Awareness is a biological function

[baywax]

I think most of you will agree that awareness is a biological function facilitated by the specific physiological functions of the nervous system of the more complex living systems residing on planet earth.

But, if I'm failing in my assessment of you all, here are some definitions from the web dictionaries available on google.

AWARENESS

wakefulness or knowingness.
www.synchronicity.org/Glossaryp.html[/URL]

A measure of the percent of target customers who are aware of the new product's existence. Awareness is variously defined, including recall of brand, recognition of brand, recall of key features or positioning.
[PLAIN]www.shapetomorrow.com/resources/glossaryofterms.html[/URL]

means "to be cognizant, conscious, awake, alert, watchful, and vigilant," adjectives that mean mindful or heedful of something. Aware implies knowledge gained through one’s perceptions, the attitudes of others. Ignorance and obliviousness are the opposites of awareness. Conscious emphasizes the recognition of something sensed or felt. Sensible implies knowledge gained through intellectual perception or intuition. To be awake is to be fully conscious of something. ...
miriams-well.org/Glossary/

A measurement of knowledge of the existence of a brand or its advertising. Can be measured spontaneously eg. 'which brands of drinks can you think of?' or prompted eg. 'Which of these brands of drink have you heard of - brand X, brand Y or brand Z?'
[PLAIN]www.clearchannel.co.uk/dsp_glossary.cfm[/URL]

The proportion of people who are familiar with a product, brand name or trademark.
[url]www.dmdsurveys.com/dmd_site3/terminology_pages/terminology_a.html[/url]

the consciousness that a product or organisation exists.
wps.pearsoned.co.uk/wps/media/objects/1452/1487687/glossary/glossary.html

Advertising or other promotional activity (eg public relations) whose primary purpose is to increases general knowledge of the company, and to make people feel more positive towards it
[url]www.tutor2u.net/business/marketing/glossary_a.htm[/url]

having knowledge of; "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive"
state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the crash intruded on his awareness"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In biological psychology, awareness describes an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event.
Awareness does not necessarily imply understanding.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness[/quote]

this is from the Oxford Dictionary:

[quote]aware |??we(?)r| adjective [ predic. ] having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact : most people are aware of the dangers of sunbathing | I am well aware of the problem | [with clause ] he was aware that a problem existed | as far as I'm aware, no one has complained. • [with adverbial ] concerned and well-informed about a particular situation or development : unless everyone becomes more environmentally aware, catastrophe is inevitable | a politically aware electorate. DERIVATIVES awareness noun ORIGIN Old English gewær; related to German gewahr, also to ware 2

aware adjective

1 she is aware of the dangers conscious of, mindful of, informed about, acquainted with, familiar with, alive to, alert to;

informal clued in to, wise to, in the know about, hip to; formal cognizant of; archaic ware of. antonym ignorant, oblivious.

2 we need to be more environmentally aware knowledgeable, enlightened, well-informed, au fait; informal clued in, tuned in, plugged in. antonym ignorant.[/quote]

Please look these definitions of "awareness" over carefully then could you please state any objections to these definitions or your support for anyone or more of them. In this manner we might come to a better understanding of the word "awareness" and what it means. We might avoid any more collisions with these fairytale like notions of a metaphysical "consciousness" or the hairsplitting arguments that may actually be clogging up the PF server or, in the least, clogging up constructive communication on the PF site. :smile:

 

[baywax]

Here's some more enlighting definitions to help with an awareness of what awareness means to many people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness

 

[mubashirmansoor]

This is a very good point; trying to find a single complete meaning of awareness.
But one thing that I've observed in my everyday life is that, the terms that we use (especially technical ones) get their meaning or definition according to our personal backgrounds. as an example; the term work is defined so differently in physics when compared to litrature.
As a result we can't simply look at the dictionaries to find out the meaning. It all depends on what you mean by awareness...
Lets first define this. :)

 

[mosassam]

I think most of you will agree that awareness is a biological function facilitated by the specific physiological functions of the nervous system of the more complex living systems residing on planet earth.

You comprehend awareness as a "biological...residing on planet earth". That certainly does not mean awareness "is" that. We must be very careful with the words "is" and "are" as they make us sound as if we know more than we actually know. You also seem to be using the word "awareness" quite blithely. A bacterium can be "aware" of heat, a plant can be "aware" of light etc. For all we know the planet, galaxy, universe, may be "aware".
Your whole point rests on the assumption of mind being a product of nervous system, you should not present it as fact.
Awareness (inclusive) should not be confused with 'focus', 'attention' or 'concentration' (exclusive). Awareness can be seen as a "state of being" in which all thought has disappeared. The use of the word "aware' in the English language can be compared to "love" - I love pizza. A competent definition must be decided on before discussing, what I suspect, may be the most profound aspect of mind.
(why "awareness" but not "loveness"? )

 

[baywax]

(why "awareness" but not "loveness"? )

Because loveness is not a word.

