Consciousness, what is and what it requires?

[Zelebg]

Let me try...

To be conscious is to have experience.

To experience is to feel extern senses or inner emotions.

Any experience is a feeling: taste, vision, joy, desire...

Any experience is necessarily subjective experience.

Subjective experience requires the subject, that is "self".

Consciousness requires, or is, self-awareness.

To be self aware requires, or is, to have thoughts

Thoughts require intelligence.

Consciousness requires, or is, intelligence.

To feel requires intelligence, i.e. thoughts, i.e. consciousness, i.e. self-awareness.

[surreptitious57]

Consciousness requires - or is - self awareness

An organism can be conscious without necessarily being self aware
Self awareness requires a degree of cognition that is probably very limited indeed with regard to life here on Earth
Are bacteria for example self aware - now I realise you may only want to discuss consciousness from an exclusively
human perspective but I think that is too narrow a window with which to explore this topic in any significant detail

Consciousness requires - or is - intelligence

All intelligence requires consciousness but not all consciousness requires intelligence
Worms are conscious but they have no brain so are presumably lacking in intelligence

To feel requires intelligence - thoughts - consciousness - self awareness

Emotion and intelligence are not the same although they are connected
One is just experience while other is the ability to evaluate experience

[Zelebg]

An organism can be conscious without necessarily being self aware

If you define "conscious" as simply being "aware" in a sense where even a robot is 'aware' of its surroundings through its sensors, then yes. But the point of all this is exactly to try and refine the definition of "conscious" so we can apply more precisely to AI, something that captures 'qualia'. So then, qualia is also the same as self-awareness.

How can you feel conscious if there is no "you" to feel it?

Are bacteria for example self aware - now I realize you may only want to discuss consciousness from an exclusively human perspective but I think that is too narrow a window with which to explore this topic in any significant detail

So what I'm saying is bacteria is aware like a robot can be aware, but neither are self-aware, and that is exactly why are they not conscious. It means if it turns out bacteria is in fact self-aware, then it practically means it's conscious.

All intelligence requires consciousness but not all consciousness requires intelligence
Worms are conscious but they have no brain so are presumably lacking in intelligence

You should now know quite precisely what I mean by word "consciousness", but I still don't know what do you mean by it.

Emotion and intelligence are not the same although they are connected
One is just experience while other is the ability to evaluate experience

How do know you are feeling anything if there is no "you" who has enough intelligence to understand some feeling is happening at all, and realize the feeling is actually own?

[Skepdick]

the point of all this is exactly to try and refine the definition of "conscious" so we can apply more precisely to AI, something that captures 'qualia'.

The entire notion of qualia is a philosophical idiocy. Qualia (as defined) are not the same things as properties. Something being red (a property) is not the same thing as somebody experiencing red (a quality).

And murderous question to the notion of qualia is then: how many different ways are there to experience 'red'? 2 ? 20 ? 20000 ? infinitely many?
If the answer is infinity - then the objective notion of 'property' ceases to exist.

It's nothing but philosophy's struggle for survival. Inventing new explanatory gaps where science has successfully closed old ones.

How can you feel conscious if there is no "you" to feel it?

I can't feel that I am conscious. That's just what I say about myself relative to the notion of 'unconscious' - I assert that I have something that a rock doesn't.

You are stuck in a causal, rather than a self-referential mindset. All knowledge/language is self-referential/recursive.

That ignores the fact that your brain is modular (in contrast to monolithic) and therefore 'you' are modular. Some features of 'you' disappear as you remove parts of the brain. 'your' personality changes as you do the same.

What you are trying to do is to arrive at the essence of 'consciousness' when it's all but likely that an emergent phenomenon like consciousness doesn't have one. It has a multitude of essences - modules.

[Zelebg]

The entire notion of qualia is a philosophical idiocy.

Qualia means "subjective experience". I say "subjective" is the only kind of experience. You disagree, but it is not clear why.

How can you feel pain, desire, taste, or anything, if there is no "you" to feel it?

[Skepdick]

Qualia means "subjective experience". I say "subjective" is the only kind of experience. You disagree, but it is not clear why.

I am disagreeing because even that which you call 'objective' is actually subjective. The act of drawing distinctions is itself an experience.

You have no way to navigate around your perception to get to non-experience. None of us do. The objective/subjective distinction is conceptual, linguistic. Procedural at best - the scientific method gives us ways to measure things. But science is still done by humans with perceptions that are (more or less) similar to yours - and therefore, exhibit the same limitations as yours.

Subjectivity is all we have. The concept of objectivity, properties etc - it's all invented by us.

How can you feel pain, desire, taste, or anything, if there is no "you" to feel it?

You missed the point by miles. The point is that whatever "you" is - it's not a monolith. That part which experiences pain is not the same part which experiences taste.

If I take certain parts of your brain out "you" will no longer feel pain, if I take another part of your brain out 'you' will no longer be able to taste anything. If I take yet another part out 'you' will lose your ability to speak/communicate, and so if you are going to be defining 'consciousness' as 'self-awareness' it's not entirely clear at which point you would lose awareness of 'self', or for that matter - where the 'self' begins or ends.

Is "your brain" that "you" are busy losing piece by piece part of self?

[Zelebg]

I am disagreeing because even that which you call 'objective' is actually subjective. The act of drawing distinctions is itself an experience.

