Thought Club

[Cramulus]

What separates consciousness  from any other process system of inputs / transformations / and outputs?

the sense of being a self

you can code an arduino to listen and respond to the environment, even in complex ways, but it won't have a sense of "me"


(at least, I hope)



I think these lines of thinking get pretty close to the heart of it:

How much reflex is done by that silent part, how much can it override what I want to do, if I want a specific action and it wants one, what is the mechanism for conflict resolution between what it wants and what I want, how does that work?
Is there only a single monolithic back end process that handles all that part, or multiple (spontaneous thoughts or memories triggered by a smell or sound might not be coming from the part of me that handles bodily function)
Is consciousness a set of processes interacting with each other with limited knowledge of what each other are doing, as in, is my mind or the conscious part of me, the sum of several systems interacting, are those parts considered conscious too but silent, can they perform introspection or creative thought independent of what this part of me is doing?

My opinion: consciousness is the interaction of multiple systems. There is an "executive" decision maker that is probably not obviously deterministic (see PRNGs) that links these systems together. The phenomenon of consciousness-as-experienced is the feeling of the executive in action. Consciousness as a phenomenon cannot arise in the absence of the executive OR the absence of multiple systems. That is to say, both are necessary. I don't think both are sufficient, but I don't know what would constitute necessary and sufficient conditions for the phenomenon of consciousness, and we would need to create a strong AI iteratively and ask it when it woke up to be able to figure it out.

my personal experience via self observation is

that the human machine can be understood to operate using three separate "brains":

• one is the body and physical systems, feelings like hunger and comfort. Sensory and motor. This is the brain that knows how to move in space.
• one is emotional - hormones, feelings, relationships with other humans. The emotional brain considers things in terms of "like" and "do not like" 
• one is intellectual - the frontal cortex, logic, knowledge. It knows about things. It understands.

These brains don't communicate well with each other. Like, you can be very hungry, or emotional, but not "aware" of it.

Sometimes these brains attempt to work on each other's problems, but suck at it. Like when your emotional stress manifests as physical tension, muscular tightness. Or when you get upset for an "illogical" reason. Or when you get cranky because you're tired and hungry, but you don't see it that way.

I think that most of the time, whichever "brain" has the strongest impulse is capable of wrenching the steering wheel away from the other brains.

But there's a part of us which can moderate, a part that can choose which "brain" gets to hold the steering wheel. That part is usually asleep. (it needs a lot of energy) Sometimes, it wakes up. We don't always have "control" over it either... we can't just "turn it on". Well, you can try, and sometimes it'll work, but not always.

That's the Mysterious thing. What is it? What conditions trigger its participation? What can we do to make ourselves a good host for it, to encourage it to wake up and put things in order within us?

[rong]

This is a great thread - I can't wait to see how it ends.

Also - I'm a little pre-loaded by Hofstadter, but I think your brain is like 2 mirrors reflecting back at each other.  Conciousness is what happens in between.

[Cramulus]

if I recall correctly -- Hofstadter says the prerequisite for self-awareness is having a symbolic way of modeling things, and having a model of the universe which includes itself

means even formal math systems are "self aware"

[The Wizard Joseph]

if I recall correctly -- Hofstadter says the prerequisite for self-awareness is having a symbolic way of modeling things, and having a model of the universe which includes itself

means even formal math systems are "self aware"

I don't know if it's True, but I LIKE it. Sentient math is my kind of Lovecraftian concept. I suspect that the mathematics of our universe are a reflection of the CONSCIOUSNESS of the Creator of any given universe. I also suspect that in the Eternal Nothing that we originated from there are MANY beings like unto our little universe's God, and many, many more universes, some with novel physics as we think of physics. Monotheism is PURELY propaganda. God is not alone in power and being, but the only one of "His Kind" with sysop access to THIS universe. Now, let me also state that I suspect every world like ours has a Local Creator and supporting Hierarchy. Ours, both universal and local might be a bit... Eccentric.

By eccentric I mean quite looney.
By looney I mean a total nutter.
By total nutter I mean beyond human.
To a human Godis... Not very nice at all.
Just imagine how the Supernal Heirarchy feels,
Working diligently towards the vision of a mad God.
And then WE show up and shit gets all... Complicated.

