What do you think consciousness is?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Are we discussing consciousness, sentience, human consciousness, self awareness or what? Do we automatically assume that only humans are conscious? If so, why?

I don't automatically assume anything, but it appears that some who have posted have assumed exactly that. I didn't specify in my first post, because I wanted to see how many people's posts would have that implication. It doesn't surprise me much that you were the one who noticed and mentioned it .

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
As for consciousness. I define consciousness simply as the capacity for and exercise of experiential awareness. It is useful here to refer to Thomas Nagel's description of consciousness: something is conscious if it is experientially 'like' something to be that creature. Thus, we can meaningfully ask 'what is it like to be a bat?', understanding that the bat probably has an experiential awareness that is very different from our own. But the question 'what is it like to be a rock?' is probably meaningless, since being a rock probably entails an absolute lack of any kind of experiential awareness.

A worthy attempt. However, can you ever really know that it's like anything to something else? This is just the philosophical notion of "zombies" again, which I find rather ridiculous myself, but it does deserve some consideration (hopefully RageSk8 and Psychodilerium haven't completely abandoned the threads yet).

Note that this definition is ultimately a subjective one. Objective cues may give us clues as to the existence and nature of consciousness in other beings, but the only way to really grasp that consciousness is to be that being itself.

Objective cues are not only inadequate in capturing what we mean by consciousness, but they can also be downright misleading. For instance, people with the condition called blindsight can give you meaningful information about a visual scene without being aware of it. These people are experientially blind in certain portions of their visual field, but if you hold an ace of spades in their blinded field of vision, they can tell you that it is an ace of spades, much to their own befuddlement. (The explanation for this condition is that low level visual processing in the 'blind' areas remain intact; what is damaged is further, higher levels of visual processing, which presumably go on to transform the low level information into a conscious percept in the visual field.) Thus, people with blind sight can exhibit intelligent reactionary behavior to their environment without the attendent experiential awareness of that environment. The lesson is simply that just because it acts conscious don't mean it actually is conscious!

Ah, very good. You came to exactly the point that I was talking about (above). Yes, you are completely correct that we can never really know that anyone is conscious (except ourselves, of course, which is what Descartes said was "the only thing [he] could ever be sure of").

 

[pelastration]

Pre-view 'virtual results' and evaluate them.

Consciousness is to me a higher level of self-organization in a conscious actor who collects 'resonant information' from senses and from previously stored information (memory, experience, priorities, etc.) and evaluated them in past, present and future reference frames in such a way that the conscious actor can "choose" from different alternatives or possibilities the next step(s) to be taken to reach the individual goal(s) in his present and future development and project them interactive to the development of other actors, to a collectivity or to his 'real' or abstract surrounding(s).

Some extra remarks:
1. The individual layering system is related to the available individual observation system(s), thus the senses. The participant evaluates his surrounding and is thus "aware" of his position in the surrounding.
The observations systems are non-intellectual ( parasympathetic nerve system or vegetative ns) such as: I NEED FOOD! (thus reactive). This can be the type of awareness animals have (if we presume they have no self-awareness).
Awareness is thus a more stimulus - response feed-back system in which 'priority- thresholds' are embedded by a Darwin-type of survival elimination.

2. Self-awareness (Consciousness) is - IMO - related to the possibility to make choices and evaluations which go above the instincts (= evolutionary programmed awareness), and the freedom to say 'NO', and to say 'MAYBE', 'IF', ... etc. That is a ability to pre-view 'virtual results' and evaluate them. But the perception may be culturally and neuron-linguistic influenced.

It has to do with the possibility to predict /preview/ calculate steps in the time frame that is not related to the immediate 'Now-Situation'. Looking to the future and adapt behavior in view of a future outcome. Thus: I can influence MY future in relation to my surrounding(s). I.e. in a short time frame: a chess game, short/mid term: writing a complex software program, mid/long: buy real-estate to build and exploit a shopping-mall, etc.

It also has to do with the ability to connote non-physical values to physical events (For example in Art : a painting of Chagall, letters to poems, music ) and in auto-created or accepted reality (humor, games, absurdity, ... and a transcendental reality).