You have no way to navigate around your perception to get to non-experience. None of us do. The objective/subjective distinction is conceptual, linguistic. Procedural at best - the scientific method gives us ways to measure things. But science is still done by humans with perceptions that are (more or less) similar to yours - and therefore, exhibit the same limitations as yours.

Subjectivity is all we have. The concept of objectivity, properties etc - it's all invented by us.

That does not relate to my point. I did not mention "we" or "humans", for example.

You missed the point by miles. The point is that whatever "you" is - it's not a monolith.

I was making the point. Never mind.

[Skepdick]

That does not relate to my point. I did not mention "we" or "humans", for example.

You don't have to mention us. We, humans, are implicit in ALL HUMAN ACTIVITIES.

Such as this very interaction. The anthropic principle doesn't allow you to erase us from the world while talking about the world.

Have you not come to terms with the limits of the human condition yet?

[Skepdick]

To feel requires intelligence, i.e. thoughts, i.e. consciousness, i.e. self-awareness.

From the wikipedia page for self-reflection.

Human self-reflection is the capacity of humans to exercise introspection and to attempt to learn more about their fundamental nature and essence.

You may find that there is striking similarity between the above notion and the capabilities of modern programming languages such as reflection in introspection. Obviously - humans are crafty. We observed ourselves reflecting/introspecting and we used this self-knowledge to invent programming languages that behave like we do.

Here is a computer program which uses introspection/reflection and has a clear notion of "self" e.g - it is self-aware. So much so that it is actually able to tell us things about its internal "state of mind", and it can tell us what it can and can't do with itself.

https://repl.it/repls/UnnaturalBuzzingPerimeter

Code: Select all

class Human
  def initialize
    puts "I am #{self.class}"
    puts "My unique identifier is #{self.__id__}"
    puts "I can perform the following operations on myself: #{self.methods}"
  end
end
Human.new()

class Child < Human
end
Child.new()

Observe how the "Human" and "Child" entities give us different answers as a direct result of their self-awareness.

If self-awareness is necessary for consciousness, then this program satisfies it. Do you agree or disagree? Justify your answer.

[Zelebg]

You may find that there is striking similarity between the above notion and the capabilities of modern programming languages .

That similarty is conceptual, the difference is ontological.

[HexHammer]

Let me try...

To be conscious is to have experience.

To experience is to feel extern senses or inner emotions.

Any experience is a feeling: taste, vision, joy, desire...

Any experience is necessarily subjective experience.

Subjective experience requires the subject, that is "self".

Consciousness requires, or is, self-awareness.

To be self aware requires, or is, to have thoughts

Thoughts require intelligence.

Consciousness requires, or is, intelligence.

To feel requires intelligence, i.e. thoughts, i.e. consciousness, i.e. self-awareness.

This is pure nonsense and babble, sounds like you have extremely low IQ and even lower rationale.

Please go elsewhere and spew your nonsense!

[Zelebg]

Please go elsewhere and spew your nonsense!

Ah, words of wisdom. But those are simple statements that are either true or false. You seem to believe they are false, but you failed to show your reasoning. You seem angry, for some strange, probably very smart reason, but your opinion of me is not an argument, you know?

[HexHammer]

Yadda yadda, bla bla ...bla...

To be conscious is to have experience. Babies are conscious but lack experience

To experience is to feel extern senses or inner emotions. You can't feel what you see! ..as in empirical observation/evidence!

Any experience is a feeling: taste, vision, joy, desire...

Any experience is necessarily subjective experience. No, it can be objective if you know who murdered a person.

Subjective experience requires the subject, that is "self". Nonsensical circular reasoning!

Consciousness requires, or is, self-awareness. Microbes are conscious, but not necessarily self aware.

To be self aware requires, or is, to have thoughts Yes.

Thoughts require intelligence. You are living proof of the contrary, you have extremely low intellect and zero rationale.

Consciousness requires, or is, intelligence. No, intellect = to understand, there's nothing to understand about self awareness.

To feel requires intelligence, i.e. thoughts, i.e. consciousness, i.e. self-awareness. No!

You can best be described as a "high functional retard! You have no fucking clue!!! Please go elsewhere and spew your pure nonsense and babble!!!

[Zelebg]

To be conscious is to have experience. Babies are conscious but lack experience

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experience

Apparently you are using secondary meaning of the word "experience", taking it to mean "already having memory and knowledge" or "already having proficiency at something". Such obtusity points to lack of basic 'experience' with words, you are practically incompetent to have conversation. Plus, considering your unprovoked anger and capital letters, it looks like you are baby yourself. Baby philosopher! How cute.

[HexHammer]

To be conscious is to have experience. Babies are conscious but lack experience

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experience

Apparently you are using secondary meaning of the word "experience", taking it to mean "already having memory and knowledge" or "already having proficiency at something". Such obtusity points to lack of basic 'experience' with words, you are practically incompetent to have conversation. Plus, considering your unprovoked anger and capital letters, it looks like you are baby yourself. Baby philosopher! How cute.

No, your ONLY defense is 1 word that is very subjective to your case against me, all other points I made are ignored, only showing how completely inept you are.

I've been in the administration and quality departments already from 20 y telling senior staff what to do and how to do their work, I do my own lawsuits even without any formal education, because I'm a prodigy analyst which you are clearly not!

You are nothing but a 'high functional retard'.