Awareness is defined by scholars as a biological function. You'd have to prove them wrong. You have to prove the galaxy is aware. I don't have to prove that a whale is aware of a fishing vessel. I don't have to prove that we are aware of erratic weather. These things are provable. Can you prove any of your ideas are only valid to you. Can you add some value to your ideas by offering examples? Please show in what way a moon or asteroid or collection of them are aware.

 

[jackle]

I think most of you will agree that awareness is a biological function facilitated by the specific physiological functions of the nervous system of the more complex living systems residing on planet earth.

This definition excludes artificial intelligence systems from being aware as they are not biological.

...We might avoid any more collisions with these fairytale like notions of a metaphysical "consciousness"...

Can you explain how a system must be biological to be conscious without using metaphysics?

 

[baywax]

This definition excludes artificial intelligence systems from being aware as they are not biological.

Please show me a definition of awareness that includes AI as being aware.

Can you explain how a system must be biological to be conscious without using metaphysics?

I am unaware of an answer to this question. Please define "metaphysics" as utilized in your question.

 

[jackle]

Please show me a definition of awareness that includes AI as being aware.

None of the quoted definitions you gave in your initial post exclude AI except the one from biological psychology, which mentions animals. If Functionalism turns out to be correct, I do not see why an AI can not satisfy those definitions in principle.

Functionalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)

Please define "metaphysics" as utilized in your question.

I refer this back to you for definition as you were the one who first used the phrase:

...We might avoid any more collisions with these fairytale like notions of a metaphysical "consciousness"...

I will accept any reasonable definition. I want to know why biological life has a magical property that allows it to be conscious, when other things can't ever be.

 

[baywax]

None of the quoted definitions you gave in your initial post exclude AI except the one from biological psychology, which mentions animals. If Functionalism turns out to be correct, I do not see why an AI can not satisfy those definitions in principle.

OK now I'm doing your job for you. That'll be 6 bucks.

Artificial Intelligence Progress: Self-Aware Robotics
Science – A Cornell research team has made an incredible advancement in the field of Artificial Intelligence by creating a self-aware robot. The robot does not know how to use its limbs, and needs to learn where they are and how to use them.

http://science.netscape.com/story/2006/11/18/-artificial-intelligence-progress-self-aware-robotics

This is only the opinion of one group of robotic engineers. They think they have created awareness in their robot. Probable bias involved in this example. Its like claiming your offspring have smiled at you when they only have gas.

I refer this back to you for definition as you were the one who first used the phrase:

Break down the word metaphysics to its roots. Meta (beyond) and physics (physics: which means all observable and demonstrable events). In other words my own definition of "metaphysics" is "without observable or demonstrable properties").

So, how can awareness be measured in an unobservable "force". Or why do people think its necessary to have a non-physical element in order to have awareness?

I will accept any reasonable definition. I want to know why biological life has a magical property that allows it to be conscious, when other things can't ever be.

Biological life has had a very long time to evolve awareness.

In fact, you could say that chemicals have had an even longer time to evolve an awareness since all life is a result of chemicals creating and interacting with the environment.

 

[jackle]

Biological life has had a very long time to evolve awareness.

True

In fact, you could say that chemicals have had an even longer time to evolve an awareness since all life is a result of chemicals creating and interacting with the environment.

I disagree that chemicals have had a longer time to evolve than life. Chemicals don't evolve because survival of the fittest requires reproduction before it can operate. Chemicals only evolve in the sense that they change with time.


I'd like to ask some questions that will help me understand your definition of awareness. I'm going to ask them all in one go (I thought this would be easier), although some of the questions will not apply depending on your preceeding answers.

1) As you invoked evolution as the explanation for biological awareness, would you say that biological awareness developed gradually?

2a) If awareness developed gradually, wouldn't there have to be a scale of awareness? Some things would be more aware than others.

2b) If awareness was a sudden process, awareness can either be on or off but when did biological life suddenly become aware? What was the "magic" ingredient?

If there is a scale of awareness, let's call it the Baywax Scale, where zero on the Baywax Scale represents total unawareness of anything, infinity means you are God and know everything and we can say negative scores are disallowed. So the higher your score, the greater your awareness.

3) Now, is it possible for any given system to score a perfect zero on the Baywax Scale? (rather than just approximately zero or nearly zero)

4a) If a perfect zero can not be scored on the Baywax scale, we seem to be back in the situation where bacteria, asteroids etc have a minimal "awareness". Are the computer systems around the world gradually developing awareness?

4a) If a perfect zero can be scored on the Baywax Scale, what are the minimum requirements for a system to score above zero? What makes it aware? When did biological life first become aware? And how did this develop gradually without earlier stages that were also aware?

I'd appreciate your answers because I have been thinking about this a lot myself today.