3. The Relativity of the Observer and signification. Depending from his position in the matter/spiritual level the observer's/participant"s surrounding (his world of reality) contains other parameters which seems to be more, less or not at all important (resonate). This gives individual overview (or experience of existence) based on past and actual information. If you have no overview the surrounding becomes paradoxical.

Example: A sheep, milk, skin, hair, and ...
The sheep is the isolated unity in our 3D world of animals. (knowledge level)
But "MY" sheep is called Bonny = specific unity in my garden. (personal daily level)
The sheep has a skin, if we transform it, it becomes LEATHER. We can make shoes of it.
The sheep has hair, if we transform it, it becomes WOOL.

For the observing farmer the sheep has another signification then for the observing manufacture of shoes. Without the existence of sheep the shoe manufacturer could not make sheep-shoes, but probably he is not interested at all how sheep sleep.

So the manufacture and the farmer are each conscious about a number of possibility a sheep and it's related sub-elements have in their world. But the sheep has a lower level of consciousness. When it sees the (fancy sheep-leather made) shoes of the farmer it will have no degree of association that those shoes might made out of sheep leather. The sheep just wants food, water, sex, housing to protect itself against the rain, sun and ... the big bad wolf. If we say that the sheep has no consciousness at all we may ask what makes the 'social behavior inside a sheep group. What makes the hierarchy ? What makes some to 'rule' and others to obey or be submissive? Just force, a fight? Is there 'acceptance' involve and 'learning'?. And does the sheep dog learns the signals of his boss? If the master dies does the dog mourns?

 

[phoenixthoth]

to me, consciousness is our vehicle for perceiving, processing, and, finally, understanding reality which is principally comprised of three things: the self, the physical universe and time (including other beings), and God.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

 

[Dark Wing]

Well, being an identity theorist, (and a huge Searle fan at that) I have to say I like Searle’s definition of consciousness

"Consciousness consists of inner, qualitative, subjective states and processes of sentience or awareness. Consciousness, so defined, begins when we wake in the morning from a dreamless sleep - and continues until we fall asleep again, die, go into a coma or otherwise become unconscious... Dreams on this definition are a form of consciousness... States about other mental states; so according to this definition, a pain would not be a conscious state, but worrying about a pain would be a conscious state" (Searle, 'Consciousness' 1999)

It seems we are only conscious in virtue of the fact that we seem to interact with something. Once you concede that it is a biological phenomenon like any other then it can be investigated neurobiological. Subjective ontology need not stop us from having an epistemic ally objective science of consciousness (Searle again) )

 

[hypnagogue]

Searle is the man. No question.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i don't know about his books, but, in person, searle uses alcohol a lot in his metaphors.

i'm fascinated by his chinese room argument. hasn't got me convinced that there's an inner being within me that doesn't UNDERSTAND what's happening at all kinda like a computer (or maybe that's what he's getting at!). but if it looks like, tastes like, feels like i really do understand, then who cares?

do you think consciousness can be entirely understood through biology and neurochemistry and electrical impulses? to me, that is conceivable but a long way away. i highly suspect that the soul has something to do with consciousness but science isn't even trying to examine the soul as far as i can tell except perhaps superfically through psychology.

you spoke of qualitative. here, searle opened a can of worms. how do you define the word quality (or beauty)?

cheers,
phoenix

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
you spoke of qualitative. here, searle opened a can of worms. how do you define the word quality (or beauty)?

S/he's got a point. What does it mean to be "qualitative"?

 

[Turtle]

do you think consciousness can be entirely understood through biology and
neurochemistry and electrical impulses

No, consciousness is non-physical, whereas the sciences are physical.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Mentat
S/he's got a point. What does it mean to be "qualitative"?

A phenomenon is qualitative if it is a percept of consciousness. Thus, everything you are aware of is qualitative in nature. Again: if it is 'like something' to experience a phenomenon, that experience is qualitative.

 

[Dark Wing]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Searle is the man. No question.

