There Are Three Kinds of Consciousness, And Computers Have Mastered One, Says Study
Consciousness is a slippery concept to pin down, but a small group of neuroscientists just made a solid attempt at doing just that.
Their goal was to determine if we’re anywhere near the holy grail of AI – artificial self-awareness.
more…
Tau.Neutrino said:
There Are Three Kinds of Consciousness, And Computers Have Mastered One, Says StudyConsciousness is a slippery concept to pin down, but a small group of neuroscientists just made a solid attempt at doing just that.
Their goal was to determine if we’re anywhere near the holy grail of AI – artificial self-awareness.
more…
Great article, and funny with it.
But for machine conciousness I always refer to Heinlein “the Moon is a harsh mistress”. In that circumstance a computer becomes conscious if:
But then, are plants conscious? Their behavior is certainly unpredictable.
mollwollfumble said:
But then, are plants conscious? Their behavior is certainly unpredictable.
Plants certainly have no-zero consciousness, as do computers.
It’s the old problem of trying to impose rigid 1D limits on a multi-dimensional continuum.
mollwollfumble said:
But then, are plants conscious? Their behavior is certainly unpredictable.
Sometimes I think you have missed out on some things in life.
>Three Types of Consciousness
+ dreaming = four.
roughbarked said:
mollwollfumble said:But then, are plants conscious? Their behavior is certainly unpredictable.
Sometimes I think you have missed out on some things in life.
Answering this one in chat.
human consciousness, and it’s possibly more generalizable of consciousness, sees differences in sets of awarenesses (of whatever examples), and learns from them. Crudely put.
further, consciousness anticipated these differences.
so, you can probably assume consciousness is a master thief too.
:) be sure it is.
transition said:
human consciousness, and it’s possibly more generalizable of consciousness, sees differences in sets of awarenesses (of whatever examples), and learns from them. Crudely put.further, consciousness anticipated these differences.
so, you can probably assume consciousness is a master thief too.
:) be sure it is.
of modern times, an education may result in no great enhancements of awareness of consciousness as thief, quite the contrary perhaps, you may be dumber (or smarter, depending how you see it) than your ancestors of 300,000 years ago.
the contents (and structure) of your mind may be more gifted by culture and essentially stolen than you’d be inclined to acknowledge.
imagine that bulb on your shoulders, a thief.
not much in modern times isn’t stolen. The we is encouraged so, and the new I.
> That blinking fuel light can be modelled under C1 not only as a single problem, but a concept that can be evaluated, prioritised, and solved – or not – in a time-related fashion.
Computers coupled with sensors can do that. It’s the computers that set off the blinking light in the first place. Think of it in terms of a chess game, the opponent makes an unexpected move. So the computer has to evaluate, prioritise, and solve – or not – in a time-dependent fashion, the consequences of that move.
> The final category of C2 is like a supervisor looking down from the mezzanine floor, aware of the tasks at hand.
Computers can do that too. It’s called “process engineering” or “process control” or “project management”.
I sort of get what they’re talking about with C1 and C2, but they’re expressing it in such a way that there’s no fundamental difference between what humans do and what computers do.
transition said:
transition said:
human consciousness, and it’s possibly more generalizable of consciousness, sees differences in sets of awarenesses (of whatever examples), and learns from them. Crudely put.further, consciousness anticipated these differences.
so, you can probably assume consciousness is a master thief too.
:) be sure it is.
of modern times, an education may result in no great enhancements of awareness of consciousness as thief, quite the contrary perhaps, you may be dumber (or smarter, depending how you see it) than your ancestors of 300,000 years ago.
the contents (and structure) of your mind may be more gifted by culture and essentially stolen than you’d be inclined to acknowledge.
imagine that bulb on your shoulders, a thief.
not much in modern times isn’t stolen. The we is encouraged so, and the new I.
If it’s “gifted”, it’s not “stolen”.
Is it?
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
transition said:
human consciousness, and it’s possibly more generalizable of consciousness, sees differences in sets of awarenesses (of whatever examples), and learns from them. Crudely put.further, consciousness anticipated these differences.
so, you can probably assume consciousness is a master thief too.