 

[baywax]

True



I disagree that chemicals have had a longer time to evolve than life. Chemicals don't evolve because survival of the fittest requires reproduction before it can operate. Chemicals only evolve in the sense that they change with time.


I'd like to ask some questions that will help me understand your definition of awareness. I'm going to ask them all in one go (I thought this would be easier), although some of the questions will not apply depending on your preceeding answers.

1) As you invoked evolution as the explanation for biological awareness, would you say that biological awareness developed gradually?

2a) If awareness developed gradually, wouldn't there have to be a scale of awareness? Some things would be more aware than others.

2b) If awareness was a sudden process, awareness can either be on or off but when did biological life suddenly become aware? What was the "magic" ingredient?

If there is a scale of awareness, let's call it the Baywax Scale, where zero on the Baywax Scale represents total unawareness of anything, infinity means you are God and know everything and we can say negative scores are disallowed. So the higher your score, the greater your awareness.

3) Now, is it possible for any given system to score a perfect zero on the Baywax Scale? (rather than just approximately zero or nearly zero)

4a) If a perfect zero can not be scored on the Baywax scale, we seem to be back in the situation where bacteria, asteroids etc have a minimal "awareness". Are the computer systems around the world gradually developing awareness?

4a) If a perfect zero can be scored on the Baywax Scale, what are the minimum requirements for a system to score above zero? What makes it aware? When did biological life first become aware? And how did this develop gradually without earlier stages that were also aware?

I'd appreciate your answers because I have been thinking about this a lot myself today.

1.) Yes

2.) Yes. Is bacteria aware of what you mean by the word bacteria? Is a child aware of what you mean by bacteria? It takes time and experience to come to an awareness of meaning, consequence and so on.

2b.) The magic ingredient would have to be something like photosensitive chemicals encased in a membrane.

3.) Depends on the day.

4a.) I am aware of more than one question here.

4a) We call it organization. As I've already pointed out my idea is that awareness started when photosensitive chemicals were bagged by the membrane or a primitive organelle within a primitive cell-like structure. This would have been a little more complex than a virus but there is a debate about different viruses being very complex. ie: the megavirus that resembles bacteria. From there these primitive cells were reproduced as a group (or got "organized") because of natural selection which began the precursors of organs in mulicellular organisms. Some of these groups performed sensory functions that worked toward a better survival rate for that particular species or group of cells. This process continued for 3 or more billion years until we started making ourselves aware of the process.

Are your asteroid friends aware of this?

It is obvious is that awareness is a common trait amongst living systems. Its there like the stripes on a tiger or the opposing thumb on a chimp. Awareness is a survival trait that has been naturally selected by the elimination process offered to all living systems by the environment.

When we try to reproduce it in non-living systems we are trying to reproduce 3 or more billion years of development in much less time. This presents certain drawbacks that can only be overcome with time. Why its being done is anybodies guess. With 6 billion aware humans on the planet its beyond me why we try to reproduce the same condition of awareness in robots. As soon as we do, we won't feel as smug sending them into battle or to explode suspicious packages because we will be aware of the awareness we have instilled in them and start getting sentimental about them as though they were a friend with feelings.

 

[-Job-]

With 6 billion aware humans on the planet its beyond me why we try to reproduce the same condition of awareness in robots. As soon as we do, we won't feel as smug sending them into battle or to explode suspicious packages because we will be aware of the awareness we have instilled in them and start getting sentimental about them as though they were a friend with feelings.

Even if we were to discover that conscious machines can be created there's no reason why suddenly all of our machines would have to be conscious from that moment on.
The purpose of trying to create consciousness is more to help us understand how we function than anything else.
I think most research is in AI, i don't think right now we even know where to begin researching "artificial consciousness".
As far as i see it AI doesn't necessarily imply conscious thought.

 

[baywax]

Even if we were to discover that conscious machines can be created there's no reason why suddenly all of our machines would have to be conscious from that moment on.
The purpose of trying to create consciousness is more to help us understand how we function than anything else.
I think most research is in AI, i don't think right now we even know where to begin researching "artificial consciousness".
As far as i see it AI doesn't necessarily imply conscious thought.

I think its possible that awareness arises as a natural product of intelligence (or visa versa). Whether artificial intelligence would evolve the same awareness as organic intelligence remains to be seen. But, as far as I know, intelligence, if not artifical intelligence, requries a state of awareness. How many intellects do you know that aren't acutely aware?

 

[mosassam]

Is bacteria aware of what you mean by the word bacteria?

Is a bacteria aware of heat/cold? Is a plant aware of light? You seem to be speaking of a different kind of awareness, specifically conscious awareness, but, for the moment at least, I'm not sure if you are saying that awareness is a product of consciousness. I would certainly disagree that awareness is a product of intelligence. I don't actually see why intelligence and awareness should be interlinked. I've met intelligent people who bumble their way through life blindly and some academically abysmal types who are very in tune with those around them. A profound awareness of abstract concepts does not necessarily indicate an awareness of the needs and feelings of others. You may have a specific type of awareness in mind but at the moment I'm not sure.