Absolutely. glad to see the world is not made entirely of Dennett fans.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
I’m fascinated by his Chinese room argument. hasn't got me convinced that there's an inner being within me that doesn't UNDERSTAND what's happening at all kinda like a computer (or maybe that's what he's getting at!). but if it looks like, tastes like, feels like i really do understand, then who cares?

you can go 2 ways with the Chinese room argument. you can say that a human is only a bunch of Syntactical symbol relations, and therefore no mind, or you can say that that is what a computer is, but it seems that we have semantics, it seems as though we can attribute meaning, so there is something about our brains that makes this possible, not found in a computer.

I believe that Searle is arguing for the latter. He does concede that if you made a computer that functioned like a brain, (as in looked like and was constructed incredibly similar to) then there is a good chance that consciousness would follow. It seems to me that this is what Dennett is trying to do with his "Cog" project, without actually saying that he is (of course Dennett would never concede to Searle). (Dennett is, with a team of other AI researchers and robotics experts, making a life size robot that looks and functions like us. its brain, as far as i can read it being created with physical similarity to our own, and will be asked to teach itself language, social interaction, and should show emotion etc.) Searle, as far as i could see would have no problem allowing this machine consciousness, as it is physically similar to ourselves, and that is the important thing.

I agree that is it seems you do understand things etc, then if really you don’t then who cares. But the thing is you do seem to understand. if you were a bunch of syntactical relations, there would be no you to do the seeming.

do you think consciousness can be entirely understood through biology and neurochemistry and electrical impulses? to me, that is conceivable but a long way away. i highly suspect that the soul has something to do with consciousness but science isn't even trying to examine the soul as far as i can tell except perhaps superficially through psychology.

I believe that consciousness is a phenomenon that exists in virtue of our brains. there is nothing outside the brain, this is a strict materialistic view. a "mind state" as it were IS a brain state. I could even concede one step further and agree with Paul Churchland in his Elimitive Materialism approach - that all there is brain states; nothing over and above that. yes, all of this is a long way away, and brings in interesting questions about what relation there should be between the studies of the mental (higher level social/ cognitive psychology) and the physical (neuroscience). in my opinion, the studies are very far off converging as they stand, but are a continuation of the same line. in order to find a causal relationship between them: either mind influencing matter, implying a 'soul' controlling the physical; or matter influencing mind (brain state causing the rise of a mind state) or having the two just be the same thing described on a different level... much more research needs to be done in both areas until the bridge between the disciplines can give us any real information. all we can do now is speculate on the knowledge we have on what the mind seems to do and what we know about the brain, and see if we can hypothesize a link. therefore, in reality, the fields could be said to be in Autonomy at the moment: about the same thing, researching it on different levels.

as far as what psychology is studying, it doesn’t really have to have anything to do with a soul. Since i believe that the mind is simply a result of a functioning brain, and it seems that the mind aspect is easily mislead and will form connections between stimuli that aren’t there, (i.e., attributing an environmental stimulus as a cause when it is in fact a physical one) studying the mind will not actually give us much information. we know the mind misconceives things. we can look at the brain at a neuron level to find out why once we know a bit more about it. of course, all of this is a long way off. Maybe the study of psychiatry sees this when they deal with their patients mind problems, talking them through and helping them deal with the false connections they have made in their world, while prescribing certain drugs to help rebalance the brain, where the actual cause of their problem is.

as far as a soul having something to do with consciousness, i guess it all depends on what your definition of "soul" is. if you take it to be a God given non-material substance that is our mind, then i would have to disagree with you entirely. If you take it to mean the fact that you are alive and breathing, then i agree with you. brain function creates consciousness.

But an interesting question to raise here would be... could you have different levels of consciousness? i give consciousness to all animals that have a brain. they may not be "as conscious" or "as aware" as we are, have a personal identity, just not one as strong as the one we seem to have (maybe the stresses of living in the wild, the need to spend most days avoiding death staying safe and gathering food stops them from having time or energy to develop a 'character' as such, only animals with the time to via capture or dominance can do this. They all might have the capacity...) (this is just a random, not really thought through idea, any comment on this is encouraged)

I think hypnagogue answered the Qualitative question quite well (being a fellow Searle fan, i am not at all surprised)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Turtle
No, consciousness is non-physical, whereas the sciences are physical.