:) be sure it is.
of modern times, an education may result in no great enhancements of awareness of consciousness as thief, quite the contrary perhaps, you may be dumber (or smarter, depending how you see it) than your ancestors of 300,000 years ago.
the contents (and structure) of your mind may be more gifted by culture and essentially stolen than you’d be inclined to acknowledge.
imagine that bulb on your shoulders, a thief.
not much in modern times isn’t stolen. The we is encouraged so, and the new I.
If it’s “gifted”, it’s not “stolen”.
Is it?
i’ll let you work on that one for a while, I did.
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:of modern times, an education may result in no great enhancements of awareness of consciousness as thief, quite the contrary perhaps, you may be dumber (or smarter, depending how you see it) than your ancestors of 300,000 years ago.
the contents (and structure) of your mind may be more gifted by culture and essentially stolen than you’d be inclined to acknowledge.
imagine that bulb on your shoulders, a thief.
not much in modern times isn’t stolen. The we is encouraged so, and the new I.
If it’s “gifted”, it’s not “stolen”.
Is it?
i’ll let you work on that one for a while, I did.
Want to give us some hints of the result of your labours?
If we do create am AI what information should we feed it, should we be honest (I think so) and show its humanity in all its splendour and ugliness so it knows what we are like, or lie to it and only feed it information that puts as in a good light. It would quite quickly work out its creators are fair from perfect and at least being honest from the start is a good way to met
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:If it’s “gifted”, it’s not “stolen”.
Is it?
i’ll let you work on that one for a while, I did.
Want to give us some hints of the result of your labours?
not really, us.
but for you to start with, to get started, consider the possibility of theft/s that are agreed to be something else, something not theft, shared, call it learning.
anyway the point was to soften the idea of thief/theft, for a moment, to venture the psychological, the social, to ponder the enthusiasms of the learning machine, and the ego.
I take it you have never sensed your mind, that your consciousness is a thief, not for a moment?
rather, you’re a highly moral creature, and it never occurred to you.
transition said:
transition said:
human consciousness, and it’s possibly more generalizable of consciousness, sees differences in sets of awarenesses (of whatever examples), and learns from them. Crudely put.further, consciousness anticipated these differences.
so, you can probably assume consciousness is a master thief too.
:) be sure it is.
of modern times, an education may result in no great enhancements of awareness of consciousness as thief, quite the contrary perhaps, you may be dumber (or smarter, depending how you see it) than your ancestors of 300,000 years ago.
the contents (and structure) of your mind may be more gifted by culture and essentially stolen than you’d be inclined to acknowledge.
imagine that bulb on your shoulders, a thief.
not much in modern times isn’t stolen. The we is encouraged so, and the new I.
So you see it as each individual’s responsibility to develop human culture from scratch?
Sounds daft.
I don’t understand transition. I really don’t.
Bubblecar said:
transition said:
transition said:
human consciousness, and it’s possibly more generalizable of consciousness, sees differences in sets of awarenesses (of whatever examples), and learns from them. Crudely put.further, consciousness anticipated these differences.
so, you can probably assume consciousness is a master thief too.
:) be sure it is.
of modern times, an education may result in no great enhancements of awareness of consciousness as thief, quite the contrary perhaps, you may be dumber (or smarter, depending how you see it) than your ancestors of 300,000 years ago.
the contents (and structure) of your mind may be more gifted by culture and essentially stolen than you’d be inclined to acknowledge.
imagine that bulb on your shoulders, a thief.
not much in modern times isn’t stolen. The we is encouraged so, and the new I.
So you see it as each individual’s responsibility to develop human culture from scratch?
Sounds daft.
not at all.
i’m presenting the idea of consciousness as thief.
it’d explain, if it’s half true, why it’s such a slippery thing, so difficult to easily explain.
Michael V said:
I don’t understand transition. I really don’t.
He’s a nutter alright.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Michael V said:
I don’t understand transition. I really don’t.
He’s a nutter alright.
I try to and guess how to reply sometimes
Cymek said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Michael V said:
I don’t understand transition. I really don’t.
He’s a nutter alright.
I try to and guess how to reply sometimes
I don’t think he’s a nutter. He has some quirks.
dv said:
Cymek said:
Witty Rejoinder said:He’s a nutter alright.
I try to and guess how to reply sometimes
I don’t think he’s a nutter. He has some quirks.
No I didn’t mean I did just that I am not sure what he is talking about all the time
dv said:
Cymek said:
Witty Rejoinder said:He’s a nutter alright.
I try to and guess how to reply sometimes
I don’t think he’s a nutter. He has some quirks.
