PDA

View Full Version : What conditions do you think are required for the existence of consciousness?



J-E-N-O-V-A
April 16th, 2013, 08:40 PM
I don't think possessing a brain is enough of an explanation really. I don't see why something can't be conscious in other dimensions or using other chemicals or reactions.

Sometimes I like to thing trees, the Sun and even non-physical entities like footpaths have their own consciousness.

What do you think?

(also, do you think machines becoming self-aware is a possible phenomena or not?)

georgelappies
April 16th, 2013, 09:13 PM
Not so sure about trees, the Sun and footpaths having the ability to possess consciousness. There definitely is a minimum amount of hardware required to enable consciousness. And if some sentient being in an alternate dimension decided to manifest itself as a footpath in ours I am not too sure If it would be worth the effort to attempt to communicate with it :)

For me consciousness at least at the very basic level has to include a definite awareness of oneself. Thus even though a virus or bacteria is alive it most certainly does not possess consciousness. I think this only starts to happen in higher order mammals, the rest of creation is simply survival of the fittest to the extreme.

AI will in the not so distant future be self-aware, no doubt in my consciousness about their consciousness to be ;)

mJayk
April 16th, 2013, 09:16 PM
To define consciousness you first need to define what something or someone is?

What is the sun? A collection of atoms or a defined point in space time or ...

you see my point

iamkuriouspurpleoranj
April 16th, 2013, 09:17 PM
Oxygen?

J-E-N-O-V-A
April 16th, 2013, 09:48 PM
To define consciousness you first need to define what something or someone is?

What is the sun? A collection of atoms or a defined point in space time or ...

you see my point
wikipedia.org is useful if you're stuck on what the Sun is, but I'll help you out...go outside and look up!

deadflowr
April 16th, 2013, 09:58 PM
Being awake.

haqking
April 16th, 2013, 10:30 PM
well this single malt isnt helping

ibjsb4
April 16th, 2013, 10:35 PM
well this single malt isnt helping

There are many levels of consciousness, it takes a six pack to explore them all.

llanitedave
April 16th, 2013, 11:10 PM
I don't have much doubt that self-aware and conscious machines are not only possible but likely given current rates of development. Trees, rocks, and such? Not so much. You need more than a brain, you need the ability to make an internal model of the external environment, and simulate it using imagination, and apply it to your current or possible future physical states.

m4gnus
April 17th, 2013, 12:31 AM
I'm not much for these types of discussions. Mainly because I tend to simply let things be. But I am willing to take a crack at this.

I feel as if in order for there to be consciousness there needs to be a certain level of understanding. Understanding that unless I am taking in a regular amount of simple substances, IE air (oxygen, nitrogen, etc.) I will perish. But then again that kinda steps into the realm of sentience. Though I believe sentience is the understand that the brain is thinking about itself.

Consciousness, to me, is the simple notion of continuing your existence.

oldos2er
April 17th, 2013, 01:36 AM
well this single malt isnt helping

"I drink, therefore I am!"

Paqman
April 17th, 2013, 06:42 PM
Sometimes I like to thing trees, the Sun and even non-physical entities like footpaths have their own consciousness.

What do you think?


I think that's animism, which is a very ancient way of relating to the natural world. There's absolutely no evidence for it of course, but it's not a worldview that's going to lead you harm anyone or anything, so by all means believe in it.



(also, do you think machines becoming self-aware is a possible phenomena or not?)

I hope so, as it would give humans some interesting options for our continued evolution, and there tends to be an assumption that they will, based largely on the mechanistic idea that the brain is simply a very complex machine. However, some very smart people think it won't happen. Roger Penrose (who is a colleague of Stephen Hawking) wrote a book called The Emperor's New Mind about this, it's heavy going but interesting. Essentially he says that computation is qualitatively different to consciousness, so even a very complex simulation of the brain's processes wouldn't necessarily be conscious.

wojox
April 18th, 2013, 01:41 PM
I've knocked myself unconscious while participating in extreme sports. As long as I can tell the paramedics the date and how many fingers there holding up, they let me go on. ;)

leclerc65
April 18th, 2013, 05:16 PM
Do Plants Think?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz

coldraven
April 18th, 2013, 05:37 PM
"I drink, therefore I am!"