 

[baywax]

Is a bacteria aware of heat/cold? Is a plant aware of light? You seem to be speaking of a different kind of awareness, specifically conscious awareness, but, for the moment at least, I'm not sure if you are saying that awareness is a product of consciousness. I would certainly disagree that awareness is a product of intelligence. I don't actually see why intelligence and awareness should be interlinked. I've met intelligent people who bumble their way through life blindly and some academically abysmal types who are very in tune with those around them. A profound awareness of abstract concepts does not necessarily indicate an awareness of the needs and feelings of others. You may have a specific type of awareness in mind but at the moment I'm not sure.

Lets establish what type of awareness we're talking about. I'll have to decide since I started the thread but while I'm doing that I am open to suggestions.

edit: I'll have to point out that levels of awareness have been on a parallel course with evolution, in my model, where as the complexity of living things increases so does their ability of awareness. As I pointed out, because awareness is a survival trait ie: survives today because of natural selection, it can be equated with any of the other survival traits among living systems. If there is another way to look at awareness I am open to suggestions but the suggestion will have to have as much physical/plausible evidence behind it as does the theory of evolution.

 

[energy]

The Earthlings documentary is probably the most powerful evidence I've ever seen to prove the existence of animal awareness and sentience.

You can download a free copy from youtube:

Part 1:




Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sRiH_Owq9U&mode=related&search=


Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8U9dw-9U4E&mode=related&search=



I defy anyone to tell me, after seeing it, that animals aren't aware, emotional beings!

 

[baywax]

The Earthlings documentary is probably the most powerful evidence I've ever seen to prove the existence of animal awareness and sentience.

You can download a free copy from youtube:

Part 1:




Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sRiH_Owq9U&mode=related&search=


Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8U9dw-9U4E&mode=related&search=



I defy anyone to tell me, after seeing it, that animals aren't aware, emotional beings!

I don't deny that there are forms of awareness in all living systems. Its a matter of deciding which form of awareness to focus on in this thread.

You could be interested in this article from

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind/consciousness.html [Broken]

Often the word consciousness is exchanged for awareness here:

Bees, for instance, appear to meet one of the requirements for consciousness. They can create "mental maps," images they hold in their minds that allow them to navigate around their environments by picturing themselves there. Chimps and elephants appear to exhibit another consciousness trademark: an awareness of death. Both animals grieve when family members die: elephants even linger over the bones of long-dead relatives, seeming to ponder the past and their own future. But are these behaviors enough to give bees, chimps, and elephants membership in the consciousness club?

Researchers are actively debating the answer to that question. "Consciousness is one of the hardest things to define and study," says Pete Chernika, an Austrian researcher who has studied consciousness in dolphins and other animals. "In experiments, for instance, dolphins appear to pass one consciousness test by recognizing themselves in mirrors. And dolphins also exhibit a keen awareness of the status and identity of other dolphins in their highly social groups, he says.They know who mom is, who the leaders of the pod are, and how they should behave around different individuals," he says. "They appear to be able to envision themselves in relation to all these other animals and then act accordingly."

Indeed, many researchers believe consciousness is more likely in highly social animals such as chimps and dolphins, who must be able to see themselves in relation to others in their groups in order to get along. "Complex social interaction puts a high priority on awareness of self and others," says Chernika. But he warns that the more people study other animals, the more we realize how hard it is to define consciousness -- and how hard it is to decide who has it, and who doesn't.

But, we can never climb inside of any other living system and determine if it is experiencing awareness the way we do. We can't even determine if another person is aware in the same way the next one is. So, we need a physiological model that unambiguously signals a state of awareness that can be said to be replicated in all of our subjects.

 

[energy]

The following isn't aimed at you, Baywax, just at the prevailing attitude toward other living beings.

As far as I'm concerned, if they can feel pain they have a level of awareness. Pain recognition is one of the main functions of the nervous system in vertebrates… and even we have that equipment. There's a good chance that if a creature (invertebrates included) runs away from danger, they have the ability to feel pain.

I’m constantly amazed why we're trying to prove that other living creatures do have consciousness. Shouldn’t we be trying to show they don’t? Isn’t it more logical to assume they're more like us, than unlike; considering our evolution? What’s the alternative, that they're robotic? Ridiculous!

If they didn't come with a price tag i.e. as commodities for humans to use at will, we would most certainly have a different view. But that's just not convenient or profitable...

Anyone who could look at animal suffering and think they aren’t aware might as well be moon rock, because they have no true humanity, and zero "awareness" for what is real.

 

[baywax]

The following isn't aimed at you, Baywax, just at the prevailing attitude toward other living beings.