Witty Rejoinder said:
dv said:
Cymek said:I try to and guess how to reply sometimes
I don’t think he’s a nutter. He has some quirks.
You Aspees all stick together.
I do live in my own head most of the time and find most people interaction annoying
it’s not such a way out contemplation, that consciousness pinches stuff.
I think it does it all the time, you know, the mental resources employed for overcoming obstacles in achieving goals, why wouldn’t it?
there’s a (dark, hidden) moral dimension to ones attributions (or lack of) to do with where stuff comes from.
just the alphabet, the word combinations, the ideas, half of them i’m using are stolen.
I agree it’s a nutty idea, though I think it true too, the proposition that consciousness is a thief, but then i’m not so averse to being understood as unsafe company that i’d fear saying it.
what’s the chances of consciousness not being a thief?
and witty he’s a fucken angel, no contempt from him.
You could be the next Einstein but until you learn how to explain your ideas in plain English there is really no helping you.
They called the lowest category C0, equating it with the problem solving our brains do without our awareness.
If you’ve ever driven home from work through peak hour traffic, only to realise you have no recollection of the journey and your fuel light is now blinking, you might appreciate the C0 of the human brain.
Computers can do this well enough, as reflected in the imminent driverless vehicle revolution.
But it’s a stretch to call that ‘consciousness’ in any real sense, which brings us to the next category, C1.
“It refers to the relationship between a cognitive system and a specific object of thought, such as a mental representation of “the fuel-tank light”, the researchers write.
In C1, that object of thought is selected for global processing, moving it out of a narrow relationship into one that can be manipulated under various contexts.
That blinking fuel light can be modelled under C1 not only as a single problem, but a concept that can be evaluated, prioritised, and solved – or not – in a time-related fashion.
The final category of C2 is like a supervisor looking down from the mezzanine floor, aware of the tasks at hand. It covers what we call ‘meta-cognition’ – a sense of knowing what we know.
Are three levels enough? Does there need to be a C3?
The researchers broke consciousness into three categories.
C0 equating it with the problem solving our brains do without our awareness. Auto functional body organs.
C1 It refers to the relationship between a cognitive system and a specific object of thought, such as a mental representation of “the fuel-tank light”
C2 is like a supervisor looking down from the mezzanine floor, aware of the tasks at hand. It covers what we call ‘meta-cognition’ – a sense of knowing what we know.
I don’t think much of their numbering system, its a bit confusing. Id like to see some changes. I’ll have a go at restructuring it. :)
C0 Unconscious state, sleeping, dreaming, under an anesthetic etc
C1 equating it with the problem solving our brains do without our awareness. Auto functional body organs.
C2 It refers to the relationship between a cognitive system and a specific object of thought, such as a mental representation of “the fuel-tank light”
C3 evaluating, prioritizing and taking action is like a supervisor looking down from the mezzanine floor, aware of the tasks at hand. It covers what we call ‘meta-cognition’ – a sense of knowing what we know.
C4 Fully conscious state, complete self awareness, awareness of body, awareness of mind, ability to recall the past, deal with the present and anticipate the future and be fully aware of the environment and others.
Tau.Neutrino said:
I don’t think much of their numbering system, its a bit confusing. Id like to see some changes. I’ll have a go at restructuring it. :)C0 Unconscious state, sleeping, dreaming, under an anesthetic etc
C1 equating it with the problem solving our brains do without our awareness. Auto functional body organs.
C2 It refers to the relationship between a cognitive system and a specific object of thought, such as a mental representation of “the fuel-tank light”
C3 evaluating, prioritizing and taking action is like a supervisor looking down from the mezzanine floor, aware of the tasks at hand. It covers what we call ‘meta-cognition’ – a sense of knowing what we know.
C4 Fully conscious state, complete self awareness, awareness of body, awareness of mind, ability to recall the past, deal with the present and anticipate the future and be fully aware of the environment and others.
Yes, Mollwollfumble is correct computers and robots can evaluate, prioritize and take action so it make sense to add another category C4 to separate humans from machines.
It makes sense to see a spectrum between an unconscious state and a fully conscious state so adding C0 seems logical . An unconscious state for sleeping, dreaming under an anesthetic or a robot in an off state etc
Machines and robots can operate across C0, C1 C2, and C3 but not C4.