That first statement (that consciousness is non-physical) is not only unproven, but logically impossible, AFAIC. You explain to me, Turtle, how a non-physical mind could communicate with a physical brain. They would (logically) need an intermediary, and the intermediary would have to neither be physical nor non-physical (logically impossible for the obvious reason that something is either physical or it is not).

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
That first statement (that consciousness is non-physical) is not only unproven, but logically impossible, AFAIC. You explain to me, Turtle, how a non-physical mind could communicate with a physical brain. They would (logically) need an intermediary, and the intermediary would have to neither be physical nor non-physical (logically impossible for the obvious reason that something is either physical or it is not).

A possible anology would be the brain is the hardware, the ciruits of the computer and the mind is the software, programing of the computer. One without the other is useless and nonfunctional. Together they are capable of more than the sum of there parts.
Our mind/brain communicates with our body constantly and visa versa.
Our subjective thoughts, intents and purpose cause our phsical bodies to act all of the time. This is so obvious and so commonplace that it is overlooked and ignored, even denied much of the time. Such denial proves its contradiction to be true. This is a pardox that most can't eccept.
"As a pure materialist I deny that anything immaterial exists." Just look at all of the contradiction contained in that simple statement;
"pure materialist" is a subjective concept, "I" is a subjective concept of personal existence and self awareness, "deny" is a statement of belief which is subjective,"anything is a collective concept of all things that exist, "immaterial" if we have a word to discribe something then that something is a least a subjective thought, idea, or belief, i.e. and thus exists if only in the brain/mind, exists probably the most subjective concept of all.

Words are symbols of persons, places, things, actions etc. Symbols to not have physical existence yet are universally accepted as having meaning and conveying thought. If there is a word for it then it exists in our minds which is our reality. If there is no word for it then it does not exist in our minds or our reality. How could it?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
A possible anology would be the brain is the hardware, the ciruits of the computer and the mind is the software, programing of the computer. One without the other is useless and nonfunctional. Together they are capable of more than the sum of there parts.
Our mind/brain communicates with our body constantly and visa versa.
Our subjective thoughts, intents and purpose cause our phsical bodies to act all of the time. This is so obvious and so commonplace that it is overlooked and ignored, even denied much of the time. Such denial proves its contradiction to be true. This is a pardox that most can't eccept.

Did you mean "can't escape"?

Anyway, I agree that the analogy of the brain as hardware is a good one, but what you must realize is that, without physical stimulus that works on binary codes, the computer would still do nothing. IOW, the C.D. (for example) doesn't contain "information", just a representation of binary code in the tiny "pits" that the computer's "eye" ("eye" and "pit" are (obviously) physical things, btw) reads. There is nothing non-physical to account for here, is there?

So, you cannot add some "non-physical" property to the computer, because there is none to be found (which is why materialist philosophers of the mind like it so much).

"As a pure materialist I deny that anything immaterial exists." Just look at all of the contradiction contained in that simple statement;

I shall now debunk all of these supposed contradictions:

"pure materialist" is a subjective concept...

Pure materialist is a choice of belief. Belief is explanable by purely physical means, as I will show later in this post...

..."I" is a subjective concept of personal existence and self awareness

I have already shown how self-awareness can occur without any non-physical components on another thread, I will post a link if you don't alread know which posts I'm referring to...

"deny" is a statement of belief which is subjective,

Alright, now I'll explain belief. When some physical stimulus (such as the photons leaving this computer screen right now) the brain imprints the stimulus as memory, and then specific portions of the brain (the "patter-recognition" portions) reproduce the same physical stimulation, when presented with similar circumstance. Belief is just that same process, only one that the brain's "patter-recognizers" found recognized as fitting that which pleeased (brought beneficial results) the person in the past.