"I'm pink, therefore I'm spam" :)

Elfy
April 18th, 2013, 05:39 PM
"I'm pink, therefore I'm spam" :)

oooh - you sure?

You know what we do with spam :p

haqking
April 18th, 2013, 05:55 PM
oooh - you sure?

You know what we do with spam :p

batter it and deep fry it with pineapple ?

mmmmm Yum spam fritters, gotta go now im hungry

philinux
April 18th, 2013, 06:14 PM
I've knocked myself unconscious before participating in extreme sports. As long as I can tell the paramedics the date and how many fingers there holding up, they let me go on. ;)

I'm sure you meant while participating and not before. If you did it before you would not participate. :P

click4851
April 19th, 2013, 01:13 AM
a soul

wojox
April 19th, 2013, 11:25 AM
I'm sure you meant while participating and not before. If you did it before you would not participate. :P

I was semi conscious when I posted that. :)

Elfy
April 19th, 2013, 11:38 AM
I was semi-conscious after I read the thread :p

White Rasta
April 19th, 2013, 11:39 AM
Self Awareness
Autonomous thought
ability to learn from realtime experience

coldraven
April 20th, 2013, 04:52 AM
If you really want to know then read "The Cosmic Doctrine" by Dion Fortune.
It deals with the very beginning of the Cosmos up to the present. Depending on your ability to understand abstract concepts you may need to read it many times before it "sinks in".

Or the simple answer is "that would be an ecumenical matter". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvvwNR3vF44

mayacreator
April 20th, 2013, 12:24 PM
You only must pay attention to yourself and ask yourself a single question "What is my true deepest nature?" or "Who am I?" If you find an answer on this single question, all other questions will dissappear.

philinux
April 20th, 2013, 02:18 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23401-emerging-consciousness-glimpsed-in-babies.html

VietCanada
April 20th, 2013, 03:20 PM
Self awareness. Being aware of one's self, one's environment and one's interactions with it.

I don't think computers will ever be conscious or self aware but I do believe that they will mimic it with increasing sophistication over time.

uc50_ic4more
April 20th, 2013, 03:50 PM
My understanding of consciousness has been that it is a biochemical phenomenon, harnessing the flow of energy from order to disorder ("Entropy", the second law of thermodynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics) in the way a waterwheel might harness the flow of a river. That this flow of energy is the cause of phenomena is inevitable, as all phenomena are the products of change. Sentience, being one of those phenomena, might also be regarded as an eventuality I suppose.

Better explanations might be found here:

(episode 1 in both cases) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonders_of_Life_%28TV_series%29#1._.22What_is_Life .3F.22 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonders_of_the_Universe#1._.22Destiny.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijnana#Pali_literature

odiseo77
April 20th, 2013, 04:14 PM
Consciousness as we know it?: Life, self-awareness and some degree of intelligence, IMO.

uc50_ic4more
April 20th, 2013, 04:20 PM
Consciousness as we know it?: Life, self-awareness and some degree of intelligence, IMO.


Aren't those things (at least the latter two) products _of_ consciousness?

odiseo77
April 20th, 2013, 04:58 PM
Aren't those things (at least the latter two) products _of_ consciousness?

Hard to tell. Maybe they're all products of each other (excluding life, which is the cause or origin of all those, instead of a product of theirs).

monkeybrain2012
April 20th, 2013, 05:35 PM
Have you read Godel Escher Bach? Highly recommended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach

The Cog
April 20th, 2013, 05:44 PM
Have you read Godel Escher Bach? Highly recommended.Very, very highly recommended.
Very enjoyable and thought-provoking. And strangely, after I've finished it, I still can't say exactly what it's about. One of very few books that has stuck in my mind over the years.

usernforce
April 21st, 2013, 03:16 AM
Interesting subject discussion. The definition of conscienceouss is the root question you ask. However I would also advice in considering the question of the meaning of being. Martin Heidegger wrote an excellent treatise on the entire subject called Being and Time, however understanding his meanings is relatively difficult. What I would say, however, in answering your question, is simply based off of Heideggarian thought: Our Dasien (being in the present) is thrown into existence with no plan of action. There are certain physical elements to existence. I'm not a scientist. I have no real interest in what makes everything existence physically. My interest is the conceptuality of the person and what it means to be.