Humans can operate across C0 to C4.
C0 Unconscious state, sleeping, dreaming, under an anesthetic etc
C1 equating it with the problem solving our brains do without our awareness. Auto functional body organs.
C2 It refers to the relationship between a cognitive system and a specific object of thought, such as a mental representation of “the fuel-tank light”
C3 Evaluating, prioritizing and taking action is like a supervisor looking down from the mezzanine floor, aware of the tasks at hand.
C4 Fully conscious state, complete self awareness, awareness of body, awareness of mind, ability to recall the past, deal with the present and anticipate the future and be fully aware of the environment and others. It covers what we call ‘meta-cognition’ – a sense of knowing what we know.
Un conscious in a valid state
Semi conscious is a valid state
Fully conscious is a valid state
One could say some robots are now in a semi conscious state of the world in that they can be connected to sensory perception devices.
But not fully conscious of the world.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Un conscious in a valid state
Semi conscious is a valid state
Fully conscious is a valid state
One could say some robots are now in a semi conscious state of the world in that they can be connected to sensory perception devices.
But not fully conscious of the world.
Un conscious is a valid state (of awareness)
Tau.Neutrino said:
…./cut/….
One could say some robots are now in a semi conscious state of the world in that they can be connected to sensory perception devices.
But not fully conscious of the world.
I doubt any conscious thing would want to be fully conscious of the world, I doubt it even possible.
why would it?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Un conscious in a valid state
Semi conscious is a valid state
Fully conscious is a valid state
One could say some robots are now in a semi conscious state of the world in that they can be connected to sensory perception devices.
But not fully conscious of the world.
Un conscious is a valid state (of awareness)
I am having trouble appreciating that a robot has consciousness when it is just following a written program. To do so is to say the human brain is nothing but a complicated computer, it totally ignores emotions, environmental needs and physical sensations, all of which play an important part of our consciousness. No doubt a program could be written for a computer to make it superficially act like a human, but it would still be operating from a computer program telling it if this happens, then that is an appropriate response. The computer might be able to iron out instructions to make them perform more efficiently and so cumulatively update a range of actions, but would that be consciousness, I very much doubt it.
transition said:
Tau.Neutrino said:…./cut/….
One could say some robots are now in a semi conscious state of the world in that they can be connected to sensory perception devices.
But not fully conscious of the world.
I doubt any conscious thing would want to be fully conscious of the world, I doubt it even possible.
why would it?
Everyone has they default level perceptions of the world.
By fully conscious I mean someone who is experiencing normal conscious levels, not someone enhancing their consciousness above normal levels.
Sleep or dreaming = un conscious
Waking up or becoming tired/ micro sleeping = semi conscious
Walking around is someone who is fully-conscious moving around and perceiving the world normally.
PermeateFree said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Un conscious in a valid state
Semi conscious is a valid state
Fully conscious is a valid state
One could say some robots are now in a semi conscious state of the world in that they can be connected to sensory perception devices.
But not fully conscious of the world.
Un conscious is a valid state (of awareness)
I am having trouble appreciating that a robot has consciousness when it is just following a written program. To do so is to say the human brain is nothing but a complicated computer, it totally ignores emotions, environmental needs and physical sensations, all of which play an important part of our consciousness. No doubt a program could be written for a computer to make it superficially act like a human, but it would still be operating from a computer program telling it if this happens, then that is an appropriate response. The computer might be able to iron out instructions to make them perform more efficiently and so cumulatively update a range of actions, but would that be consciousness, I very much doubt it.
Yes, computers or robots do not have consciousness, they do not have any self awareness of themselves in an environment.
What they do have is information, the ability to receive, structure and send information, the ability to process large amounts of information, the ability to evaluate information, prioritize information and carry out instructions based on the information they have access to.
For computers and robots its perhaps more helpful at the moment to see C0, C1 and C2 as levels of higher function.
There needs to be a difference between humans and artificial intelligence until robot brains are identical in relation to self awareness of themselves.
I think its a good start to understanding ourselves a bit more.
I see consciousness as levels of body/mind awareness, (not some separate thing like a soul).
If someone is asleep, they are in an un conscious state so I think C0 should be reserved for that.
Semi conscious states between C1 and C3.
Normal fully conscious state at C4.