As far as I'm concerned, if they can feel pain they have a level of awareness. Pain recognition is one of the main functions of the nervous system in vertebrates… and even we have that equipment. There's a good chance that if a creature (invertebrates included) runs away from danger, they have the ability to feel pain.

I’m constantly amazed why we're trying to prove that other living creatures do have consciousness. Shouldn’t we be trying to show they don’t? Isn’t it more logical to assume they're more like us, than unlike; considering our evolution? What’s the alternative, that they're robotic? Ridiculous!

If they didn't come with a price tag i.e. as commodities for humans to use at will, we would most certainly have a different view. But that's just not convenient or profitable...

Anyone who could look at animal suffering and think they aren’t aware might as well be moon rock, because they have no true humanity, and zero "awareness" for what is real.

Why would the standard measurement of awareness be pain? If an organism's response is to avoid it then it must know of an alternative and better condition than pain. Perhaps seeking out the lack of pain is the measure of awareness. Maybe the instinct to stay out of danger is a manifestation of the survival instinct and not the signal of a conscious awareness of a memory.

How would these ideas apply to bees and other insects? Is there a sufficient amount of the "stuff awareness is made of" in insects for us to be able to say that they too are aware of a past/present/future/relatives/geniology, etc? How could we measure these levels of awareness? Would it be by the number and diversity of chemicals present in an organism or by the amount of electricity being generated by it?

Behavioral traits can be deceiving and are often read as one thing when they are indicating another. Like when you see the prairie grouse doing its courtship dance. It appears to be in "rapture" and focusing all its "creativity" into the dance when its actually running on instinctive autopilot while we project and overlay our own, human fantasies onto its behavior.

 

[energy]

Why would the standard measurement of awareness be pain? If an organism's response is to avoid it then it must know of an alternative and better condition than pain. Perhaps seeking out the lack of pain is the measure of awareness.

You just answered your own question

Even when you shoo the garden variety fly away it knows which root of escape is the most viable option. What would that say for its awareness of my kitchen's architecture? Funny how it manages to find the way it came in without a memory, too ;)

Maybe the instinct to stay out of danger is a manifestation of the survival instinct and not the signal of a conscious awareness of a memory.

Maybe, but the same could have been said of humans; thankfully, we can talk about and communicate our "awareness of memory" to our fellow species. Shame that sharks and crocodiles don't get us, though.


Many mentally disabled human children have no obvious awareness of memory, yet we don’t automatically assume they aren't conscious, do we? Perhaps the ability for awareness in contrast to humans’ isn’t the best measure, after all.

How would these ideas apply to bees and other insects? Is there a sufficient amount of the "stuff awareness is made of" in insects for us to be able to say that they too are aware of a past/present/future/relatives/geniology, etc? How could we measure these levels of awareness? Would it be by the number and diversity of chemicals present in an organism or by the amount of electricity being generated by it?

Seriously, no offense, but who cares? Except for those who want to exploit them, and see their possible "lack of consciousness and awareness" as carte blanche for any number of the infinite cruelties they can inflict.

Behavioral traits can be deceiving and are often read as one thing when they are indicating another. Like when you see the prairie grouse doing its courtship dance. It appears to be in "rapture" and focusing all its "creativity" into the dance when its actually running on instinctive autopilot while we project and overlay our own, human fantasies onto its behavior.

Well, I've seen a few guys on instinctive autopilot and it aint nearly as pretty. Barroom brawls over an attractive girl come down to human instinctive behaviour, does that mean we're also devoid of consciousness and awareness? Although, some humans we might have to look at on a case-by-case basis :tongue2:

 

[baywax]

Funny how it manages to find the way it came in without a memory, too ;)

Actually, its heading for the light. And not because a swami told it to. My experience with flies trapped in the house is that they need a lot of coaching and direction to find the way out. That's why we have Buddhist monks. They seem to be acutely aware of the heightened awareness of insects and all living things.

Maybe, but the same could have been said of humans; thankfully, we can talk about and communicate our "awareness of memory" to our fellow species. Shame that sharks and crocodiles don't get us, though.

Where 's the proof that sharks and crocodiles are unaware of our intentions?

Many mentally disabled human children have no obvious awareness of memory, yet we don’t automatically assume they aren't conscious, do we?

There was a case in Florida where a woman was left to die because it was deemed that she had no awareness of herself or anyone else and could not breath or eat on her own.

Seriously, no offense, but who cares? Except for those who want to exploit them, and see their possible "lack of consciousness and awareness" as carte blanche for any number of the infinite cruelties they can inflict.

This is the type of cautious attitude we need to maintain when studying anything.

Well, I've seen a few guys on instinctive autopilot and it aint nearly as pretty. Barroom brawls over an attractive girl come down to human instinctive behaviour, does that mean we're also devoid of consciousness and awareness? Although, some humans we might have to look at on a case-by-case basis :tongue2:

I was surprized that in Texas, barroom brawls seemed to be a rarity. I think it has to do with a collective awareness of everyone owning a gun. .