That being said, the question of conscience machines is intriguing. I would like to say that I think there is something greater in life than it just being a series of physcial reactions, but I am not sure. I think the concept of AI at the present is ridicoulous. So much has yet to be discovered and so much is missing for AI to be a legitimate concern at this present time. Now say in the future we discover something that makes AI more feasible then I think there are some interesting ethical questions to consider. I've often thought about going into computational ethics as a field.

usernforce
April 21st, 2013, 03:20 AM
But pretaining to your question, any work of existential thought would be a good place to start. I recommend Heidegger's Being and Time and Sartre's Being and Nothingness. Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil gives powerful insight as well. I have some PDF's of some stuff, PM if you would like them.

JMJ

monkeybrain2012
April 21st, 2013, 03:51 AM
But pretaining to your question, any work of existential thought would be a good place to start. I recommend Heidegger's Being and Time and Sartre's Being and Nothingness. Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil gives powerful insight as well. I have some PDF's of some stuff, PM if you would like them.

JMJ

I don't think those guys are relevant at all. What is required to generate consciousness is partly a scientific question and partly a question of cognitive science (which has a philosophical component but little to do with existentialism) None of these people you cited had any insight in those subjects. I can think of people with much more relevant things to say on the topic at hand:Turing, Searle, Ramachandran, Dennett, Chomsky etc..(whether one agrees with them or not)


BTW: To comment on your other post, the existence of consciousness doesn't have to presume "personhood" or our experience of time (or space, colour, whatever), a dog can be conscious.

monkeybrain2012
April 21st, 2013, 04:10 AM
Here is a fascinating and thought provoking book consisting of a series of interviews with scientists and philosophers who are most prominent in the field.

http://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Consciousness-Susan-Blackmore/dp/0192806238

usernforce
April 21st, 2013, 05:11 AM
BTW: To comment on your other post, the existence of consciousness doesn't have to presume "personhood" or our experience of time (or space, colour, whatever), a dog can be conscious.

To forgot about say Heidegger and Sartre is to ignore roughly 100 years of thought on the matter. They are relevant as in they have inspired most of the conversations in regards to the question of conscienciouness. And if you are interested in intellegent conscience then the great existentialist thinkers are a prime source of information on the subject matter. Sure, you can say its just a biological and scientific question, but it has much more to do with humanism than anything else. And to close your mind to only biological understandings is not really a way to answer or attempt to understand the question, but rather to comfort yourself with an easy solution.

Secondly, your right, the existence of consciousness does not have to presume personhood and it could include as you have pointed out, a dog. By why be concerned about the consciousness of a Dog? We're interested in this question in as far as it relates to the question of AI. We're talking not just about conscienciouness but intellegent conscience. We're talking about the ability to think and rationalize which are things Dogs are not capable of doing.

VietCanada
April 22nd, 2013, 04:18 PM
Godel, Escher and Bach was a terrific book. Like the movie 2001: a Space Odyssey, there were all kinds of people asking if you read it then carefully pantomiming the duality that they got it... did you? Of course the pantomimers could not answer any direct questions about it's meaning. That was beneath them or some equally bizarre sentiment that involved not sharing knowledge. I believe that was/is ironic. In any event Godel's Incompleteness theorem was the culmination of a mathematical logic class in my third year of studying pure math. A LONG TIME AGO btw.

IIRC the part that concerns this debate was the argument (paraphrased by me due to memory constraints) that when presented with the problem of adding 1 to itself 100 times, a computer does precisely that whereas a thinking human realizes multiplication. The human mind is capable of stepping outside itself and consider the problem of solving the problem. A computer is just a sophisticated abacus following instructions.

Ignoring the great philosphers who ponder questions of existence while trying to invent AI is, IMHO, the same as trying to land a rocket on the moon but ignoring Newton specifically and all other contributors to theoretical physics implicitly.