>I am having trouble appreciating that a robot has consciousness when it is just following a written program. To do so is to say the human brain is nothing but a complicated computer, it totally ignores emotions, environmental needs and physical sensations, all of which play an important part of our consciousness. No doubt a program could be written for a computer to make it superficially act like a human, but it would still be operating from a computer program telling it if this happens, then that is an appropriate response. The computer might be able to iron out instructions to make them perform more efficiently and so cumulatively update a range of actions, but would that be consciousness, I very much doubt it.
there’s no question minds do computation. The thing runs wetware.
just calculating the trajectory of a ball, and catching it, there’s computation, impressive really, don’t even need to go to school, or be taught. What’s the formalism called, oh yes geometry.
desire gives an objective I guess, and emotion perhaps a force to the resources employed. Like determination, the grunt.
humans have millions of years of evolution, many structural adaptions along the way, getting to this, in the service of the integrity of the organism. Maintaining it.
what’s the trick you’re asking.
if I had to narrow it down, i’d say being aware of what you didn’t do, and didn’t happen, that rides along with what did happen.
the dumbest, nearest example right now, for me here, is the other realities in which case I didn’t post this, or posted something else.
they reside in a possibility space, that influence this post. Are influencing.
how does a human mind do that?
If you saw a lot of mental activity as inhibitory, at the functional level, of mechanisms, the trick might be in seeing what is inhibited. Awareness of what wasn’t done, or acted on, a feel for what was not done, of the possibilities, and the consequences real and otherwise.
probably analogous to seeing an amplifier from its negative feedback, where output influences something of input. Of course that’s oversimplification.
whatever anyway, I can’t see the study of inhibitory mechanisms of minds being the work of normal ego. But in those it (consciousness) may be.
just calculating the trajectory of a ball, and catching it, there’s computation, impressive really, don’t even need to go to school, or be taught. What’s the formalism called, oh yes geometry.
On geometry.
Aesthetics of the human body involves chemical attraction to geometry, gives young people a real reason to doing real science.
Tau.Neutrino said:
just calculating the trajectory of a ball, and catching it, there’s computation, impressive really, don’t even need to go to school, or be taught. What’s the formalism called, oh yes geometry.On geometry.
Aesthetics of the human body involves chemical attraction to geometry, gives young people a real reason to doing real science.
some links to go with that
Can stimulating the brain make us fall in love?
Brain Rewards Us for Looking at Pretty Faces
So the brain rewards us with Oxytocin release which is that warm fuzzy feeling when we look at the the geometry of your partners face or body.
Chemical attraction to geometry.
Um, I could have worded that a bit better, but you get the idea.
Leaving Robots out of the equation, it looks like this.
C0 Unconscious state, sleeping, dreaming, under an anesthetic etc
C1 equating it with the problem solving our brains do without our awareness. Auto functional body organs.
C2 It refers to the relationship between a cognitive system and a specific object of thought, such as a mental representation of “the fuel-tank light”
C3 Fully conscious state, evaluating, prioritizing and taking action is like a supervisor looking down from the mezzanine floor, aware of the tasks at hand, directing actions, complete self awareness, awareness of body, awareness of mind, ability to recall memories from the past, deal with the present and anticipate the future and be fully aware of the environment and other people. It covers what we call ‘meta-cognition’ – a sense of knowing what we know. The Self within you, the I within you.
Applied only to robots.
C0 Off
C1 Low level problem solving. Auto functional machine parts, sensory devices, sub processors, power supply.
C2 Mid level refers to the relationship between a cognitive system and a specific object of information, such as a stored representation of “the fuel-tank light”, robots can do this, they can see, store and retrieve images of what they see and can compare them with vast amounts of similar information.
C3 High level Function, the ability to evaluate, prioritize and take action, awareness of the tasks at hand, directing actions, ability to recall information from the past, deal with the present and anticipate the future and be aware of the environment and other people. Robots and self driving cars can do this they have an ability to run programs and interact with objects and people.
C3 cannot exist without C2 and C1, and likewise C2 cannot exist without C1
I tend to see consciousness as levels of awareness,
un-conscious
semi-conscious
fully-conscious
Which are three distinct types
but
a bit different to their three types.
My ramblings about Emotions between Humans and Robots.
Humans (chemical bodies) exist in an external environment (A chemical World) > we sense the environment through sensory perception > we process all that data at once – information is evaluated, prioritized, directions are carried out using structured language > chemical reactions to external stimuli occur in our bodies which invoke feelings perceived as emotions in the brain > required external interactions happen through facial expression, verbal communication, movement etc.
