-->
@RationalMadman
Consciousness is in the experience realm, what you are trying to dissect is as indecipherable as Mario trying to crack how he keeps being made to jump.
Could you elaborate? Everything experiences stuff.
This is What Consciousness is:
Posts
Total:
196
-->
@Reece101
No it does not and if you truly have trouble understanding that a hamster experiences what a toy hamster fails to, it is time to seek help.
-->
@RationalMadman
A toy hamster doesn’t fail to experience anything. Look, obviously you’re not thinking clearly.
-->
@Reece101
A toy hamster can have it's tail cut off,
One can say it's gone through a lot, it's experienced a lot,
But such is not the same as a living hamster feeling pain,
Having memory of tail being cut off,
Being 'aware of tail being cut off.
Meaning of word experience is different in the two contexts.
-->
@Lemming
Or you could say a living hamster experiences more. We’re just shifting words around.
-->
@Reece101
Would you say that mechanical hamster feel pain?
-->
@Lemming
It depends how complicated you got with the mechanics.
Could you create artificial pain receptors and for it to perceive them? maybe.
You could ask the same question of simple life.
Could you create artificial pain receptors and for it to perceive them? maybe.
You could ask the same question of simple life.
-->
@Lemming
@Reece101
Seek professional help then, nothing else to say.
Also hamsters are the primary rodent known to not have a tail they have barely got a stump.
-->
@RationalMadman
Seek professional help then, nothing else to say.
Your argument is seek professional help? Really?
Also hamsters are the primary rodent known to not have a tail they have barely got a stump.
Sometimes humans are born with tails. Not sure of hamsters. Anyway that wasn’t the crux of the conversation.
-->
@Reece101
Sometimes humans are born with tails. Not sure of hamsters.
That part was for Lemming, the getting help part was for you.
If you do not understand that inanimate objects do not have consciousness and that it is unique to animals or at most, super-complex AI of the future, you need psychiatric help and are a danger because you could try to save a brick wall by putting a living creature in front of it, that's the kind of psychotic decision-making that can happen if you go down this severe rabbit hole.
I don't want to comment on what disorder(s) may contribute to this but you are in a seriously bad place if you believe what you are alluding to believing.
-->
@RationalMadman
That part was for Lemming, the getting help part was for you.If you do not understand that inanimate objects do not have consciousness and that it is unique to animals or at most, super-complex AI of the future, you need psychiatric help and are a danger because you could try to save a brick wall by putting a living creature in front of it, that's the kind of psychotic decision-making that can happen if you go down this severe rabbit hole.I don't want to comment on what disorder(s) may contribute to this but you are in a seriously bad place if you believe what you are alluding to believing.
Consciousness is valuable when speaking colloquial about it, that’s it. Getting into specifics is a different story. That’s how I view it.
-->
@Reece101
alright buddy, you're as conscious as the chair you are sitting on, got it.
-->
@RationalMadman
I’m sorry if you’re butthurt.
-->
@Reece101
Your stance was originally an attempt at a genuine theory but the moment you told me that you consider an inanimate object as conscious as a living, breathing, aware being that is where I knew you were off the deep end.
If you are serious about this discussion, get a proper understanding of consciousness.
-->
@RationalMadman
first ask yourself why you feel the need to strawman my arguments.
-->
@Reece101
I did not strawman not, I asked three different times for you to clarify if you understood what is and isn't conscious, you failed the questioning every time.
-->
@RationalMadman
Well i’ve looked through all your comments and I don’t see one question mark. That’s pretty indicative of your preconceived biases.
-->
@Reece101
All conciousness would seem to be generated by chemical reactions but by no means do all chemical reactions exhibit signs of conciousness.
151 days later
-->
@Reece101
Due to another conversation elsewhere,
My mind returns to this topic,
Though I'm not sure if you're still around on the site.
Looking back on it,
My example a living hamster feeling pain, as opposed to a toy hamster not,
Seems flawed.
People exist who lack senses,
"Congenital insensitivity to pain is a condition that inhibits the ability to perceive physical pain. From birth, affected individuals never feel pain in any part of their body when injured. People with this condition can feel the difference between sharp and dull and hot and cold, but cannot sense, for example, that a hot beverage is burning their tongue. This lack of pain awareness often leads to an accumulation of wounds, bruises, broken bones, and other health issues that may go undetected."
People who are blind, deaf, no smell, no touch, no taste,
Though perhaps not all at once,
Well, from birth. . .
Without experiences, senses,
A human does not develop as they usually would, (I assume, No ready example comes to mind)
Hm,
Feral children,
Clay may be clay,
But clay is not a pot, unless sculpted and fired.