I think that lesson or perhaps a broader one was learned from Kant and Gauss back in the 1700's IIRC. Gauss was very secretive about his work on non-Euclidean geometry. This resulted in tragedy. Suicide, again IIRC and the disembowelment of one of the greatest treatises on the mind ever written. Gauss is also responsible for the rigorous approach that so many hate when studying math. Euclid made mistakes. Gauss' rigorous approach led to this discovery a few hundred years or more after it's continuing use in education.

Gauss is considered the last rennaissance man. Although I've met some who would argue that Buckaroo Bonzai was.

oldsoundguy
April 22nd, 2013, 04:25 PM
Then what would you call it when a plant can change it's attractant to change pollinators?

VietCanada
April 22nd, 2013, 04:52 PM
Then what would you call it when a plant can change it's attractant to change pollinators?

Good question but AFAIK there is no answer. It could simply be a response to stimuli like what happens when you press a key or it could be the result of the plant being aware of itself, it's environment and it's interaction with the environment. It could be the plant caredfully considering it's situation, the tools it has at it's disposal, it's needs, coming to a decision and taking action.

monkeybrain2012
April 23rd, 2013, 10:21 AM
Ignoring the great philosphers who ponder questions of existence while trying to invent AI is, IMHO, the same as trying to land a rocket on the moon but ignoring Newton specifically and all other contributors to theoretical physics implicitly.

It may be true for some philosophers, but not the existentialists (who are interesting in other ways, but not on this. Existentialism is closer to a moral philosophy actually). Socrates had more useful things to say about cognition than Nietzsche Sarte er al.




I think that lesson or perhaps a broader one was learned from Kant and Gauss back in the 1700's IIRC. Gauss was very secretive about his work on non-Euclidean geometry. This resulted in tragedy. Suicide, again IIRC and the disembowelment of one of the greatest treatises on the mind ever written. Gauss is also responsible for the rigorous approach that so many hate when studying math. Euclid made mistakes. Gauss' rigorous approach led to this discovery a few hundred years or more after it's continuing use in education.




?? Gauss committed suicide? That is new to me. Euclid didn't make mistake. Euclid has a forth axiom, which says that through every point not on a given straight line there exist a unique parallel line. Many mathematicians had tried without success to prove that it follows from the other, more "elementary" looking axioms. Then it was realized by Gauss and a few other people (e.g Lobachevsky) that indeed the forth axiom was independent of the others by constructing models of non Euclidean geometries (the forth axiom doesn't hold) The "mistake" was not in Euclid, but the belief that Euclidean geometry is "special" (and that it describes geometry of the "real world", we now know that spacetime is semi Riemmanian instead of Eucliden, e.g) It is true that Gauss withheld publishing his work on non Euclidean Geometry at one point, because he was worried about the protests from idiots (almost his exact words), but obviously he later did publish them, for his work on differential geometry is well known, and it is as non Euclidean as you can get.

Kant has absolutely nothing useful to say on the topic, other than a philosophical dogma that Euclidean geometry is the "true" geometry which exists in some higher realm (copycat of Plato?) I think it is typical of philosophers to take some bits and pieces of scientific knowledge that they don't understand and spin some grand dogmas (wrapped up in pretentious big words) out of them, so that moral relativists claim that they are inspired by Einstein.

P.S. Boltzmann was the one committed suicide because he was up against the philosophical dogmas of the Positivists (who didn't believe in atoms because they couldn't directly observe them) There are many examples in the history of science to show that the contributions of philosophers are way overrated. As Richard Feynman puts it, when Gilbert was actually studying magnetism using the scientific method, Bacon sat on an armchair to observe him, but with only partial understanding, and then he went on to write big books on the scientific method which no scientist would find useful, and the philosophers think that it was Bacon who invented the scientific method.


Gauss is also responsible for the rigorous approach that so many hate when studying math

Actually the axiomatic, pure synthetic approach in school geometry (if you go school maybe 40 years ago, which is way before my time) goes back to Euclid. Gauss in fact was not very rigorous by today's standard (as were other grand masters such as Riemann and Poincare, their styles were full of vitality and insights, but not particularly "rigorous" because I think mathematics and physics were not separate subjects like they are today, these people always had some physical pictures in their minds)

VietCanada
April 24th, 2013, 01:14 PM
It may be true for some philosophers, but not the existentialists (who are interesting in other ways, but not on this. Existentialism is closer to a moral philosophy actually). Socrates had more useful things to say about cognition than Nietzsche Sarte er al.