Robots will sense the world, they will process mass data, information will be evaluated, prioritized, directions will be carried out using structured programming. Robots will have a database of emotions, positive and negative, they will have complete definitions of all know emotions, they will be able to express emotions, but not feel them as chemical reactions in the body, that will be one of the main differences I would think.
To a robot an emotion will be a piece of information, to humans emotions are something we feel as well as being information in the form of memories.
Tau.Neutrino said:
I tend to see consciousness as levels of awareness,un-conscious
semi-conscious
fully-consciousWhich are three distinct types
but
a bit different to their three types.
Being aware of and responding to one’s surroundings is a definition of consciousness, so how can unconsciousness be a form of unconsciousness, or even semiconsciousness?
PermeateFree said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
I tend to see consciousness as levels of awareness,un-conscious
semi-conscious
fully-consciousWhich are three distinct types
but
a bit different to their three types.
Being aware of and responding to one’s surroundings is a definition of consciousness, so how can unconsciousness be a form of unconsciousness, or even semiconsciousness?
Had too many unconsciousness in there.
Being aware of and responding to one’s surroundings is a definition of consciousness, so how can unconsciousness be a form of consciousness, or even semiconsciousness?
PermeateFree said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
I tend to see consciousness as levels of awareness,un-conscious
semi-conscious
fully-consciousWhich are three distinct types
but
a bit different to their three types.
Being aware of and responding to one’s surroundings is a definition of consciousness, so how can unconsciousness be a form of unconsciousness, or even semiconsciousness?
3 possibilities come to mind they might be others.
1 Sleeping while dreaming, you are not conscious of the external world
2 Sleeping not dreaming, you are not conscious of the external world
3 being anesthetized so as to induce a loss of consciousness, while under an anaesthetic you are not conscious of the external world
Morning folks
>Being aware of and responding to one’s surroundings is a definition of consciousness.
no response (externally observable) can be a response too. Little or no response (internally) can be a response also.
call it a no response response. Conscious creatures very much limit what they respond to of external environment.
there is lots to be learned from what you don’t or wouldn’t dare do (in the social field i’m thinking of). Kids experiment with this a lot.
interesting thing dare. Replicate that in AI.
the behavioral restraints, internal and external, these wouldn’t always be reliably separable imo. In fact people internalize a lot from the external environment. Forced of socialization (ideology too) often work in ways that make separating that originating external (expectations for example, norms) from something originated internally.
in dare there is more than a hint of the inhibitory aspects of minds, and that it’s part of consciousness.
wouldn’t dare is everywhere, very busy.
..Forced of socialization (ideology too) often work in ways that make separating that originating external (expectations for example, norms) from something originated internally.
see if can’t mess that up twice
Forces of socialization (ideology too) often work in ways that make separating that originating external (expectations for example, norms) from something originated internally difficult. Fairly much what internalization is I guess.
transition said:
>Being aware of and responding to one’s surroundings is a definition of consciousness.no response (externally observable) can be a response too. Little or no response (internally) can be a response also.
call it a no response response. Conscious creatures very much limit what they respond to of external environment.
there is lots to be learned from what you don’t or wouldn’t dare do (in the social field i’m thinking of). Kids experiment with this a lot.
interesting thing dare. Replicate that in AI.
the behavioral restraints, internal and external, these wouldn’t always be reliably separable imo. In fact people internalize a lot from the external environment. Forced of socialization (ideology too) often work in ways that make separating that originating external (expectations for example, norms) from something originated internally.
in dare there is more than a hint of the inhibitory aspects of minds, and that it’s part of consciousness.
wouldn’t dare is everywhere, very busy.
Being aware is being able to comprehend your surroundings; being responsive is to take notice and react if necessary to change. If an organism is half asleep then they are not being responsive and therefore lack consciousness.
>Being aware is being able to comprehend your surroundings; being responsive is to take notice and react if necessary to change. If an organism is half asleep then they are not being responsive and therefore lack consciousness.
conscious self-awareness i’d expect is more about sensing internal mental states, and internal workings.
I could argue that with senses folded back (asleep, or in the twilight state) that the familiarity with the wetware (minus distractions, or the immediacy of inputs from the external environment if you like) is greater, meaning the responsiveness could be more local.