 

[energy]

My experience with flies trapped in the house is that they need a lot of coaching and direction to find the way out.

Yes, I've often wondered if they may have a little difficulty understanding the complexities of glass; but, apparently, even some human toddlers can't grasp that concept

That's why we have Buddhist monks They seem to be acutely aware of the heightened awareness of insects and all living things.

They truly are enlightened beings

Where 's the proof that sharks and crocodiles are unaware of our intentions?

My point exactly, who needs it?

There was a case in Florida where a woman was left to die because it was deemed that she had no awareness of herself or anyone else and could not breath or eat on her own.

So, what hope have the "lesser" beings got, then?

This is the type of cautious attitude we need to maintain when studying anything.

Einstein was devastated that his theory of relativity led to the making of atomic weapons. He was quoted as saying he would have been a plumber, had he known. Unfortunately, most humane individuals can't intuit the actions of a mad man sufficiently enough, not even our beloved Albert had such a talent. I find that very sobering.

 

[light_bulb]

i always thought he KNEW very well what was to happen, yet weighed the options. man always has been able to destroy himself easily, the hard part is comming up with a reason not to.

 

[baywax]

Einstein was devastated that his theory of relativity led to the making of atomic weapons. He was quoted as saying he would have been a plumber, had he known. Unfortunately, most humane individuals can't intuit the actions of a mad man sufficiently enough, not even our beloved Albert had such a talent. I find that very sobering.

Or a good reason to drink.

I've seen many a research project that is intended to help people live better lives go directly into controlling humans, and thus, controlling their money.

There are definitely different stages of awareness. As you say a toddler apparently has the same awareness of "glass" as a fly. Beyond that there is the awareness of glass that includes understanding it is made of silicate sand, breaks easily and does not allow UV rays through. This type of awareness is learned either through experience or by way of rhetoric.

Perhaps there are two kinds of awareness. Learned awareness and innate awareness. Any thoughts on this?

 

[energy]

light_bulb, from what I've read, he only signed the letter to Roosevelt because he firmly believed Hitler's scientists were already using his theory to build their own atomic bomb. He was a pacifist, but also a realist. At that point, given the information he had (which turned out to be incorrect), the only logical step to avert disaster seemed to be to threaten retaliatory action, by matching the enemy's might. As it happened, the Germans didn’t have an a-bomb, and it was the Americans who used theirs on Hiroshima.

Einstein called signing the letter his one great mistake. From what I can tell, his quotes seem to convey the feeling that his involvement took the shine off his life's achievements. However, it did result in some very profound philosophical views.

Perhaps there are two kinds of awareness. Learned awareness and innate awareness. Any thoughts on this?

That makes sense. Consciousness is the most basic level, though. As was agreed, a severely mentally disabled individual can appear unaware, but still be a conscious sentient being, deserving of human rights. If not, we will never know; and it seems the prudent supposition, because the alternative only leads to “justified” cruelty.

 

[baywax]

light_bulb, from what I've read, he only signed the letter to Roosevelt because he firmly believed Hitler's scientists were already using his theory to build their own atomic bomb. He was a pacifist, but also a realist. At that point, given the information he had (which turned out to be incorrect), the only logical step to avert disaster seemed to be to threaten retaliatory action, by matching the enemy's might. As it happened, the Germans didn’t have an a-bomb, and it was the Americans who used theirs on Hiroshima.

Einstein called signing the letter his one great mistake. From what I can tell, his quotes seem to convey the feeling that his involvement took the shine off his life's achievements. However, it did result in some very profound philosophical views.





That makes sense. Consciousness is the most basic level, though. As was agreed, a severely mentally disabled individual can appear unaware, but still be a conscious sentient being, deserving of human rights. If not, we will never know; and it seems the prudent supposition, because the alternative only leads to “justified” cruelty.

One thing you'd think people would learn in life is to err on the side of caution.

OK. there's actually 3 types of awareness.

1. Un-aware.

2. innate awareness.

3. learned awareness.

Will this model suit any further discussion? Because, I'd like to break down each one in terms of "in different species" and in terms of the "physiological mechanics" involved in each type of awareness.

I'd also like to explore to see if there's a common link between all species and their apparent awareness' in terms of physological functions (which apparently manifest as awareness) in as many examples as have been studied. Of particular interest to me is the Bee. It dances around disseminating information about food that it has gathered during its flight. It gives weather information, GPS information and the colour and type of flowers and where they can be found. This shows a large capacity for what we call "memory".

So, I'd like to see if there's a physiological study on the way this incredibly little hairy insect can carry around such a huge brain and still fly .