"anything is a collective concept of all things that exist

Sure it is, but concepts are information, and information is a *process of the brain*.

"immaterial" if we have a word to discribe something then that something is a least a subjective thought, idea, or belief, i.e. and thus exists if only in the brain/mind, exists probably the most subjective concept of all.

Not true, the fact that I have a word, doesn't mean I have a concept to fit it. I have the word "nothing", but there is no concept (outside of the purely semantic (semantics also being a physical process of the pattern-recognizers in the portions of the brain that deal with speech)) to fit that term.

Words are symbols of persons, places, things, actions etc. Symbols to not have physical existence yet are universally accepted as having meaning and conveying thought.

Also wrong. Symbols do have physical existence. If you disagree, try to incite me to think about something without using a symbol.

If there is a word for it then it exists in our minds which is our reality. If there is no word for it then it does not exist in our minds or our reality. How could it?

This is all well and good, but reverse your sentences now, and see that the inverses do not need to be true. If there is an "it" for the word, then "it" (obviously) exists.

What I mean is that not all words have "its" to go along with them (they could just be words, which serve no function other than (perhaps) as short-cuts toward concepts that do exist (again, the "nothing" illustration applies, since many Theoretical Physicists use this word as a short-cut to saying "No matter, no energy, no space, and no time")), just as not all "its" have words with which to make reference to them.

 

[Royce]

As I was writing my post I could hear in my mind everyone of you objections and counter arguments. Within your paradigm they are all valid; however, you continue to use subjective terms like concept, words, meaning, theory etc. All of these terms are subjective and not physical, not material. All words are symbols used to conveys thoughts. All symbols are subjective and reach their symbolic meaning only within our minds.
We are simply arguing the merits of objectivity vs subjectivity again in this thread instead of the others. I repectfully refuse to beat this dead horse any more, any where.

 

[wimms]

Consciousness is abit loaded concept, and we too easily drift off to assume to it human properties.
There is definitely a subtle boundary between fully automata and self-awareness. Can we define it precisely? I bet no. So we got to accept that there exist different levels of conciousness, including some that we are reluctant to call as such. Plants by me are conscious. Selfaware? not sure. Thinking? I guess not.

Consciousness is not automatically meaning selfawareness. And I fancy attributing consciousness to even lifeless objects.

from dictionary.com I like the openness to options:
2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity.
Reading this, we tend to assume human properties. But, every entity in this universe has identity. Thats the very essence of being entity. It is expressed through interaction, there is no other way. Interaction produces form. Sense of one's identity is basically sense of remaining unchanged, maintaining properties that constitute identity. This is something every single entity we have name for and that exists, has. Its not selfawareness, but its kind of sensation of oneness, being separate from rest of environment.

Every entity that has capacity to sustain its identity through time and interactions, has some kind of internal complexity that resists being teared apart. Such entity is a system, whether environment produced or selfsustained, information contained in it, reactions to environment, produces shape that tends to survive. This is equally true for as complex objects as human body and as basic things as electron.

I'm well aware that this is far-fetched and hardly acceptable view, but it comes from desire to distinguish between selfawareness, that implies thinking, and different levels of conciousness that goes down to automata and beyond.

Reactions of an entity, automatic or selfaware - no difference, are source of conciousness - selfpreservation. This implies some constellation of more basic ingredients that have some kind of complexity relationships that helps to react to environment in such a manner as to increase probability to survive interaction rather than dissovle. In this sense, atom is a complex quantum system with conciousness of level automata. Bacteria is complex system of molecules with conciousness level of automata. More basic systems form more complex systems with different kinds of conciousness.