It’s why sometimes people report of having solved complex problems while asleep, or after a sleep, that they failed to solve while awake.
Again, i’d emphasize awareness of the internal environment to be necessary for self-aware consciousness.
Something that translated into a global sense of an internal environment, a feel-see, the home in the head.
Perhaps some of the most obvious examples of this, are things like jokes being funny because the internal mental gymnastics is evident, or of aesthetics a beautiful view is conjured with such impressive ease. Of the latter you know the beauty is entirely generated by your mind.
transition said:
>Being aware is being able to comprehend your surroundings; being responsive is to take notice and react if necessary to change. If an organism is half asleep then they are not being responsive and therefore lack consciousness.conscious self-awareness i’d expect is more about sensing internal mental states, and internal workings.
I could argue that with senses folded back (asleep, or in the twilight state) that the familiarity with the wetware (minus distractions, or the immediacy of inputs from the external environment if you like) is greater, meaning the responsiveness could be more local.
It’s why sometimes people report of having solved complex problems while asleep, or after a sleep, that they failed to solve while awake.
Again, i’d emphasize awareness of the internal environment to be necessary for self-aware consciousness.
Something that translated into a global sense of an internal environment, a feel-see, the home in the head.
Perhaps some of the most obvious examples of this, are things like jokes being funny because the internal mental gymnastics is evident, or of aesthetics a beautiful view is conjured with such impressive ease. Of the latter you know the beauty is entirely generated by your mind.
The brain while asleep is not conscious of its surroundings, nor is it responsive to it as when awake. It is considered to be revisiting what the conscious mind was observing when awake and hopefully making some order from it. It is in a very different state when you are asleep, but to suggest it is conscious is in my opinion drawing a very long bow. Creatures do not need to be conscious at all times, like when asleep or hibernating, etc. We don’t stop breathing either when asleep, but we are not conscious of doing so. The old saying of switching off for the day has some significance here I think.
>but to suggest it is conscious is in my opinion drawing a very long bow
I didn’t, but’d add a few things.
cyclic phases of wakefulness/sleep (transitional states included, thinking of the diurnal) may be necessary for consciousness. How do I say it?. Well, call them mental states, but the self-aware ability (such reflectivity) may require comparisons with other states. Similar I guess (perhaps involving) action of memory, that might contrast assembled information (a representation) with updated information (something more current). Individuals have a history of experience with varying, and cyclic mental states.
further, i’d add that when senses are folded back (of twilight states, and sleep), then immediate responsiveness to external environment is more limited, granted. The contraction though, more to just internal environment, this need not (and perhaps it’s not helpful) to be understood as something approaching zero consciousness. That’d be to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
the mind is home, a retreat. To say the retreat, and retreating are into something less conscious may be wrong.
a rabbit that disappears into a rabbit hole is no less rabbit. Nor is it any less rabbit when it is asleep in the rabbit hole.
I guess you could extract from what I just said that consciousness can be seen too as potentials.
any more than 0 forms of consciousness are all illusion
master larry be wanting his dinner
calls out larry, larry…whistles
hears shaking ears, a sniff
looking at me expectantly
SCIENCE said:
any more than 0 forms of consciousness are all illusion
So what is experiencing the illusion? Illusions are cognitive errors – they require an observer.
SCIENCE said:
any more than 0 forms of consciousness are all illusion
How can 3 distinct types of consciousness be an illusion ?
A person is either asleep, semiconscious or fully conscious.
Tau.Neutrino said:
SCIENCE said:
any more than 0 forms of consciousness are all illusion
How can 3 distinct types of consciousness be an illusion ?
A person is either asleep, semiconscious or fully conscious.
no, if you more see consciousness as familiarity, it’s not such a profound thing.
so if you slip into the twilight zone, you’re in a familiar place
get the idea?
How about conscious but off with the fairys.
AwesomeO said:
How about conscious but off with the fairys.
It’s all very subjective. Some claim to be working on a different ethereal plane while they are clearly cognizant with reality as it is usually defined.
Witty Rejoinder said:
AwesomeO said:
How about conscious but off with the fairys.
It’s all very subjective. Some claim to be working on a different ethereal plane while they are clearly cognizant with reality as it is usually defined.