[Doktor Howl]

if I recall correctly -- Hofstadter says the prerequisite for self-awareness is having a symbolic way of modeling things, and having a model of the universe which includes itself

means even formal math systems are "self aware"

Hofstadter is a nerd.  Seriously.  That definition leaves out half of humans but includes geometry.

[The Wizard Joseph]

if I recall correctly -- Hofstadter says the prerequisite for self-awareness is having a symbolic way of modeling things, and having a model of the universe which includes itself

means even formal math systems are "self aware"

Hofstadter is a nerd.  Seriously.  That definition leaves out half of humans but includes geometry.

I'm going to make a point of reading his stuff when I get a chance.

[rong]

Can a math really "have" something?  Seems kinda like moving the goalposts

Edit: I do think dok may be right though - are half of humans conscious?

[LMNO]

If you ask Cram, he'll most likely tell you that the vast majority of humans aren't conscious.

[The Wizard Joseph]

If you ask Cram, he'll most likely tell you that the vast majority of humans aren't conscious.

All humans are conscious. To presume otherwise is to grade some humans as inherently superior, and we all know where THAT leads with humans, domination and extermination.

A developmentally disabled person may be of relatively limited capacitance, but they are equal in being as a reflection of the universe. In a sense valuing consciousness inherently is the essence of positive spiritual teaching. Love God,  your "source code" of consciousness. Love Yourself, you are the unique but typal OS running your likewise unique experience of being. Love Others, they are mirror servers in a sense bearing also a unique OS and a remnant memory of you when your OS goes 404 upon quite inevitable hardware failure.

All particular positive spiritual practices should naturally flow From such a perspective,  but you don't have to be a sucker.

There's nasty malware,
Out there

[Doktor Howl]

If you ask Cram, he'll most likely tell you that the vast majority of humans aren't conscious.

HAH!  I am the ONLY conscious person in a world of sheep.  I have invested a lot of time into this sort of thing, and that's how I know.  If I wasn't, that would imply that my time was wasted and my knowledge is not critical.

Thing is, I happen to know that Cram isn't that arrogant.

[Doktor Howl]

Can a math really "have" something?  Seems kinda like moving the goalposts

Edit: I do think dok may be right though - are half of humans conscious?

Math is a language.  Languages aren't conscious.

Except COBOL, which is full of malice for all living things.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Can a math really "have" something?  Seems kinda like moving the goalposts

Edit: I do think dok may be right though - are half of humans conscious?

Math is a language.  Languages aren't conscious.

Except COBOL, which is full of malice for all living things.

I think languages are not conscious in the same way that an amino acid may be considered not conscious, but they CAN bear and convey information, and that motion of information CAN result in life as we know it or DNA would not work. Upon that mountain of information rests at least human consciousness, the ability to presciently, and also from hindsight, react to 
any percieved and recorded information and convey subsequent relevant information. All living things do this to some degree, even the artificial constructs known as xenobots display novel and unexpected behavior in groups especially. I forget the technical term for this, but there definitely is one as I recall.

As I see it thusly this means all living things are at least a tiny bit conscious, even microbes. Except viruses. Fuck viruses. They are necessary to our biome, but I just don't TRUST them.

[LMNO]

Ah.  I wasn't saying that Cram would opine that most humans lack consciousness; I was saying that Cram's current short-term personal savior feels that most humans are un-conscious.

[Doktor Howl]

Ah.  I wasn't saying that Cram would opine that most humans lack consciousness; I was saying that Cram's current short-term personal savior feels that most humans are un-conscious.

This is like having a anatomist claim to be the only human because he knows how human bodies work.  Knowing the process is not the same as being the process.

It's the classic case of sitting down and eating the menu.

I mean, I don't know jack shit about philosophy and I am conscious.  So is every other functional human being.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Ah.  I wasn't saying that Cram would opine that most humans lack consciousness; I was saying that Cram's current short-term personal savior feels that most humans are un-conscious.

This is like having a anatomist claim to be the only human because he knows how human bodies work.  Knowing the process is not the same as being the process.

It's the classic case of sitting down and eating the menu.

I mean, I don't know jack shit about philosophy and I am conscious.  So is every other functional human being.

You know I like the qualifying word functional there. I have met some very abberant humans that are... inherently malicious. I consider them genuinely inhuman and also incredibly dangerous to functional humans in that they might terminate others or, worse,  spread their malware and make more non-functional humans. In some this can be repaired, but not by any means in most such extreme cases. Some souls BELONG in the scrap bin as hazardous materials.