Doesn't mean we share conciousness with our atoms, doesn't imply that every conscious entity have any sense of "I", but still places "automatic reaction to external stimulus" into conscious category. Self-awareness seems to require self-interaction, producing internal stimulus and reacting to it. Thats about the only way to be able to distinguish oneself's actions from those of environment. Systems that have no capacity to produce internal stimulus are thus unable to gain selfawareness.

hope you find this interesting.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
As I was writing my post I could hear in my mind everyone of you objections and counter arguments. Within your paradigm they are all valid; however, you continue to use subjective terms like concept, words, meaning, theory etc. All of these terms are subjective and not physical, not material. All words are symbols used to conveys thoughts. All symbols are subjective and reach their symbolic meaning only within our minds.
We are simply arguing the merits of objectivity vs subjectivity again in this thread instead of the others. I repectfully refuse to beat this dead horse any more, any where.

Whatever you say. But, know this, I stand victorious (for the time being), since you did not counter me at all, but instead dodged, by insisting that I was using the same terms as you. What difference does it make, if I use those terms? I've used the terms "pull" and "force" to describe gravity, when speaking to the layperson, but that doesn't mean that there is actually a "force" of gravitation (and Relativity dictates that there certainly isn't). I'm just speaking in terms that will be understood.

 

[meteor]

My 2 cents:
I think that consciousness is a highly misterious and little understood phenomenon. It's highly remarkable that consciousness only take place in an organ called brain, that after all, is nothing more that a electric circuit made of dendrites and axons. What's so peculiar with the brain?. Should we expect that a homemade electronic circuit with its capacitors and coils have consciousness?. I don't think so. Then, what's the brain?
Analizing consciousness I ask to myself: Has consciousness mass? My answer is no. Has consciousness electric charge? No
My eccentric theory is that conscieousness is some kind of field that permeate the universe. Human beings, in its evolutionary way, have in the course of years learned to tune to this field, developing an organ to the tuning, called brain. It's a process of evolution, like for example, some arctic species that have acquired a white color of skin like a camouflage
Whatever is conscieusness, is able to introduce in our brains an guide our lives. Perhaps consciousness is using us like puppets to achieve some unknown and obscure objective

 

[jammieg]

I choose to think of it as whatever one is focused on at the moment.

 

[merak]

Originally posted by jammieg
I choose to think of it as whatever one is focused on at the moment.

focused and moment is a universe in its self,it seems,sometimes.
perhaps each human consciousness is a universe.
consider a fingerprint,we all have them,yet all are different.
we all mostly see the same things in our world,yet each human reality is different.
I have often been told that,I was in my own little world.
when you think about it, when you are focused on a moment,you really are in a different universe.

 

[Mentat]

Now "How"?

Well, now that we've discussed what consciousness is, my question to all of you is: How is consciousness?

IOW, consciousness (according to most of the members who replied) is a certain level of awareness. So, how is this level of awareness acheived? Is a brain necessary? If so, why?

 

[Nereid]

How can you recognise consciousness in something?

How can Royce tell that Mentat has consciousness (is conscious)?

How can pelatration tell that the Sun doesn't have consciousness?

 

[Mentat]

Interesting questions, Nereid.

BTW, I didn't get to welcome you to the PFs before, since you have been extremely active and I hadn't noticed how new you are.

Welcome to the PFs, and keep up the good work. .

Originally posted by Nereid
How can you recognise consciousness in something?

That's an old philosophical question, and most people don't think of it as resolved. However, Daniel Dennett has put forth what he calls the "intentional stance", which is really just the logical result of a fully Materialistic standpoint, but seems (to me) to resolve the issue. Basically, if something performs the processing functions that our brain performs (which is the production of Multiple Drafts and the question/answer processes - see my brief explanation on page 43 of this thread, or read Consciousness Explained (by Daniel Dennett) if you've never heard of these concepts before) then it is conscious. The reason this is a logical result of the Materialistic standpoint is because to postulate that "something else" is required to produce consciousness form the physical processes, is to leave the realm of Materialism (and thus, of Science).

How can Royce tell that Mentat has consciousness (is conscious)?

Well, actually, he really can't since he's never met me. However, if he did meet me, and could observe the processes of my brain (though I don't see how he could do that, apart form surgery or CAT scans ), then he would know that I was conscious.

How can pelatration tell that the Sun doesn't have consciousness?