 

[mosassam]

As I pointed out, because awareness is a survival trait ie: survives today because of natural selection, it can be equated with any of the other survival traits among living systems.

Surely, rather than just being a mere trait, awareness can be seen as the 'driving force' behind survival. The more aware an organism is of its environment, the more successful it is in evolutionary terms. This would certainly account for the apparent success of the human organism.
I was interested in the point you made that as the complexity of an organism increases so does its ability to be aware. I feel this says something very relavent about awareness. It may be that more complex organisms can process more information and at greater speeds than simpler ones, tying awareness in with the ability to process information.

 

[baywax]

Surely, rather than just being a mere trait, awareness can be seen as the 'driving force' behind survival. The more aware an organism is of its environment, the more successful it is in evolutionary terms. This would certainly account for the apparent success of the human organism.

What you've pointed out could be said about the ability for a fish to swim. The better a fish can swim the more successful it is in evolutionary terms. That's why I'm classifying awareness as a survival trait and you have pointed out the reason for this. I think the driving force behind survival is life. But, there are origins to instinct that I haven't yet begun to research. Maybe you could help with that.

I was interested in the point you made that as the complexity of an organism increases so does its ability to be aware. I feel this says something very relavent about awareness. It may be that more complex organisms can process more information and at greater speeds than simpler ones, tying awareness in with the ability to process information.

Could be. There must be studies on this if anyone can dig one up.

 

[baywax]

One basic fact about nerve impulse is this:

Neurotransmitters (also called Ligands) fit into specialized proteins called receptors. Once the Ligand fits into the receptor the receptor starts a nerve impulse. The shape and size of the Ligand and the receptor determines where (which receptor) a Ligand will bind.

If there is no fit, there is no nerve impulse. A correct fit means there will be a nerve impulse.

Here its seems possible that the size and shape of proteinaceous receptors in each of the different species (and their many various sizes) might determine the amount of nerve impulses or the quality of nerve impulses they experience. The diversity or complexity of shape of receptor will be determined by the genetics of the species. If Bees are experiencing weather reports and directions, retaining them and communicating them to other bees in their dances, they must have receptors and Ligands that can generate these sorts of impulses.

Awareness of the weather and directions must then rely on a type of Ligand and receptor that is a size that can be accommodated in an insect the size of a bee. Unless insects have a completely different physiology when it comes to neurophysiology.

 

[baywax]

Here is an abstract describing the "Characteristics of Neuron Activity in the Honey Bee (Apis Mellifera L.) in Conditions of Kynurenine Deficiency"

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/neab/2006/00000036/00000003/00000002 [Broken]

Aside from the information about Kynurenine Deficiency the paper claims that Bees have neurons. And that the paper costs $42 to read.

Here is someone's considered opinion about bees and "consciousness" (for our purposes that should read "awareness")

I think it would help motivate my position here to see how other minds questions about bees can arise for us. I can apparently entertain the notion that artifacts of various kinds, including robots equipped with sensors, are not phenomenally sentient. I can, I think, even entertain the notion of robot-bees that behave in many respects like regular bees, though they are not phenomenally sentient. And once I do, I can pose to myself this
question: are actual, natural bees phenomenally sentient? Do colors look anyway to them, or are they no more phenomenally conscious than the hypothetical robot-bees?
This seems to me an intelligible question. And I don’t think it is resolved by pointing out that the sensory mechanisms of the natural bees are functioning in accord with evolutionary design (sic) . I can still entertain a rational doubt about whether the bees are buzzing with consciousness, or are just as phenomenally vacant as the hypothetical robot-bees, even once I fully recognize the bee is functioning as nature prescribed. For I can
entertain the hypothesis that there are naturally evolved non-phenomenal perceptual systems.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...df+bee+consciousness&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

There's another paper on

Animal Consciousness: Paradigm Change in the Life Sciences
Martin Schönfeld, University of South Florida

Its a pdf on the site linked below.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/posc.2006.14.3.354?cookieSet=1&journalCode=posc

here's some of it,

Over the past five years, a change in basic assumptions about animals and their inner lives has occurred. (For a recent illustration of this paradigm change in the news, see van Schaik 2006.) Old-school scientists proceeded by and large as if animals were merely highly complex machines. Behaviorism was admired for its consistently rigorous methodology, mirroring classical physics in its focus on quantifiable observation. In the old analytic climate, claims that animals are sentient raised methodological and ideological problems and seemed debatable at best. Bolder claims, that animals are intelligent, or even self-aware in a way that is for all practical purposes human, were regarded as unfounded. Empirical trials to substantiate such claims were nipped in the bud, since it appeared that such inquiries would unduly humanize nonhuman beings. Scientists are not supposed to project their own intuitions, feelings, or thoughts on objects of their investigation. Studying the affinities of humans and animals would appear to violate this well-established rule, and would risk sliding down the slippery slope from fawns to Bambi, from rabbits to Thumper, and from science to myth. The task of science in the past four centuries had been to demythologize the past. Erasing myths had been the hallmark of progress; it turned astrology into astronomy, alchemy into chemistry, and natural philosophy into natural science. Naturalists, field workers, and experimenters who disagreed or who resisted the...

