-wave ^v^v^ or as their precessed at 90 degree-ness  ex the EMRadiations double sine-wave.


#173
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Sidewalker
In an effort to argue my case, I'm reading your posts more closely than before.
For starters, I want to argue against your idea that consciousness exists independently of a brain.
I need clarification with something you wrote in post #54 ,
On a material level, Consciousness represents a supervenient structure that bears properties that its subvenient parts do not exhibit.  Consciousness is not coextensive with brain, it exists independently of material brain as a higher order structure that cannot be decomposed into its parts and their relationships, so it is an ontologically novel  entity. [my emphasis]
Are you saying here that consciousness has a material aspect?
#174
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,603
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@b9_ntt
Yes, the prevailing consensus in neuroscience is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain and its metabolism. When the brain dies, the mind and consciousness of the being to whom that brain belonged ceases to exist. In other words, without a brain, there can be no consciousness.
#175
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@FLRW
Right, but I don't think that is what Sidewalker is arguing.
#176
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
......without a brain, there can be no consciousness.
That would be the most narrow definitional viewpoint, involving top end of complex biology, even tho consciousness can exist without, or very little access to, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego/i/identity.

Brain..."Jellyfish have no such central place; in fact, they have two nervous systems.

...A large nerve net controls swimming and a small nerve net controls all other behaviors, including feeding and spasm response (briefly curling into a ball). This body-wide network of small nerves somehow makes it possible for a jelly to figure out where the different parts of its body are and to act accordingly – for example, using a single tentacle to move prey to its mouth.

....The large nerve net includes rhopalia, finger‐like structures on the edge of the jellyfish’s bell. These contain crystals that give jellies a sense of up and down, much like those in our inner ear, and a small pigment spot that may sense light, chemicals, or some combination of the two. Each rhopalium helps coordinate the pulsing motion of normal swimming and, not surprisingly, are mostly located near swimming muscles."...

..Cubo-octahedra---" Box jellies have 24 eyes"...

Cuboza..." A 24-eyed box jellyfish, which is tiny and cube-shaped, has been discovered in the Mai Po Nature Reserve by the scientists at Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU).

The cubo-octahedron's  6 square faces,  subdivided into 48 right-triangles.

Its 8 surface triangles subdivides into 48 right-triangles for total of 96, surface right-triangles.

Other-ness ergo two-ness always exists within the context of four-ness 'A'<-->'B'---(C)....D.......background

Paul Stamets...""They build soils, and without fungi, we wouldn't have food." Stamets explains that humans share nearly 50 percent of their DNA with fungi, and we contract many of the same viruses as fungi."....

A single fungus is  most massive biologic creature on Earth. More massive than a whale. 
#177
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@b9_ntt
In an effort to argue my case, I'm reading your posts more closely than before.
For starters, I want to argue against your idea that consciousness exists independently of a brain.
Good, because I want to argue against your idea that consciouness is dependent on a brain.  I look foreward to an interesting discussion.
I need clarification with something you wrote in post #54 ,
On a material level, Consciousness represents a supervenient structure that bears properties that its subvenient parts do not exhibit.  Consciousness is not coextensive with brain, it exists independently of material brain as a higher order structure that cannot be decomposed into its parts and their relationships, so it is an ontologically novel  entity. [my emphasis]
Are you saying here that consciousness has a material aspect?
I’m saying that consciousness cannot be derived from the material world, that the four fundamental constituents of reality; time, space, matter, and energy are inadequate to describe the experience of reality without recognizing consciousness as an additional fundamental constituent of reality that cannot be derived from the other four. Does it have a material aspect, sure, consciousness is necessarily consciousness “of something”, but there is a reciprocal, transactional relationship being described, and consciousness is an ontologically distinct constituent of reality. In order to make any explanatory progress of consciousness at all, we necessarily must release our thinking from the poverty of its Physicalism captivity.

In the end, it is a matter of our identity; it speaks to what and who we are as human beings.  Our rich inner life, our capacity to understand, appreciate, and act creatively, to, to plan the future, to act with moral responsibility, are not logically reducible to the functional properties of physical processes. Consciousness must be described using nonphysical means to have any meaningful explanatory power at all.


#178
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Reece101
Dark Energy is the negative geodesic curvature of space and time torus and is aligned with the idea of Dark Inflation in early times of initiatiating cyclic phase/state of UniverseGravity and Dark Energy are two sides of the same torus { coin so to say }...space.(> * <) i (> * <)space.... wherein  i  is humans access to ego aka i/identity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj6-bq55ccQ

(  )(  )....Gravity { geodesic space } and Dark Energy { geodesic space } are geometrically diametric opposites ---or so I believe/speculate---  and are primary minimal set of two-ness > other-ness > consciousness6 .

At there two diametric peaks of curvature, they invaginate, which results in physical reality:

...0, 3p, 6, 9,
...12 { comon set of vertexes to 4-fold Vector Equilibrium and 5-fold icosahedron ergo 66 lines-of-realtionship each } 15,
...18 { see 36 combinations of quarks },
....21, 24 { see box jellies 24 eyes },
....27, 30 { see 30 chords of the 5-fold icosahedron aka the maximal regular/symmetrical polyhedron of Universe, 33,
....36 { quark and anti-quark }, 39,
....42 { plus 24 = Cosmic Absolute Pi-TIme 66.4? },
....45 { the minimal, abstract cosmic limit needed for trigonometric function },
....48 { number of monkey chromosomes }, 51,  54,
....55 { 10 th or 11th number in Fibonacci sequence }, 58, 61, 64, 67, 70, 73,
....73{  cosmically primary great circles derived from 4-fold vector equlibrium and 5-fold icosahedron, which includes the 3-fold tetrahedron }, 76, 79, 82, 85, 88,
.....91 { 91 lines-of-relationship found in 14 nodal events of the minimal quanta of Universe, the graviton-darkEion as derived from a two truncations of a triangular, di-pyramid } 94, 97, 100


Topic's author
#179
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ebuc
Box jellies have 24 eyes? fascinating Ebuc.
#180
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 276
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Sidewalker
SW #170
I have trouble understanding Nagle's view about "what is it like". I will re-read it.

SW #144
What we can observe is responsiveness to the environment, adaptation to circumstances, and other types of behavioral indicators from which we can impute consciousness.
Couldn't this be unconscious stimulus/response?
you need to define consciousness observationally as involving the ability to perceive sensory stimuli and respond by purposeful movement or by a behavioral change.
. . . there are plenty of studies of bacterial that allow us to extrapolate from behavior to a presumed internal cause of that behavior that have to be attributed to a rudimentary form of "mental activity".
I'd like to read one of those studies if you could send me a link or title.
Bacteria can respond to a broad range of stimuli, demonstrate elementary forms of “memory”, and engage in purposeful activities. . . .
They clearly integrate these capabilities into a self-organized and sensate being that in at least an extremely attenuated way is perceiving, discriminating, remembering, and even “thinking”, on some level it is conscious. 
Do they know they are doing these things? If not, I think they are not conscious.