People with Alzheimer's, lose awareness of themselves long term, but surely in their 'moment have awareness. . .
Ah. . . I'm rambling.
. . .
Returning to earlier posts,
Though a toy hamster may have energy, it is not organized in such a way as a living hamster,
I return to my water in a cup argument,
Consciousness not being the 'water, but the overflowing,
(I am vague, not intentional)
Thresholds, before something can 'be,
X amount of heat before flame,
X amount of cold before ice,
Though pressure can 'change requirements.
. . .
Hm, if I lost all my senses,
I suspect I would 'still be conscious of 'myself for a time,
Assuming I received what was necessary to 'keep me conscious.
-->
@Lemming
Hey, it's me from elsewhere, sorry to bore you.
But if you lost your senses, you would still have your memories.
And if you lost your memories, you would still have your senses.
But if you lost both, you could remain a functioning blob of organic matter for a while.
But the duration of such an event, would depend wholly upon involuntary input or not.
More random thoughts.
Over and out.
-->
@Reece101
There exist degrees of consciousness.
Minimal consciousness =
twoness ergo othernerss......O.......O..... If the two have gravitational { mass-attraction } inter-relationship, then that
is the minimal consciousness, twoness, othernes and minimal awareness.
Mass-attraction is inward toward each other. O.................><.................O and this often a spiral orbit effect
Later........O.......><.........O..then later still.....O><O or as OO as tangent to each other.
The most complex bi-lateral consciousness is woman { X x ]. With man { X y } a close 2nd.
Bilateral humans > cetacceans > primates{?} > birds > pigs > rodents > ergo animals all complex biologic life
less complex biologic life fungi { largest on Earth } > plants > Eukaryotes > Prokryotes ,
molecules
> atoms > sub-atomic particles > Graviton-Darkion { single
integrity with 14 nodal events { v^ } as 0-13 in my 2D lattice { see below }, and, those 13 have 91 lines-of-relationship, via the formula, 13^2, minus 13, divided by 2. See LINK in Synergetics
The 2D lattice, becomes a spiral, di-polar invaginated, 3D torus, once each of the four lines are brought around to meet themselves { closed loop aka great circle, whose plane equaltorally bisects the whole torus, or in the case below three of the circles are on same plane as equator, but not a true great circle as the outer { top } line is intended to be1.....5p...7p.............11p..13p.....
.....1.............................5p...........7p............................11p.............13p...........G{ outer }....................
-
-
0..............................................6.................................................12..................Observable
Time inside
-------Fullers-------abstract
great circle--------central spine of the 3D torodial
tube-------------------------------
........................3p............................................9.................................................Observable
Time inside
-
-
.................2p............4................................8...........10..........................................DE
{ inner }..............
Outer G = positive shaped gravity
Observable time = our quantised and quantified physical reality PR
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ sine-wave is defined by their relationship0..3p..6..9..12 etc
Observable time = our quantised and quantified physical reality PR
Inner DE = negative shaped Dark Energy
This is set of four circles --great planes--- of a dynamic torus, defined by a numerical trajectory of what specifically....?....
Recall that the line of relationship between twoness ..O..O... is Gravity. I prefer to see that relationship as goedesic of gravity ergo;
...... (O)( ) ( ) ( )(O) ... irrespective of distance, the two OO always have geodesic mass-attractive inter-relationship
So we have twoness plus the lines-of-inter-relationship, plus the background by which these three exists, ergo total of four aspects to consider
With the above 2D or 3D scenario we have the four phenomena of nodal events and inter-realtionships plus the background ergo five aspects to consider.
The Tube-of-Life is the graviton-darkeon as follows. In the above 2D lattice, we place the following numbers in postions that defined three linear triangles ergo a mininal set as a tube;
1..2p...5p
4..7p...8
10...11p...13p
Within this tube, we have 12/0..3p...6...9..12/0 ergo four nucleations. Because the lines have meet themselves, the 0 and 12 in particular are the first to meet ergo they share the same postion/location 12/0 and become one nucleation.
In Synergetics, Fuller Operating System of Universe, is his Vector Equlibrium and it is defined by for truly equaltorial great planes. It was Archimedes who discovered that, these four great circle planes area are exaxtly equal to the outer spherical surface area. this not true when the VE is Euclidean pattern
Volume of torus here >>> LINK
Archimedes was first to discover that the area of the four great circle planes of the VE, are equal to the surface of that sphere.
-->
@zedvictor4
Oh you have not bored me,
Quite the contrary,
Our conversation in a different thread, interested me in this topic again,
That I looked up consciousness on this website,
The 3 debates I saw were forfeits, sadly,
But I did manage to reacquaint myself with my old thoughts I had forgotten here.