This was taken from the MIT paper linked above.

If scientists want to downgrade the probablility of phenomenally conscious animals, insects, fish and birds then I would suggest the downgrading apply to humans as well. This is aptly supported in many examples of human behavior and lack of conscious deliberation. Humans, after all, are animals as well.

 

[baywax]

Awareness is fundamental to any science, civilization or pretty well any undertaking life has to offer. One would think awareness is one of the most examined of conditions and, in part, it is. When I look at awareness I see physical and chemical states interacting with more physical and chemical states which produces electromagnetic, cognitive responses that we like to think of as thought, "mind" and or brain activity.

In philosophy, there are often claims that there exists a "metaphysical" condition which is readily available to everyone that becomes "aware" of it.

How can a condition that is not physical, stimulate a response in a physiological system of cognitive awareness?

Is there an intermediate condition between the physical and metaphysical conditions where information about each state can be exchanged?

Can a "condition" be anything other than physical?

 

[mosassam]

=baywax;1281211

Awareness is fundamental to any science, civilization or pretty well any undertaking life has to offer. One would think awareness is one of the most examined of conditions and, in part, it is. When I look at awareness I see physical and chemical states interacting with more physical and chemical states which produces electromagnetic, cognitive responses that we like to think of as thought, "mind" and or brain activity.

As long as you have a materialistic outlook you must accept that you can never really grasp something nonphysical, such as Awareness, Thought, Consciousness, Life etc. As a materialist you view all nonphysical phenomena "spring forth" from physical phenomena. The notion that it may be the other way round cannot be broached as it would require a radical paradigm shift.
Think about this "thought experiment":
A few billion molecules can go to make something with life and a few billion of the same molecules can go to make something without life. What is the difference between these two situations? Is it to do with the relationships that exist between the molecules?

 

[mosassam]

How can a condition that is not physical, stimulate a response in a physiological system of cognitive awareness?

You're sat at home chilling out. You get a phonecall saying you're having a drug test tomorrow. You realize (thought-nonphysical) that you're going to fail. As a result, you get stressed out (nonphysical). As a result of the stress you get a weird rash all over your face (physical). This is not as trite as it seems.

 

[baywax]

You're sat at home chilling out. You get a phonecall saying you're having a drug test tomorrow. You realize (thought-nonphysical) that you're going to fail. As a result, you get stressed out (nonphysical). As a result of the stress you get a weird rash all over your face (physical). This is not as trite as it seems.

Mosassam, how is a chemoelectromagnetic response (thoughts of realization) to a phone call "non-physical"?

What component of a thought is non-physical?

As far as I know there is no component of a thought that is not physical.

And "stressing out", that is purely physical. Its hormonal -chemoelectromagnetic.

As for the difference between a billion molecules that compose a non-living thing and a billion molecules that compose a living thing.

1. the type of molecules makes the difference.

1a. the structure that the molecules create makes the difference.

1b. the evolution (history) behind the structure the molecules create is what makes one group of molecules different from the other group.

For example: a group of H2O molecules is very different when compared to the mixed groups of molecules that make up a fish.

The properties of the H2O molecules alone don't allow for it to live.

The mixed groups of molecules that make up a structure such as a fish, through a long history of evolution, are alive (as a fish).

You have to figure in "time" and "evolution" when you look at each molecular structure. Some structures have collected molecules over time that changed the dynamic of the molecular structure. Sometimes that means the molecular structure becomes a "living" molecular structure. Other molecular structures don't live.

 

[baywax]

As long as you have a materialistic outlook you must accept that you can never really grasp something nonphysical, such as Awareness, Thought, Consciousness, Life etc. As a materialist you view all nonphysical phenomena "spring forth" from physical phenomena. The notion that it may be the other way round cannot be broached as it would require a radical paradigm shift.

The difference between the materialistic and the non-materialistic approach to understanding awareness is that the materialistic approach has examples and evidence in the form of working, physical systems that explain the existence of awareness.

A non-materialistic approach to understanding awareness has no material evidence to back any such claim of the metaphysical causation of thought, ideas, awareness or conscious awareness.

There are a lot of books and lectures that lay out complete theories on the workings of the metaphysical and how everything we experience is somehow caused by metaphysical interactions with the physical. In actuality there are many explanations and they all vary from one another according to who is explaining the workings of metaphysics.

There is the possibility that the seemingly erroneous accounts of metaphysicists concerning the nature of the universe, awareness etc. are intuitive accounts of the quantum state.

Whether the quantum state can be considered physical or not is better answered by one of the respected resident physicists on PF.