?? Gauss committed suicide? That is new to me. Euclid didn't make mistake. Euclid has a forth axiom, which says that through every point not on a given straight line there exist a unique parallel line. Many mathematicians had tried without success to prove that it follows from the other, more "elementary" looking axioms. Then it was realized by Gauss and a few other people (e.g Lobachevsky) that indeed the forth axiom was independent of the others by constructing models of non Euclidean geometries (the forth axiom doesn't hold) The "mistake" was not in Euclid, but the belief that Euclidean geometry is "special" (and that it describes geometry of the "real world", we now know that spacetime is semi Riemmanian instead of Eucliden, e.g) It is true that Gauss withheld publishing his work on non Euclidean Geometry at one point, because he was worried about the protests from idiots (almost his exact words), but obviously he later did publish them, for his work on differential geometry is well known, and it is as non Euclidean as you can get.

Kant has absolutely nothing useful to say on the topic, other than a philosophical dogma that Euclidean geometry is the "true" geometry which exists in some higher realm (copycat of Plato?) I think it is typical of philosophers to take some bits and pieces of scientific knowledge that they don't understand and spin some grand dogmas (wrapped up in pretentious big words) out of them, so that moral relativists claim that they are inspired by Einstein.

P.S. Boltzmann was the one committed suicide because he was up against the philosophical dogmas of the Positivists (who didn't believe in atoms because they couldn't directly observe them) There are many examples in the history of science to show that the contributions of philosophers are way overrated. As Richard Feynman puts it, when Gilbert was actually studying magnetism using the scientific method, Bacon sat on an armchair to observe him, but with only partial understanding, and then he went on to write big books on the scientific method which no scientist would find useful, and the philosophers think that it was Bacon who invented the scientific method.



Actually the axiomatic, pure synthetic approach in school geometry (if you go school maybe 40 years ago, which is way before my time) goes back to Euclid. Gauss in fact was not very rigorous by today's standard (as were other grand masters such as Riemann and Poincare, their styles were full of vitality and insights, but not particularly "rigorous" because I think mathematics and physics were not separate subjects like they are today, these people always had some physical pictures in their minds)

I don't understand why you think I said that Gauss committed suicide. I am using Gauss and his work on non-Euclidean geometry as an example of the consequences of ignoring other people's work. Although to be clear nobody ignored Gauss. Rather he ignored them in a sense by being secretive about his work. Nobody knew what he was doing. There were consequences. IIRC one mathematician working on non-Euclidean geometry committed suicide after becoming depressed about Gauss' thoroughness compared to his own efforts. Kant who wasn't even a mathematician was affected. His book is considered one of the great works of all time on the workings of the mind except for one fatal flaw. Had Gauss communicated what he was working on then Kant probably rethinks his work.

Philosophy is important in Cosmology and Logic as examples. To ignore philosophy is to ignore the moon. The first scientists were in fact philosophers or natural philosphers. This is the very beginnings of humans living the lifestyle we do today. Philosphy is the most fundamental science we do. AKA thinking about things.

Boltzman is the 'one'? I don't understand this. Many scientists and mathematicians have committed suicide. More than a dozen at least.

Kant's Crtique of Pure Reason (despite the one mistake) is seen as seminal in the development of modern philosophy just as Gauss' work is considered the beginnings of modern mathametical rigour. These are common knowledge do a search. Kant felt the brain came with the knowledge of space and time as well as cause and effect built in. IOW these notions are in some way absolute and true for all things hence the brain naturally came with these ideas pre-installed. Gauss showed that we, in fact don't know the true 'shape' of space. Today we have those who think time is illusory. What does quantum physics say about cause and effect when it seems that all effects exist simultaneously until an observer forces an outcome. I don't think this is Kant's cause and effect.

Understanding these things surely must be necessary for anyone who thinks they can program a computer to have a consciousness. Surely one must have an inkling of what having a conciousness actually means. One must have some notion of what we have done with ours. The music, philosophy, culture, art and science that apparently exist only because of consciousness.

Just MHO