Most confuse consciousness with Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts.
Most nervous system
animals have obvious signs of consciousness but little to no signs of access to abstract, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts.
Experience ergo consciousness may or may not lead to complex consciousness and its access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts. Simple, not diffcult to grasp, unless others have no access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts or no respect for such.
-->
@Reece101
Just being energy, or conveying information isn't enough for it to 'be consciousness.What is consciousness if it’s immaterial and inexpressive?
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. It exists independently
of the physical materials and properties of its parts and yet, exerts causal
influence on events in the world, exerting a causal influence that its
constituent components, in sum, cannot exert. Consequently, it has an ontological status apart from its material
components, and it logically follows that it is itself a causal agent as well
as an entity that is acted upon by external causes.
It is not a
“process,” nor is it a set of “functions.”, it is the conceptual space within which we find the objects of
thought.
Action { bits } > causal quantum experience of one { 1 } within environment { 1 }, totals as 2 . Environment exists exclusive of me, Universe exists inclusive of me.
> Reaction { bits } > consciousness experience --- .." the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings " aka environment
>> Resultant > access to Meta-space bits as mind/intellect/concepts and ego ergo, logical feedback mechanism to action, reaction and any myriad set of resultants.
Meta-space bit and or qubit
--conceptual Meta-space line-of-demarcation-----
Occupied space bit is 1-on/active or 0-off/inactive aka binary
Occupied space quantum qubit is superpostion of both 1-on and 0-off at same time..... LINK to vid and inte-ractive superpostion of qubit--
Spooky action at a distance..." One of the other counter-intuitive phenomena in quantum physics is entanglement. A pair or group of particles is entangled when the quantum
state of each particle cannot be described independently of the quantum
state of the other particle(s). The quantum state of the system as a
whole can be described; it is in a definite state, although the parts of
the system are not. "...
.." Einstein was confused, not the quantum theory "..Stephen Hawking
66 days later
Thinking to self,
Two twins, hands on a stove,
If the body is a wire,
Then they are both wired to the same experience (Mostly)
But . . .
The brain, identity develops differently,
By experiences, development,
And individual may build up a tolerance to pain,
Though one can argue the brain is material, thus their wires are different.
. . .
Siamese twins,
Whether attached at arms or head,
Does such question the concept of self?
Why ought it,
People have believed in souls, yet believed in possessions,
Though,
Such is at odds with my own perspective,
Being an Atheist,
I've seen people with Schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, Drug induced Psychosis,
Arguably they are symptoms of matter,
Drugs, or a lack of, return one more to normal,
Though,
One 'could still argue the soul.
. . .
But returning to why ought shared experience, question the nature of self,
Why ought it?
People sense many a phenomenon,
Albeit using their own senses, separate,
Albeit in separate locations,
A man with blurry vision, see's not what an eagle eyed fellow sees.
Two individuals on sperate sides of a wall, each side painted a different color,
Do not see the same wall color.
. . .
Still, information is sharable,
Though individuals give different scores out of 10,
On a pain scale, to the same stimuli,
Still a shared experience,
Though not so direct or clearly shared.
. . .
Still the brains of two brains sharing a body, are different,
And small differences,
Veer apart two people's sameness,
Small notices, thoughts,
Thus each a self, I'd argue.
-->
@ebuc
Sure you can explain the different types of conciseness, but you have yet to tell me what conciseness is exactly.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Sure you can explain the different types of conciseness, but you have yet to tell me what conciseness is exactly.
First you have to be able to make the distinction between access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego, and only then can you be able to more comprehensive grasp consciousness.
Consciousness alone has some degree of understanding. This is norm, to whatever degree, for all animals except humans.
Conscious plus varying degrees of access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego, rise expotinaly in the ability to comprehend a greater wholistic set of inter-interrelationships, patterns, etc.
When you can grasp any of the above, then, and only then, can we begin to have a logical, common sense critical thinking disscussion.
The minimal consciousness of Universe is twoness ergo otherness. There can be no awarness without two-ness/other-ness.
-->
@Sidewalker
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. It exists independently of the physical materials and properties of its parts and yet, exerts causal influence on events in the world, exerting a causal influence that its constituent components, in sum, cannot exert. Consequently, it has an ontological status apart from its material components, and it logically follows that it is itself a causal agent as well as an entity that is acted upon by external causes.It is not a “process,” nor is it a set of “functions.”, it is the conceptual space within which we find the objects of thought.
Are you aware there are machine learning methods that develop emergent properties which cannot be accounted for as well? You’re using consciousness synonymously with soul.
For anyone interested lab grown brains naturally develop primitive eyes.