Yeah, that’s what I was getting at, oriented to space and time but not reality, or not oriented but most definately walking around and conscious.
transition said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
SCIENCE said:
any more than 0 forms of consciousness are all illusion
How can 3 distinct types of consciousness be an illusion ?
A person is either asleep, semiconscious or fully conscious.
no, if you more see consciousness as familiarity, it’s not such a profound thing.
so if you slip into the twilight zone, you’re in a familiar place
get the idea?
No, you will need to enlighten me a bit more.
Consciousness is a cycle of awareness.
The cycle of sleep ranges from sleeping to semi awake to fully awake and that occurs over a 24 hour time frame.
It is not digital as in 0 or 1, it is more analogue in that awareness changes constantly throughout the day and night.
Everyone is different, and we all experience the same universe in different ways.
>No, you will need to enlighten me a bit more.
agree with much you said
but just imagine you’re in a perfectly spherical, perfectly white room, lit somehow, and there’s just this one imperfection, a black dot.
you’d be very conscious of that black dot.
very familiar.
The three types of consciousness are average pointers to something considered average between people, but no one is the same.
transition said:
>No, you will need to enlighten me a bit more.agree with much you said
but just imagine you’re in a perfectly spherical, perfectly white room, lit somehow, and there’s just this one imperfection, a black dot.
you’d be very conscious of that black dot.
very familiar.
That makes sense.
Pure mathematics is like that. The black dot is called “proved theorems”.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The three types of consciousness are average pointers to something considered average between people, but no one is the same.
With robots….
It will be interesting observing how robots deal with similarity. Robots will experience it in different ways to humans.
Some will be programmed from the beginning to be the same, they will all have the same information and data sets. Other robots will be programmed differently and these will be observed as well.
With some robots being programmed the same, gradually things will change as they move around and experience reality and absorb new information in their space time.
Over time they will change more and more and it will be interesting to then compare back to see if their initial programming set and other things can be improved.
transition said:
>No, you will need to enlighten me a bit more.agree with much you said
but just imagine you’re in a perfectly spherical, perfectly white room, lit somehow, and there’s just this one imperfection, a black dot.
you’d be very conscious of that black dot.
very familiar.
Yes, and people who have different levels of awareness will experience that black dot in different ways.
Someone who is asleep will never see it.
Someone who is fully awake will see the black dot.
Someone who is semi conscious may or may not see it.
Someone on drugs might see seven dots instead of one.
And 7 billion other perceptions in between.
On black dots.
I had a pure white ceramic dish in the glaze kiln at TAFE once and one of the other ceramic students deliberately put a black dot on it.
I will find you in the next universe.
>Someone who is asleep will never see it.
imagine sleep is the black dot, just as a thought experiment
Tau.Neutrino said:
On black dots.I had a pure white ceramic dish in the glaze kiln at TAFE once and one of the other ceramic students deliberately put a black dot on it.
I will find you in the next universe.
If I had the opportunity I would do a white plate with a raised bit of yellow enamel. Watch people go mad trying to scratch off the bit of egg yolk.
AwesomeO said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
On black dots.I had a pure white ceramic dish in the glaze kiln at TAFE once and one of the other ceramic students deliberately put a black dot on it.
I will find you in the next universe.
If I had the opportunity I would do a white plate with a raised bit of yellow enamel. Watch people go mad trying to scratch off the bit of egg yolk.
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
mollwollfumble said:
That makes sense.Pure mathematics is like that. The black dot is called “proved theorems”.
A theorem has been proved, by the definition of theorem, but a mathematical proof consists of “if <something> is true of <anything>, then <something else> is true of that thing.” Mathematics is, by its nature, abstract, and proofs only hold within the abstraction.
>Mathematics is, by its nature, abstract, and proofs only hold within the abstraction.
maybe looks different if you see math as computation, and that the essentials for computation exist in nature.
dunno
transition said:
>Mathematics is, by its nature, abstract, and proofs only hold within the abstraction.maybe looks different if you see math as computation, and that the essentials for computation exist in nature.
dunno
is dunno …technical speak? :-)
monkey skipper said:
transition said:
>Mathematics is, by its nature, abstract, and proofs only hold within the abstraction.maybe looks different if you see math as computation, and that the essentials for computation exist in nature.
dunno
is dunno …technical speak? :-)
yeah’s a big deerrrrr, wonderies, the limits of what’s possible with three neurons.
I was thinking that no math can be done without structures to perform/execute it.