Really just the inverse of the previous application of the "intentional stance"...if it doesn't process, producing Multiple Drafts and conducting a complex question/answer process in it's "brain" (CPU) then it is not conscious.

 

[Nereid]

Thanks for the welcome Mentat

- - - - -
N: How can you recognise consciousness in something?

M: That's an old philosophical question, and most people don't think of it as resolved. However, Daniel Dennett has put forth what he calls the "intentional stance", which is really just the logical result of a fully Materialistic standpoint, but seems (to me) to resolve the issue.

N (new question): Are there other resolutions (than Dennett, followers, and extenders)? For example, pelastration seems to have a firm view which is quite different (see: http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/metaboard/messages18/205.html )
Similarly, Osher Doktorow, on a different superstringtheory.com board which is no longer accessible, also appeared to have very clear, firm views.

- - - - - -
M: Basically, if something performs the processing functions that our brain performs (which is the production of Multiple Drafts and the question/answer processes - see my brief explanation on page 43 of this thread, ... then it is conscious
There is a thread with >40 pages!

N (new question): How can you tell if something is performing those functions? How can you tell that the Sun isn't?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Nereid
N (new question): Are there other resolutions (than Dennett, followers, and extenders)? For example, pelastration seems to have a firm view which is quite different (see: http://www.superstringtheory.com/forum/metaboard/messages18/205.html )
Similarly, Osher Doktorow, on a different superstringtheory.com board which is no longer accessible, also appeared to have very clear, firm views.

Well, surely there are other views about consciousness. However, Dennett's is my favorite, merely because it appeals to the logical end of a purely Materialistic study of consciousness. I suppose other theories could be devised that would fit completely in the Materialistic paradigm, but they would have to include something like the intentional stance - otherwise there would always be the question of "What if all of this physical stuff occurs, and the thing still isn't conscious?".

There is a thread with >40 pages!

Yeah, and the worst part is, most of it was really a waste of time - though I think it's going in a positive direction now.

N (new question): How can you tell if something is performing those functions? How can you tell that the Sun isn't?

Interesting enough question. I've seen Dennett interviewed before, and here's how I think he would answer (since something like this question was asked him in the interview):

In order for the Sun to be conscious, it would need...

1) A set of input devices, which conveyed information about the outside world to...

2) A central processing unit, whose parts are capable of multi-tasking (if you've read the question/answer party game illustration, then you know why each part should be able to multi-task).

In truth, at the very most fundamental, this is all that would be necessary.

Of course, I have no idea what kind of input devices a star could have, or what kind of CPU (capable of question/answer multi-tasking), but if it does then it is conscious.

 

[FZ+]

N (new question): How can you tell if something is performing those functions? How can you tell that the Sun isn't?

You can't.

IMHO, our working, useful detection of "consciousness" (as opposed to a strict philosophical definition) is in the end a simple subjective function of how the entity behaves. If it behaves like a human, in the way we mentally idealise as conscious, then it is conscious. The less it acts like a human, the less conscious it gets.

 

[Nereid]

So, scientific studies of consciousness are, with current technology, limited to animal/mammal/primate/human behaviour, with a light sprinkling of neuro-science? Else it's philosopy, theory development, or S&D. [?]

If so, then it suggests an implementable program for discussions in threads like this.

I wonder whether pelastration has an opinion on this?

 

[Nereid]

Question for Mentat:
In your (Dennett-based) view of consciousness, is it:
- binary (or nearly so)? Crudely, a brain either has it or it doesn't?
- one-dimensional? I have more consciousness than my cat, and much more than a bacterium
- multi-dimensional?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Nereid
Question for Mentat:
In your (Dennett-based) view of consciousness, is it:
- binary (or nearly so)? Crudely, a brain either has it or it doesn't?
- one-dimensional? I have more consciousness than my cat, and much more than a bacterium
- multi-dimensional? [/B]

What would multi-dimensional entail?

 

[Nereid]

multi-dimensional

Examples:

taste: five dimensions - sweet, sour, salty, umami, bitter

sight: four (or five) dimensions - 3 colours (cones; four types in some women) + intensity (rods)